Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

[readtherules]

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.

Sport will be seen as a special case as the injuries and other non normal life associated with sport will make medical drug use quite reasonable.
Have you noted the use of mind drugs for exams etc and the vast army of gym monkeys who think performance drugs are OK.
Also what if it turns out that the drugs are healthy and mitigate the detrimental effect of training.

When they find they cant afford to control sports drugs then await an about turn based on the above.
I have posted Howmans entire speech with ref to the clever dopers never getting cought.

Give it ten years then await the WADA Berlin Wall.An other ten years for the truth of BJ's run and all the others and then gold medal back to BJ.

[BigGut]

Ben Johnson DID break the rules that existed at the time he competed. You cannot retrospectively take away those rules. He cheated, he doesn't get to keep the gold medal. Whether you then prove that all of the others also cheated doesn't change this. Whether you decide that from a point going forward steroids should eb permitted does not mean he didn't cheat. HE CHEATEED, HE WAS CAUGHT, HE WILL NEVER BE THE OLYMPIC CHAMPION AS A RESULT!

The only way he could get it back was if there was evidence that he didn't cheat. Since it has all been admitted that can never happen.

[LiamRiley]

I am unconvinced by your arguments Read the Rules - consider this:

Amateurism was morally overhauled because it wasn't feasible to uphold a dated elitist principle that was used by the rich to exploit mostly poor talented heroes (remember Jesse Owen's post-Olympic tour where he slept in airhangers while the American Olympic Committee members slept in the best hotels?). There was impetus for a mass movement away from strict economic bondage of the poor because it was increasingly societally disruptive and destructive. The work of Rowntree, Engels et al had engendered a growing desire for human equality in the work place. Technology was upending relationships between worker and owner.

Ergogenic drug use on the other hand is a physically destructive habit at its base. For instance: acceptance of it in sport at high levels provides society with a serious conundrum in whether we should urge our children to compete in something that may seriously impair their health. For drugs to be accepted in sport entirely, one would expect that much of the population would first have to accept such types of drugs for everyday use (as with caffiene and alcohol in the UK today).

It might well happen, but drug use is not very comparable to amateurism - being that the former has destructive consequences, while the very continuation of the latter was destructive.

[readtherules]

Ben Johnson DID break the rules that existed at the time he competed. You cannot retrospectively take away those rules. He cheated, he doesn't get to keep the gold medal. Whether you then prove that all of the others also cheated doesn't change this. Whether you decide that from a point going forward steroids should eb permitted does not mean he didn't cheat. HE CHEATEED, HE WAS CAUGHT, HE WILL NEVER BE THE OLYMPIC CHAMPION AS A RESULT!

The only way he could get it back was if there was evidence that he didn't cheat. Since it has all been admitted that can never happen.

I assume that Johnson was convicted for the drug test and there was no action against him for longer term use declared at Dublin.If it transpires that he was sabataged then this is new evidence which would squash his ''88 Olympic conviction.

[readtherules]

I am unconvinced by your arguments Read the Rules - consider this:

Amateurism was morally overhauled because it wasn't feasible to uphold a dated elitist principle that was used by the rich to exploit mostly poor talented heroes (remember Jesse Owen's post-Olympic tour where he slept in airhangers while the American Olympic Committee members slept in the best hotels?). There was impetus for a mass movement away from strict economic bondage of the poor because it was increasingly societally disruptive and destructive. The work of Rowntree, Engels et al had engendered a growing desire for human equality in the work place. Technology was upending relationships between worker and owner.

Ergogenic drug use on the other hand is a physically destructive habit at its base. For instance: acceptance of it in sport at high levels provides society with a serious conundrum in whether we should urge our children to compete in something that may seriously impair their health. For drugs to be accepted in sport entirely, one would expect that much of the population would first have to accept such types of drugs for everyday use (as with caffiene and alcohol in the UK today).

It might well happen, but drug use is not very comparable to amateurism - being that the former has destructive consequences, while the very continuation of the latter was destructive.

Interesting that you should take a Marxist interpretion of amateurism.I think that it was a way of controlling the masses.Ditto drug control.
Please explain why ergogenic drug use is a physically desrtuctive habit.Read the labels and they are rather good,depends on level of use.
Training at Olympic level could well be more dangerous to health than drugs.:Lots of deaths in horse sport but parents still buy horses for kids.
Sport use may well be seen as a different case.Note publics view of doping in "the tour".

Was not trying to make a direct comparison with amateurism(but there are some) ,rather to demonstate the corpes of high moral grounds that litter the history of sport.

(And a note to all;no comment on the black power matter)

[fangio]

Why no comment on teh Black Power Salute? Simple it has ntogin to do with cheating, whcih is what Johnson did. It is an irrelevance to the topic at hand.

You want to make it about moral certanties, well here is mine. Breaking the rules of the day result in you being kicked out for breakign the rules, as long as you being kicked out is done by the book. My moral certainty is that taking drugs to beat others and being caught doing so gets you rightly banned.

Others being found years later to have taken drugs will not mean Johnson gets re-instated, can you give any example fo that happening ever?

Johnson admitted to Dubin that he had taken the drugs in the run up to the Olympics, that admission alone, without the need for a positive test would be enough to maintain his banned status.

[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.

Sport will be seen as a special case as the injuries and other non normal life associated with sport will make medical drug use quite reasonable.
Have you noted the use of mind drugs for exams etc and the vast army of gym monkeys who think performance drugs are OK.
Also what if it turns out that the drugs are healthy and mitigate the detrimental effect of training.

When they find they cant afford to control sports drugs then await an about turn based on the above.
I have posted Howmans entire speech with ref to the clever dopers never getting cought.

Give it ten years then await the WADA Berlin Wall.An other ten years for the truth of BJ's run and all the others and then gold medal back to BJ.

Well heavy use of, for example, anabolic steroids and EPO are well known to be anything but healthy.

[readtherules]

trickstat

Heavy use of anything I would think.This would include training.

[readtherules]

Why no comment on teh Black Power Salute? Simple it has ntogin to do with cheating, whcih is what Johnson did. It is an irrelevance to the topic at hand.

You want to make it about moral certanties, well here is mine. Breaking the rules of the day result in you being kicked out for breakign the rules, as long as you being kicked out is done by the book. My moral certainty is that taking drugs to beat others and being caught doing so gets you rightly banned.

Others being found years later to have taken drugs will not mean Johnson gets re-instated, can you give any example fo that happening ever?

Johnson admitted to Dubin that he had taken the drugs in the run up to the Olympics, that admission alone, without the need for a positive test would be enough to maintain his banned status.

Issue is changing moral certainties in sport.

As I have said BJ was not charged and nor will he of matters relaing to his Dublin admission.So we are left with the sabatage.

I dont deny you have moral certainties but somtimes the moral tide changes and some are left looking stupid.Too early to say if it will be you or I who will be the one out of step.

[BigGut]

Ben Johnson is cheating scum, whether his Olympic sample was sabotaged or not he is a self confessed drug cheat. He will never be crowned Olympic champion as a result.

You are an apologist for drug cheats and if the rules change that makes no difference. If taking drugs is no longer classed as cheating, then FROM THAT POINT ON people can take drugs and not be classed as cheating scum. Those that take them now are CHEATS!!!!! Even in 2000 years when medicine and human development will be entirely diferent they will still be cheats.

[readtherules]

Big g.

Perhaps you have found a way a defining a cheat,if you have kindly share it with us please.

In doing so would you say the Abrahams was a cheat even though no formal rules were in place for his drug use.And was he a cheat for having a coach ?

[fangio]

A cheat is someone who breaks the rules to gain an advantage over those who do not break the rules. Johnson clearly, by his own admission did this. Abrahams did not break any rules. The athletes had to be amatuers not the coaches.

Why try to pretend that Abrahams was a cheat when he did not break any rules whatsoever? Oh, I rememeber because you are an apologist for those who do take illegal drugs and you are trying to equate them with much better human beings who did not cheat.

[BigGut]

A cheat breaks the rules of the sport. In the case of Ben Johnson he admits he knowingly took drugs that were not permitted. Therefor he is a cheat. There is no way on earth that you can defend this, he is a self confessed drug cheat.

Please do not try to make out that you need to have a test that proves he did it intentionally because he admitted it himself. It is because of cheating scum like this that we have to have a system of strict liability which also bans anyone who may have unintentionally taken a banned substance. It is their fault that innocent people get banned, because if it wasn't for the deceptive deceitful cheating scum we wouldn't need drug testing. As you cannot prove intent EVERYBODY who takes these substances has to be banned or else the cheating scum get away with deceiving everybody.

If, as you appear to be suggesting, the world ever treats these cheats as rightful Olympic champions then we may as well abandon sport as it is defined by its rules and if we let people win who deliberately break them then the sport is no longer valid.

[readtherules]

Gee wizz ,we have tweddle dum and tweedle dee joined at the hip !

What rules are these that they have to break to be a cheat.All rules and does the breaking of them have to be done deliberatly ?
Do you include spirit of the sport or its values that may not be actually written down.Explicit or implicit ?

I shall accept a joint answer so get ringing a friend.

You dont abandon sport as defined by its rules you just change the rules as we have done over the centuries.

By the way,I yet again point out that specified substances do involve an assessment of intention and in the Merritt case they said that he did not intend to cheat so they lowered his ban.Miss O got done but it was stated by Beloff that she had no intention to cheat.I read that Cavendish has some missed test probs but no assumption of actually cheating .So please ,the pair of you ,work out that non cheats break the rules in doping as well as in many other rules of our sport.

You have a far higher confidence of your concept of true Olympic champions than anyone who has contact with the top level would ever assume.
Tweddles,I do wish it was as black and white as you assume.But black and white went out with 405 lines I am so sorry to report.

I await you answers.

[fangio]

What are you jabbering on about?

You are specifcally talking about Johnson.

Specifcally Johnson deliberately set out to break the rules.

Specifically he is a cheat.

Are you switching to generalisations now because the specific instance you were addressing si quite clearly a case of cheatng, and adddressing your specific point about Johnson being given the gold in the future had been successfully shown to be rubbish?

We all know, and indeed Biggut addressed on this thread, that there are innocent parties caught by the strict liability rule necessitated by the cheats lying about how things got inot their system, wh pretend that anyoen does nto realise this? However, Johnson, by his own admission does not fall into this category. He is a cheat pure and simple, your argument that Johnson may be awarded the medals is ridiculous, and woudl necessitate abandoning sport. Why? Well there is no point sticking to the rules, if you can get the medal years later despite having deliberately set out to have an unfair (as per the rules at the time) advantage.

PLease cut the rubbish about tweedle dee etc, you have lost the argument on Johnson, no need to switch to just personal insults that have nothing to do with the content of the reply or the topic and are just jibes.

[BigGut]

I have already addressed the point about people who did not intend to cheat. As you will see in my response above I do not class them as cheats, but as the victims of the very cheating scum you are always so keen to defend. They are not the victims of the system, they are the victims of the intentional cheats.

You have clearly lost this argument and anybody who reads this thread will see nothing but you trying to compare cheating scum with people who did not break any rules. You are nothing but an apologist for drug cheats, pure and simple.

[readtherules]

Dear Tweedles.(A term of affection in the wests mids)

My post was about changing moral principles.I have demonstrated many and suggested others.

It is interesting to see your argument that the prosecution/banning of those that dont cheat is due to the cheaters and not due to a badly written and underfunded WADA code and the associated actions of NADO's etc.

What numbers/proportion of non cheaters to cheaters would you think is acceptable to see banned before it is necessary to have a far more sensitive judicial system ?

Do you now agree with the USADA decision that Merrit did not cheat ?

In 1924 was there a spirit of the rules that you dont take drugs and if there was would the breaking of such be cheating ?

[fangio]

I absolutley agree that the evidence that was gathered does not proove he cheated with the tntention of gaining an advantage.

However, no amount of funding will ever provide concrete proof of INTENT, unless a method of mind reading comes about. As such there is absolutely no way of knowing (short of an admission) for certain whether Merrit, or anyone else with banned substances in their systems did or did not cheat with intent.

Faced with that choise the sport can either ban on strict liability, or not ban anyone. It's that simple. This is why those who accidentally take PED's are teh victims of those who deliberately cheat. it is the dishonesty of the Johnson's of the world that make strict liability necesary.

What percentage would I accept, well, I have no idea how many who have been banend are innocent, and neither do you. There are only judgements (called such becuase they are just the perception of the panel based upon available evidence). In addition, some of those caught accidentally should have taken more precautions (e.g. not takign your coaches painkillers) I see that as rightly bringing about a ban, whcih, in my opinion shodul ahve been longer. So given that it is impossibel to actually tell if we have had any accidental ingestion at all, I have no way of knowing how easy it is to get accidentally caught out, and so no way of knowing whether the people that the evidence so far suggests may have been caught out accidentally shodul have actually been easily able to void beign caught out. If they get caught through lack of normal precautions, I see it aas their problem. It's part of being an elite athlete so stop takign drugs you don't udnerstnad etc.

Now are you going to be a grown up and cut the tweedles rubbish, or are you stuck in the playground?

[readtherules]

Fangio.
Dont you think it was funny that you both posted virtually the same late at night etc.Certainly raised a smile with me.However I shall give some thought to not posting to the tweedles on the basis that nastiness does not flow from you pen.

You speak of certainty in the judicial process and indeed one can never be certain.It could be that you have been in hibernation from the Looking Glass.However we do tend to go on what a proper judicial process declares and there seems to be a 50% prosecution of the non cheaters.The system has to do better and if the system cant spend more money on being better we should all be more circumspect in calling those who are subject to a doping sanction cheats.

I yet again point out the various rules that are associated with specified substances and ask you to note that they do deal with intent.Further the BOA byelaw attempts to do the same.More of this please.

Do I assume your first sentance referes to Merrit ?

Any comment on spirit of rules and Abrahams please ?

Please give some indication as to what you mean by elite .

Would you agree that all who do sport are subject to the rules.( i note a UKAD advice page to parents reminding them that their children are subject to strict liability).

We are making progress .Lets continue.

[fangio]

Oh, your "spirit of the rules2 was to do with Abrahams?

No, thre was no spirit fo the rules, they did not mention taking substances at all. There was nothing against it, and certainly I can find only suggestions that Abrhams may have used it, not any firm admission or evidence that he did.

Certainly the 1904 marathon was won by an athetle who was injected DURING the race with Caffeine and strychnine. Any vilification for it, no, there were no rules against it. It was entirely within the bounds of the sport. Teh spirit of the rules is reserved for interpreting the rules. There were no rules to interpret before 1928, not a thing at all on substances.

My definition of elite, with regard to those who shoudl nto take any form of medication or stimulant without ensureing that it is entirely legal, is anyone competing at the national champs level in track and field. If you are competing a that level take the possibility fo getting banned if you take drugs which you are not absolutely certain about seriously.

You tend to go witht e judicial process and say 50% are non cheaters. i tend to go with the 50% that are foudn to have been cheaters are almost definitiley such, but the 50% who are not found to have cheated will include a much higher percentage of those who simply did not have the evidence to prove they did cheat deliberately. I find 5 members of a training group taking the same cough medicine without having a cough, and that medicine contianing a banned substance strange to say the least.

You take part you are subject to the laws of the sport. They vary with the level of competition. For example TME can be obtianed retrospectively with Masters athletics.

As to teh ideaq that we are makign progress, we are not. Yo are merely chanign tack once again. The discussion was about Johnson, and th likelihood that he would get the medal back, he won't.

You tried all sorts of attempts to create moral equivalence, but none fo the cases you cited had any relevance to teh Johnson case, which was not about opinion, it was about breaking the rules at the time and being a self confessed cheat. You break the rules art the time, as Johnson did, and you don't get your medal back.

[readtherules]

fangio.

Thanks for your reply.I will look in more detail later but in the meantime can you clarify what you mean by national championshps.Does this include such as BUSF,Bedford Games, ESSA , age group, and Scotish/Welsh.

You have not grasped my point ref BJ but I am content to call it moot on these pages.

[fangio]

Look, I am not going into minutea of which champs, its an irrelevance.

[readtherules]

Look, I am not going into minutea of which champs, its an irrelevance.

Unbelievable !
You state that the rules are of particular significance to the elite but you refuse to explain who this elite is.

Complete waste of time and effort.Better for me to read about Alice and gain more understanding of the functional capacity of the Tweedles.

Unbelievable !

[fangio]

Look if you want to talk minutae of points that's up to you, I said national champs level you want me to list every national champs to include. What possible additional light will compiling such a list spread? Am I at your beck and call to answer every minute poitn that you choose even if I think it irrelevant, am I compelled to go off down evey blind alley you choose? No.

I note you continue to use the Tweedles word, it seems you are indeed stuck in the playground.

[BigGut]

RTR,

You have no point about Johnson. He cheated. Even if the rules subsequently change then it doesn't matter, he cheated.

I note that you are yet again insisting people debate what you want but refuse to answer or acknowledge any points made by those you are debating with.

If the BOA lose the case, then their moral principles will not have changed, the court will have forced them to change their rules DESPITE their continued belief that cheats should not be allowed to represent Britain. That was the point being debated. Why are you now trying to take it off track? Can you not just admit that all of the examples you gave were indeed irrelevant, I have to say as usual, before desperately trying to move to a different debate.

Also can you please stop accusing people of not dealing with points such as those banned who accidentally took things. Firstly they have been dealt with at length. secondly this thread is about the self confessed drug cheat Dwain Chamcers and so it is entirely irrelevant. If you want to, yet again, debate that point then start a new thread. All it will be though is you saying that people who test positive should all be given minimum sentences if any because obviously it is all accidental and everybody else saying that if you ditch strict liability you may as stop testing and permit all drugs to be taken. This particular debate ceased to be a debate a long time ago.

[readtherules]

Big g (aka tweedle dee)
Yes BJ cheated,but that may be viewed differently in future decades as have many forms of breaking the rules.

BOA .Sticking to priniples when the world has changed may be seen as a waste of time and effort and public donations.Moral principles were raised by posters in relation to Chambers.

Explanations of expressions are different from concuring with a line of argument.Thus to ask tweedle dum what he means by elite when it is a key part of his argument is reasonable.I see it that tweedle dum was cornered and then refused to play.

Within this topic there have been made comments as to what should be done withy drug cheats and the future of doping rules since death of rule 45 and BOA current case.I did not go in that direction.I responded to those comments.For you to say that the debate about strict liability has ceased shows an intellectual flaw.Neither of us has succeded,that does not mean that your views have prevailed.Central to the future of the rules and where a line is being drawn by BOA and any revision by WADA in a few years is the concept of cheating and serious offences and intent.This does not run easily with strict liability.
Tweedle dum has argued that it is not possible to evaluate intent.I have made it clear that that is exactly what the BOA already evaluate.Response = total zero.
I will debate.This is hard when you and the other Tweedle constantly incorrectly state my views as per the end sentances of your last para.

[fangio]

I am not cornered, the question of naming the exact competitions is irrelevant minutea that has nothign to do with te discussion that I was attemtping to have. You wnat to go off at tangents, mainly because you likened Johnson to other situations none of which resulted in a medal being re-instated due to retrospective changes fo heart. I don't want to waste time talkign about exactly which competitions, you seem tot htink you can demand that of people.

You are still stuck in the playground I see with regard to childish name calling, well says more about you than anyone else.

With regard to comments about evaluating intent. You have not demnosntrateed that the BOA can actually establish intent, you have shown that they make a judgemetn about what they think it is. My coment remains 100% correct, the BOA nor anyone but the "offender" can actually know what the intent really was. You are clearly wrong, the BOA and other relvant bodies JUDGE wha they thnk intent was, that does nto contradict anythign that I have said, so why woudl I respond to it?

Oh that's right you think I have to respond to your drivel.

YOu do not debate, you make statements that are simply irelvant then go off at tangents about those statemtns. So for the purpose of deabte, can you actually cite one instance where rules were retrospectively changed so that somone was re-instated after deliberately cheating at the Olympics? Or alternatively were all of your examples nothing at all to do with that particular situation with which you attempted to make poral equivalence?

On Johnson you lost the debate a while back by finding no situations at all that have ever mirrored his.

[readtherules]

Fangio.
(aka tweedle dum)

This time it is you that responds to a post to big g.Next time it will be the other way about.And each time the deabate gets more contorted and I think that this is a deliberate tactic between the two tweedles (if in fact there are two different people) .

For clarity please state what you think my point ref BJ was as I think you (ie tweedles) have still not grasped it.

You are swivaling on a needle when you try and and make a diiference between actually establishing intent and making a judgement about establishing intent.For avoidance of doubt I am content with making a judgement that there was intent.The whole of our judicial system is based upon this.You have been a pedant beyond reason.

Your penulitimate para is yet another attempt to re write my argument in a way that materialy distorts it.

You made the comment about elite in your post.I did not.I asked you what you meant.You have refused to explain the terms you used in your argument.I am left with a very suspicious mind as why you refuse to answer and clarify your own argument.

[fangio]

Your point was that Johnson's self confessed deliberate cheating may be viewed as ok in the future and that he might get his medal back.

Simple, he won't, rule changes do nt get changed retrospectively adn he broke the rules at the time (self confessed) and was correctly banned. You then brough up a whole load of cases that had nothgin at all to do with competition rules being broken and someone being re-instated due to later changes in the rules, and Abrahams who did not break any rules at all.

I note that you s=continue with the Tweedles garbage, I think that maybe I shoudl take a leaf out fo pretty much everyone else's book, label you a troll with nothing of value to contribute to the sport which you seem to want to reduce to the lowest common denominator and stop engaging with you.

[readtherules]

Your point was that Johnson's self confessed deliberate cheating may be viewed as ok in the future and that he might get his medal back.

Simple, he won't, rule changes do nt get changed retrospectively adn he broke the rules at the time (self confessed) and was correctly banned. You then brough up a whole load of cases that had nothgin at all to do with competition rules being broken and someone being re-instated due to later changes in the rules, and Abrahams who did not break any rules at all.

I note that you s=continue with the Tweedles garbage, I think that maybe I shoudl take a leaf out fo pretty much everyone else's book, label you a troll with nothing of value to contribute to the sport which you seem to want to reduce to the lowest common denominator and stop engaging with you.

Well I am pleased to see that you have got it wrong.My posts were not about competion rules but the way history has and will continue to change its views on moral principles.I suggested that the rules may change in regard to BJ.I take you point that to do so would require several summersaults and as we see it now would seem bizzarre but we have seen many many changes in the moral principles that influence/comtrol sport that have been astonishing.

Now ;what on earth is national level.And if you dont compete at national level does it not matter as a matter of principle if you pay poor attention to what you ingest.

What say you about about "judgement" and "establishing" intent.