Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

[readtherules]

BOA is offside and not playing by the rules with its anti-doping bylaw

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... bylaw-wada

The same might have been said for the International Olympic Committee's "Osaka Rule", recently declared invalid by the court of arbitration for sport. The IOC, unlike the BOA, has accepted the decision and will pursue the matter during the next code review.

Within this topic I have posted Beloff's opinion which also adds that BOA is in breach of company law.

I can't grasp why BOA has to take WADa to CAS.I would have thought it was the otherway around.WADA has made its declaration but as this has no teeth it is meaningless;in itself the WADA declaration is not a sanction.WADA have said BOA can still compete in London.
Can someone comment as to why BOA must go to CAS.

[Kermit]

I was always under the impression that it was WADA that placed the matter in CAS hands after Lord M's outburst at the conference!

[readtherules]

I was always under the impression that it was WADA that placed the matter in CAS hands after Lord M's outburst at the conference!

I dont think WADA are going to CAS.

[Geoff]

GIVE DWAIN A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

CHRIS TOMLINSON says he and his fellow athletes would welcome drugs cheat Dwain Chambers back into the British Olympic team.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/288 ... ying-field

It really does seem the majority of British athletes want a level playing field and give Chambers the opportunity to compete in London. Most also want to work towards a 4 year penalty.

Some may also see the stumbling block being a personal one with Moynihan and perhaps one or two others totally hostile to Chambers taking part rather than against the bylaw itself being dropped. There is also the lessening role of the BOA in British sport and its loss of power to UK Sport and governing bodies. The sub-issues in this matter may possibly weigh more heavily with some than the actual resolution of the main problem!

[Geoff]

London 2012 Olympics: UK Sport admits it may be forced to lift Lottery funding ban for drug cheats

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... heats.html

[readtherules]

http://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php ... ubid=13611

Latest ref BOA v WADA.

Decision unlikely until end of April.
BOA using Pannick and Lewis.The very very best and accordingly very very expensive.
If WADA dont use the same quality and pay the same out they could be defeated.

Again, comment that vast majority of current and past Olympians support BOA.But where is the evidence.
My understanding is that they may well support a longer ban but this is somewhat different than supporting BOA's position post Merrit.

[gruffalo]

Just about had enough of this BOA thing. Not condoning drug abuse in any way but there should just be 1 blanket rule. Also Moynihan is getting on my %%$?.

He makes unsubstantiated statements about support from all athletes (by which he means Seb Coe, Steve Redgrave and now Martin Rooney - whose statement the other night reminded me of the small girl off Outnumbered).

When I hear his name (Moynihan) all I keep seeing is his Spitting Image puppet. Small & Childlike - just about sums him up. Toys out of pram etc.

[Geoff]

Exclusive: Devonish defiant over Team GB medal relay hopes for London 2012

December 27 - Olympic gold medallist Marlon Devonish has told insidethegames that Britain's hopes of success in the 4x100 metres at London 2012 will not be lost on a failed changeover, as happened in Daegu at the World Championships earlier this year.

...........The 35-year-old has also called on a consistent anti-doping rule to be brought in that applies to each national Olympic committee to prevent the wrangling that has engulfed the British Olympic Association (BOA) and the World Anti Doping Agency's (WADA) dispute recently.

The BOA want to protect a bye law that prevents athletes found guilty of anti-doping offences competing for Britain in future Olympics, but WADA has ruled that this makes them non-compliant with their own regulations on the issue.

"I do not condone drugs whatsoever, WADA have definitely stepped up investment to keep drug cheats out of the sport," he said.

"You have blood testing now at the Olympics and if they can do that throughout the year that will be brilliant.

"So I'd like to see there be one rule to stop the confusion.

"I think it's only the BOA who is against it at the minute so one way or another they should make a decision and make it clear – one rule."

http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/su ... ondon-2012

It does seem most of the British team want a uniform rule. Controversially, and I'm not saying this is actually the case, some may believe there is a personal element or maybe an establishment versus the 'little man' aspect to this. The CAS case will roll on until quite close to the Games and the BOA should be mindful of the publicity it will cause.

[Geoff]

Mark Cavendish says ‘redeemed’ David Millar deserves Olympic chance

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/16360237.stm

I am all for stronger sanctions but I firmly believe the BOA are managing this issue very badly. They do appear to be a little out of touch with the views of athletes.

[readtherules]

And Cavendish is our top sportman and is from the sport that Millar affected.
Cavendish also makes the point that Millar has a vital role in getting GB the gold medals that are anticipated.
This suddendly raised the stakes as BOA are putting a principle, that the rest of the world does not share, above gold medals.Our sacred gold medals are threatened.
An April CAS decision will put the Olympic planning process under stress,well done BOA.

Transfer the above points to DC esp ref medals in the 4 x 100.

[BigGut]

RTR I don't care if it costs us every single medal, you shouldn't change your principles because it costs you personally. Whether you agree with the BOA position or not the fact it will cost medals is irrelevant to a moral position.

[readtherules]

Morals will be tested when it is clear that medals are at stake.Yes,principles can outweigh costs but suddendly when the cost becomes clear the political animals that occupy power can suddenly rethink.
Sometimes pramatism outdoes moralism.

I could go on about moral absolutes but you as an intelligent man you will know all about the debates over the centuries about relative and absolute moralities and the way they are contructed over time and place.

[readtherules]

I would add.
That the history of sport is littered with abandoned moral highgrounds.
You could not compete if you were an artisan then if were coached.The biggest high principle was amateurism with such a Jim Thorpe having to give his medal back only for it to be returned decades later.The Mexico black arm power salutist have moved from vilification to heroes.
We have rules that ban some enhancers but allow others whilst banning some non enhancers.Are such bans mere tansient occupiers of moral high grounds.

Will history be satisfied that all in the '88 100m inc heats where pilled up and thus Johnson gets his medal back.And will the only one to be seen badly by history will the person who organised his sample to be positive.

The folly of moral certainties.Thoughts to take into next year.

[TheRealSub10]

Will history be satisfied that all in the '88 100m inc heats where pilled up and thus Johnson gets his medal back.And will the only one to be seen badly by history will the person who organised his sample to be positive.

I'm not sure if the general public are aware that he was set up in the first place and that in the end they don't really care anyway because he got what he deserved whether he was framed or not.

[readtherules]

Will history be satisfied that all in the '88 100m inc heats where pilled up and thus Johnson gets his medal back.And will the only one to be seen badly by history will the person who organised his sample to be positive.

I'm not sure if the general public are aware that he was set up in the first place and that in the end they don't really care anyway because he got what he deserved whether he was framed or not.

You have not dealt with the core of my point.
Will Johnson be seen in the same light as that "cheat" Thorpe.
The post was about moral certainties and how they shift and how that might effect how we (and BOA) see those we call cheats but may be called heroes in the fullness of time.

[fangio]

Personally I think you are living in dream land if you think drug cheats will be likened to somone who played a little semi pro sport seasons before his athletics career, let alone seen as heroes. Seriously what is heroic about taking drugs? Thorpe was not seen as heroic becuase of his having played a little semi pro sport, he was seen as heroic becuase of his back story. Johnson has no back story to talk of, he just cheated.

If it ever gets to the stage that Johnson is seen as a hero please stop the world so I can get off.

[readtherules]

Fangio.

Black power salutes ?

You make ref to BJ from your own current moral perspective.Whilst yours may not change others might esp if the truth dares speak its name.The BJ story has also a back element.
Your comment on Thorpe reflects a revisionist view do you not think.
Cheating has a moral context and is a relative construction.Such changes over time and place.Ensuring competion is even may not turn out to be seen as cheating.It is much too early to say.
Anyone who thinks their own moral certainties are certain lives in their own constructed dreamland.

[trickstat]

Your comment on Thorpe reflects a revisionist view do you not think.

You must be the most silver surfer of them all if you can recall public opinion from 1912!

[fangio]

Nope, Thorpe does not represent a revisionist view, it represents the fact that a succesful appeal was mounted on the basis that the IOC disqualified him months after the event, when their rules specified that appeals had to be made within 30 days. Nothing revisionist at all, just the application of the rules. They didn't decide he had not competed as a professional sportsman, they decided that he had but they had not disqualifed him correctly under the rules of the time.

[readtherules]

Fangio.

Thorpe.Very interesting.Not doubting you but can you provide more info as facinating.

What about amateurism in general and the blackpower thing and being an artisan and being coached.

[readtherules]

Your comment on Thorpe reflects a revisionist view do you not think.

You must be the most silver surfer of them all if you can recall public opinion from 1912!

Where on earth was any ref by me to public opinion ?

[trickstat]

Your comment on Thorpe reflects a revisionist view do you not think.

You must be the most silver surfer of them all if you can recall public opinion from 1912!

Where on earth was any ref by me to public opinion ?

The biggest high principle was amateurism with such a Jim Thorpe having to give his medal back only for it to be returned decades later.

This! Perhaps establishment opinion rather than public TBH, but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[trickstat]

Anyone who thinks their own moral certainties are certain lives in their own constructed dreamland.

Does that apply to every individual moral certainty that each of us may hold?

[BigGut]

All of this posting about personal principles by RTR is irrelevant to the original point made. The point made was that the BOA have this rule and are making this stance on principle, and that you should not change what is a moral principle based on the fact that it may cost you personally. I made this original point because rtr seems to suggest that the BOA should drop their principles BECAUSE it may cost medals.

To me this only shows that RTR has no moral backbone, he believes that principles should be flexible, ie that they can be bought. None of the examples he gives have anything to do with a change of principple by any individual. Amatuerism was held as a principle, but it wasn't changed overnight. The people that brought in the principle, essentially at the AAA formation in 1880, were not the same people who changed it some 100 years later. Nobody had changed their moral principle, the people had changed.

In this instance the BOA hold a moral principle, they may be forced by outside factors to change it, but they may still hold the same principle to be personally true, ie that drug cheats should not represent the UK at the premiere sporting event, afterall such behaviour is as far from the Olympic ideals as is possible.

[Geoff]

We now know the case will go to CAS on March 12th with the outcome announced shortly after. The decision will be based on whether the ban is legal based on agreements between the BOA, WADA and the IOC. It may be ethically right but in the end it will come down to whether it is lawful.

Just to pick up on this point of only banning athletes/sports people from the Olympics. Why? What is so special about the Olympic Games compared to world championships? It's an archaic principle and selective which will probably count against it in the final ruling.

A move to more standard 4 year bans is the way forward.

[readtherules]

All of this posting about personal principles by RTR is irrelevant to the original point made. The point made was that the BOA have this rule and are making this stance on principle, and that you should not change what is a moral principle based on the fact that it may cost you personally. I made this original point because rtr seems to suggest that the BOA should drop their principles BECAUSE it may cost medals.

To me this only shows that RTR has no moral backbone, he believes that principles should be flexible, ie that they can be bought. None of the examples he gives have anything to do with a change of principple by any individual. Amatuerism was held as a principle, but it wasn't changed overnight. The people that brought in the principle, essentially at the AAA formation in 1880, were not the same people who changed it some 100 years later. Nobody had changed their moral principle, the people had changed.

In this instance the BOA hold a moral principle, they may be forced by outside factors to change it, but they may still hold the same principle to be personally true, ie that drug cheats should not represent the UK at the premiere sporting event, afterall such behaviour is as far from the Olympic ideals as is possible.

Sport,like life,is full of the corpes of moral principles.I ask the question as to why the stance against drugs should not in time be one of them.
As for the point about medals.I was not suggesting BOA should change there stance because of medals but rather that there may well be lots of pressure from others to change and will BOA be able to withstand the pressure.

What an interesting take on changing moral postions in that it is not the people that have changed their postion but rather organisations so that does not count.But it is the BOA's position not that of individuals(even though there may be key individuals).

You make ref to "cheats".not one person has yet to demonstrate how WADA can distinguish cheats from those guilty of breaking the rules.And,to be clear,you have been asked dozens of times.

[readtherules]

We now know the case will go to CAS on March 12th with the outcome announced shortly after. The decision will be based on whether the ban is legal based on agreements between the BOA, WADA and the IOC. It may be ethically right but in the end it will come down to whether it is lawful.

Just to pick up on this point of only banning athletes/sports people from the Olympics. Why? What is so special about the Olympic Games compared to world championships? It's an archaic principle and selective which will probably count against it in the final ruling.

A move to more standard 4 year bans is the way forward.

4 yr bans have been tried and failed under legal opinion and will never be tolerated by the real pro sports.
Agravated offences would be a better way of getting 4 yr bans but there will be massive variation on how agravated is applied.
Thanks for your note on the CAS date.Any news if Beloff is going for WADA.Be interesting if they got Dick Pound.

[Geoff]

Just like your view that morals/ethics can change so can the views on length of bans. four year bans were found to be legally difficult to uphold in the 1990's but perhaps attitudes have change since then? You may be right about the interpretation of aggravated circumstances but it does seem this is being used more often and we are moving towards four year bans in some form or other, possibly with time off for 'good behaviour'!

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/ ... ing-bylaw-

[trickstat]

Sport,like life,is full of the corpes of moral principles.I ask the question as to why the stance against drugs should not in time be one of them.

I think for a long time yet, the vast majority of well-adjusted people will not accept the ingestion of substances purely to improve sporting performance many of which can be highly detrimental to general health.

[readtherules]

Just like your view that morals/ethics can change so can the views on length of bans. four year bans were found to be legally difficult to uphold in the 1990's but perhaps attitudes have change since then? You may be right about the interpretation of aggravated circumstances but it does seem this is being used more often and we are moving towards four year bans in some form or other, possibly with time off for 'good behaviour'!

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/ ... ing-bylaw-

I see your point but would counter with the awareness of bans for mha contained in over the counter stuff and contaminated food chain even in the UK will ease away from 4 yr bans.Also Lord M's pont about the illogicality and poor science etc.Loads more money needs to be spent to get it right on top of the minimum .3£billion already each year.