Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

[Geoff]

The title is not mine but taken from an article in the Independent. It brings together a range of issues and probably a range of views, perhaps polarised, that makes this saga very different to anyone else who has been convicted of a doping offence in sport. I have highlighted some interesting parts of the article, some of which I am sure, will receive very mixed reactions! And it looks like his case could go to CAS and not the High Court?

Dwain's sermon of hope begins.....
It was not your average school assembly. Well, not the kind that the small knot of press sitting at the back of the sports hall at Hillview School for Girls in Tonbridge yesterday morning could recall from the mists of time – "All things bright and beautiful," and all that. There, standing on the platform in front of 700 pupils from years 7, 8 and 9, was Dwain Chambers, talking about the past error of his ways and the importance of making the right choices in life. There, in fact, was the second fastest British runner of all-time (second to Linford Christie) giving the Hillside students a global exclusive.

Five days on from the Court of Arbitration for Sport's decision to outlaw Rule 45 of the Olympic Charter, a regulation that banned athletes on the comeback trail after serving drug suspensions from the next Olympic Games, the sporting world was still waiting to hear Chambers' views on the matter. Was the highest profile doping offender in British sport suddenly thinking of London 2012?

The answer was unequivocal. "The Olympics is the pinnacle for all athletes," Chambers told his audience. "For all British athletes, to be able pull on a British vest and compete in a home Olympics would be a great privilege. It's something I'd love to do if it was a possibility."

Interesting extracts......
Indeed, it has emerged that the World Anti-Doping Agency have written to the BOA asking them to test the regulation. Asked whether he considered the request to be "significant," Chambers' manager, Siza Agha, said: "All developments are significant."

..........Agha [his manager] happens to be a barrister by profession. While he is prepared to wait to see what pressure might be brought to bear on the BOA by the various other interested bodies, and to see how other affected athletes might proceed, he could not desist from challenging the BOA's assertion that their by-law differed from the unenforceable IOC regulation because it had an appeals mechanism.

"The distinction that they're trying to draw with the appeal process in my opinion is just not valid," he maintained. "The BOA by-law has built within it the wording of restrictions on which people can appeal. Having read it, it would preclude Dwain and [the cyclist] David Millar from appealing, because they deliberately did what they did."

.........Ultimately, an appeal to CAS rather than to the High Court would seem the most likely option for Chambers and his manager. "We would like to go down the path of least resistance," Chambers said. "All I can do is just take advice from Siza and be patient. If we can do it without going to a courtroom, I'll be happy with that."

........Chambers has been quietly giving his salutary message to schoolchildren in north London, France and Belgium for some time now – working as a global ambassador for Madonna's Success For Kids charity. "Yes, Dwain's a bit of a controversial figure, but for that very reason he comes with a strong message about making the right choices," Steve Bovey, Hillview's headteacher, said. "We want our girls to make up their own minds."

........The pupils of Windsor Boys School made their minds up about Chambers last year when they chose to use his legs as the model for a bronze statue of Jesus that now stands outside All Saints Church in Dedworth. "They wanted a sports-like figure," said the Reverend Louise Brown, the vicar of All Saints. "They wanted a Jesus to be active in the community, and not behind closed walls."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olym ... 69056.html

[bevone]

There are a few issues here that I think some people in athletics dont seem to understand. First of all the Olympic ban is something the BOA enforce and few if any other countries do it. So why can banned athletes compete at european world and commonwealth level? It just seems to be an injustice because it is not consistent. what is so special about the olympics as a competitiion as opposed to the world champs - well you can get joke competitors in the Olympics.

2ndly, Chambres issue is slightly diffrent from the independent athlete working alone - as he was actually part of an institutional collaboration of athletes from around the world working on the promise that he would never get caught. His interview with PInsent on the BBC sports programme when he was trying out for American football didnt do him any favours.

His behaviour adn humility has been exemplary since to his credit and he is still the UK number one clean. I think we are shooting oursleves in the foot by banning at olympic level but it is an honourable step to take and the BOA should be acclaimed, but it would be nice fo rothere to follow suite - but they dont! SO already we are creating an unfair playing field for ourselves.

It is a tough issue to call.

[mump boy]

. So why can banned athletes compete at european world and commonwealth level? It just seems to be an injustice because it is not consistent. what is so special about the olympics as a competitiion as opposed to the world champs - well you can get joke competitors in the Olympics.

2ndly, Chambres issue is slightly diffrent from the independent athlete working alone - as he was actually part of an institutional collaboration of athletes from around the world working on the promise that he would never get caught.

The BOA have been entirely consistent since 1992, what other organisations choose to do is entirely up to them.

So it's ok to cheat if it's in collaboration with loads of others ?? I'd call that a criminal conspiracy which would usually invite harsher censure than someone acting individually

[Geoff]

BBC...
1640: OLYMPICS - Olympic legend Michael Johnson has told BBC Radio 5 live LaShawn Merritt was not to blame after winning an appeal which allows him to defend his 400m title at London 2012 after his doping suspension. Johnson said he supported the International Olympic Committee law that bans any athlete who had received a doping suspension of more than six months from competing in the next Games. But he said the IOC and national bodies were to blame for Merritt being allowed to compete as their differing levels of punishment had left the door open for legal challenges.

[trickstat]

There are a few issues here that I think some people in athletics dont seem to understand. First of all the Olympic ban is something the BOA enforce and few if any other countries do it. So why can banned athletes compete at european world and commonwealth level?

Actually DC is currently banned from competing for England in the Commonwealth Games. Carl Myerscough had his ban overturned.

[Laps]

Relative to the offence I have never heard of anyone being punished for so long and in so many ways as Chambers has had to endure, this past 8 years and counting. It's as if all the frustration and retaliation has to focus on him. Weird and unhealthy.

[Kermit]

This might upset a few people but DC has a huge supporter in this argument!

I actually supported the rule that if you had a drugs ban you shouldn't be allowed to compete in the Olympics - it should be a life ban, But at the moment it's unfair because Dwain is the only one who is really being penalized for it. ... It has to be a rule that's fair across the board ... it isn't fair to penalize Dwain

Paula Radcliffe

http://www.supersport.com/athletics/art ... Id=1079471

[SteveK26]

What Paula said is quite right.
Its not about whether an athlete should be banned from the Olympics. Its about whether ALL athletes (found guilty of a doping offence) should be banned from the Olympics in the same way, and for the same length of time. He has already missed one Olympics, is it equitable that he should miss London when other persistent offenders will be there?
Consistency across all athletics bodies is what this is about.
If I was Dwain Chambers I would probably consider that I had more than ''done my time'' by now. The BOA is starting to resemble a Shawshank prison that wont allow Dwain any redemption.

[mump boy]

What Paula said is quite right.
Its not about whether an athlete should be banned from the Olympics. Its about whether ALL athletes (found guilty of a doping offence) should be banned from the Olympics in the same way, and for the same length of time. He has already missed one Olympics, is it equitable that he should miss London when other persistent offenders will be there?
Consistency across all athletics bodies is what this is about.
If I was Dwain Chambers I would probably consider that I had more than ''done my time'' by now. The BOA is starting to resemble a Shawshank prison that wont allow Dwain any redemption.

SO do all countries have to have the same laws or it won't be 'fair' maybe we should be compelled to bring back the death penalty, after all it's not 'fair' that our murderers get live it up in prison while US ones get a lethal injection

Life's not always fair and different countries have different rules for things. There is a very simple way to avoid the unfair BOA rule, don't break it

[Laps]

SO do all countries have to have the same laws or it won't be 'fair' maybe we should be compelled to bring back the death penalty, after all it's not 'fair' that our murderers get live it up in prison while US ones get a lethal injection

Life's not always fair and different countries have different rules for things. There is a very simple way to avoid the unfair BOA rule, don't break it

A spurious argument.
205 countries but only one competition. It is an international competition so all countries should follow the rules of the international governing body. You wouldn't accept each country having their own false start rule. Why would you accept some having discriminatory eligibilty rules.
The simple way to avoid the unfair BOA rule is to make it fair.

[fangio]

Why should we not accept different eligibility criteria, eligibility criteria due to drug use are not governed by the IAAF or IOC laws, you are confusing them with suspensions.

It is one competition, with one set of qulaification standards, yet there are loads of different qualification systems used throughtou the world, are you campaigning that there should be one qualification system used by all countries? No didn't think so. SO you do accept that who the various individual Olympic Associations choose to selelct is down to them settign their own rules, but you just don't like GB setting a criteria that excludes Dwain, tough. He could have avoided this by not being a complete disgrace to the sport and not cheating others out of their place on the team/relay medals. I didn't hear him complaining about this before he was banned, so I will take it as self interest not some moral crusade, I am not intertested in satisfying drug cheats self interest.

[Laps]

Why should we not accept different eligibility criteria, eligibility criteria due to drug use are not governed by the IAAF or IOC laws, you are confusing them with suspensions.

It is one competition, with one set of qulaification standards, yet there are loads of different qualification systems used throughtou the world, are you campaigning that there should be one qualification system used by all countries? No didn't think so. SO you do accept that who the various individual Olympic Associations choose to selelct is down to them settign their own rules, but you just don't like GB setting a criteria that excludes Dwain, tough. He could have avoided this by not being a complete disgrace to the sport and not cheating others out of their place on the team/relay medals. I didn't hear him complaining about this before he was banned, so I will take it as self interest not some moral crusade, I am not intertested in satisfying drug cheats self interest.

Do you have any understanding of the word proportionate?

[sidelined]

I wish people would stop claiming that the BOA's ruling was and is designed only to persecute Dwain Chambers. The rule was in place long before he decided to take Balco's drugs, and it doesn't just affect Chambers, as that quote from Paula Radcliffe suggests, it affects other athletes across other sports, most notably David Millar.

I don't see Chambers making statements, as Millar has, that he doesn't want to create problems for his sport and his team-mates, and the BOA.

I can't see anything wrong with the principle that a sporting organisation can set its own rules for selection (as long as they don't discriminate against people on the grounds of race/religion/sexuality...).

Also I don't accept the argument that giving short bans to athletes will make it more likely that they will reveal where they got their drugs from and who encouraged them to start using. When Lysenko was banned the head of the Russian federation was quoted as saying that he was sorry she would't be going to Beijing, but he was looking forward to her competing again in the future. The fact that he was prepared to openly say such a thing shows how much attitudes need changing.

[Laps]

It seems to me that David Millar is at least as likely to challenge the BOA ruling as Dwain Chambers. We will see.

Millar's sport has treated him fairly allowing him to compete in all it's events after he had served his punishment.
It did not try to deny him a living. It did not try to humiliate him. It accepted his regrets and efforts to redress the harm he had done. The comparison with Dwain Chambers and Athletics could hardly be more stark.

[sidelined]

It seems to me that David Millar is at least as likely to challenge the BOA ruling as Dwain Chambers. We will see.

Millar's sport has treated him fairly allowing him to compete in all its events after he had served his punishment.
It did not try to deny him a living. It did not try to humiliate him. It accepted his regrets and efforts to redress the harm he had done. The comparison with Dwain Chambers and Athletics could hardly be more stark.

Not true. Team Sky will not hire cyclists who have failed drugs tests, and this denies Millar what he craves far more than the chance to ride in the Olympics.

[iain]

We should have one rule across the world, I thought missing the next olympics eas good, but the GB law is silly. I will find it amusing if Dwain gets to 2012 after they have been denying him a relay spot for so long.

[trickstat]

You wouldn't accept each country having their own false start rule.

We did have a different false start rule from 2003 to 2009!

[Laps]

Sidelined

I think you will find that at the Olympics Millar would be riding for Great Britain (as in the picture) not Team Sky.

As Dave Brailsford heads both challenging the Olympics ban is a matter for them to talk over, but you might know better?
Before you speculate on that you should know that Brailsford actually invited Millar to train with the GB squad at Manchester Velodrome when his suspension was complete so that he could integrate back into the sport. The equivalent of Niels de Vos and Sebastian Coe giving Dwain Chambers a helping hand to repent, come back into the fold and start anew. That is how a proper sport treats people and we can see the results in the ever growing success of British Cycling.

Only three weeks ago Millar was captain of the Great Britain team in Denmark wearing Team Sky kit helping Mark Cavendish to become World Champion.

[mump boy]

Why should we not accept different eligibility criteria, eligibility criteria due to drug use are not governed by the IAAF or IOC laws, you are confusing them with suspensions.

It is one competition, with one set of qulaification standards, yet there are loads of different qualification systems used throughtou the world, are you campaigning that there should be one qualification system used by all countries? No didn't think so. SO you do accept that who the various individual Olympic Associations choose to selelct is down to them settign their own rules, but you just don't like GB setting a criteria that excludes Dwain, tough. He could have avoided this by not being a complete disgrace to the sport and not cheating others out of their place on the team/relay medals. I didn't hear him complaining about this before he was banned, so I will take it as self interest not some moral crusade, I am not intertested in satisfying drug cheats self interest.

THIS ^^ X 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[mump boy]

y. I will find it amusing if Dwain gets to 2012 after they have been denying him a relay spot for so long.

Hilarious

[sidelined]

Sidelined

I think you will find that at the Olympics Millar would be riding for Great Britain (as in the picture) not Team Sky.

Laps, I'm aware that Millar rode for the GB team in the world champs, and that the GB kit has Sky logos on it. But the British team at the world champs is not the same entity as the Team Sky road-racing team which has a firm policy of not employing cyclists who have failed drug tests. Millar cannot ride in the Tour de France, the Tour of Spain or anywhere else for Team Sky. I think you will find.

[Geoff]

I would have thought the BOA, through their umbrella organisation the IOC whose rules they have to abide by, have a watertight multi national and multi sport legally binding agreement with WADA accepting their sanctions that prohibits any variation by national bodies. This is the bottom line and why, in my opinion, the BOA cannot maintain their by-law. All other sub-issues are basically irrelevant.

A stark legal reality, strengthened by the recent CAS ruling, even though many raise objections on ethical grounds.

[Laps]

Laps, I'm aware that Millar rode for the GB team in the world champs, and that the GB kit has Sky logos on it. But the British team at the world champs is not the same entity as the Team Sky road-racing team which has a firm policy of not employing cyclists who have failed drug tests. Millar cannot ride in the Tour de France, the Tour of Spain or anywhere else for Team Sky. I think you will find.

Sorry Sidelined your point is more bizarre than I thought.

Why would Millar want to ride for Team Sky? Fine team though it has become in two years on the road.
Millar rides for Garmin-Cervelo which is also one of the foremost teams in World Cycling. He is the leader of the team in many races including the Tour De France. In 2008 he actually bought into the ownership of the team and as far as I know still leads on their anti-doping programme.

Millar is not some shunned outcast of his sport like poor old Chambers. More someone who is respected for turning things around and for his anti-doping work. No reason why Chambers couldn't have been there. Perhaps Chamber's book alone has done more to put young athletes off of peds than any amount of posturing by the BOA.

[LiamRiley]

I would have thought the BOA, through their umbrella organisation the IOC whose rules they have to abide by, have a watertight multi national and multi sport legally binding agreement with WADA accepting their sanctions that prohibits any variation by national bodies. This is the bottom line and why, in my opinion, the BOA cannot maintain their by-law. All other sub-issues are basically irrelevant.

A stark legal reality, strengthened by the recent CAS ruling, even though many raise objections on ethical grounds.

For all the moral indignation of this thread - this is perhaps the most important point: the legal perspective. The BOA is not independent of the IOC. For all the claims about how this is "not all against Dwain", people seem to be reading the rules through the effect that they have on him.

Let's get this done right - an international competition under the auspices of singular bodies (IOC/IAAF) should be on level terms. The current BOA law conflicts with Olympic rules - the Merritt-CAS ruling has shown that. This is bigger than 2011's 22nd fastest man. Let the last little fishes through this net of holes, then we can go about establishing the Olympic-ban rule properly - on an international level - in 2013.

[fangio]

Laps, yes I know what proportionate means, however I was not addressing the proportionality point in my post, I was addressing your specific point about all rules relating to competing at the Olmpics being the same. Do I have to write a treatise on the whole situation every time so that you don't just switch tack and criticise me for sticking to addressing the point in hand. I can see that you chose to change tack rather than actually address the argument I pput forward.

As to proportionality, that is a matter of opinion. I personally think it proportionate to ban cheats from the single most important event in athletics for life. They may return to being professional athletes but they will be denied the chance to create a glorius legacy for themselves, a legacy that I think should be denied to people who have demonstrated contempt for the sport. I think it proportionate.

Liam/Geoff, how do you address the different qualification systems used in different countries then? You want one set of rules deciding who can or cannot represent a country, and one set of IOC rules. You don't seemingly see anything wrong with countries setting theirown systems for qualification, except if that system involves preventing the eligibility of drugs cheats, any other variation you have no problem with. Please do not present your stance as being one of consistency, unless you also are asking for Olympic Associations to have no say at all in who represents them.

[Geoff]

Liam/Geoff, how do you address the different qualification systems used in different countries then? You want one set of rules deciding who can or cannot represent a country, and one set of IOC rules. You don't seemingly see anything wrong with countries setting theirown systems for qualification, except if that system involves preventing the eligibility of drugs cheats, any other variation you have no problem with. Please do not present your stance as being one of consistency, unless you also are asking for Olympic Associations to have no say at all in who represents them.

There is a big difference! WADA rules are agreed by the IOC, national associations and individual sports and unilateral sanctions cannot be handed out. As an international legal agreement it cannot be varied. It is legally binding.

On the other hand the IOC state minimum qualifying criteria. Individual sports and national associations can determine how they select athletes that meet this minimum criteria providing they conform to national/international laws and the the IOC charter. They cannot, for example, fail to select an athlete because of colour, creed, sexuality, religion etc. Selection now has to conform to WADA rules because they are legally agreed by all parties. In addition, UKA would be open to legal challenge if it decided not to nominate an athlete meeting the nationally agreed selection criteria. Likewise the BOA would be challenged if they rejected a nomination from a governing body that met the agreed selection criteria. All selection has to conform to all national and international rules and laws. Disrepute type charges can be a factor in selection but this could not apply to someone who had served a doping ban because the international rules allow them to return and so are free for selection. An athlete would have to do something else to warrant a disrepute charge.

Someone raised the fact that we had different start rules for a period of time. Of course that was for domestic competitions under UKA rules and not under IAAF rules. Another suggested a lifetime ban from the Olympics should be a future aim but the Olympic Games does not have all sports so such a ban would still prove inconsistent and I doubt WADA want that for all sorts of reasons.

I see no way around this. Athletes who have served their WADA ban are free to be selected and the BOA have no legal reason to prevent them. WADA and UKAD are telling them the same and CAS have virtually given a legal ruling. This summer we saw offenders competing in Diamond League meetings because of the threat of legal action and the widely held view they were operating as an illegal cartel.

Work with the IOC and WADA towards a 4 year ban and try to get the strongest sanctions possible but make sure they are legal.

[Kermit]

It seems like the newspapers are now championing the cause for DC to compete!

Far from it, the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s recent quashing of the American 400 metres runner LaShawn Merritt’s similar ban gives him fresh hope. Citing this precedent, Chambers will again lobby the British Olympic Association to overlook its by-laws and allow him to qualify for the London Games. “It would mean a lot to me,” he told a school audience the other evening. “It would be a great privilege

.

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

And Sky sports have hung on a sentence that CVC made during the announcement of the the latest funding allowance whilst not fully giving CVC's quote

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,,20876_7248598,00.html

The Guardian yesterday quoted the following -

Van Commenee refused to be drawn on the ongoing dispute between the British Olympic Association and Dwain Chambers, who does not receive funding, but has said he wants clarity on the situation "as soon as possible" so that he could make a decision about whether or not to include Chambers in the Olympic relay practice squads this winter. "In effect nothing has changed," said Van Commenee. "The BOA bylaw was there a long time ago and it still is there; when that changes I will start thinking."

[Geoff]

Van Commenee would consider Chambers return if sprinter can overturn Olympic drugs ban

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympi ... z1b86K4Our

I believe Dave Brailsford, cycling's performance director, would like David Millar in the team as well.

[readtherules]

Liam/Geoff, how do you address the different qualification systems used in different countries then? You want one set of rules deciding who can or cannot represent a country, and one set of IOC rules. You don't seemingly see anything wrong with countries setting theirown systems for qualification, except if that system involves preventing the eligibility of drugs cheats, any other variation you have no problem with. Please do not present your stance as being one of consistency, unless you also are asking for Olympic Associations to have no say at all in who represents them.

There is a big difference! WADA rules are agreed by the IOC, national associations and individual sports and unilateral sanctions cannot be handed out. As an international legal agreement it cannot be varied. It is legally binding.

On the other hand the IOC state minimum qualifying criteria. Individual sports and national associations can determine how they select athletes that meet this minimum criteria providing they conform to national/international laws and the the IOC charter. They cannot, for example, fail to select an athlete because of colour, creed, sexuality, religion etc. Selection now has to conform to WADA rules because they are legally agreed by all parties. In addition, UKA would be open to legal challenge if it decided not to nominate an athlete meeting the nationally agreed selection criteria. Likewise the BOA would be challenged if they rejected a nomination from a governing body that met the agreed selection criteria. All selection has to conform to all national and international rules and laws. Disrepute type charges can be a factor in selection but this could not apply to someone who had served a doping ban because the international rules allow them to return and so are free for selection. An athlete would have to do something else to warrant a disrepute charge.

Someone raised the fact that we had different start rules for a period of time. Of course that was for domestic competitions under UKA rules and not under IAAF rules. Another suggested a lifetime ban from the Olympics should be a future aim but the Olympic Games does not have all sports so such a ban would still prove inconsistent and I doubt WADA want that for all sorts of reasons.

I see no way around this. Athletes who have served their WADA ban are free to be selected and the BOA have no legal reason to prevent them. WADA and UKAD are telling them the same and CAS have virtually given a legal ruling. This summer we saw offenders competing in Diamond League meetings because of the threat of legal action and the widely held view they were operating as an illegal cartel.

Work with the IOC and WADA towards a 4 year ban and try to get the strongest sanctions possible but make sure they are legal.

Geoff.

Once again you have presented this perfectly.Why you tolerate Fangio when CAS has blown his view out of the water.
WADA has already examined 4 yr bans and found they could not.WADA rules are increasingly be seen as needing to comply with external rules and normailty.This means that they may have to let the guilty off or spend a lot more money to get it correct.With an universal set of rules trying to comply with each nations own laws this may well prove impossible.

[Geoff]

Michael Johnson wants single Olympics ban for drugs cheats

Former Olympic champion Michael Johnson has called for athletes who fail a drugs test to be banned from the next Olympic Games.

British drug cheats are banned from all subsequent Games by the British Olympic Association, but other countries pick athletes who have served drugs bans.

Johnson told BBC Sport: "I'm not sure if a lifetime ban is actually fair.

"But it would be more of a deterrent for people if they see that an athlete who cheats misses an Olympic Games."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/15526140.stm

Michael Johnson and Darren Cambell, who both lost relay medals due to team members failing dope tests, are saying the same as WADA, UKAD and others. Uniform and legally agreed bans/sanctions have to be the way forward. Miss the next Olympics but for the sake of uniformity perhaps a golfer should miss a major, a footballer miss the next world cup etc after their agreed ban has ended. If we could manage to agree a 4 year ban then everyone misses an Olympics or World Cup if they are good enough to compete at that level. I suspect we will see 2 year bans retained with an additional period added for aggravated circumstances PLUS a world wide major event ban.