Dwaine Chambers is cheapening the name of clean athletes?

Dwaine Chambers is cheapening the name of good athletes, says Lord Coe

Now I respect Seb Coe but I think he's got it wrong this time. I'm not a great fan of Chambers but .......

Chambers has admitted his sin, said he's sorry, served his 2 year ban and come back to the only sport he shines at.

We are the only nation to have a ban over and above the IOC recomendations. If he's good enough let him go.

«134567

Comments

  • who's "dwain chambers" ?

    Surely you mean "Mr Dwain I am Drugs CHEAT Chambers" - Who should be banded for live - 2 year ban is nothing these days - CHEAT by taking drugs and get a live time ban!

  • I agree with Pizza man, Dwain Chambers is now running clean, if he is good enough he should be allowed to compete. Everyone makes mistakes, does something stupid etc. give him a break.
  • Sorry ONCE A CHEAT ALWAYS A CHEAT in my books! and if you let him back in how long before he does it again ?
  • Murderers get less!

    He's served his time, the punishment was just. Let him get on with it.

    As Lee says, We all make mistakes.

  • Thing is though, you can't have  one rule for elites and another for non-elites.

    Ban 'im for life. 

  • Pie the b*stard.

    Then stamp on his big feet. 

  • We're talking about Tommy the Clown aren't we?
  • No?

    Whatever.

    I stand by my earlier statement. 

  • The problem with cheating by taking drugs is that you may well still be benefitting two years later. On that basis the fairest (to non-cheaters) is to ban drug cheats for life. 

    However, it does not seem fair that the regs here are stricter than those of the IOC so since under those rules he would be allowed to compete I think his olympic ban should be overturned.

    I agree that everyone makes mistakes and can be forgiven. That is not the same as getting a second chance and there many professions where the making of particular mistakes means that you can no longer practice your profession. In many cases this would be true for genuine mistakes (e.g. negligence) rather than deliberate acts of fraud.

  • Rules are rules - he's served his time and should be allowed back.
  • That olympic ban is absolutely rubbish.

    I'm far from competent in legal matters (and even that makes it sound a lot better than my knowledge warrants) but I cannot for the life of me imagine that this BOC bylaw would survive a serious legal challenge.
    Just a matter of time before one athlete throws some serious legal expenses at it and it's gone. Doesn't the BOC have better things to do than spend money on lawyers to examine every borderline case (Christine O. for instance) in anticipation of the inevitable happening? Nevermind the cost of trying to defend that bylaw when it gets challenged.

    I do feel like mellifera that there is a problem with time limited bans in that you can't undo the progression the athlete made while using drugs in the first place.
    On the other hand, life bans make things very tricky with more innocent misdemeanors.
    ie UK Vicks inhalor doesn't contain banned substances, but US version does, should you ban a young athlete who doesn't check this and gets caught out  for life?. No? In that case, do you have scales for which products give you which ban? And how do you deal with new products then?

  • Surely it's up to each country who they choose to select for the olympic team?
  • Slugsta, that's very true but, he is no avavailable for selection because he is banned from the Olympics by the BOC. So the UKA selecters who have picked him recently for the European Outedoors and and indoors are not allowed to select to him for the Olympics.

    He cheated, he got caught, he served his ban.

    Will the Greeks select rarely raced Kenteris or Thanou, maybe maybe not, but they are availalble and they comitted worse crimes than Dwaine.

  • I appreciate that Slugsta, but then Sotherton and Radcliffe just have to accept that too and stop moaning when other countries select athletes that have sat out a drug ban.

    Alternatively, Lord Coe could do something constructive and get the IOC to adopt a rule that prevents anyone with a previous drug ban from competing, so that the BOC doesn't need one.
    It's just ridiculous to have an international competition with different rules per country.
    Selection process is another matter imo.

  • I say ban him. He didn't take banned substances by accident but deliberately. And he's been a bit reticent naming those who helped him and how. Once a cheat, always a cheat.

    I wish they would make drugs cheating in athletics a criminal offence.

  • I'm not too up on my football but .................................Do footballers get a life ban when they blatently dive in the penalty area, or just get a booking?

    image

  • PM - they should be shot and taken out of the gene pool......
  • Problem is, they have to make an example of him, simple as that. The mesage has to be loud and clear  - you need to be clean or no GB place ever again.

    He blew it big time and younger athletes need to know what will happen to them if they cheat too. And that it's not going to be a case of appeals etc etc...

  • that's just it though he has had a team GB place since he servec his ban (and has won world and European silver medals for team GB)

    It's just the Olympics that the BOC say he can't enter ................................... and it's just the British that have this rule.

    I realy hope it doesn't get to court, it'll get very messy and the BOC will loose on restriction of trade or similar

  • Arguably he still has the muscle bulk that he achieved through illegal drug use. On that basis he shouldn't be allowed to compete.
  • I can't argue with that but ................................. surely none of the other drugs cheats in the world should be allowed to compete.

    It's not right that it's just British athletes that are punished after they have served thier ban

  • Some drugs alter your physical make-up, some temporarily increase your O2 uptake and some increase concentration/alertness and reaction times. There may be a case to argue that the length of ban depends on the substance used ??????????????

     Other nations SHOULD follow our lead (attempted lead anyway) and life ban all drug cheats in athletics.

  • I agree with Sprinkletoes. 

    To work effectively the message has to be clear and unequivocal - you cheat, you get banned for life.

    I'd say that perhaps the criminal justice system needs to take a leaf out of the BOC's book - but that's another debate of course image  

  • It's the legal challenge that confuses me.  Why does a lifetime ban not add up?  Why can't the committee do as they wish?  Is it something to do with prevention from doing a job of work (human rights?)?  If this is the grounds, surely those clean athletes who were ranked below the cheats have the right to sue the cheats for any sponsorship / winnings etc. they may have missed out on through the cheating (Or has that been done already?.)

    How does that pad out legally?

  • he hasn't fully served his ban though.  Yes - he's done the two year bit, but the BOC ban is still part of the punishment - and that's not been fully served yet.

    I don't get the legal challenge either.  On what grounds? 

  • To compete for your country is not a right. In a sport such as rugby your behaviour is taken into account and those who don't measure up are dropped

    Chambers didn't dive in a penalty area mid-game, he didn't take a sly cutting of a corner mid road race. He systematicly cheated over a prolonged period in a cynical way and then denied it when he first got caught. Then when he came back and knew he wasn't being tested (cos UKA were stupid and took him off the list as they thought he had retired) he didn't put his hand up and say 'Excuse me you need to put me on that list again as I'm plannign a come back'.

     I'm not in favour of a life ban from the sport (on first offence) but I think a life ban from the Olympics is right if their prestige is to be maintained. There has to be deterent as well as punishment.

  • The legal challenge will be interesting, the courts in Britain have been loathe to overturn decisions/rules of sport governing bodies in some recent football related decisions, which may suggest the way the lean in these things. The general outcome of the cases I read about was that the judges did not want to start second guessing the decisions made by people who were almost certainly better placed than them to make that decision.

    That said, personally I have no issue with Chambers running, mainly because  I am a lot less anti the use of performance enhacing substances than many are. I would prefer the use of these substances to be much better regulated but am of the view that the testers will never stop the cheating going on, mainly because the rewards for those doing it far outweight the funding available to the testers. 

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.