Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Dwaine Chambers is cheapening the name of clean athletes?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Their physique and athletic attributes have already recieved an irreversible performance enhancement, they are NEVER clean as I see it. Chambers would not be the sprinter he is now without performance enhancement so still possesses an unfair advantage over career clean athletes.
If they let him in I would love to see a boycott of the GB team by its own athletes.
'Chambers go, or we go'. That should shut the pr*** up.
Finbaar no-one as made this racial, which is what I assume your suggesting. I hate what Chambers stands for, but it as nothing to do with race.
Don, you mention Chambers doing the UKA coaching courses, and say it is wrong.
Possibly it is, but why doesn't Christie get that sort of criticism and also, doesn't his experience put him in a better position to talk to young athletes about drugs? Sort of poacher playing game keeper.
I have two young athletes (my kids) under13 doing really well in the sport. I wouldn't want Chambers any where near them. Whats he gonna say, "don't do what I did!"
I put Christie in the same boat as Chambers and for Christie to keep claiming his innocence disgusts me. Infact I have a little more respect for Chambers, at least he admits what he did wrong.
I don't know if you know the history of Christie, he got caught right at the end of his career (he was in semi-retirement) at a low key event that he was dared to compete in by a couple of athletes he was coaching Katherine Merry for one. He didn't know they had drug testers there.
It makes you wonder about his whole career, taking drugs at the right time and 'coming clean' before a big event. Christie wasn't a great sprinter in his early 20's I can remember Alan Wells beating him regular when Alan was past his best.
Bear, just to throw a different angle into the mix:
Couldn't you argue he is sentenced twice by two different courts for the same crime?
Dodge - the fault in your argument is that he is still competing for Great Britain. (worlds indoors?)
I'm sympathetic to the idea that the BOA has the right policy. For instance it would allow athletes to continue competing coming back from a ban (2nd chance etc), but never to compete in olympics (again) would be a serious deterrent.
However I do believe doing this unilaterally is pointless and just creates legal problems and unwanted publicity. They need to get this sorted with IOC (and they in turn with IAAF and the international governing bodies of the other olympic sports I imagine)
There might be a discussion to be had as to what the punishment should be for a particular misdemeanour, but someone caught cheating isn't really in the strongest position to lead that... You could say the punishment is too harsh, but Chambers knew the risk of getting caught, and what was at stake, but decided it was worth that risk.
You need a deterrent in place so people feel if they get caught cheating, that's it. As someone else said, a place representing your country is a privelege, not a right.
If memory serves me well (there's always a first) UKA thought for half a second about banning Chambers from the indoors trials and immediately realised that they couldn't so did the sensible thing and avoided Chambers taking them to court and wasting loads of money on lawyers and court costs on a case they couldn't possibly win.
Then they were in big trouble as they didn't really want to take him, but they are the ones who set the selection criteria and Chambers was meeting those (both for entry to the trials as for inclusion in the team after the trials). Not a lot you they could do about that.
It's all Pickering's fault if you think about it...
Firstly, Linford. If I had my way he would have to hand back ALL his medals. When I was young I idolised him, but now I am up on sport science blah blah I can see quite clearly his physique was the result of performance enhancement. He is just another cheat. How the f*** the 'grown ups' at the time never said this, all you oldies did was comment on the size of his 'lunchbox'.
Next, Dwain. Someone questioned his credentials as an Athletics Coach. No doubt he could coach effectively but HE IS A DRUGS CHEAT. Coaches are meant to be someone the kids look up to blah blah. Not 'My coach is the real deal, he used performance enhancement and now realise he was wrong (after he got caught)'. You need to be the shining example. He would be a good coach for reforming drugs cheats however.....NONE OF THEM SHOULD COMPETE SO WHY BOTHER COACHING THEM?
I see your point Imski but.................................
BAN THE PR*** FROM COMPETING.....................ANYWHERE.....................................EVER
He is the Joey Barton of Athletics. I might start a forum to nominate the most hated person in any sport. Maybe BBC will, pay me for the rights, I can see it now .......
Sports WA**** Of The Year
I would vote for Dwain (and ring back again , and again, and again at £2 a call)
that's how I remember it lmski - I thought they didn't want to take him but didn't think they had a clear enough cut court case. I get the impression they feel they have a stronger case this time
I guess you do get a penalty from two "courts", but ultimately that's the system which everyone knows when they make the choice to take drugs. Personally I'd rather see the IOC put a lifetime ban in place for everyone, but if the relevant body in this country wants to take a stronger line than the IOC while they stick with the two year ban then I personally applaud them for that.
I've always found the Christie thing rather weird - given that he'd retired from competitive athletics, why would he be taking drugs anyway?
Hi Pizza man,
Wont be in Brum due to Back injury-shame but,it's easing...slowly.
Ref. Christie still taking drugs, the reason was to maintain his physique. Anyone who thinks Christie ever ran clean in his prime is an idiot.
There is a lot of righteous anger on this thread and very little of it very constructive.
Okay Chambers knew of the lifetime Olympic ban before he took drugs, however it appears that this ban is not applied to everyone, there have been exceptions made to the rule I heard reported this week (I have a figure of 14 in my head), so this is no unequivocal, blanket ban we are talking about here, which certainly give Chambers some grounds to say "I am not being given fair treatment here"
There are huge numbers of performance-enhancing substances out there, some legal, some not. The list of substances you are not allowed to take is changed from time to time and potentially, at some point in the future the substances Chambers took could be allowed.
My view is that lifetime bans are awful sledgehammers to use. 2-4 years bans are fine by me and so are stringent conditions to ensure those athletes who transgressed stick to the straight and narrow in future, but to say, no second chances is completely wrong in my opinion.
what he said
good point well made
Pmsbony...Why 2-4 years?, why not 6months, or maybe a slap on the wrist, or maybe they should just report to the headmaster and be told "they are very naughty indeed".
Drugs undermine the whole concept of what a sport is, or is trying to achieve.
The only way to drive drugs from all sports is to come down as hard as possible.
Lifetime ban....No excuses
Why do drugs undermine the whole concept? Does access to expert coaching not do that? Do legal performance-enhancing substances not do the same thing?
Maybe the athletes should all compete naked, with no use of blocks by sprinters, ban warmups.
These are all just points of reference on the same performance-enhancement line, the current point on that line will almost certainly not be the same as where we are in two years time.
Quite amazing what some people compare to drug cheating!
Blocks, warm-ups, expert coaching and diving in a penalty box!
They are all too ridiculous to answer.
p.s. Why naked Pmsbony?.....It would probally get the viewing figures up I s'pose.
but still out and out cheating.
ftp, diving in the penalty box to win a game is too ridiculous to answer but is probably more gaurenteed to get a result to go your way than taking drugs to win? Maybe it's just more acceptable to you. I think it's just as bad if not worse. We all have our own valid oppinions.
If you live at altitude, sleep in an oxygen tent or use hypoxic breathing apparatus it is an acceptable to gain an advantage. If you take a drug to gain the same advantage it is not.
I hate diving footballers. It is cheating and should be a straight red. But to compare it to taking illegal drugs is ridiculous.
Every sport as to be governed and its not for laymen like ourselves to say what drugs or activities are illegal or not. I'm more than happy to leave it to the experts.
This thread is going around in circles so I will leave you to your opinions and agree to differ.