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
Absolutely ridiculous lol I am actually laughing right now.
... and what of Jamaica's speed kings?
"Clouds do still remain on the Jamaican horizon, however. Perhaps the biggest concern for outside observers is the lack of a fully functioning anti-doping body on the island.
First mooted in 2005, the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission (Jadco) remains an organisation with more good intentions than testing kits. Repeated promises have been made to fast-track the necessary legislation and funds through parliament but three years later all that is clear is the island's sprinters are faster than its lawmakers.
Neither the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) nor the Jamaican authorities have been able to confirm to BBC Sport that Jadco is actually operating yet. The situation is further muddied by Jamaica's decision to opt out of the Wada-approved Caribbean Regional Anti-Doping Organisation (Rado)."
BBC News story
Love the fact if you scroll down to the bottom of the page that there is an add for Gatorade and "The Science of Winning ...Improving Performance since ..."
i think a 5 year ban would be good idea as it would wipe out a complete Olympic cycle for most competitors
i suspect Chmbers is a bit of a dope tbh ..maybe if he does get selected he will tear a hamstring in warmup....
This is such a tough area with strong views on either side.
My opinion, for the little it is worth, is that he knew the rules when he cheated and that these should be adhered to by the administrators within the sport. Morally, I am repulsed by what he did, having spent many years totally paranoid about what medicines etc I took in case I was tested (which only ever happened once to me) - but the rules were they and they said he should have a 2 year ban from the sport and a lifetime ban from the Olympics.
This seems pretty fair to me and I support his ambition to get back into the sport, if he is clean, he has served his time and should be allowed to be rehabilitated. However, this taking the BOA to court to run at the Olympics is wrong - he knew there were lifetime bans for drug cheats and he should accept he will not be running there.
To me this, along with the fact that most sponsors wont touch him with a bargepole should be enough of a penalty for his cynical cheating.
Drugs are premeditated - you have to build up contacts to get what you want, you have to research to ensure you get past the "filters" etc. etc.
Diving in the penalty box is a split second decision. It's far from the same as taking drugs!
One's a lot more extreme than the other in my opinion.
Not that I'd advocate either.
Split second vs pre meditated is a massive difference IMO.
Agree with momentum.
Look He knew the rules. If you don't tlike them then challenge them ,but before you are found in breach,.
Somebody who falls foul ofthe rule then challenging it is unacceptable and he should be kicked out of court before he gets through the door.
Also
1. It is a BOA ban not an athletics ban. Like it or not, he is free to compete in other events
2.He is challenging this on restraint of trade. What restraint ? Do you know how much the Olympic Gold medallist gets ? NOTHING. there is no prize money. There is no trade.
3. OK so an Olympic medallist will get a lot of spin-off endorsements and can ask for more on the Grand Prix circuit but why woulda company want a drug cheat to endorse them well maybe a drug company.
So it was a pre-existing rule
It is not a second punishment because it applied a the same time
There is no prize money and therefore no restraint of trade
Where does this take you elsewhere in law as well.
Should bankrupts be allowed to start new companies - definitely having their trade restrained?.
Should somebody on the sex offendors register be allowed to teach kids Claiming, ' that is how I earn my living - restraint of trade'.
We could get into the difference of severity issue similar to diving for a penalty here, No I am not suggesting that a drugs cheat is the same as a paedophile. I am saying that the legal argument around restraint of trade is the same and the legal argument should end up by saying that in order to be able to ply a certain trade then there are certain rules. These may be industry rules. They in turn may be self-regulating.
There is no difference in law in my opinion between a trade organisation banning a gas-fiter from working if they break their rules and the BOA banning an athlete for breaking their rules.
The rule was in place and known. Chambers IS banned and should remain so.
I'm sure bankrupts and paedophiles are free to challenge things in the courts just as Chambers is - if Chambers wins then it suggests that the BOA ban is not in accordance with our law.
It will all be academic if he loses at the weekend.... Quick, someone tie his shoe laces together.
I'm with both both Popsider and Brooks on this one -
As Brooks says - There is no difference in regards to a gas fitter botching a job and being banned and DC being banned. Rules are rules - they are in place and you know about them when you make the decision to undertake something underhand. And as far as restraint of trade goes - well would you trust a second hand car dealer that had already sold you a car with dodgy breaks and been banned for it?
But, as Popsider says, there is no harm in challenging rules once in a while to ensure that we do have a fair and balanced society...
Although, IMHO, in this case I hope that the judge sees reason and tell DC where to get off.
I'm not with general opinion on this one as I always seem to support a fighter, especially as if Dwain gets to Beijing he is likely to be the best Brit 100m runner, ahead of Lewis-Francis, Devonish etc. Plus I think it's highly unfair that if he happened to have been born in a different country he would be sailing to the Games as long as he passed the trials.
Can't the necessary people put their heads together and think of some across-the-board ban that would apply to all countries the same?
Chambers a fighter...thats a new one!
Personally I'd just call him desperate
Apparently,Mr Chambers & that woman 400m World champ with the unpronounceable name,turned up at our BMAF Indoor Champs at Enfield demanding to use the Indoor Track for training.This was whilst the meeting was in progesss with 500+ Veteran Athletes running around.
Suffice to say, they were given short shrift by our crabby old officials.I believe the woman served a drugs ban as well.
How incredibly arrogant of the pair of them.
You really think Chambers is the only one ?
Get real guys ........ the others just haven't been caught yet.
And only when the medical teams become more skilled and better paid than the athletes medical teams will this change.
One step ahead most of the time and very rarely do they slip up ............ but when they do, we get a Chambers like frenzy.
I have seen first hand what these people are capable of ............
So he just won on the telly - the man has no shame i tell ee!
The ban rule is 16 years old and he knew the risks - he should sling his flaming hook.
Now then, now then,
He went to the drugs test and (or they came to him) and he allowed it to happen. He was banned.
Ohurohoruuuuooo, or whatever her name is, avoided the drugs test , was banned for 6months (?) and is selected.
For me it should be Ohouroruhouoouu who has the longer ban. By evading the testers she has thrown the whole testing procedure into disaray and removes the integrety of the whole tesing process.
The whole concept of 'clean' athletes is SO outdated!!!
So this is a pointless discussion!
Do you class an athlete as CLEAN if he has took BCAA's for recovery, protein supplementation, creatine that sort of thing? I wouldn't class this as cheating but some people do.
Of course there are clean athletes according to the fact they have never taken a BANNED substance, but the debate is up there for what is and isn't enhancing one's performance incorrectly (isn't it? more experienced bloggers help me with what I am trying to say!!! lol)
You may find this article by sports performance choach Emma James interesting
www.emmajamesport.co.uk/#/comingback/4527252215