Dwayne Chambers
Discussion
NO, he should have been banned for life, what about all the 'drug free' people he beat.
And if he is now running and winning, he is still being rewarded for taking drugs as any muscle gain he received has stayed with him.
What a great role model he is to any youngsters training for the London olympics
And if he is now running and winning, he is still being rewarded for taking drugs as any muscle gain he received has stayed with him.
What a great role model he is to any youngsters training for the London olympics
After reading a bit of his book, i found it surprising to read that after the 30k he spent, the stomach cramps and all the other side effects, he improved by .1 of a second. A time that he admits that he would have attained by natural progression as he approached his natural peak.
I think that he should be allowed to continue to earn a wage in a sport that he clearly excels at. However he needs to be more involved in anti drug programs, and for me i don't think he showed be allowed to compete at the olympics, might sound a bit odd to allow him to compete normal meets but not the Olympics, but it's just something i think he shouldn't be allowed to compete in.
Mind you after saying all the the barely disguised finger pointing he has done in his book to a whole raft of other athletes including Coe is mildly eye brow raising.
I think that he should be allowed to continue to earn a wage in a sport that he clearly excels at. However he needs to be more involved in anti drug programs, and for me i don't think he showed be allowed to compete at the olympics, might sound a bit odd to allow him to compete normal meets but not the Olympics, but it's just something i think he shouldn't be allowed to compete in.
Mind you after saying all the the barely disguised finger pointing he has done in his book to a whole raft of other athletes including Coe is mildly eye brow raising.
mickk said:
Bosshogg76 said:
Mind you after saying all the the barely disguised finger pointing he has done in his book to a whole raft of other athletes including Coe is mildly eye brow raising.
I hav'ent read his book, whats he accusing these other runners of?Might sound a bit like sour grapes, but he may have a teeny tiny point!
Bosshogg76 said:
mickk said:
Bosshogg76 said:
Mind you after saying all the the barely disguised finger pointing he has done in his book to a whole raft of other athletes including Coe is mildly eye brow raising.
I hav'ent read his book, whats he accusing these other runners of?Might sound a bit like sour grapes, but he may have a teeny tiny point!
You have to deal with him within the rules of the sport. The rules currently proscribe a 2 year ban. He has served that so is now allowed to compete for Great Britain again. You might not agree with those rules but you can't treat Chambers any differently, you need to get the rules changed if you don't like the outcome.
He's being prevented from competing in many Grand Prix races because the organisers have decided not to invite him. That's their decision but isn't relevant to him competing at championships (other than he'll probably struggle to get race-fit).
In terms of his comments about other athletes, yes we can all have doubts about some performances, but IMO we need to support the testers and take the innocent until proven guilty stance. Where someone does break the rules we need to accept the decisions of the governing bodies and any appeals. If we don't like those decisions we need to get the rules changed.
He's being prevented from competing in many Grand Prix races because the organisers have decided not to invite him. That's their decision but isn't relevant to him competing at championships (other than he'll probably struggle to get race-fit).
In terms of his comments about other athletes, yes we can all have doubts about some performances, but IMO we need to support the testers and take the innocent until proven guilty stance. Where someone does break the rules we need to accept the decisions of the governing bodies and any appeals. If we don't like those decisions we need to get the rules changed.
He definitely deserves a break. He has served his time, now let's move on.
I love the hypocritical nature of the British public, they like to vilify Chambers, yet they are more than happy to bask in the glory of Christine Ohurugu (sp?)
The BOA are also hypocrits. Christine was found guilty of a doping offence yet she is allowed to compete in the Olympics whereas Chambers is not. Why?
I don't deny what Chambers did is wrong, i just want some consistency of justice, either way please.
I love the hypocritical nature of the British public, they like to vilify Chambers, yet they are more than happy to bask in the glory of Christine Ohurugu (sp?)
The BOA are also hypocrits. Christine was found guilty of a doping offence yet she is allowed to compete in the Olympics whereas Chambers is not. Why?
I don't deny what Chambers did is wrong, i just want some consistency of justice, either way please.
mickk said:
he is still being rewarded for taking drugs as any muscle gain he received has stayed with him.
Has it? It is entirely possible that this is the case, given the huge advances in performance-enhancing drug technology in the past 10-20 years. However, it has been the case in the past that once an athlete came off a cycle of well, whatever, those gains would largely be lost and the recovery cycle would be spent trying to hold on to a fraction of those drug-assisted gains.Obviously Dwain Chambers is a naturally-gifted athlete and may well have reached the same levels of performance without resorting to special vitamins. The fact remains that he took them, lost money, respect and a large chunk of his competitive career (although I notice that he's retained his ability to be discrete!).
He's served his ban and is apparently complying with whatever drug-testing requirements are being imposed upon him therefore he should be allowed to compete.
In the grand scheme of things I don't he really matters anyway, given the performances of his contemporaries like Usain Bolt.
Cheers,
Animal
Isn't the ban more to do with stopping others doing what he did?
It's not as if it was a bit of coke or a dodgy smoke or two, this was deliberate cheating. The sport in the past has covered up for the cheats. There was one famous woman athlete who took a couple of years off then came back as world class and everyone sang her praises despite it being obvious what she had done. Even when she died the lie still went on. Such drugs can kill and by taking them you are putting others into a position where they feel they must also cheat to be able to compete.
My son plays in a sport where drugs are a fact of life yet these is little done to check abuse. He's been playing semi-professionally for all this season yet no one in his team has been tested. Yet body mass is important, vital. He's a little on the light side for his preferred position and I am worried about any pressure he might well feel.
In the past he's played alongside those who are now near the top of their sport and he knows full well that some have been at the injections. He was every bit as skilled as many of them and had a great deal more committment yet here he is languishing at semi-pro level. Letting a known drugs cheat back into the squad merely adds more pressure on my lad at an impressionable age.
The problem is that one can't argue logically against drugs taking. It will enhance performance, it will increase speed, it will decrease injury time, you are unlikely to get caught. Add to that that even if you are found out it only costs a season or two then why not give drugs out in the club shop.
It's not as if it was a bit of coke or a dodgy smoke or two, this was deliberate cheating. The sport in the past has covered up for the cheats. There was one famous woman athlete who took a couple of years off then came back as world class and everyone sang her praises despite it being obvious what she had done. Even when she died the lie still went on. Such drugs can kill and by taking them you are putting others into a position where they feel they must also cheat to be able to compete.
My son plays in a sport where drugs are a fact of life yet these is little done to check abuse. He's been playing semi-professionally for all this season yet no one in his team has been tested. Yet body mass is important, vital. He's a little on the light side for his preferred position and I am worried about any pressure he might well feel.
In the past he's played alongside those who are now near the top of their sport and he knows full well that some have been at the injections. He was every bit as skilled as many of them and had a great deal more committment yet here he is languishing at semi-pro level. Letting a known drugs cheat back into the squad merely adds more pressure on my lad at an impressionable age.
The problem is that one can't argue logically against drugs taking. It will enhance performance, it will increase speed, it will decrease injury time, you are unlikely to get caught. Add to that that even if you are found out it only costs a season or two then why not give drugs out in the club shop.
steve z said:
He definitely deserves a break. He has served his time, now let's move on.
I love the hypocritical nature of the British public, they like to vilify Chambers, yet they are more than happy to bask in the glory of Christine Ohurugu (sp?)
The BOA are also hypocrits. Christine was found guilty of a doping offence yet she is allowed to compete in the Olympics whereas Chambers is not. Why?
I don't deny what Chambers did is wrong, i just want some consistency of justice, either way please.
CO's BOA appeal was upheld (the right to appeal is in the rules), Chambers' appeal was not. The panel found no evidence that CO had attempted to deceive the drug testers when she missed the 3 tests in 18 months (and was present for 14 other tests IIRC). Essentially they ruled she was stupid and forgetful rather than a deliberate cheat. Chambers' BOA appeal failed as he was a self-confessed deliberate cheat.I love the hypocritical nature of the British public, they like to vilify Chambers, yet they are more than happy to bask in the glory of Christine Ohurugu (sp?)
The BOA are also hypocrits. Christine was found guilty of a doping offence yet she is allowed to compete in the Olympics whereas Chambers is not. Why?
I don't deny what Chambers did is wrong, i just want some consistency of justice, either way please.
Chambers says he has a right to earn a living from Athletics and, at the end of the day, he's right. If he's fast enough there should be no stopping him competing as an individual providing he has served the punishment given to him.
But I find the halfway house nature of his ban a little strange. He can compete for GB, run in the world champs, but can't run in the Olympics?
It seems to me that he should either be banned completely from representing his country, or be allowed to compete in any event for his country.
I would tend to favour the former. He'll always have the drug spectre hanging around him and he remains an example of a cheat trying to beat the system, failing and then scurrying back with his tail between his legs.
Imagine if he was allowed to compete in London 2012 and won? What kind of example does that set?
He does seem to be a rather unique case though - To my knowledge, GB athletics has never had to deal with an athlete who has served a ban and come back so....good. If he wasn't so talented I think their predicament would be less of an issue.
But I find the halfway house nature of his ban a little strange. He can compete for GB, run in the world champs, but can't run in the Olympics?
It seems to me that he should either be banned completely from representing his country, or be allowed to compete in any event for his country.
I would tend to favour the former. He'll always have the drug spectre hanging around him and he remains an example of a cheat trying to beat the system, failing and then scurrying back with his tail between his legs.
Imagine if he was allowed to compete in London 2012 and won? What kind of example does that set?
He does seem to be a rather unique case though - To my knowledge, GB athletics has never had to deal with an athlete who has served a ban and come back so....good. If he wasn't so talented I think their predicament would be less of an issue.
Muzzer said:
Chambers says he has a right to earn a living from Athletics and, at the end of the day, he's right. If he's fast enough there should be no stopping him competing as an individual providing he has served the punishment given to him.
Unfortunately for him, many of the race organisers are refusing to invite him to their races, so restricting his ability to earn. Whether or not this will continue for the rest of his career will be interesting to watch. As the meets are private businesses I don't think he can legally insist on being invited.Muzzer said:
But I find the halfway house nature of his ban a little strange. He can compete for GB, run in the world champs, but can't run in the Olympics?
It seems to me that he should either be banned completely from representing his country, or be allowed to compete in any event for his country.
This is due to the way the Olympics works - BOA set the rules and select the Olympic teams. For all other internationals UK Athletics set the rules and select the teams. The BOA drug offence rules are more strict than the UKA rules (which are aligned to the IAAF guidelines).It seems to me that he should either be banned completely from representing his country, or be allowed to compete in any event for his country.
Muzzer said:
I would tend to favour the former. He'll always have the drug spectre hanging around him and he remains an example of a cheat trying to beat the system, failing and then scurrying back with his tail between his legs.
Imagine if he was allowed to compete in London 2012 and won? What kind of example does that set?
Well, depending on your point of view, it either shows that someone can make mistakes, learn from them (once caught of course Imagine if he was allowed to compete in London 2012 and won? What kind of example does that set?
) and come back stronger or that cheats continue to prosper. It's the classic "criminal rehabilitation" debate applied to sport.Muzzer said:
He does seem to be a rather unique case though - To my knowledge, GB athletics has never had to deal with an athlete who has served a ban and come back so....good. If he wasn't so talented I think their predicament would be less of an issue.
Case in point is Carl Myerscough - our top shot-putter, banned for 2 years, now competing again and was at this weekend's competition in Turin, but did not make the final and also did not make any headlines. A lot of the furore around Chambers is fueled by his own self-publicising but the media don't half lap it up.Personally I'd rather 4 year bans for drug offences.
Edited by ewenm on Monday 9th March 14:16
What he did is nothing new or unusual. The only difference between him and others is that he got caught. Many of the records of yesterday were drug enhanced. Personally I think they should just allow whatever drugs the athlete wants to take, it's all down to perception.
The greeks in the original Olympics once considered that training for a sport was cheating. There are going to be cheats, and there are going to be cover-ups...perhaps not as much as there was in the 70's/80's and 90's, but it will happen.
The greeks in the original Olympics once considered that training for a sport was cheating. There are going to be cheats, and there are going to be cover-ups...perhaps not as much as there was in the 70's/80's and 90's, but it will happen.
ewenm said:
steve z said:
He definitely deserves a break. He has served his time, now let's move on.
I love the hypocritical nature of the British public, they like to vilify Chambers, yet they are more than happy to bask in the glory of Christine Ohurugu (sp?)
The BOA are also hypocrits. Christine was found guilty of a doping offence yet she is allowed to compete in the Olympics whereas Chambers is not. Why?
I don't deny what Chambers did is wrong, i just want some consistency of justice, either way please.
CO's BOA appeal was upheld (the right to appeal is in the rules), Chambers' appeal was not. The panel found no evidence that CO had attempted to deceive the drug testers when she missed the 3 tests in 18 months (and was present for 14 other tests IIRC). Essentially they ruled she was stupid and forgetful rather than a deliberate cheat. Chambers' BOA appeal failed as he was a self-confessed deliberate cheat.I love the hypocritical nature of the British public, they like to vilify Chambers, yet they are more than happy to bask in the glory of Christine Ohurugu (sp?)
The BOA are also hypocrits. Christine was found guilty of a doping offence yet she is allowed to compete in the Olympics whereas Chambers is not. Why?
I don't deny what Chambers did is wrong, i just want some consistency of justice, either way please.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff