bbc.co.uk Navigation


"Sport is the only human institution based on idealism - it's survived 33 centuries because of that. If it was simply competition it wouldn't have lasted 33 weeks. Anything which is not based on ethics cannot be called sport. If it's a corrupt environment, we can't invite our children into it.

"We must be jealous of that ideal if we're going to bring them into it and every time we see anyone breaking that ethic we've got to jump on them. Otherwise we lose the precious jewel that we hand to the next generation."

Wise words, noble sentiments, and the fact they were published 16 years ago reflects just how poorly they were heeded at the time.

Now, however, with Dwain Chambers' remarkable ride finally over, it is perhaps time to reflect on what Olympic sport really means, or more accurately, what it should mean.

Dwain Chambers at the High Court

That quote comes from Vyv Simson and Andrew Jennings' famous polemic, "The Lords of the Rings: Power, Money and Drugs in the Modern Olympics", and they belong to former athletics coach and BBC presenter, the late Ron Pickering.

It was also 16 years ago, during another Olympic year, that the British Olympic Association (BOA) added by-law 25 to its statute book.

Incensed by what he saw as elite sport's credibility ebbing away with each new doping scandal, BOA chairman Sir Arthur Gold decided to put Great Britain on a lofty moral pedestal.

From that moment forth, all British drugs cheats would be banned from ever representing their country again at an Olympics.

And so they remain...but only just.

When Gold took that principled stance he hoped Britain would be setting an example the rest of the world would want to follow.

He was wrong - and hasn't sport suffered as a result. While Rome has burned, too many of sport's numerous Neros have fiddled.

When Chambers took his case for inclusion in Team GB at Beijing to the High Court on Thursday, he went armed with the fact that if he came from any other country other than here or China he would already be clutching his Olympic kit and credentials.

Nowhere else has matched the Gold standard. International sport's supposed moral guardians - the various associations, committees and federations - have not been much better either.

So while Chambers stays at home this summer, with only that long walk to the sunset to contemplate, American sprinter Torri Edwards, Greek star Katerina Thanou and who knows how many other drugs cheats from other nations can look forward to a fortnight in the limelight.

Recent months have seen his case take on a staggering amount of emotional baggage. To some he has become athletics' answer to Mike Tyson, the baddest man in the planet: to others he has become an unlikely hero, the victim of prejudice.

He is neither. As his ex-coach John Regis told the BBC after Mr Justice Mackay's ruling was announced, Chambers is a nice guy who made a very bad choice.

But he also said cheats cannot prosper. It was a sentiment repeated by the next two athletes contacted by the BBC, ex-swimmer Sharron Davies and Chambers' old team-mate Iwan Thomas.

Both expressed sympathy for the 30-year-old Londoner, who has won over a large section of the British public in recent months with his now legitimate performances on the track and affable nature off it, but said the judge's call was correct.

For me, this was always a very, very difficult call to make.

On the one side I could see a sport in danger of becoming as credible as pantomime wrestling. And on the other I could see a young man being punished without any chance of rehabilitation, and demonised beyond all proportion to his crime.

But it is the first view that has become more relevant, more pressing, as time has passed. And while that is unfortunate for Chambers, it is essential for athletics and sport in general.

Chambers will be floored by this crushing setback

Quite simply, the sport Chambers initially returned to from his two-year suspension in 2005 is not the same sport he attempted to pick up again this year.

The seismic shocks caused by events in the US - events which have left the sport there teetering on the brink of Wrestlemania - have changed the landscape everywhere.

The irony is that from purely legal point of view, Chambers should probably be going to the Olympics.

It is clear from the early accounts of what happened in Court 76 that the ruling went against Chambers for two significant reasons: one, judges' long-standing reluctance to get involved in the parish problems of organised sport, and two, the late notice of this challenge.

The BOA played a canny game last week in persuading the court there was no time for a proper review of the by-law's legality. By postponing that review to a date which will now presumably remain forever in the future, Chambers could only ask for an injunction, which is, in effect, an emergency exemption.

But where was that sense of emergency?

Chambers became ineligible from ever competing at an Olympics for Britain again the moment his positive drugs test was confirmed in 2003. There has been ample opportunity for a proper challenge in the five years since.

But by waiting until the week before Team GB must be finalised, Chambers' case looked like a piece of legal sleight of hand, and Mackay clearly did not want to be used in that fashion.

There is also the question of strategy. Chambers' lawyers argued the by-law was a restraint of trade. That is a difficult charge to make stick when the Olympics are supposed to be about glory, not money.

No, the best argument Chambers had was the double jeopardy implications of the BOA's hard-line stance.

He had already served the penalty his sport deemed sufficient for his offence, the British by-law was a cruel and unusual sanction that punished him twice. This is the potential flaw in the BOA's position that former World Anti-Doping Agency boss Dick Pound identified earlier this year.

If any good can come from this saga it is that the rights and wrongs of the by-law have been aired in public, athletes have been asked to examine their consciences and the moral centre has held.

But most of all, perhaps now the torch Gold lit in 1992 can be picked up by the rest of the world.

It is fitting that the only country to do so already, China, is hosting this summer's Games. Olympic hosts should be held to a higher standard, they, after all, set the tone.

Let's hope that when the world gathers in London in four years' time it will be a standard shared by everybody.

Matt Slater is a BBC Sport journalist focusing on sports news. Our FAQs should answer any questions you have.


Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 2:36pm on 18 Jul 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    Matt - it's a by-law that has been tested and found wanting too many times.

    I ask you to make the same comments about Christine Ohuruogu. She too was found (under the rules) to be a 'drugs cheat' - the matter that she failed to appear for testing on three occasions is not the issue here, it is that she was under BOA statue a 'drugs cheat'. She has now been admitted back into the fold, and allowed to compete at the Olympics. The question one must ask, is why the BOA are so willing to accept the apologies and regret of one athlete and yet fail to do the same with another.

    That question lingers long into the future too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 3:14pm on 18 Jul 2008, grumpy wrote:

    Christine Ohuruogu was the first person I thought of when I head the result of the case this morning. I personally don't think she took anything myself, but given Victor Conte's assertion that missing tests was an easy way for athletes to avoid positive tests - and was used as such - to not apply the same rules is surely incorrect.

    Put it this way - if I take drugs and get caught, it's a two-year ban and no Olympics, if I take drugs and miss tests to avoid detection, it's a one-year ban and then off to Beijing.

    Again, I'm not accusing Christine Ohuruogu of taking anything - I don't think she did at all - I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the rules.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 3:17pm on 18 Jul 2008, Portugal OUT of the EU wrote:

    Hope we invite Chambers to compete for Portugal. His Portuguese language skills are totally irrelevant as he would serve us very honourably and would do his very best to bring home a few more medals. The Olympics are just another competition where the aim is to win and achieve glory and not to pander to too many morals. Compete for Portugal! You are welcome Mr Chambers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 3:22pm on 18 Jul 2008, cadifblues wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 5. At 3:26pm on 18 Jul 2008, Lenny wrote:

    I personally think that the decision is correct. He has proved himself to be untrustworthy and a liar and as such we cannot guarantee he is clean (although this point potentially applies to anyone).

    I do not think that he should get another shot at the expense of another athlete. I pity the the athletes who have come second to him in the past. What about their claim for "unfair restraint of trade"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 3:29pm on 18 Jul 2008, diamondsugary wrote:

    I do feel it for Dwain, y did he took drugs, i really dont know, he didnt need it. The guy is too good to be taking drugs, now its cost him.

    Anyways hats off to you Dwain. It doesnt matter what other think but you are one of britains best sprinter and u will be a lost, simeone williamson to follow ur steps

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 3:30pm on 18 Jul 2008, PAG1961 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 8. At 3:31pm on 18 Jul 2008, Stev wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 9. At 3:36pm on 18 Jul 2008, tinyTimbolina wrote:

    I think Chambers was perfectly entitled to appeal - although I agree with the decision - and now should let it be.

    After all, he's had plenty of media attention and I'm sure him and his agent knew whatever the result, he is going to get some cash via interviews etc.

    So win-win for him to appeal and can't say I blame him.

    Glad he didn't win the appeal though - it would be unfair to know the risks beforehand, get caught, but still get the reward.

    The Olympics is only just keeping its credibility and general "specialness" - a different result and it may have changed it totally for me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 3:37pm on 18 Jul 2008, braxious wrote:

    im glad chambers lost - imagin the scene - 100 metres final BANG the runners race - chambers wins - now will you think wow what a fantastic race and didn't chambers run the race of his life? OR will you think what drugs did he take this time???

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 3:37pm on 18 Jul 2008, smarshall465 wrote:

    It's interesting to look at photographs of Chambers now and 3 months ago. His body shape has changed very noticeably and if I were to be cynical I would suspect that he had continued to use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs whilst he was disbarred from competing and stopped at the point where he became liable to testing again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 3:39pm on 18 Jul 2008, dtriggs wrote:

    The decision is wrong I think. He served his ban, and why punish him further. We are the only country to impose these ridiculous conditions. The fact its the Olympics is irrelevant. Either you are allowed to run or not. He can represent his country elsewhere just not the Olympics. We are taking the ethical high ground then participating in China ??? Double standards if ever i have seen them. Other countries allow you after a ban to come back, as they want to actually win. We prefer to just take part.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 3:40pm on 18 Jul 2008, BrucieB wrote:

    What ideals?
    Well, hypocrisy: clearly the by-law is legally flawed, yet its held up as the best most wonderful invention. no, its just a bad excuse.
    On the other side, what about forgiveness? there is none. despite the guy doing his best to turn everything around, he still gets painted a cheat - forever. so much for the benefits of reform.
    As for ethics ... if the BOA had any, it would recognise that Chambers has the moral victory, and admit a technicality should not prevent him running, and let him do so.
    Then there might be hope for "purity" in sport.
    This is a lose/lose situation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 3:46pm on 18 Jul 2008, pvandck wrote:

    "BOA chairman Lord Moynihan said the judge's decision had vindicated the by-law, which has been on the books for 16 years."

    Lord Moynihan obviously hasn't listened to what the Judge has said. He comes across as smug and gloating when neither he nor the BOA, nor UK Athletics have anything to be proud of. There is no redemption in their eyes and I sincerely hope one day they get their comeuppance. A sad day!

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 3:47pm on 18 Jul 2008, lukedunstan wrote:

    I feel for Dwain I think he had served his punishment and this message is sending a message but at expense of talent. Everyone deserves a second chance especially in sport and apparently Britain is a nation where tradition seems to take priority over forgiveness.
    Anyway as a fellow Brit but living in the USA now I will just laugh when the media attacks our sub expectation performances in track and field. When we deny the highest talent any chance of reform.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 3:54pm on 18 Jul 2008, Stev wrote:

    "why punish him further."

    Ok can we finally put this to bed, i see this type of comment a lot when ever Chambers is mentioned.

    The FACT is Chambers isnt being punished further, the by law in question was in effect long before Chambers was ever found guilty of taking banned substances. He knowingly took the risk of being no longer elegible when he made the choice to use performance enhancing drugs.

    He isnt being punished, he no longer meets the selection criteria for the GB team, that is why he is excluded, and rightly so.

    If the law wasnt there or had been instigated soley for chambers infraction, then yes you could argue the case that he is being punished unfairly, however it wasnt and he isnt.

    THIS IS NOT FURTHER POUNISHMENT, IT IS THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS.

    And Chambers isnt man enough to stand up and take it. Basicly the shoe is on the wrong foot now and he doesnt like it so will continue to take up his psuedo moral campagin to be reinstated, unjustly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 4:04pm on 18 Jul 2008, octobermist wrote:

    sorry that Dwayne Chambers had been refused to join in the Olympics.
    He should have known that you don't get a second chance here in Britain........only if you're a murderer or a child molester...then you get let out to try it all again....and again.......

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 4:11pm on 18 Jul 2008, DonKhalito wrote:

    Yes, he should never have used drugs. Having said that, even without drugs, he's still Britain's fastest sprinter. That says something about the state of the field ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 4:18pm on 18 Jul 2008, jolshopsatoxfam wrote:

    To ban someone for life, from anything, denies the power of redemption and forgiveness. Ban them from all competition for four years, never make a lifetime ban. It just does not make sense on moral, practical or legal grounds.

    I hope another nation allows Dwaine to compete for them. It would be a nice ending to the story.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 4:18pm on 18 Jul 2008, arathrael wrote:

    A life ban as deterrent is just posturing. It does nothing whatsoever to discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

    Anyone who's considering the use of drugs isn't winning. From their point of view, they risk getting banned from something they feel unable to compete in without the aid of drugs. That's an empty threat.

    A life ban is extreme. It allows no possibility for forgiveness and redemption. The justification for a life ban has to be strong indeed.

    The only real basis for a life ban is scientific proof that the long-term benefits of the usage of performance-enhancing drugs justify it, and even that's debatable.

    But regardless, it will do nothing to prevent the usage of performance-enhancing drugs. If they really want to take a hard line, there has to be punishment outside the sport, e.g. criminal prosecution.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 4:29pm on 18 Jul 2008, gerbs17 wrote:

    He knew drugs were bad, mmmmkay but chose to ignore this, he thought he would win the appeal and lost, not a great gamble to taqke. Sends out a great message to the world, that drugs are bad!!!!!
    Heman and Captain planet were right, lol babes x

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 4:32pm on 18 Jul 2008, thunderousgazzyd wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 23. At 4:33pm on 18 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    If it's possible that just one young athlete will feel less incined to take drugs and suffer long term health problems as a result of Dwain's "martyrdom" thats fine by me. He will probably earn much more(through media gigs) than of those who are foolish enough to stay clean. At least some of those who support Dwain seem to find it necessary to attack other athletes. Most retired athletes support the ban. Many current athletes seemed scared to express that opinion. Maybe they feel intimidated and I don't mean by Steve Cram, Kelly Holmes etc..
    We have to remember that even if Dwain is now clean the pushers of performance drugs will want to see the ban go. It's a huge business opportunity for them. Could these pushers have the same kind of friends in organised crime as we see with "recreational" drugs dealers? I don't pretend to know the answer but you cannot help but wonder.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 4:37pm on 18 Jul 2008, thunderousgazzyd wrote:

    i personally see very little difference with Linford Christie, he was also banned for using drugs but as he gained success it is somehow seen acceptable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 4:40pm on 18 Jul 2008, gerbs17 wrote:

    To reply to the Linford Christie issue, he has now lost the reputation, used to be an icon is now not x

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 4:46pm on 18 Jul 2008, thunderousgazzyd wrote:

    But he still has his gold medal. Dwain is being punished twice after serving his ban and being clean. Why isnt linford's ban for the course of his lifetime olympics?

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 4:46pm on 18 Jul 2008, Hoggy1972 wrote:

    Whats really sad about the story is that after years "out of the sport" chambers is still our fastest sprinter.

    What have all the other young sprinters been doing whilst Dwain has been banned? Whoever goes to the olympics will be lucky to make the final anyway, with the times they have been running this season. All a bit embarrassing really.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 4:49pm on 18 Jul 2008, logicalopinion wrote:

    This is a sad day for Dwain, but more importanatly it is a sad day for British Athletics and British law.

    This was not just about Dwains eligability to be able to compete at the Olympics, but this debate also found wanting many peoples ability to show compassion and fairness for another human being, who has shown accountability for their past moral misdemeanors.

    Unfortunately, it was quite obvious that his fate was sealed when the judge unecessarily allowed the case to be postponed, in order to enable Lord Moynihan to finish his business and return home for the hearing.

    This saga has clearly shown British athletics to be full of biggoted hypocrites, who feel that they have the right to callously and methodically demonise and openly victimize another human being, in the name of justice.

    Their incitiment of other athletes, past and present, in order to meet their own ends, was not only wrong but just plain disgusting, and reeked of desperation. It should not have been tolerated or even exagerated by the media.

    Far from vindicating the BOA's stance, the judges decision has shown that the point of law is open to the influence of the more powerful governing bodies involved in sport, and can be overriden by their own bylaws. This is wrong.

    For many years now I have been involved in athletics, only to become increasingly disalusioned by the way those who govern our sport pick and choose those rules to which they wish to abide by.

    It is they, and not the Dwain Chambers of this world, that have brought our sport into disrepute. It is their political clickiness behind the scenes, that is failing us all.




    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 4:49pm on 18 Jul 2008, jamie1976 wrote:

    Legally, as the Judge very heavily indicated, the BOA do not have a leg to stand on. The tub thumping now being none is very pathetic. I feel it is right morally that he is not going, but to allow him to run for team GB at the Worlds and not the Olympics is clearly wrong.

    One day someone will get the By-Law found illegal in court and the BOA will be bankrupted. If the BOA has any sense it will amend it's "Do what we jolly well feel like chappies" rule, which is basically what it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 4:57pm on 18 Jul 2008, bobpzero wrote:

    id like to say what if david millar was given a life time ban from cycling. dwain wants to prove to the greatest level he can compete clean from now on. so all the politics and judges are being seriously ignorant. well ill be watching the british cycling team as theyre the only ones who can win.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 5:02pm on 18 Jul 2008, matti76 wrote:

    I agree with the verdict - people are saying that Chambers deserves a second chance, but they forget that he is being given one, just with a few qualifications. He can still compete and earn a living, but just not at the Olympics. This is fair enough, I think.

    In some professions, if you disgrace the name, you are banned from ever working in them again. The individual's demands cannot always come first - a balance has to be struck between forgiveness and second chances, and trying to protect the integrity of sport (often a lost cause, I know.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 5:02pm on 18 Jul 2008, theethayorkie wrote:

    we are supposed to live in a christian society i.e forgiveness etc so here we are he has served his sentence done his time that should be it i dont agree with what he did but he got caught put his hand up and served his dues

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 5:05pm on 18 Jul 2008, CCSIceman wrote:

    If he hadn't been caught, would he still be taking drugs?
    I think he would, so for me its right that he can not compete in the Olympics.

    Just look at the Tour de France, They all know they're going to be tested, but they still think they can escape being caught.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 5:09pm on 18 Jul 2008, Dot wrote:

    Totally agree with the verdict! If the ruling had gone in his favour then who knows how rife cheating in the form of drug taking to enhance performance would become. Dwain knew all the rules and decided to ignore them so now he must face the consequences. We do not want drug cheats or indeed any other kind of cheat in sport as this sends out quiote the wrong message to our aspiring youth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 5:12pm on 18 Jul 2008, sladeywadey wrote:

    In response to bobpzero and thunderousgazzy d, both David Miller and Linford Christie have also been given life bans from competing or coaching at any Olympics. Miller however, confessed to his drug offences immediately rather than first denying it, then telling us a bit of info and then finally coming clean 5 years after he was caught.
    Chambers knew what he was doing, knew what the punishment was both interms of a 2 years suspension and an Olympic ban and still went ahead and cheated. We bleated last year, quite rightly, that the girl who pipped Kelly Sotherton to 2nd place could have benefited from her drugs despite having served her suspension. Are we such a fickle sporting nation that we'll welcome back a Brit in the same circumstances so he can reach a final and then bottle it like he usually did even when on drugs?
    I don't want to sound like a Daily Mail reader but if he can't do the time, don't do the crime!

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 5:14pm on 18 Jul 2008, mcmagic82 wrote:

    "We've lost our best sprinter, but our best sprinter's best time this year is only just scraping into top 10 in the world, so his prospects of a medal were only very slim anyway". A comment made by BBC Radio 5 Live sports news correspondent Gordon Farquhar regarding Dwain Chambers losing his appeal to over-turn his BOA ban.

    If this is the case, and the attitude, then why are we sending anyone to compete in the men's 100m competition Beijing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 5:20pm on 18 Jul 2008, CumbriansJez wrote:

    Having read the comments I see a staggering inability to comprehend what Chambers has attempted to do.

    The case was brought, not to have the ban overturned but, to grant a temporary injunction to allow him to compete in Beijing, pending a full hearing to ascertain whether the ban is lawful or not. A legal technicality perhaps but a very different position to Adam Parson's comment that Chambers has lost his attempt to overturn his lifetime ban - this is factually incorrect.

    What the judge has said is that Chambers does have leave to appeal but not without a full hearing - i.e. he still has the right to challenge the ban - as this hearing could not be heard until March he is not eligible for selection.

    Please could we have accurate reporting?

    As regards the blogs what we have on the site is for the most part the usual dredging up of the facts of historic cases which are well-known - this is boring and serves no purpose.

    There is no excuse for drug-taking in sport - the reason this issue arises is due to the lack of a co-ordinated worldwide drugs policy - until this happens athletes will always challenge perceived discrimination.

    Such a policy is the key to avoiding this media frenzy which serves no purpose but to sell newspapers, generate airtime and pictures. It is shameful and detracts attention from those athletes who are clean and producing incredible performances because that is rather boring to the media.



    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 5:22pm on 18 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    At least I know I won't be watching any Olympics now.

    This whole saga has shown me exactly how low the UKA and the BBC will stoop just to get their way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 5:24pm on 18 Jul 2008, Tommo wrote:

    Good decision by the Judge today. Good for sport and good for the integrity of the Olympics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 5:25pm on 18 Jul 2008, bloggersantosh wrote:

    i like the morality angle - especially since were going to china - that bastion of human rights. or is that
    somehow different cause its outside the stadium?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 5:54pm on 18 Jul 2008, RogerSacks wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 42. At 5:59pm on 18 Jul 2008, Mark wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 43. At 6:00pm on 18 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    Bobpzero

    Like almost everyone who complains about Dwain's unfair treatment you base your opinion on lies someone has told you. The cyclist David Millar IS BANNED from the Olympics FOR LIFE. Like Dwain he can now compete in other events having served his two year ban. Unlike Dwain he does not want the rules changed for himself alone.

    logicalopinion

    The real hypocrites here are those people who in order to support Dwain have verbally abused and even lied about others. Dwain has been treated NO DIFFERENTLY to other British sports who received a two year drug ban.

    What we need is to persuade all international bodies to issue mandatory life bans. This is no different to treatment received by workers who defraud employers or colleagues. In most cases they go to jail and cannot return to their original career. Dwain is simply banned from the Olympics. He had years to bring this case but saved it for the last minute ... why?
    The whole thing is a publicity stunt and he will make a fortune. He earned every penny by his SELF INFLICTED humiliation.

    I would not want kids of mine involved in athletics because it is clear that most young athletes are scared to speak out and may well feel obliged to take this stuff to avoid threats far more serious than Olympic bans. The dealers are far more powerful than the sports authorities and they are using Dwain as a stalking horse even though I am sure that is not his wish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 6:02pm on 18 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    Roger Sacks

    I've just noticed your stoned to death and sentenced to death piece.

    Sorry but you have seriosly lost it mate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 6:06pm on 18 Jul 2008, eposmike wrote:

    I am please that the ban has been upheld. The one thing we British think about ourselves is that we show the rest of the world how sport should be played - fairly. I would have been ashamed if he had gone to China and won a medal. We would have been celebrating a cheat winning for us.

    Now how can we get this message across to our footballers?

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 6:07pm on 18 Jul 2008, rasputinman wrote:

    This is all a farce really, the drug tests are done at random and therefore not on the whole of the olympic community at large all the time. The man made a mistake and used drugs , was punished and wished to come back in the sport clean for his country.

    How many of the current olympians are clean , unless all athletes are tested before each and every event then we cant know for sure , so the ones who cheat with drugs are the ones who test positive at that time , the ones that arent tested may or may not be cheating , how do we know....
    Anyway , quite clearly the olympics is about excellence and if Dwain does not go then it quite clearly shows that we do not care if the best athletes from this country go or not.. Therefore I shan't be watching the olympics and the british team does not get my support

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 6:10pm on 18 Jul 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 48. At 6:14pm on 18 Jul 2008, ManofMunster wrote:

    rogersacks, i reckon had jesus come on the scene 2000 years later, the issue of chambers' participation in the beijing olympics would have been well down his to-do list.

    as has been pointed out here, the only way the instance of drugs taking will be minimised in sport is if olympic associations worldwide (in fact, sports organisations worldwide) come to some agreement on a life-time ban for drugs cheats.

    if the upside is making millions by being one of the world's fastest men, and the only downside is a two-year ban if caught, then that dangling carrot is always going to appeal to a significant minority (although i'm not sure 'minority' is accurate when talking about 100m sprinters).

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 6:15pm on 18 Jul 2008, ilikeALLathletics wrote:

    Judging from what I read....the ban hasn't been upheld, just that the judge has decided he will not grant an injunction to allow Dwain to compete in Beijing.

    Far from being an apologist for drug cheats, but UKA and the BOC have behaved absolutely disgustingly in this whole situation, and the lack of consistency in applying their own laws is laughable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 6:18pm on 18 Jul 2008, Canadiancharles wrote:

    Noble, uplifting words Matt. but in the end that's all they are ,words, in a world that is full of hypocrisy.
    These 'noble' olympics are being held in a country whose human rights record is appalling.
    The olympic process of selection is as flawed as the games themselves and has been proven to be corrupt.
    The games themselves have, since as far back as 1936 been a tool of international politics. That's why the claim that we musn't drag the athletes into political squables is just as hypocritical. Merely by taking part, they become involved in the politcal game.
    So, to sum up, taking this moral high ground over one athlete who cheated is just another laughable example of the hypocrisy of it all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 6:19pm on 18 Jul 2008, namwobniloc wrote:

    Law is very important. Law which is consistently applied, and accepted because we agree it is good law, is essential if we are to see fairness.
    Bad law or poor law, where we end divided as to whether it should continue to be applied, or in some disagreement as to its fairness when it is applied, is law which requires review.
    To say: "The irony is that from purely legal point of view, Chambers should probably be going to the Olympics"; is to say all that need be said. The views (ideals) of a small group are to trump law. Whatever the rhetoric this is then clothed in, this is bad news.
    If, under law, "Chambers should .. be going to the Olympics": then anything which obstructs that, is not just; by definition and if we take law seriously.
    When we let individuals or largely unaccountable groupings act as if above the law, then we reverse the course of a civilisation which has striven to regulate human occurrence through law. To argue that (some individual's or group's) ideals should trump law, is to revert to something primal.
    It might not look, to everyone, as if this covers the Chamber's case, it depends upon what you emphasise. You can focus on what the judge offered as the detailed justification for his judgement, for example. Step far enough back however, and take in enough of the whole picture, and its a straight choice between the rule of law, and somewhat arbitrarily (BOA) selected Olympian Ideals. I would choose the rule of law, and being part of the twenty-first century global community, every time.
    Sport too often begs the indulgence of not being part of the world the rest of us live in. When that extends to acting as if above the law, then the (pundits for) sport go too far.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 6:24pm on 18 Jul 2008, RogerSacks wrote:

    What was it that Jesus Christ told the manic crowd and woman accused of Adultery, as a crowd of people were about to 'Stone Her To Death' ? He bent down and started to draw something in the sand just in front of him and first looked up at the crowd above him, saying to them - "Let anyone without sin cast the first stone !" Gradually the manic crowd dispersed one by one until only He, our Lord and Savious Jesus Christ remained there with the woman. He then turned to her and said, "Go away and sin no more !" This is what I say to each one of you and to Sir Arthur Gold and The British Olympic Association and specifically to the presiding Justice in this case. Dwain Chambers has served his sentence, repented of what he has done and turned away from the sin that he had committed. This in itself has been proved beyond doubt. No-one is above the 'Law of this Land', and all of our Laws have been based upon 'God's Laws and Commandments found within the Bible'. If God's Only Son Jesus Christ tells us to follow these Laws explicitly and shows us just how to administer them fairly, legally, ethically, and morally and shows us through His Word and By His action just what to do in a Crisis like this - then we must adhere to what He tells us. Mathew 17 tells us that God's voice came out from beyond a bright cloud and said to Jesus Deciples, "This is my dear Son, LISTEN TO HIM !" God is telling us to do this in a '3 DIMENSIONAL WAY'. Don't just listen to Jesus words and take no notice or interpret them in your own way, but listen to precisely what He says, live the very life of what is contained in the words that Jesus tells us. Think like Him, taste the very morality of what he says, drink His refreshing existance and dwell upon every mannerism of Jesus and DO PRECISELY WHAT JESUS WOULD DO IN EVERY INSTANCE AND IN EVERYTHING YOU COME AGAINST. "ASK WHAT WOULD JESUS DO IN THIS VERY INSTANCE OVER THIS VERY MATTER BEFORE MAKING YOUR OWN DECISION?" Has anyone ever taken any enhancing medication or paid privately to enhance their performance in asserting themselves in any way in order to perform better than any other person that they are in competition with at school or in a work environment? This is in fact unfair on the other competitors in everything we do - especially if they cannot afford to do what we are doing. Do you find yourselves right now feeling the guilt and shame of having done this? Do we go to the police and asked to be punished when we see that we are speeding or have carved someone up on a roundabout or driven over a Zebra Crossing when someone is waiting to cross it? Well, we are just as guilty as Dwain Chambers by doing this, we too have cheated and it doesn't matter how big the 'stage' is either! What the British Olympic Committee has done to Dwain Chambers is just as bad as what Dwain Chambers did. However, the Law of This Land states that once the sentence has been served and Justice is done, then the person is a FREE MAN. What the British Olympic Association has done is they have overridden the Law of this Land and served a 'Death Sentence' on Dwain Chambers. By doing this - those who have taken drugs will see no light at the end of the tunnel to give them any reason to repent of their sins and sin no more! God and His only son Jesus Christ would have allowed Dwain Chambers to compete again at the very highest level. Only those who have something to hide or who are not FREE of sin would not.

    Roger Sacks

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 6:28pm on 18 Jul 2008, RogerSacks wrote:

    What was it that Jesus Christ told the manic crowd and woman accused of Adultery, as a crowd of people were about to 'Stone Her To Death' ? He bent down and started to draw something in the sand just in front of him and first looked up at the crowd above him, saying to them - "Let anyone without sin cast the first stone !" Gradually the manic crowd dispersed one by one until only He, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ remained there with the woman. He then turned to her and said, "Go away and sin no more !" This is what I say to each one of you and to Sir Arthur Gold and The British Olympic Association and specifically to the presiding Justice in this case. Dwain Chambers has served his sentence, repented of what he has done and turned away from the sin that he had committed. This in itself has been proved beyond doubt. No-one is above the 'Law of this Land', and all of our Laws have been based upon 'God's Laws and Commandments found within the Bible'. If God's Only Son Jesus Christ tells us to follow these Laws explicitly and shows us just how to administer them fairly, legally, ethically, and morally and shows us through His Word and By His action just what to do in a Crisis like this - then we must adhere to what He tells us. Mathew 17 tells us that God's voice came out from beyond a bright cloud and said to Jesus Disciples, "This is my dear Son, LISTEN TO HIM !" God is telling us to do this in a '3 DIMENSIONAL WAY'. Don't just listen to Jesus words and take no notice or interpret them in your own way, but listen to precisely what He says, live the very life of what is contained in the words that Jesus tells us. Think like Him, taste the very morality of what he says, drink His refreshing existence and dwell upon every mannerism of Jesus and DO PRECISELY WHAT JESUS WOULD DO IN EVERY INSTANCE AND IN EVERYTHING YOU COME AGAINST. "ASK WHAT WOULD JESUS DO IN THIS VERY INSTANCE OVER THIS VERY MATTER BEFORE MAKING YOUR OWN DECISION?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 6:29pm on 18 Jul 2008, RogerSacks wrote:

    Has anyone ever taken any enhancing medication or paid privately to enhance their performance in asserting themselves in any way in order to perform better than any other person that they are in competition with at school or in a work environment? This is in fact unfair on the other competitors in everything we do - especially if they cannot afford to do what we are doing. Do you find yourselves right now feeling the guilt and shame of having done this? Do we go to the police and asked to be punished when we see that we are speeding or have carved someone up on a roundabout or driven over a Zebra Crossing when someone is waiting to cross it? Well, we are just as guilty as Dwain Chambers by doing this, we too have cheated and it doesn't matter how big the 'stage' is either! What the British Olympic Committee has done to Dwain Chambers is just as bad as what Dwain Chambers did. However, the Law of This Land states that once the sentence has been served and Justice is done, then the person is a FREE MAN. What the British Olympic Association has done is they have overridden the Law of this Land and served a 'Death Sentence' on Dwain Chambers. By doing this - those who have taken drugs will see no light at the end of the tunnel to give them any reason to repent of their sins and sin no more! God and His only son Jesus Christ would have allowed Dwain Chambers to compete again at the very highest level. Only those who have something to hide or who are not FREE of sin would not.

    Roger Sacks

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 6:32pm on 18 Jul 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    Apparently my post in 47 contained possible "defamatory" comments - as such, I've rewritten it:

    "All those calling for people who are "drugs cheats" to be banned for life, should remember that people like certain professional footballers are "drugs cheats" for confirmed positive drugs test/missing drugs tests. Imagine the public outcry if you'd banned him/them for life.

    Quite simply, it wouldn't have happened - and therein lies the double standards I mentioned in the 1st post."

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 6:38pm on 18 Jul 2008, eposmike wrote:

    Why don't all the sportmen and women who think cheating is ok go and form their own "Cheats and drug takers games". So long as they don't claim to represent GB I don't mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 6:43pm on 18 Jul 2008, ManofMunster wrote:

    jordan d, i think you underestimate the level of support for life bans being imposed on certain professional footballers who miss drugs tests (who shall remain anonymous) - especially as a liverpool fan ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 6:47pm on 18 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    Look forward to seeing Dwain in the World Championships next year.

    At least the BOA can't enforce their Imperialistic views on them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 6:54pm on 18 Jul 2008, grandslamgeorge wrote:

    i wont be surprised if a white athelete test positive and he is forgiven. as far as i am concerned you cant throw the baby away with the bathing water, and two wrongs dont make a right! he has done enough to merit a fair trial, but as usual the colour of your skin is your sin! wish you the best Bruv! move on!

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 6:57pm on 18 Jul 2008, Nick wrote:

    "hard on Chambers?"

    Yes, because as he is a convicted drug cheat I would have loved him to represent my Country at the OG.

    Get a grip.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 7:01pm on 18 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    Will someone out there help RogerSacks. This is NOT a joke I'm seriously concerned about his mental state. I just hope his submissions are some kind of Joke.

    PS my concern is not over his views on this issue but on his crazy references

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 7:06pm on 18 Jul 2008, receporter wrote:

    AHHH! The Olympics!

    So my personal survey among local Americans while chatting with a good many of them in the in the Orlando area showed the following:

    NOT ONE could name an American Olympic Athelete. After all the publicity over 50% could not tell me which country the Olympics were in this year. Over 30% didn't know it was Olympic year. Only 9% said they would possibly watch the Olympics on TV! Over 90% said drugs in athletic sports were a problem and not being controlled strongly enough!

    So, rest of the world, have a great Olympic month!



    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 7:07pm on 18 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    To all these people who are so happy and over the moon that justice has been done and Athletics can now go back to "normal".

    How do you feel about "controversial drugs cheat" Dwain Chambers wearing a GB vest and representing Great Britain at next years World Athletic Championships?

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 7:09pm on 18 Jul 2008, Bournemouth White wrote:

    It amazes me how Chambers has been so brutally treated by the BOA. We all have opinions on the matter but mine is that this decision is unfair on a guy who has already served his punishment.

    This by-law or whatever it is meant to be is meant to allow GB to take a moral high ground on such matters?

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 7:10pm on 18 Jul 2008, armchairsportsnut wrote:

    This is a fantastic result! I ask why should anyone ever think this by-law is illegal? Its clearly there to send out a loud message that taking drugs will exclude you from taking part in sports flagship event.

    Imagine if, hypothetically speaking, a large number of british sportsmen and women had taken drugs a few years ago and then were all allowed to take part in these Olympics - would we seriously entertain Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Justin Gatland et al in our team for the Olympics? How tarnished would any medals that they subsequently won be?

    I repeat what I've said on other message boards that the Olympics is unique amongst sporting events; its not just about athletics and it needs to stand up and be counted when it comes to drugs cheats. At the moment Britain and China stand alone and its time that other countries who are serious about stopping drug cheats made a stand alongside.

    Look at the example of cycling this week - whole teams are withdrawn from the Tour de France because of one member being found out. Do we hear about those other team members preparing court appeals and shouting about restraint of trade.

    Dwain Chambers should have taken his medicine (excuse the pun) and accepted that the by-law would have protected him had he not succumbed to the drugs. I wonder what he would think if he had been clean and another drug taking athlete had been able to go to the games in front of him if the by-law were not in place? I say he would have been incensed! People are saying he has served his sentence when in fact he hasn't - the by-law was already in place when he cheated and he must have known then that if he was caught he would never be allowed to compete in an Olympics. The by-law is a just one and I believe it is vital it stays.

    To end with I suggest people look at the fundamental principles of Olympism...

    "Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."
    Olympic Charter, Fundamental principles, paragraph 2 - no mention of drugs playing any part whatsoever!

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 7:11pm on 18 Jul 2008, eposmike wrote:

    RE. post 63
    Appalled!

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 7:13pm on 18 Jul 2008, AndyPlowright wrote:

    The Olympics are vile. The selection of a venue is a gross exercise in splashing cash and buttering people up. Yet so many people talk of the Olympics as if it's some incredibly pure event. It isn't so please stop pretending it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 7:15pm on 18 Jul 2008, Bournemouth White wrote:

    It amazes me how Chambers has been so brutally treated by the BOA. We all have opinions on the matter but mine is that this decision is unfair on a guy who has already served his punishment.

    This by-law or whatever it is meant to be is meant to allow GB to take a moral high ground on such matters? When was the last gold medal handed out for being moral? Christine Ohuruogu should also be classed as a drug cheat just like Chambers. Not turning up to 3 drugs tests clearly shows she has something to hide. Yet she is opened back to the BOA with open arms and not a question asked now. Why do we not have Steve Cram all over the BBC slaming how much of a disgrace her inclusion is?

    Chambers has been robbed, a lot like Ben Johnson was all those years ago. Both were caught doing drugs but are you telling me they are the only Olympians not doing drugs?

    I feel sorry for Chambers, he could have been a role model. He made a mistake, admitted it, served his time and got on with things and trained hard to become the best this country has! This is a sad day for British athletics. At least he brought some interest to this sport, which is lets face it, hardly pulling in a crowd these days!

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 7:23pm on 18 Jul 2008, lambo_pc wrote:

    For thoses that claim he is being punished twice over and being unfairly treated since other countries don't have the same rules.

    He knew the rules were in place and the punishments that go with them. So shouldn't now question them.
    America has the death penalty which we don't have but murders over there don't get off of death row just because it isn't a universal punishment for their crime.

    He should accept it and consider himself lucky to compete at all. As I feel the benefit he could have gained by taking drugs 5 years ago could, should he have trained fully throughout the time, be felt now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 7:26pm on 18 Jul 2008, Toe2Toe wrote:

    See all the powerful muscle mass Dwain carries in his legs and torso? That was a result of drugs in the past whose results are still evident.

    British justice has done the right thing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 7:26pm on 18 Jul 2008, Shelfsider35 wrote:

    Chambers will still benefit from the muscle mass he previously gained through cheating.

    I think the decision is the correct on in respect of the olympics

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 7:29pm on 18 Jul 2008, Bournemouth White wrote:

    At 7:26pm on 18 Jul 2008, Toe2Toe wrote:

    See all the powerful muscle mass Dwain carries in his legs and torso? That was a result of drugs in the past whose results are still evident.

    British justice has done the right thing.

    --------------------------


    You clearly know nothing about drugs in sport and athletic training!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 7:30pm on 18 Jul 2008, logicalopinion wrote:

    Anglo_celt

    Like you I wouldn't want any of my children to take up athletics.

    This would not be because of the issues raised here over the last few days concerning the use of drugs. They have their own standards and their own minds, and would not so easily be tempted by those who supply the drugs. Or at least, that is what I would hope.

    NO, it would be more to do with the behind the scenes political click that I would not want to expose them to.

    I have seen too many times that no matter how hard you train or how well you perform, even if you meet all the selctors criteria, you have no guarantee of being picked.

    I've seen too many of my friends achieve the standards set, either win or come in the top three at the trials, only for the selctors to choose a more favoured athlete.

    I wouldn't want them to go through that continual heart ache.

    No matter what you may say on this subject, I know it to be true. It happens all the time. Which is why I don't believe that we always send the best athletes to the games, and also why we are, as a country, not as successful as we should be.

    Even the coaches are a favoured few, who don't always possess the required knowlege to guide our athletes. And who are not always open minded enough to question what they believe to be tried and tested techniques.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 7:35pm on 18 Jul 2008, 2 of 3 wrote:

    For him it's a restraint in trade as his options for meets are very very limited . . . almost non-existent. So his career is over now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 7:42pm on 18 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    Why are people so dumb?

    He will be allowed to repserent GB in any other event other than the Olympics. This is where he had every right to challenge the wavery BOA by-law.

    All the people who say he should never represent Britain ever again because he has used performance enhancing drugs in his past have been frankly duped.

    Whilst you've all been duped by this Dwain is a drugs cheat argument and should be demonised forever, you've all actually missed that he can race in every other race bar the Olypmics.

    How this issue became a Dwain Vs Drugs Vs Integrity of Sport argument, is simply because UKA, the BOA and their mates at the BBC, knew that was the only way to protect the illegal by-law.

    It makes me smile though, knowing that all those who were duped by these very powerful conmen, will have NO CHOICE BUT TO CHEER NEXT YEAR WHEN DWAIN WILL BE OUR BEST HOPE AT THE ATHLETIC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS! LOL

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 7:46pm on 18 Jul 2008, freddawlanen wrote:

    It's a sad indictment of morals in the modern world, when only Britain and China have the decency to ban cheating druggies from competing in the greatest sporting spectacle in the world.

    The IOC should hang their collective heads in shame, as should every other nation that allows any cheat to compete in what is supposed to be a festival of honour, with ideals to match.

    The Olympics has become nothing more than a cash-cow and I for one (maybe the only 1 juding by most comments) feel let down and ashamed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 7:51pm on 18 Jul 2008, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso wrote:

    For Matt Slater, Congratulations on an excellent article. I support your article and I support the stance of China and Great Britain on punishing those who use drugs and play sports. I believe that Drugs has no place in Sports and that the Life Time Ban should serve as an example for those to think clearly and reflect.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 7:52pm on 18 Jul 2008, armchairsportsnut wrote:

    Duped...?! Most of us who have an opinion on this would not consider ourselves duped by anyone. You have to have rules, period. If this by-law is so wrong why on earth is it only now that people start bumping their gums about it? Its been in place for 16 years!!!

    I for one would not be cheering Dwain Chambers next year and its not because I'm claiming the moral high ground either...he did wrong and should not be allowed to represeent his country. I do not hold a grudge - he can still compete for himself as far as I'm concerned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 8:18pm on 18 Jul 2008, grandslamgeorge wrote:

    most idiots making comments here av taken one form of drugs or the other i.e cigarettes (nicotine), speed, marijuana, cocaine or some sort. 52 have said it all. why serve him a death sentence, even fter coming out clean. we all make mistakes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 8:18pm on 18 Jul 2008, pvandck wrote:

    70. At 7:26pm on 18 Jul 2008, Toe2Toe wrote:

    See all the powerful muscle mass Dwain carries in his legs and torso? That was a result of drugs in the past whose results are still evident.

    British justice has done the right thing.


    I expect in your head that might be true but you offer no evidence for the assertion. In the real world, outside your head, it is just not true no matter how much you wish it were so. Steroids and other performance enhancing substances just don't work like that, and neither does the human body.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 8:40pm on 18 Jul 2008, paxmana wrote:

    Good news, Dwain - it's still not over! You can become a citizen of Qatar or Bahrain and run for them! They've nationalized Kenyan and Nigerian athletes, why not a Briton?

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 8:56pm on 18 Jul 2008, boilerbilly wrote:

    Of course rules are rules and you break them at your peril. So the question is - is the rule a good one?

    We should condemn cheats in sport. But what is cheating? Gaining an unfair advantage - as you can have a blatant cheat there is nothing undercover about cheating as such. If an athlete gains advantage by persuading someone to sponsor their training is that an unfair advantage over someone who has no financial support? So cheating is gaining advantage in ways which we arbitarily do not approve of.

    Drugs - another problem area. We approve of dietary supplements (including vitamins), but not steriods. They may be completely different types of drugs but athletes take dietary supplements (even if it is to achieve a balanced diet) because it will help them achieve better performances.

    So I am fed up with people talking about 'drugs cheat' because the concept is too subjective. The fact remains that Dwain broke rules (their quality is not relevant) and that is the end of the matter for him.

    My final point is that if there is no possibility of redemption ( it can be difficult to achieve - I'm not being soft) what sort of society do we have? I'm not religious but the concept of 'there but for the grace of God .......' should be in all our minds.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 9:20pm on 18 Jul 2008, hackerjack wrote:

    This is (and could still be if he goes through with the full hearing) a very important ruling, but not for the reasons that most of you think.

    Yes there is the issue of drugs and 'Olympic Ideals'.

    But for me what is more important is the idea that the BOA could be forced to select someone as not doing so would be a restraint of trade.

    The reason for the attempted restraint (if it is proven to be so) would not actually be relevent. That means that other reasons for non-selection could also be vulnerable to court action. How long before we get a case where an athlete claims restraint of trade because he/she missed the A qualifying mark, or indeed claims that it is discriminatory to exclude someone on the basis of a lesser genetic ability in an event. Taken to the extreme it could mean that I or anyone else could sue and force their participation in the Olympics and any other event.

    Indeed how long before an athlete claims restraint of trade against the IAAF for not being aloud to take legally available performance enhancers?

    How long before a footballer sues for not being selected in a world cup squad? Or to be allowed to switch countries at will?

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 9:21pm on 18 Jul 2008, andyfish71 wrote:

    the saddest thing about this whole week is that there has been a genuinely refreshing bit of althletics news that has had about 2 lines in the papers, with the women's 100m record (GB) being broken. Montell Douglas probably stands as good a chance of progressing through the rounds (barring experience of big events) as Dwayne Chambers?

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 10:23pm on 18 Jul 2008, Eofric wrote:

    If the sole aim was to bring home medals, steal them or make your own. If the aim was to do 200m quickly, get a motorbike. Otherwise follow the rules. Any sport has rules which set the parameters for fair competition. That's what makes it interesting / exciting / unpredictable and thereby gives it purpose. Cheating and allowing cheats defeats the object.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 10:42pm on 18 Jul 2008, nicknb wrote:

    I wanted him to win - so that we could see him run in the Olympics, knowing that HE is clean NOW. At least we would know there was one clean runner - anyone who beats him must be dirty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 10:52pm on 18 Jul 2008, nicknb wrote:

    ahem...not 'anyone who beats him must be dirty' but having one clean world class runner is a useful barometer...

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 11:16pm on 18 Jul 2008, PabloDon wrote:

    Olympics and integrity? Tommy Smith, John Carlos, Jesse Owens or perhaps all those sportsmen of past eras denied entry due to their social class and occupations.
    Athletics and Hypocrisy have always been finely matched in the UK. Coe versus Thatcher over 1980 Moscow boycott. Coe, Cram and others during the "Shamateurism" years when it was illegal to earn money from athletics yet these people blatantly transgressed IAAF and AAA rules at that time. A case of rules and rules.
    Whilst Dwain was morally wrong to attempt to gain unfair advantage from drugs, he has been rehabilitated.
    Finally, what about all those costly training camps at high altitude? Was that an attempt to gain unfair advantage over those athletes/countries unable to afford it.
    Former athletes have even used Dwain to return to the limelight to sport their romantic prose.......integrity they must be joking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:28pm on 18 Jul 2008, PabloDon wrote:

    I've just heard on a news item that British Athletics are suggesting that other countries should follow their lead. While they are on their moral high horse maybe they can lobby for the return of the death penalty in those countries that do not have it like us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:31pm on 18 Jul 2008, TommyOnita wrote:

    This decision will give a wrong message to children, bad for their education.

    Dwain has made a mistake once,
    but he should be given a chance to prove that a person who made a mistake can still rebuild his career and make a success again.

    There will be some athletes from the other countries in the Olympic games who had a drug before. This is totally unfair.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 11:32pm on 18 Jul 2008, lukedunstan wrote:

    Firstly nothing suprises me of the institutionally racist country we live in. It now seems that the 'the blacker the berry the harsher the sentence approach' is being applied to the world of sports and not only crimial justice matters.

    On a second point:
    What can you expect of a nation that champions losers? Maybe we will be successful in dressage or even tiddlywinks

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 00:09am on 19 Jul 2008, AndricusII wrote:

    To BournmouthWhite on comment 68: Christine Ohuruogu was punished in exactly the same way as Chambers in that she was given a lifetime ban from the Olympics. The reason, assuming my memory of this case is accurate, she is now going to the Olympics is that she went to the Court for Arbitration in Sport and argued that as there was no evidence she had taken drugs (and I'm not aware that anyone in authority believed that she had) she hadn't broken the spirit of the bylaw, not to mention that there were recognised difficulties of applying the testing regime in her case, and therefore the lifetime ban should not apply - she won. This is not an argument that Chambers can use, and in any case he sought to wipe the bylaw off the statute books rather than overturn his own personal ban in the sporting courts (possibly because he knew he wouldn't win a case in the CAS?).

    To now make my own comments on this issue: In most fields of life if you act in a certain way knowing that there will be concequences if you are caught, then you clearly believe that the risks are worth whatever you will get out of it. To bleat after being caught that the consequences are too severe is surely hypocritical. Yet this is exactly what Dwain Chambers has done - he took drugs knowing that if caught he would be banned for two years and be unable to represent the UK in the Olympics thereafter, and now he complains that the punisment is too severe.

    As for the lifetime Olympic ban for drugs cheats - if nothing else it is an important symbolic gesture that the taking of performance-enhancing drugs is unacceptible in sport, and since it is the only symbolic gesture that makes this statement should remain. As other commentators have pointed out this ban does not apply to other sporting contests, but then these contests are purely about the winning of medals, they were not set up to be the prime example of a utopian ideal of fair play as the Olympics were and so selection for them should not necessarily use such a restrictive moral code. Having said this I would not be opposed to a ban on representing one's country in a sporting event if one has been proved to have taken performance-enhancing drugs providing enough of the other countries backed us up - a pyhrhic victory isn't particularly enjoyable.

    With regards to the comments on the effects of drugs on the human body, it is a fact that very few studies on the long term effects of drugs have ever been carried out, and as far as I'm aware none have ever been conducted by a body dedicated to hunting out drugs in sport. I believe that the few that do exist, though the numbers involved were small, do suggest that the effects of taking drugs are noticible several years after stopping the treatments. Perhaps someone should do a long-term study involving many volunteers and work out how long the positive effects of drug taking last for, and then we might argue about whether such a ban is right or wrong without both sides having one hand tied behind their back.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 00:30am on 19 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    Why does everyone keep harpin on about the athlete who took drugs debate?

    Dwain is legally and professionly clean now. The only issue is that he has to obey the British only by-law, preventing him from competing at the Olympics.

    What I don't get is how people are using this one indvidual as a pawn in their own selfish crusade against the world of drug cheats.

    Even his harshest critics have to admit that he has been unduly and unfairly targeted and condemned way beyond the level required.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 00:50am on 19 Jul 2008, sladeywadey wrote:

    What's with the race issue that some have mentioned? The issue is not one of colour but one of an athlete that willingly took drugs knowing that if he was caught, he would be banned from future Olympic Games. This is the case with Chambers, David Miller, Linford Christie, Carl Myerscough etc. Race doesn't come into it I'm afraid.
    In addition, if Chambers wanted to run in the Games, why leave it to as late as possible to try to overturn the ban? I'm proud that my nation for once, is taking the lead in something. If others want to follow this lead, great. If not, it doesn't mean to say we can't continue with this ruling.
    Finally, the reason why Chambers can run in World Championships is because that team is selected by British Sthletics. The Olympic Athletic Squad is chosen by the British Olympic Committee.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 01:17am on 19 Jul 2008, Janice_5 wrote:

    Reading through the comments it's been raised a few times that Chambers is now clean, and this has raised the question in my mind :

    How do we know he is currently clean?






    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 01:31am on 19 Jul 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    Janice_5: I think it's the assumption that as someone who has previously tested positive, he'll be subject to testing at meetings more often, not least after last week's Olympics trials.

    No doubt the BOA/Meeting Organisers would have tested him as the winner in the 100m event.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 04:37am on 19 Jul 2008, Roger Shellard wrote:

    I am so glad the ban was upheld. I now live in USA and sport over here doesnt seem able to survive without drug ridden paticipents in most sports.
    Good for the UK board we dont need drug ridden scum in the UK teams we hopefully compete honestly even if we dont win we tried honestly.
    Chambers you gone for ever thankfully as far as sport is concerned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 05:02am on 19 Jul 2008, levdavidovich wrote:

    Yet again a judge has made a political decision as a result of pressure from the British government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 05:48am on 19 Jul 2008, Bob Long wrote:

    It really should be a basic requirement of the IOC, not the BOC, that no drug users are allowed to compete.

    But, regardless of that, the rule was in place when Chambers decided to cheat, so he knew this would happen to him. In fact, he's very lucky. I personally would not allow him into any athletics event at all.

    Running quickly is not such a great or rare skill that we have to scrape around to find people who want to try it. If you can make a living in such a simple, enjoyable, and safe way while there are people risking their lives for little or no pay then you should thank your lucky stars for every day that you can continue to do so, not abuse it and then whine about being caught.

    Chambers needs to get down to the dole office and get a job like all the ordinary people who didn't have his gift to waste.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 07:07am on 19 Jul 2008, nigeweir wrote:

    A great result, a great decision by the court. Everytime Chambers runs, he turns the whole event into a freak show. That clown has even got people turning against the likes of Cram and Coe who were superb athletes who gave us plenty of pleasure. Good Riddance to all the cheats, and that is exactly what Chambers is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 07:08am on 19 Jul 2008, IRSWalker wrote:

    I've seen a lot of comments espousing that British society should show Chambers forgiveness and compassion.

    But allowing him to run in the Olympics would not be forgiveness, it would be vindication - a cheat would prosper.

    He has the opportunity to turn his life to other things - become a vociferous anti-drugs campaigner, perhaps, or a coach who submits his athletes to voluntary as well as compulsory testing.

    We have to take into account that the people who go to Beijing and pull on a British vest are representing a dream for a generation of aspiring athletes. If, like the Americans and Greeks, we send the message that cheating is OK, providing you win, then I can't think of anything less British.

    I like the moral high ground. The air is cleaner. To quote Steve Harley: "You've spoilt the game, no matter what you say, for only metal; what a bore."

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 07:43am on 19 Jul 2008, pcl1111 wrote:

    He was a cheat. He knew there would be a life ban; he did it anyway.

    Punishments are there to punish the offender, but also importantly to deter others.

    The rules are fair, because they are objective.

    If we ignore rules for one person, because he seems sorry or seems like a nice guy, the rules are no longer fair and objective. They are also no longer a deterrent, and therefore become pointless.

    We can as individuals chose to morally forgive a cheat or not - but that should have no bearing on applying the rules - the ban should stay in effect.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 08:15am on 19 Jul 2008, uka2012 wrote:

    The drugs ban of 2 years is insufficient.Thats the problem. For years a lot of the worlds top sprinters were passing tests whilst using drugs. Have you heard of Balco and 'the clear' If we don't take a harder line, I may as well advise my athletes to get on the latest gear. There's only a small chance they will be caught. If they do, well come back in 2 years after and have another go. What about another chance? If I was a drug tester and thought, I know this guys at it, I'll add a little something to the mix for a positive result. Do you really think I would be back doing my job in 2 years? I believe it possible to get to the top without using drugs. A Cheetah (no pun intended) can do 3 times the speed of any man. The limits of athletic achievement have not been approached without drugs. Back to the case in question, nobody is taking athletics seriously anymore and a harder line has to be taken somewhere or no kids will take up athletics and they will be on a street corner taking some other type of drug! Reply to this if you want, but while you are typing I'll be out there coaching running and still plodding round a bit myself!

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 08:27am on 19 Jul 2008, bungalowtour wrote:

    Why is anyone here supporting Chambers on this?
    He has disgraced his sport knowing full well what the consequences would be if he were caught. But now he doesn't like it and sought to unashamedly drag the sport he supposedly loves through further controversy.
    Yes, Chambers has served his 2 year ban, but lets remember that this would (and should IMO) have been 4 years if a deal wasn’t done many years ago to satisfy the two most drug riddled sports – namely cycling and weight-lifting.
    No, I’m sorry but Chambers deserves not one ounce of sympathy. He cheated, he shamed his sport, and he should quietly go back and reflect on all of this with a massive dose of contrition.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 09:59am on 19 Jul 2008, Andy M wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 106. At 10:04am on 19 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    At the end of the day we are beating ourselves up because the international bodies have failed. The BOA bye-law may well be misguided but it has been there for years. Had Dwain challenged the bye law any time in the last4 years he might well have won. His last minute challenge was not to have the bye law removed but to avoid having it applied to him. In other words he wanted to be made a special case. I honestly believe that the whole thing has been a publicity stunt.

    I am not aware of anyone who suggested that David Millar, Carl Myerscough etc should have their ban removed.

    I think that the bye law will be ruled unlawful if it is challenged properley. Internationally we then have to

    a) legalise use of drugs

    b) introduce mandatory lifetime bans and make it criminal .... just like any other kind of fraudulent activity.

    There are arguments for both but the two year ban is clearly not working. It simply discriminates against those who stay clean.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 10:12am on 19 Jul 2008, dudepod45 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 108. At 10:18am on 19 Jul 2008, arathrael wrote:

    A few counter-points to various comments:

    "... allowing him to run in the Olympics would not be forgiveness, it would be vindication - a cheat would prosper."

    That's just wrong. He had his medals stripped and he was ordered to pay back his earnings. He would be vindicated if his medals and earnings were restored, not by later being allowed to compete fairly! Not allowing cheats to prosper means not allowing them to benefit from their cheating - it doesn't mean punishing them for the rest of their life whether they're cheating or not!

    "Punishments are there to punish the offender, but also importantly to deter others."

    A life ban does nothing to deter someone considering cheating. Threatening to ban someone who feels they need to cheat to compete is an empty threat.

    "Yes, Chambers has served his 2 year ban, but lets remember that this would (and should IMO) have been 4 years..."

    He was banned in 2003. Even if it was a 4 year ban he'd be eligible to compete now.

    "I believe it possible to get to the top without using drugs. A Cheetah (no pun intended) can do 3 times the speed of any man. The limits of athletic achievement have not been approached without drugs."

    And you've got to be kidding me. What kind of logic is that? A cheetah can run faster, therefore a man can? In case you hadn't noticed, there's a few differences between cheetahs and men. There's the 'running on four legs' thing to start off with. The maximum speed one species can achieve is not determined by the speed a completely different species can attain!

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 10:35am on 19 Jul 2008, Flt_Lt_Jamie wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 110. At 10:47am on 19 Jul 2008, steeley991 wrote:

    I kind of feel a bit frustrated. Dwain is Britains best sprinter who is extremely talented. Before he took drugs i new he could be an olympic champion for the future.
    But why did he have to take take drugs?
    Maybe he wanted to be that little bit better. I'l never know but what i will know is that he had a great chance to be a world champion and he blew it big time.
    He was probably better when he was off drugs to be honest.
    Should he have been able to run in the olympics?
    NO. Any cheat shouldnt be able to take part in the olympics but i do think that ohuruogu should have the same punishment too.

    Disappointment but not the End of the World!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 10:55am on 19 Jul 2008, darloholic wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 112. At 11:04am on 19 Jul 2008, posivibe wrote:

    It,s is now time for the rules to become consistent for all athletes. Surely the Olympic movement can adopt the principal of not allowing proven drug cheats to compete at any future games, following a ban.

    There still remain inconsistencies on the commercial athletics front also, where I feel Dwaine is being made a bit of a scapegoat in not being allowed to compete at these events because of probable behind the scenes manoeuvring with promoters! Other previously banned athletes have previously been welcomed back after fulfilling their bans.

    Time to be clear methinks

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 11:08am on 19 Jul 2008, darloholic wrote:

    Wow, my comment didn't last long!

    Which vindicates my points!

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 11:56am on 19 Jul 2008, deathcap wrote:

    He had his time, its gone. for him the olympics are over, live with it good bye. find some thing else, oh sorry ! you failed at them too.

    When will these cheats of sport realise they are doing no good for themselves or their sport?

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 2:07pm on 19 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    logicalopinion

    Am I to understand you correctly? You are saying that you know of people who attained the A standard and finished in the first two in the trials (i.e. met all the criteria for automatic selection and not banned) but were left out of the team. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING then please name JUST ONE case because that would certainly been grounds for a discrimination case in the courts. If true I would very strongly support such a case. However if you cannot give one such an example you should not be too surprised if you appear less credible. It is easy to make this kind of accusation but it neeeds to be backed up I hope your not going to disappoint me.

    TO THE REST of Dwains supporters I say....
    I am waiting for JUST ONE of you to say that this Olympic ban should not apply to the other sports people who would also be elligible for Bejing. Until then you will be continuing to claim special favours for the athlete with the biggest publicity team BUT showing NO interest in JUSTICE. I won't hold my breath!

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 2:12pm on 19 Jul 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 117. At 2:35pm on 19 Jul 2008, mwmonk wrote:

    Unfortunately, I believe Chambers is not being punished for taking drugs in the past, he is being punished now for daring to stand up to the establishment and follow his dream.

    If he had said, "Yes Sir, Sorry Sir, Thank You Sir" and tugged his forelock on the way out of the door, everyone would be hoping he would keep on improving and would be backing him to win at the World Championships or the Euros over the next few years.

    Instead he is being bullied, pilloried and abused.

    Britain has let itself down this week - we are a nation that accepts people do occasionally make mistakes, but this lynch-mob out to attack Chambers refuse to countenance that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 2:45pm on 19 Jul 2008, levdavidovich wrote:

    What an absurd pompous article!

    I didn't realise that pomposity was contagious. Did you catch it from Seb Coe?...whoops, sorry, LORD Coe - mustn't forget that. :S

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 3:07pm on 19 Jul 2008, mwmonk wrote:

    Perhaps only Rugby Union is run by a more pompous set of bureaucrats than Athletics.

    Never mind, the football season is just 3 weeks away, and we can then ignore all these poorly run, badly organised, stuck in the dark ages, minor (beacuse they do not want to be major) sports again....

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 3:23pm on 19 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    NOBODY wants to rise to the challenge of POST 115 then!!! Sadly I'm not surprised. Lots of empty rhetoric but no facts and no interest in justice for all.

    PS I am astounded by the number of people who claim to be actively involved in sports etc. but JUST A LITTLE surprised that so few of these experts realise that other athletes have been banned just the same as Dwain.
    If we are going to get hot under the collar and start abusing everyone who holds a different view it helps to have some facts to back up your assertions. I think I'll give up waiting for that to happen!!!!!!!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 3:40pm on 19 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    The British Empire died 50 years ago!

    People here are talking like it still exists and we have to set a moral example to the world.

    No other counries care, and the result of all this is that we won't have a single runner in the Olympic flag ship event, the mens 100m final.

    At least we can hold our heads high, that we are setting an example to the world on how to behave on an international stage.

    This just makes me crack up. The only example that we have set in recent years that the world is aware of, is the invasion of Iraq!

    I bet all the people who think Dwain should be locked up forever also supported the war in Iraq.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 3:49pm on 19 Jul 2008, mwmonk wrote:

    Anglo_Celt:

    I just think that no-one is that interested in your points, because you rant too much!!

    If you allowed others to debate with you, you would hear many sensible points being raised.

    I accept what you say, and can understand you opinions. It is just that you keep on belittling what others say, and when an erudite counter opinion to yours is raised, you go on the attack.

    The zeitgeist in the country regarding Dwain Chambers is that he should have been allowed to compete - he has served his time and come back clean and stronger than everyone else in the UK, ergo give him a break, and everyone else who is in the same situation.

    Unfortunately because you disagree you are not listening to, or understanding the counter argument. Those are fundamental rules of debate.

    The UK is out of step with the rest of the world, and we need to change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 3:52pm on 19 Jul 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    Anglo_celt: I did indeed make reference to your post in my response (the now removed post 116). Apparently it was "potentionally defamatory" - I had suggested that what I've wanted is consistancy in the issue of the ban: If you ban Chambers for cheating, then other athletes (including one who has prominantly been let back into the fold) should also be banned. Apparently I'm not allowed to name that athlete, although they (singular) have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 4:21pm on 19 Jul 2008, laughingSpartan wrote:

    Seems like my post's are so blatantly honest and tell it like it is, they wont even post them ! HA !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 4:34pm on 19 Jul 2008, laughingSpartan wrote:

    The decision went against DC which is a crying travesty in my opinion !

    we are sooo morally high in this country that we miss the bigger picture ! DC is a perfect example to our youth of today who are submerged in gang culture where drugs and crime and knife stabbings are riot !

    What message have we just sent them that yes if you make a mistake once in your life you will be forever persecuted for it ! what incentive is that for them to change !

    DC would make a good role model to todays corrupted youth by saying "hey i cheated to make it to the top got caught and have been ridiculed world wide and embarrassed, have had the fortitude to train hard without a coach or access to training stadiums, i have had to train early hours of the morning in the public park on my own, and now as a clean athlete i have made it to the top still" you dont have to take short cuts as he did it the wrong way and now THE RIGHT WAY !

    Thats a inspiring story to make even the most troubled teen think twice and say hey if i am willing to change i will be given a chance to prove myself !

    Bigger question here is the BOA BYLAW IS IT UNJUST again yes in my opinion ! let em give you a example :-

    A athlete who has been training for say 15yrs dedicated from a very young age has competed on the highest level and now finally gets a chance to make his dream of a Olympics. Now at a qualifying event a zealous rival coach or athlete decides to spike that athlete, or even the athletes coach himself spikes his drink to help boost performance even tho it may be with good intentions to help his athlete,

    That athlete tests positive and now his whole world and life is upside ! where does he go from here Training and competing for this one goal he has had since a child has been taken away through no fault of his own, he has never had a job he has been dedicated to his trade for his entire life ! where does he go from here ! is it fair to ban him for life from an olympics and ruin his whole lifes work for something he did not do intentionally, or should he be allowed !

    I think you all know what the decent and honest answer is !

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 4:38pm on 19 Jul 2008, laughingSpartan wrote:

    Just a little add to my post above :- That yes that is a realistic possibility as drink spiking is happening everywhere in clubs bars and sport !

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 5:10pm on 19 Jul 2008, cfwtalks wrote:

    For me the the decision is right.

    Dwain knew it was wrong, he went ahead and did it anyway. You reap what you sow.

    Maybe we should have 2 Olympics, one with natural talents and one with drug enhancing talents. It would be up to the competitior to put their lives at risk for taking drugs to compete. I for one would like to see how fast a man can go .. okay maybe not.

    The thing is Dwain was our best 100 metre runner at the time, very high profile, kids looked up to him. We have the Olympics coming to London and there will be so much pressure on our althetes to win medals that I am sure some of them will be tempted into going down the drugs route. This law/rule is a deterrent, sending out a clear message - if you take drugs you will be banned. It might also save their lives.

    Good decision and good luck Dwain for the future.

    Come on Team GB !!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 5:12pm on 19 Jul 2008, AndricusII wrote:

    laughingSpartan, you make a good point with your claim that the spiking of a drink could lead to a ban when there is no intent on the part of the athlete to cheat. I seem to recall that several athletes have tried to overturn bans on the grounds that they had no idea how the substance concerned got into their system, although I don't recall the result.

    Regardless of how the spiking occured I believe that no-one knows who will be tested after any event in most cases, and so I don't believe that a competitor would be willing to take the risk of not making it to the Olympics by being unfairly beaten and the spiking not being caught. The unscrupulous coach is far more likely, and given the possibility of it happening I suspect that we might need a measure to make such people think twice about doing so. A ban from coaching might work on the grounds that the coach is probably aware of what supplements (legal and illegal) the athlete is taking, although I suspect that this is on even more legal quicksand than the permanent Olympics ban for athletes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 5:24pm on 19 Jul 2008, laughingSpartan wrote:

    Follow up to AndricusII

    yes i not talking about athlete's who have cocktails of drugs found in there system, im talking about athletes who have 1 drug in their system, where the levels are not enough to help enhance athletic performance, merely just enough to show up on a drugs test, Given by a spiker in order to catch a athlete out, i know athletes who are teenagers too young to comprehend what doping is, who trust there coach's so much as they have been with them from a toddlers age, that they won't even question what is given to them by a coach, masked by harmless multivitamins for example or energy drinks.

    whether it be for that coach to further his own career by producing top athletes at any cost etc,

    But the ultimate sacrifice has to be paid by the athlete, which i can tolerate for being naive ! BUT SHOULD HE BE CONDEMNED FOR LIFE !???

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 6:38pm on 19 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    Mwmonk

    The point which you miss is that I am willing to accept other peoples opinions and possibly change my position! Before I do that I want to hear some explanation of what I'm sign up to! Localopinion suggested that exclusion of people who met all the criteria was widespread. I keep hearing this but none of the people who say it will give one instance outside the drug bye-law. If someone can do that I'm a convert. In the same way I want to know if Dwain's supporters believe that the bye-law should be squashed or only ignored in Dwain's case. If it's to apply to everyone then I have serious misgivings but I accept that it is a respectable position for people to take. My later cyncism is brought about by people making claims which they seem to be able to support with a few facts rather than abuse. I must say however that whilst "localopinion" seems to hold different opinions to mine, he/she does not resort to accusing everyone of being some kind of nut case. Others who refer to Nazis etc have just lost there perpective.

    PS Do you object to Rogersack's (52) a rant or do you consider that a rational debate

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 7:27pm on 19 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    If we had two Olympics, one for clean athletes and one for dirty ones,

    DWAIN WILL BE THE ONLY MAN IN THE CLEAN FINAL!

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 7:35pm on 19 Jul 2008, Donald Donaldson wrote:

    enough is enough, give up now and move on, do something else for a living, coach maybe

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 8:59pm on 19 Jul 2008, Spaced Invader wrote:

    'Chambers is a nice guy who made a very bad choice.'

    He is not a nice guy. He's a cheat. He destroyed the dreams of clean athletes and denied them their moment of glory after years of hard, honest work. HE IS A CHEAT. Serving a sentence may make him think he is due redemption, but it still doesn't bring back the chance for clean athletes to stand on a podium and collect their honestly won medals in front of a worldwide audience, as they deserved.

    So what if Greece and the US let their cheats compete at the Olympics? At least this judgement means there wll be one less cheat stealing the glory of honest runners. Its a good start.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 9:10pm on 19 Jul 2008, JobyJak wrote:

    The_third_Ronaldo;

    How do you feel about Marita Koch and Flo-Jo?

    Bet you don't even know who they are! Their records still legally stand.

    This is why all the Dwain bashers and all the Dwain Supporters clash so much.

    The Dwain bashers are focussed on demonising all drug cheats. The Dwain supporters are focussed on the true reality of Track and Field and feel that everyone should get real. This is why the Dwain bashers and the Dwain supporters will never agree.

    IMO-The narrow minded Dwain bashers are mentally unable to see the bigger picture of all the Dwain supporters. It is as simple as that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 9:21pm on 19 Jul 2008, Digitalburnout wrote:

    mwmonk wrote:

    Never mind, the football season is just 3 weeks away, and we can then ignore all these poorly run, badly organised, stuck in the dark ages, minor (beacuse they do not want to be major) sports again....


    Now that did make me laugh. Somebody looking forward to the most corrupt sport of them all!

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 9:46pm on 19 Jul 2008, kebars wrote:

    The difficulty I have with this decision is that there would seem to be questions to be answered by some of the loudest Chambers detractors.
    If my memory serves me well, quite a number of the 'grand old men ' of british athletics broke world records during trips to Oslo, of all places.
    Now, was it just a coincidence that the acknowledged centre of blood doping at that time was ....? Yes! OSLO!!!
    Well now, Seb and Steve and Co., Tell us what you think of that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 12:44pm on 20 Jul 2008, logicalopinion wrote:

    Anglo_celt


    Inresponse to you reference post 115

    I have tried to answer your queries but seem to have been denied the ability to comment further on what has already been said.

    I can however confirm that what has already been sais to be true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 1:02pm on 20 Jul 2008, Anglo_Celt wrote:

    logicalopinion

    "I have tried to answer your queries but seem to have been denied the ability to comment further on what has already been said."

    Sorry to hear that. Hopefully it's due to legal technicalities rather than denial of free speech.
    It's a shame because I think we both want to discuss the issues rather than abuse anyone.

    PS I do think Dwain's latest reponse has shown great dignity. If he decides to challenge the bye-law in full I would certainly defend his right to do so.

    In the end many of the aggravations in the UK over this issue are due to the failure of the international bodies. At he moment we have the worst of both worlds with athletes risking their health because they obviously think that they will benefit long term even if they are caught. We need either a longer international ban (4 years?) or to allow the use of these drugs. I'm not happy about the latter but it would at least allow athletes to have proper medical supervision rather than be in the hands of glorified drug dealers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 1:08pm on 20 Jul 2008, leysalh wrote:

    I totally agree with drugs cheats being banned from the Olympics in principle. It just seems pretty pointless a little country like the UK taking a lone stand and sending clean athletes to lose against the drugs cheats of other countries.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 1:53pm on 20 Jul 2008, logicalopinion wrote:

    To all

    Why are we all caught up debating the moral issues concernig the use of sporting enhancements? Surely this is a debate to no where, as no one single person is qualified or experienced enough to offer irrefutable eveidence that they are of any benefit.

    Drugs and sporting enahncements have been around from the beginning of time, as far as sport is concerned.

    We ban those substances that are alleged to give an added advantage to performance, on little or no evidence. And yet we allow many other forms of ergogenic aids to be taken legally, in the hope that they can give the athlete an edge.

    We employ all kinds of different training methods and technology in oder to help anthletes deliver to their full potential. We synthasise hi-tech materials for athletes to wear in order to increase air and water coefficiency, enabling the athlete to go faster than they could otherwise acheive on their own.

    We supply them with additional vitamin cocktails to increase their biological and physiological efficiency.

    We define the difference between legal and illegal substances to suit our own morally flexible judgement. But is there really any difference between what we judge to be acceptable and what we do not, on moral grounds?

    The answer is 'no'.

    We all attempt to cheat in one way or another. We don't solely and purely rely on our own abilities. So why differenciate between legal and illegal subtances, based on uninformed opinions, and the lack of any evidence, to truely support their use as being of any benefit to any given sport?

    Morality is subjective and is therfore flawed as a bases of law. We should all look at our own perceptions of what we deem to be the rights and wrongs of any issues, before condemning others to public ridicule.



    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 8:37pm on 20 Jul 2008, reggie-hammond wrote:

    the whole olympic movement is corrupt.

    personally not sure how the olympics have lasted as they are boring. i was at the last olympics and it was a good experience but the sporting side of it isn't that good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 9:24pm on 20 Jul 2008, Andy wrote:

    I think the 'let's get real' is a fair comment, young people make mistakes, let's not crucify them for it. There are plenty of people out there, and past winners, who took drugs.

    Let's just be sensible, stop drug takers as far as we can, give reasonable punishments and then test the hell out of them.

    A life sentence for a first offence is harsher than people get for murder.

    I'm also not sure that some of the BOA banned substances will be performance enhancing, e;g will smoking dope help you run faster?

    The BOA, etc needs to get off it's soapbox and start to do a 'reasonable' job of developing UK Athletics.

    At the moment it's doing a poor job of both developing athletes and also managing the drugs issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 10:38pm on 20 Jul 2008, truejelnews wrote:

    I don't believe any athlete who has failed a drugs test should have the honour of representing their country in the Olympic games, 'the greatest show on earth'. The standard which BOC has set is right. However since the rest of the world does not have this by-law in place at the moment it is not fair that Dwain Chambers should not be allowed to run. British athletes will still find themselves competing against drug cheats! Well Dwain has lost the battle in court but he can still make a living from running on the grand prix and other championships which is reward enough. He must realise that he has hurt fans who trusted him. If I was Dwain and really wanted to compete I would find a country like Qatar and beg them to let me run for them just to show that the BOC ruling is a bit of a farce if the other countrys are not with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 12:21pm on 21 Jul 2008, pumpkinescobar wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 145. At 4:23pm on 21 Jul 2008, GrecianPirate wrote:

    As a moral argument, I am not so sure that not giving someone a second chance is the best possible place to start. We all make mistakes in life, especially when we are young, and most of us rightly get a second chance. The by-law is I feel morally wrong, though perhaps in this case the decision made was the only one that could be made in the circumstances with so little time to decide properly. I feel a little sorry for Dwain and support his case for running in the games but by leaving the case so late he was never going to win in time for the Olympics.
    I hope however that the by-law is challenged and looked at very soon so that a route is made available for other athletes to have that second chance (though maybe one that includes strict guidelines and more frequent testing to ensure compliance). Besides, morally as stated in an earlier mailing, a missed test should really be treated not unlike a failed test, much like any other test (driving, GCSE etc). Yet the BOA seems to feel there is a big enough difference to impose a lifetime ban. It just doesn’t seem very consistent to me.
    The case just reminds me of the 'Blackball' story of the 15 year ban for a bowls player ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 08:53am on 22 Jul 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    I must say that in light of this debate, and ones in similar threads, it is interesting which four faces the BBC has chosen to put at the top of their "Team GB" page on the Olympic microsite. I'm specifically refering to one face, which is mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 11:51am on 22 Jul 2008, IzzyMiyagh1 wrote:

    It is looking increasingly possible that he by-law will eventually be overturned - and if it is, Dwain may still get a second chance as he may be around for 2012...

    For me, the most unfortunate side of this debate has been the hidden prejudice that has been underpinned the comments of some of the posters...not all, but a few...

    There has been a great discussion about where the greater moral position lies in this debate - a very healthy discussion to have - but problematically, there has also been some quite difficult, nasty, and effectively irrational rantings aginst dwain that do nothing other than suggest that the main motivations behind their posts have been to register their outright dislike of the man...beyond any rational debating...and exemplified by the venomous outpourings with respect to Dwain and his supporters on such forums...

    Whilst this issue has nothing to do with the race card, some have made it so...

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 2:33pm on 22 Jul 2008, MSBernie wrote:

    some of the comments on here are pathetic. they also show a lack of own knowledge gathering and accuracy. the judge has said dwain has grounds for appeal on this ban, what we may find come march is that its overturned and then he SUES the BOC for restraint of trade. i can't take this ruling or their rule seriously as they are allowing him to compete at the Worlds, European and Commonwealth Games, so he can wear a GB vest when its suits them?!!?!?!??!?!
    not smart decision making

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:57pm on 22 Jul 2008, laughingSpartan wrote:

    The decision went against DC which is a crying travesty in my opinion !

    we are sooo morally high in this country that we miss the bigger picture ! DC is a perfect example to our youth of today who are submerged in gang culture where drugs and crime and knife stabbings are riot !

    What message have we just sent them that yes if you make a mistake once in your life you will be forever persecuted for it ! what incentive is that for them to change !

    DC would make a good role model to todays corrupted youth by saying "hey i cheated to make it to the top got caught and have been ridiculed world wide and embarrassed, have had the fortitude to train hard without a coach or access to training stadiums, i have had to train early hours of the morning in the public park on my own, and now as a clean athlete i have made it to the top still" you dont have to take short cuts as he did it the wrong way and now THE RIGHT WAY !

    Thats a inspiring story to make even the most troubled teen think twice and say hey if i am willing to change i will be given a chance to prove myself !

    Bigger question here is the BOA BYLAW IS IT UNJUST again yes in my opinion ! let me give you an example :-

    A athlete who has been training for say 15yrs dedicated from a very young age has competed on the highest level and now finally gets a chance to make his dream of a Olympics. Now at a qualifying event a zealous rival coach or athlete decides to spike that athlete, or even the athletes coach himself spikes his drink to help boost performance even tho it may be with good intentions to help his athlete,

    That athlete tests positive and now his whole world and life is upside ! where does he go from here Training and competing for this one goal he has had since a child has been taken away through no fault of his own, he has never had a job he has been dedicated to his trade for his entire life ! where does he go from here ! is it fair to ban him for life from an Olympics and ruin his whole life's work for something he did not do intentionally, or should he be allowed !

    I think you all know what the decent and honest answer is !

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 3:01pm on 23 Jul 2008, tmjonic wrote:

    Dwain, as a professional sprinter was aware of the punishement before he ever took performence enhancing drugs. The saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is relevent here.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites