- 13 Jul 08, 09:50 AM
Birmingham
I can officially say I'm feeling a little drained. Or should that be "Dwained"?
Is he going to Beijing? Should he be going? When will they say if he's going? Who else is going? Are those going happy that he could be going? Is anybody going? Where's this sentence going?
At the start of Saturday, Dwain Chambers was actually going nowhere. He was stuck outside the car park without a pass. A cheeky little ruse by Dave Collins and co? No matter, he got in and it was another fascinating day in Birmingham. Even the sun came out to play.
One day to go at the Olympic trials here in Birmingham and ohhhh so many questions and very few answers. All at a time when the country should be celebrating the beautiful sport.
I'll jump into a spot of athlete-lauding in a bit - thanks in no small part to the ginger-haired wonder I met on Friday - but let's discuss Chambers first.
One question I do know the answer to is this: Does anybody care if Dwain is actually going to Beijing? The answer is a massive "yes", with few people sitting on the fence.
Firstly, the supporters. I reckon I've spoken to more than a hundred visitors to the Alexander Stadium over the last two days and I can count those in favour of Chambers going to China on the left foot of my three-toed sloth.
One of those was a 16-year-old female, who probably now regrets telling me that Dwain should not be banned because he had done his time. Her dad's glaring eyes suggested she was just about to be grounded until London 2012.
From what I heard and saw, most of Chambers' supporters came - perhaps worryingly -from the under-20 age group. But despite a few boos - and it was just a few boos, whatever you may read in the papers in the morning - there were a lot of cheers for him.
On his one-eighth of a lap of honour - which included lying down and kissing the track - there seemed to be genuine warmth and appreciation from the crowd.
Perhaps everybody's being just a bit too British about this, thinking "we'll criticise him when his back's turned, but if he's five foot away celebrating with his fist in the air, why not give the jolly fine fellow a good old clap".
A typical response from the older folk was that Chambers was setting a bad example to the kids. One athletics coach from Birmingham told me: "Call me old-fashioned but if that ban is overturned, what message does that send out to aspiring athletes?" I didn't call him old-fashioned, but is that really such an old-fashioned view?
Is a more forgiving and tolerant approach the modern way we should be looking at things these days?
I asked Steve Backley (having replaced his spear with a 5 Live microphone) about the human rights issue and giving Chambers a second chance. I almost had the mic shoved back up my nose.
"What, for someone who cheated the system, drained it of resources, courted the media? We've gone mad if we think something needs adjusting in his favour. It baffles me why we're so tolerant," he told me.
"Look at Tasha Danvers-Smith." (She lost her 400m hurdles title on Saturday without making the standard A qualifying time). "Who's going to be writing about her? She was an Olympic finalist in 2000 and is probably crying into her kitbag right now. She's the real athletics story."
Darren Campbell, Olympic silver medallist in Sydney and another employee of 5 Live, was slightly more supportive. "When Dwain first got caught I said I'd welcome him back to the sport, and I've been very consistent with that," he said.
"Everybody deserves a second chance - you've just got to right that wrong first. But people have been mentioning this on the same level as murderers. We really need to keep it in perspective."
Which allows me to wrap up this piece with a whole chunk of perspective. Believe it or not, there are some other athletes out there that aren't called Dwain Chambers that probably won't make it into print on Sunday. And they're good. Very good.
Starring on day two were Simeon Williamson (who gave Chambers the fright of his life in the 100m final), Lisa Dobriskey in the 1500m, Jeanette Kwakye in the 100m, Emma Lyons in the pole vault and finally Greg Rutherford.
The 21-year-old long jumper from Milton Keynes revealed on Saturday his preparation had involved no sleep and visiting his dying grandfather. After a few dodgy jumps and with Chris Tomlinson and Jonathon Moore breathing down his neck, he hit 8.19m, and then made the qualifying A standard of 8.20m bang on the money. Just sensational.
"I've just had the worst week and a half of my life and for this to happen to me is massive," he said. "I was thinking of him (my grandfather) the whole time. I'm going to dash down there now to see him in hospital and show him the medal. That was all for him today.
"And now I'm bound for Beijing. That's the amazing thing. That was the best competition of my life. All that's left now is to bring home a medal."
And with everybody fretting about what's going to happen next week and whether Dwain should go to Beijing or not, I have the answer. Dave Collins, I can answer your prayers, because I'm available.
Yep, I'm available for selection right now. I haven't quite matched all the Olympic qualification criteria, but I've still got three weeks to lose the belly, a couple of weeks annual leave to use up at work, and no drug stories hiding in my closet. So, Dave, what are you waiting for?
BBC Sport The Olympic Broadcaster
React to comment, analysis and opinion from BBC Sport experts at Beijing's Olympics and Paralympics.
Our bloggers in Beijing
Interactive Beijing map
Meet Monkey
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Recent Comments
- SimonTheKid on Taekwondo needs to move with the times
- MariaFalouri on The odd couple unveil new shoes
- Ranga2522 on Hunt is on for Paralympic talent
- The-Shed-Bar on London confidential
- fionnualadooley on Which sports would you add to the Games?
Topics
Podcast
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
Fun and Games
Olympic standard
Do you have what it takes to excel at Denise Lewis' heptathlon?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
oh you journalists. get a grip with reality. is not about what you want, or what i want that matters. is not about what is morally correct. the question is simple: is he legally entitled to do so.
and i'm figuring from your rather popularistic stance, that you do not have a clue about the legal intracies involved. he was banned already for 2 years. now he has been banned from the olympics by the BOA, this is simply not on. You can not be punished for the same crime twice. And what about the inequality involved - there will be a number of former drug cheats that will be performing in China, whilst Dwain can't. Either they all can, or none of them can. You can't take a haphazard approach that is being used by the BOA. Incidentally, are you also propagating for these atheletes not to particpate in China, or is your dissent aimed solely at Dwain?
I could go on with the issues involved but (a) i don't want to bore the readers and (b) you may not appreciate them.
I just have a funny smell that had this been a different athlete, we would not have had the same response from the british media.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I've been following athletics for 25 years and am disgusted by the way Dwain has been treated.
He did the crime, and served his punishment. Both the IAAF and the IOC say if he meets the criteria he is eligible to run. So let him!!
Yes he knew the consequences , but the BOA's moral highground always seemed foolish to me especially when the (less able British athletes) were competing against former suspended athletes.
I want to see the best athletes at the Olympics and like it or lump it Dwain is the best 100 m sprinter Britain has to offer!
Complain about this comment
Maybe I'm the only person in the world who doesn't know the full Dwain Chambers story. This article should have devoted a paragragh to recap on some "facts" about the athlete: what he did, what punishment was given etc.. I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about.
Complain about this comment
There is obviously something legaly wrong here which needs to be challenged in order to clear up the issue for all athletes, not just Dwain Chambers.
However, once that is done, an honourable man would then withdraw himself from Olympic selection rather than push for selection and embarrass his country and UK althetics.
That said, I am probably going to dissapointed!
Complain about this comment
Spot on Nadsie. Let the guy run - he's served his time and he's fully qualified. We complain about our lack of competitiveness in sport, then proceed to make up reasons for why our best contenders can't take part. Let's try to make it easier to win medals - not harder. That's what every other serious sporting nation does.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A lot has been said that he knew the BOA rules before he decided to cheat...
Of course he should be able to challenge it. Maybe he didnt agree with the rule before but do people really think he should have spoken out in the early days before he was caught!?
If the courts agree with the BOA then Chambers will not go to the Olympics, no problem.
If the courts disagree with the BOA, then Chambers will go and the BOA should be heavily criticised for bringing in an illegal ruling.
Complain about this comment
"I reckon I've spoken to more than a hundred visitors to the Alexander Stadium over the last two days and I can count those in favour of Chambers going to China on the left foot of my three-toed sloth."
Interesting.
Everyone posting on here so far is supporting him. Are you sure the group of people you were asking at the Alexander Stadium weren't holding a big banner saying "Ban Chambers for Life" ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There seems to be a bit more support for Dwain online than you found at the stadium, Mark.
I used to love the 100 metres. Then we had Ben Johnson, and a whole host of other scandals in the UK, the US and elsewhere, and we're still having them. It got to the point - probably around the time of Marion Jones' tearful confession - where I couldn't believe anyone. Bolt runs 9.72 and you think 'hmmm' almost as soon as you've finished thinking 'wow, that's quick'.
Some part of me has given up caring about the drugs. Anyone who really believes the testers are ahead of the cheaters is far too naive. Balco was one lab in the world. How many others are there? Of course, it's appalling that we've reached this point, but otherwise I just wouldn't bother watching at all.
So back to Dwain...let him run, I say. He seems a likeable fellow and he's our best bet for the final. Seb Coe et al won't agree, and their stance is laudable, but there's a long, long way to go before I, and I suspect many others, really start believing in the athletes again.
Complain about this comment
He knew when he took the drugs if he got caught he was banned from the olympics. That has been in place since '92 (I think), athletes wanted it.
Now to complain about it once he is caught is hypocritical to say the least. He is only banned from the olympics, he should have the decency to accept this, he can go to the worlds, commonwealth, europeans etc but for once the BOA have done something positive about drugs.
The public should be proud that someone is doing something positive, I'm certain David Millar would love to go to the Olympics and he has a better chance of a medal than Dwain but he has some sense of morals and accepts the punishment.
Personally 2 years is a joke for drug offences, I'd happily ban them for longer. Cheats should NOT prosper, Chambers was a cheat his punishment was 2 years out plus no Olympics ever!!!
Complain about this comment
I have no qualms with Chambers taking part in professional athletics because, as has been stated, he has served his time and so should be allowed to compete in tour events.
However, my stance on the Olympics is different. He knew the policy before he cheated and so knew what the consequences of his actions would be. I am probably ignorant in regards of the following statement, but as the Olympics do not directly give cash rewards I cannot see how this is restraint of trade (which I believe is a part of Chamber's case against the BOA).
Personally, I see selection for the Olympics being an honour, not a right, and so if the BOA regard people who have been found guilty of drugs offences to be exempt from selection then I stand by them. Because of this, I do not back sports people who make a stand to enter it, even if I highly admire their talent, such as cyclist David Millar.
Chambers will overturn this by-law, I have no doubt about that, but it doesn't change my stance.
Complain about this comment
Just to make it clear, I didn't mean that Millar had made a stand, but that if someone who I admire in terms of ability (such as him) made the stand I wouldn't support him
Complain about this comment
I have always in the past backed any sports man or woman who pulls on that national or British vest. I have the utmost respect for those who reach that standard and have made many sacrifices to get there. It takes hard work, determination, guts and personal sacrifices. Support Chambers if he is allowed to compete in China? No, no, no, no, no, no. The man is a cheat. He knew the rules; he broke them. He chose to break them - he pays the penalty. He knew what the sanction was and decided he would risk it. If he is running so well now, how come he couldn't do that without the drugs before? If does compete in China, I, for one, sincerely hope that he is disqualified on a false start in the very first heat, so that he goes home as soon as possible. There is no place in any sport for cheats; it debases the sport and the genuine efforts and sacrifices of those who don't cheat. Stamp it out.
Complain about this comment
Dwain had a choice when he first sat down with his medics with a number of "cocktails".
1. To turn the drugs down, walk out, train hard and proudly represent GB in The Olympics - no doubt achieving success in major competitions due to his undeniable talent.
2. Take the drugs, enhance his performance, cheat clean athletes out of opportunities, money and medals while at the same time risk being caught and NEVER competing at the Olympics again.
He didn't make a "mistake" as he keeps claiming as he chose option 2 repeatedly over a long timescale - and would still be doing so today had he not been caught.
Personally, I will turn my back on this event completely if the British courts give the green light for Dwain Chambers to represent our country in Beijing.
Complain about this comment
Let him run. He has served his punishment so should be free to do as he pleases. If everyone else is take PED's it is a level playing field and that sthe way i beleive athletics will have to go in order to survive. I for one would love this day. Because someone takes drugs doesnt mean they havent worked as hard and thats what some people seem to forget. They think take some steroids and you will magically run 9.72 but that isnt the reality you still have to have great genetics to run that fast. Its like people saying i could get as muscular as Arnie if i was to be on steroids. Allow PED's but limit dosage etc to make it completley level. Controversial views i know, but the testers are probably 5 years behind the users.
Complain about this comment
To add to my post i believe that athletics is a sport in which the pressure is so great it forces athletes to "cheat". Athletes like Steve Backley need to get a grip and steve cram to mention it. If they had it their way we would probably be living under a dictator. I personally like living in a country where you cant be undemocratically punished twice and that is why the BOA bylaw should and probably will be struck down.
Complain about this comment
A few things always amuse me with the shock reporting on Dwain Chambers.
Firstly, he's the fastest sprinter we have. Despite all of the criticism, all of the abuse, commentators talking badly of him live on air (I'm looking at you Steve Cram and your highly unprofessional comments of yesterday), he still is better than our other sprinters. He appears to have more motivation to win in his little finger currently than any of our other so-called 'stars'. We are forgetting and it's always forgotten by the BBC - he should now run in Bejing on merit. He's the UK's number one sprinter over 100m.
Secondly, Dwain Chambers is all about himself. Always has been and always will be. Why the surprise that he's going to court to challenge a flimsy rule? He's in it for the money. When it's overturned and he makes it to the Olympics, it'll make for a stunning book.
My final comment on this is - if Dwain Chambers was the fastest man in the world over 100m this year, would this be an issue? No. Christine Ohuruogu is one of our only realistic chances for a medal on the track at the Olympics and she's allowed to go. Oh, but she didn't FAIL a test, she just missed three of them by 'accident'. That means her ban doesn't count (according to the Beeb, Steve Cram and UK Athletics).
Double standards should not exist in Sport. Sugar coat and make excuses all you want, but the two situations are one and the same - both were banned. If one goes, the other should.
Complain about this comment
From this blog, to Steve Cram's self-righteous rants, there seems to be a strong bias in the BBC's reporting of this affair. Clearly lots of people do think that he should run and the comments on this thread attest to this. You can talk about your sloths as much as want but this won't change.
Perhaps, some BBC journalist should have the guts to actually come out in favour of him rather than towing this rather tired line. He has been honest regarding his previous transgressions, he has served his ban, he has more charisma than 80% of our athletes, and he is the best sprinter that we've got. And please stop using the same negative pull-quotes for all BBC stories on the topic. Impartial? I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
Im 18yrs old and i dont think its 'old fashioned' to think this doesn't send a good message to the young up-and-comers. Drugs cheats should be banned for life, as another legend in athletics said, 'it should be a criminal offense.' Dwain is a cheat, i will never respect him now and i will NEVER cheer him on if was to go to the olympics. Drug cheats DO NOT deserve a second chance, other things in life do but this DOESN'T. All these people saying he deserves a 2nd chance, listen to yourselfs!! this is a grown man deciding to CHEAT, this is not a naive little boy thinking bending the law is the way to go, this is a selfish grown man who realizes he doesn't have the talent to win a gold medal so he decides to cheat his way to a medal.!! he shouldn't be anywhere near the olympic track. i think the laws should change a little bit. if you take illegal drugs they should ban you for 10years. simple as that.
Complain about this comment
My comment was removed. Why?
It did not break any "house rules" at all.
BBC bias is against the BBC's own rules and is illegal. Can I remind the "moderator" that I PAY his/her salary.
Complain about this comment
Bottom line is he's a drug cheat. He knew what he was doing got caught and as far as I'm concerned shouldn't be representing my country in the Olympics. His place should go to someone who has got where they are through genuine hard work.
Truth is the law will probably ensure he can go but the guy should have more respect for himself and his country and disappear into the background where he belongs...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Some very cogent points, especially concerning Mr. Cram - a shame the moderators have pulled crammitt's post. Mr. Cram's "commentary" was verging on the splenetic - we heard you first time Stevie, you disagree -let it lie, do your job and commentate! You can let all your bile out on your blogs here and at The Guardian.
Dwain never had much love from me, but he is doing nothing that he's not entitled to do. And may I remind you David Millar apologists that, unlike Chambers, he denied, denied, threatened to sue journalists, and then 'fessed up. Big man..
Complain about this comment
"I reckon I've spoken to more than a hundred visitors to the Alexander Stadium over the last two days and I can count those in favour of Chambers going to China on the left foot of my three-toed sloth."
See the problem I have is that reporters have to stay chummy to the athletes, and the vocal athletes all want Chambers banned. Public opinion, for me at least, is completely different.
Mark Ashenden should try to avoid using sentimental arguments when dealing with the law courts, they simply do not apply.
I agree with the opinions of the posters before me, and I echo their words that Chambers has done his time and our regulations have to fall in line with the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
I don't see why the BOA should have to compromise its rule to fit in with the rest of the world. Personally, I think they set an example and its a good rule that ought to be followed by the rest of the world. In fact, the IOC are introducing a rule ahead of London banning any competitor from attending the Olympic Games if they have served a drugs ban at any point in the four preceeding years. Gradually, the international stance is toughening and I think the BOA is ahead of the game, not behind - and should be applauded for it.
As for Chambers. Well, what irritates me here is the motivations behind his appeal. He has previously spoken out in favour of the ban (before he was convicted) and made no attempt to challenge it when he was first banned. No, it is only now, after other ventures into American Football and Rugby have failed - that he now challenges the ruling. It just makes me think his cause isn't as noble as he makes out but more selfishly motivated.
Complain about this comment
anapplefellonmyhead - a good point and the BOA should not have to compromise. A forward thinking attitude in a backwardly policed sport.
But the BOA are also guilty of rescinding Ohuruogu's Olympic ban when the rules stated that her crime meant that she couldn't perform at the Olympic Games.
Why was Ohuruogu's ban rescinded? Under the weight of popular opinion/only realistic hope for an Athletics medal. The Lottery Fund/sponsors want results, not excuses.
People like Cram dismiss her ban as a 'simple mistake'. A simple mistake that the vast majority of athletes do not make. Her punishment fit the crime, but to rescind her Olympic ban opened the door for Chambers to hit the public eye with court cases.
Chambers won't win a medal in Bejing, he doesn't have a hope - so Cram and the other 'journalists' close the door on him and publically attack him when (as they said with Ohuruogu) he has 'done his time'. It's 'cool' to beat Chambers with a stick and call him evil while poor Christine Ohuruogu is just 'naive' and 'heroic'.
Complain about this comment
I'm not quite sure about where all this "he shouldn't be punished twice" business comes in. The BOC law clearly states his punishment (not punishments): to serve a two year ban from all athletics, and a lifetime ban from Olympic competitions. It is the (one) punishment for such an offence, and Chambers would do well to abide by it.
Also, does anyone realise that the dugs he took are designed to improve his body more than clean training will do? I think you supporters of his forget this. Any athlete (whether amateur or professional) will tell you that a gain in personal development will ALWAYS affect your physique. Chambers cheated his way to a better physique than he could have obtained in a clean way. He can forevermore build upon that illegal physique to be better than he would have been with no drugs at all. The IOC should ban athletes who have been caught with drugs in their system for a minimum of ten years. Two years is not enough of a deterrent.
Complain about this comment
OH MY GOD..
BBC is popularist opinion shocker...
this is rife in the BBC, from Radio 1's "everything is amazing" to this piece..
when will the BBC (any part of it) actually bite the bullet and have its own opinion..
the piece does not really deal with any facts just a generic opinion...
let the guy run for god sake, he is clearly better than the rest when he is clean....
Rio ferdinand can captain England in our national sport at times and he was banned also for a drugs issue....
jesus christ...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
post 33 basically made sense hence why it is removed..
a drunk driver is not banned for life yet that person would get behind the wheel knowingly that they are over the limit...do the crime do the time...
what chambers is challenging is the BOAs own rules and whether that is infact legal or not!!
I hope he goes...
Complain about this comment
In this country, our legal system holds that the punishment fits the crime, and so Chambers, by that reasoning, should be banned.
However, we also hold that precedent can overrule convention: the UK is the only one to impose this kind of ban, and the world governing bodies are happy to allow Chambers to participate.
To my mind, Chambers should compete and in all honesty probably will.
My point is that Chambers will always be a drugs cheat, it has soured his otherwise illustrious career, and any further acheivement, or any nostalgia to previous feats is coloured by this.
But he has commited his crime, been caught, and punished appropriately. He is remorseful and has worked hard to get to a position where he can compete at the Olympics should he overturn the ban.
More attention must be drawn to the fact that Chambers was punished appropriately, not focus on the decision that, while laudable in it's intentions, is a step too far.
The worst example we can show young athletes, and to a greater extent young people, is that you will not be forgiven your misdemanours, no matter how hard you work to correct them.
Complain about this comment
My comment was removed because it was too long, I was sent a very nice response from the Moderating team to tell me this and encouraged me to edit it for length, which I have done. Thankyou number 34 for your support but unfortunately their is no mass cover up of sensible arguements. Hope that clears things up...
Complain about this comment
The problem with this country is we don't have enough world class athletes, so we try to hang on to everything we've got. If an athlete takes drugs, they should be banned for life. So until this rule is changed, Dwain should go to Beijing because don't forget, he'll be there with other drug cheats whose countries allow them to compete including China.
Complain about this comment
What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is what it means to allow people to have a second chance.
It is a moral factor of average human fallibility. We make mistakes. If we fail to be able to forgive those mistakes, the entire society of Earth will fail. You have to be able to accept things for what they are.
He made his mistake, he has shown regret, and he should be given a second chance.
Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone. Small mistakes, big mistakes. The difference is that some people remorselessly punish mistakes, and some don't, and that is a very vital difference between a good person, and a bad person. To not allow someone a second chance, in general is utterly hypocritical, because we all need them occasionally.
Cheating in sport happens all the time. You watch a single football match and you see just as much cheating as this entire drug saga holds.
If Christiano Ronaldo came out today, admitted to constantly diving, and said he was going to try his utmost to never do it again, I would most happily be able to forgive him, and watch him play football the way it is meant to be played.
The man-made rules, and man-made consequences of his mistake are nothing to do with the case in hand, and people should try and put them out of mind.
If he regrets what he has done, AND served punishment, then I feel that I am right to say he deserves a second chance, and that if I was in charge, I'd be happy to give him one.
Complain about this comment
Its no wonder that our jails are full of re-offenders if this is how officialdom and the media treats past offenders who have served their sentence. Chambers didn't even commit a criminal offence and he's being harassed for trying to resume his job. Its pathetic. Let him run.
Its not Chambers' fault that drug bans are so short. He can't change what he's done. Everybody deserves a second chance, it's one of the basic tenets of our justice system. Otherwise we might as well lock all criminals up for life and ban all cheats for life.
The only reason people have a problem with all this is that Chambers is determined to run again and not crawling off to some dark corner where he can't 'embarrass' the BOA. They would rather just pretend drugs never appear in British Athletics.
Complain about this comment
In athletics and sports in general athletes are penalised for breaking the rules. A severe foul play in soccer/football is a red card so you miss a game or two,;false start in swimming you are disqualified from the race (even miss a Olympic qualifier), and so on. I think the point is not to disqualify you for life if the rules did not state that to begin with. However neither does that mean you cheat in the mean time. The rules we have allow some guys to be banned for 2 years or 4 and then return... So if the man meets the rules then we can let him compete. Moral issues will not have us agree 100%, because the shoving in long distance races could qualify for long term bans too all those dirty tactics that average spectators miss. So lets just have uniform rules even if they unfortunately allow those whom we despise...
Complain about this comment
At the end of the day the BOA dont have a leg to stand on.
Christine Ohorugu (bad spelling i know) missed SEVERAL tests and was banned but then appealed and because she is to be one of the faces of 2012 she had her Olympic ban overturned...now im sorry but missed drugs tests is just as bad as failing...
Chambers failed, admitted it, served his time and has come back and embarassed the BOA by being the best sprinter we have to offer.
Let him go...
Lets be honest Lee Hughes the footballer killed people and hes back playing football after serving his sentence.
Complain about this comment
8NorthernMonkey8!!!
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON PAL.
Glad to see they're straight forward decent people out there like you who like myself don?t succumb to THE HYSTERICAL NEGATIVE HYPE and who also look at the TRUE BIG PICTURE and react accordingly.
As I said in my previous comment..."HE HAS NOT "KILLED" ANYONE" so all you narrow minded people...STOP DEMONISING HIM.
Complain about this comment
I am so glad other people out there have complained about the biased commentry of the BBC team... especially Steve Cram and now this article too.
I must admit I was pretty much 50/50 on this issue and could see both sides of the arguement - something perhaps the BBC could learn from ?
But, I was irritated so much by Cram and co, blatently ignoring what everyone who watched the race live could see for themselves - there were a few supporters there who booed DC, but the vast majority cheered at his name and at the end of an excellent race.......
I and family around me were shocked by their biased stance - not one prepared to stand out and say through all his 'trials' DC ran a terrific race and without doubt now deserves his place on the team.
I also have no doubt that this BOA by-law will be overturned in the courts as per Christina O and the shot-putter chap - as has been mentioned above the double-standards here is bewildering...
Thanks to the BBC and their biased coverage I am certainly going to support Dwain and am really pleased to see the overwhelming public support for him.
Go for it DC - the British public don't like bullies !!
Complain about this comment
This is a lot of fuss over nothing really isn't it?
Like alot of people have said before me..... he has done the crime and served his time.
I feel he is genuinely sorry for what he has done and is trying his best to right all his wrongs so i feel we should give the man another chance.
Test him every week if need be but he is the best we got so let him go.
Complain about this comment
The fact remains that if you take a drug generally (de[pending on the drug) it will enhance muscle growth etc. If you do the work you will see the benefits, i.e 20% muscle growth than a non drug taker.
If you are banned for two years and still train chances are you are still going to have that 20% extra muscle. Therefore even though you have done the time the advantages are still with you. If I was done out of a place going to Bejing and had worked for the last X years trying to get there I would take out a injunction on Chambers going on the basis that he is still enhanced. Tis more like the guy who drove drunk then writes a book about his experience.
It is not restraint of trade as Chambers can still compete in the IAAf golden league etc. The only destinction would be that he would not be allowed to go to the olympics/worlds as part of a british team. Am not sure but as we have had south africans in the past as part of team GB Chambers should have gone to another countries team with a more relaxed policy.
Yes other countries don't have the same ruling but if we are to compete on a level field then the BOA ban is required. 2 year bans are insufficient for erradicating drug taking. the counter claim is that athletes would be unable to make a living but as per the drunk driver that would be the chance you take. If you drink and drive you may lose your job due to not having a licence. I have no sympathy for chambers. His comments following on being caught saw to that. He knew the rule as part of the GB team.
His timing is also questionable. It is clear that he believed he would never return to athletics but american football and rugby league didn't work out. He then has to come back to athletics the sport he damaged, makes a few contrite comments then expects it all to be great. damages more young athletes by taking a place on the team. Sets up a bad atmosphere in the camp and the whole team is affected. I don't care if he is the best we have his affect on the team will lead to worst performances adverse pressure and may well affect other athletes performance.
The injunction should fail at least on a moral standpoint. Athletics is self governing so I hope his case is thrown out.
Complain about this comment
if sportsmen are allowed to cheat and then be re-admitted to the fold, youngsters will absorb and be affected by this lack of moral character.
the whole of our culture suffers insidiously if cheats are allowed to succeed.
look at youngsters in trouble in the news....where are they getting their attitudes of selfishness and lack of respect for anything, from?
its not too hard to see connections when you see how some of their sporting "hero's" behave.
i would rather have no cheats in my team and win nothing, than have my team win competitions and behave like grubby-souled little scuzzballs.
trouble is, theres too many win-at-all-costs numpties in this country, and the scuzzballs are out-breeding the rest of us!
Complain about this comment
The BOA's stance on this whole situation is admirable but is unfortunately unmaintainable when compared to the IOA's and therefore the global stance on the matter.
Chamber's was caught, admitted guit and was banned for 2 years from all competition by the IOA. But that sentence has been spent and the IOA has now declared him eligible to compete, unrestricted.
Now in an ideal world the IOA would take up the stance that all drugs cheats would be banned from the top level for life. That's what the Olympics is; the top level, the pinnacle of sport. It places above the specific World, European or Commonwealth championships for any sport included. Ask any athlete; runner, rower, cyclist, swimmer, etc.
But it hasn't, he is eligible, in there eyes, to compete. What's more, despite his past, he is Britain's best, and he's now clean.
No doubt other nations will be fielding competitors with spent drugs convictions because they are their best chance of a medal. Morally wrong, but until the IOA says so, the BOA should follow suit, otherwise it's shooting itself in the foot, a seriously damaging it's chances of a medal.
At the end of the day that's what Olympics is about. Winning medals cleanly.
He's now clean and he's still the fastest, so he should run until the IOA says otherwise. End of story.
Complain about this comment
i think he should be allowed to go, maybe im looking at it from a younger perspectve of 18 than steve backley and co, but i just feel hes served his time, is probably being tested more than ever, and is by far the quickest 100m runer in britain at the moment, so let him run. There must be other athletes going to china that have served drugs bans??
Complain about this comment
I can only assume then that those in favour of Chambers representing Britain at the Olympics would be perfectly happy to see Marion Jones reappear to take her "rightful" position on the winner's podium. Or are American cheats different? As far as I know, Dwaine Chambers did not change his mind - he got caught! There's a big difference. Whether he goes or not, he certainly won't be representing me, or my family, or my friends, or anyone else I know.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure it really matters if Chambers goes or stays, to be honest. Aside from the issue of his personal rights, of course, as he's hardly going to be a factor at the big O, is he? He ran 9.97 in 2001 - seven years ago, when he was 23 - a time that, even if he could pull it off now (and he can't) probably won't even qualify him for the 100m final at Beijing. He ran an even 10 seconds today, but the last time 10 seconds had a chance of a medal at the Olympics was in the mid-to-late 1960s.
Of course, what's laughable about all of this - and inevitably this comment will see my entire post being removed from here - is that if a mediocre performer like Chambers needs chemical enhancement to *only* run 9.97 then it makes you wonder what in blue blazes the likes of Tyson Gay are taking. Let's not be naive or whimsical about this - they're *all* taking drugs, as we know - not being caught is not proof of anything (apart from that you haven't been caught).
It makes me chuckle. Almost one-tenth of one second has been taken off of Ben Johnson's drug-assisted 1988 gold-medal winning run (9.79), but some people still seem to cling to the idea that he was a rare bad egg. It's only two years since Justin Gatlin's 9.77 was stripped from the record books.
It's only a level playing field if you're taking the same stuff as everybody else. As far as I can tell, the last legitimate 100m record-holder was probably Jim Hines back 60s/70s, but even then, who knows?
Let Chambers go - he's not doing anything different to anybody else (and yes, he's still taking something), and he isn't a factor anyway.
Complain about this comment
(That should say "mid-to-late 1980s" in the first paragraph, above.)
Complain about this comment
I feel sorry for Dwain Chambers. Putting the moral issues aside, at the end of the day I believe he's just a man trying to earn a crust.
He's tried earning outside of athletics (American Football + Rugby) but it didn't work out - so he's fallen back to what he does best, 100m sprinting.
Do you think he'd have come back to the sport he was disgraced in, and endure all the stress and pressure if he had other options?
Complain about this comment
Athletics was my life as a youngster...I even made the national team in the mid-70s and it would have been normal to then have gone into coaching (as I have done in other sports) and possibly officiating at the highest levels.....but I don't, and why? Because of the cheats like Dwain Chambers that have ruined this sport and turned it into a 'has been' activity that few in this country even care about.
How sad that I can't even be bothered to watch a sport that gave me, and so many others, so much.
And yes, there were cheats around in the 70's....but when they were caught they didn't come back....we, the athletes, made sure of that.
Chambers is driven by one thing, money...sure he can run fast (can't play rugby....real men do that), but let's not feel sorry for him...he's a cheat, the worst kind of sporting cheat.....a drug cheat.
A British team at the Olympics with a convicted drug-user? What a joke, and how sad for the once proud heritage created by the likes of Ovett, Cram, Foster, Coe, Board, Peters, Lerwill, Davis and Thompson. All destroyed by the glory-seekers-at-any-cost
oiks like Chambers. Send him to Beijing? One more reason not to watch the athletics.......how sad.
Complain about this comment
Real men play rugby? Last count, there have been 15 successful prosecutions involving doping in rugby (league and union).
If I remember correctly, the only sports with no convictions are field hockey and figure skating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_sanctioned_for_doping_offences
Makes for depressing reading, but I think it might be essential for those who like their lenses tinted.
Complain about this comment
Of course Chambers should NOT go to Beijing, his punishment for his so called "mistake" was a 2 year ban from competition PLUS a lifetime Olympic ban from by the BOA. He is NOT being punished twice.
Complain about this comment
The sad fact of the matter is that if he is not allowed to compete a lot of other countries are just going to laugh at us. We are not even going to be allowed the moral high ground because the critics (and there will be many who will poke fun at our double-standards) will point to other cases where bans were overturned.
Dwayne Chambers is the only sprinter we have who has a chance of making the 100-m Final. And even then, compare his 10.00 with the sub-9.8 times of the Jamaicans and Americans. If he were keeping out an outstanding medal hope, fine but, let's face it, the guy who looks set to miss out would be overjoyed even to scrape into the Semi-Final in Beijing as a fastest loser and even that would take the run of his life.
Complain about this comment
"if sportsmen are allowed to cheat and then be re-admitted to the fold, youngsters will absorb and be affected by this lack of moral character.
the whole of our culture suffers insidiously if cheats are allowed to succeed."
Unfortunately, our culture suffers insidiously if we allow second chances in some situations but not others. Forgiveness (and I say this as an atheist) is possibly the most important lesson there is for a human.
Complain about this comment
There are numerous comments on this blog which have suggested that Chambers has served his time and paid the penalty but that is actually false.
The punishments for a Drug Cheat in the UK are 2 years ban (which he has completed) and a lifetime ban in competing in the Olympics (which he hasnt served).
He knew the ban was in place so he should serve the ban, all of it, not just the 2 years. If he was to be successful in overturning one of the rules then the next thing we will be discussing is whether drug cheats should be ban at all.
The man has committed a serious offense here since he has cheated other people who were free of drugs.
I cannot see how being strict against drugs can be a bad thing and it baffles me when seeing so many in support of drug cheats. UK are doing something good for the sport and we should unite and support our nation in our fight against drugs. Kick drugs out the way we should kick racism out of any sport. I fully understand that other countries may allow former drug cheat to compete but why do we have to lower ourself to encouraging drug cheats??? If this is the only way to win medals then i will be more than happy if we won nothing. My heart bleeds for Edgar who finished 4th in the trials. If he is to be denied the chance to go to the olympics simply because of Chambers then i can see him going into drugs to try and get himself into the next one.
I am happy and willing to offer people a second chance, but isn't being allowed to run in World, european and other major tournaments not a second chance for this selfish individual.
One thing is for sure, he is definitely not doing this for our country. That is a point that alot of people are missing.
I understand that his crime is in no comparison to murder and i am not treating it as such or esle i will be calling for life imprisonment.
The above message was written under my personal view and i respect all others who may have their supporting view on chambers but i just simply dont agree with it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dwain ruined the deams of true athletes, that cannot be changed and neither should the decision to ban him.
Complain about this comment
Ah, c'mon!, live with it, let's put it right for once: He's a CHEAT!
You British have the annoying habit of waiving these offences for your people while heavily criticizing the rest of the World if anyone else commit a 10% of such offences.
Moreover, in response to several comments on the same sort of drift, let me tell you this was not a "mistake": Let's put the case as normally is, someone has told him to take that enhancer because in that way he'd perform better. So he did, and he was caught. The concept of "Mistake" in this case is not appropriate because we are not talking about a fortituous circumstance, totally beyond his realm of control of knowing what he was pursuing when doing what he's done. He knew he would be banned. Had not him been caught I would be seriously concerned about the whole of the athletics World.
Complain about this comment
The BOA rule is stupid in that it should be unnecessary. Other sports have lifetime bans for drugs offences imposed by their governing bodies, and in doing so have virtually eliminated use of drugs in those sports - if the likes of the Athletics and Cycling governing bodies had upped their game, there wouldn't be this issue as Chambers would either a) never have taken the risk, or b) would be banned for life regardless of the BOA's stance.
Complain about this comment
What's all this about Dwaine being punished twice?? He had a 2 year ban, and was banned from the olympics. That's 1 punishment, albeit in 2 parts, but they were the rules then, which he knew when he was spiking up. I think he's got some nerve trying to play the victim in all this, when he voluntarily took these banned substances knowing the punishment if he was to be caught.
Complain about this comment
Drugs make it easier to train, to build muscle, to recuperate etc. I believe it's also harder to develop a physique than it is to maintain it.
If those two statements are true, then an athlete who takes drugs has a lifetime advantage over an athlete who doesn't - regardless of whether he/she eventually goes clean.
Isn't it therefore right that an athlete should suffer a lifetime penalty for giving himself/herself a lifetime advantage?
I agree that Christine O's case is rather debatable, but I don't agree that this should be used as a basis for allowing Chambers to run. The circumstances are not the same, so it seems to me that the precedence rules don't apply.
I also don't agree that we should allow drug-users to compete simply because drug use is rife in athletics. Theft is rife throughout the world, but that doesn't make us think that thieving is an acceptable way of earning money.
Complain about this comment
I have to say I really don't get this whole saga. Christine Ohuruogu was suspended from competing in the 2006 European Athletics Championships. The reason for this was that she missed three out of competition drugs tests, one in October 2005 and two in June 2006. According to IAAF and British Olympic Association rules, she received a one-year ban for missing these tests. The British Olympic Association subsequently banned her from competing at future Olympic Games for Great Britain (just like they did for Chambers). As a result she appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but the original decision was upheld. Not being one to give up she appealed again and finally had her ban overturned on 27 August 2007.
Now I'm not saying that she "deliberately" missed her tests because she knew she would fail but as a professional athlete there really isn't any excuse for missing three out of competition tests in a row unless you trying to hide something. What's more she has also stated, perhaps in jest but publically nonetheless, that she would probably leave Britain and compete in the Olympics for another country if her appeal was unsuccessful. Yet in spite of all this the public and media still love her and apparently loathe Chambers who has never wished to do anything but race for his country.
This makes no sense to me. Yes Chambers failed his tests but now he has served his ban all he wants to pull on the British lycra one more time. If Ohuruogu had actually bothered to turn up for her tests and failed would she still have the public's adoration.
It begs the question: how much does her World Title have to do with the fact that the British Olympic Association and the associated media are supporting her and not Chambers? Whilst he is undoubtedly our finest sprinter he realistically doesn't have a chance of winning a medal at this year's games, especially if Gay, Bolt and Powell are all fighting fit. Ohuruogu on the other hand has a genuine chance of making the podium. I for one would hate to think the BOA so cynical and Machiavellian as to publically lambast one fallen athlete when they know he won't be bringing home the gold whilst apparently suffering simultaneous amnesia with regards to another. If so there supposedly tough stance on drug abuse is about as thinly veiled and believable as professional wrestling.
I hope I'm wrong, and I hope that when Chambers is cleared to run on Wednesday that the BOA and the media alike with show him the same support they gave to Ohuruogu after her unfortunate loss of memory.
I could of course be wrong. I could well have missed some facts and if so please feel free to enlighten me because right now I have lost all faith in British athletics.
Complain about this comment
I heard over the weekend that some British Olympic Team members will refuse to walk with Dwain Chambers in the opening ceremony if he is selected.
Will they also refuse to compete if any of the athletes in their respective events have been banned in the past, served their time then allowed to compete by other countries?
I don't think so.
And what about our heroine Christine Ohuruogu? There are some double standards around, I think
Complain about this comment
Well, FWIW I think he should not be allowed to go to the olympics. I'm quite proud that the BOA have taken a stand against drug cheats.
That being said I think that the legal likelihood is that Chambers will get the ban overturned.
In that case i expect the BOA will try to reinstate the ban on a stronger legal footing (although Chambers would be able to run...).
I can't help thinking this whole saga is doing much more for lawyers and journalists than it is for sport.
Complain about this comment
Were all the ex-athletes and media so up in arms when he actually returned from his ban in 2006?
Were they all so up in arms about other athletes in the same situation, for example Carl Myerscough, who has also competed again for GB after a drugs ban?
Something tells me the fuss is only because the guy is actually quite good. If it was someone not near the top of is event in the world, such as Myerscough, then the fuss just wouldn't be happening.
It comes across so much that the ex-athletes don't make a fuss when it's one of their pals, Ohuruogu for example (although I know it's a different level of offence, but still a drugs offence), and a big fuss when it's not one of their mates, Chambers.
Complain about this comment
I actually agree with what appears to be the majority opinion on this site in that he should be given a second chance.
Whilst I think there should be no drugs in sport (difficult/impossible to acheive in practise, but should still be striven for), the question appears to be more a case of whether his punishment was correct in the first place.
If someone is caught cheating with drugs then they should receive a set punishment. If there is concern about people being able to compete in the Olympics then a four year ban should be recommended (dependent on the severity of the offence - such as systematic continuous drug abuse vs. other circumstances) which would automatically disqualify them from competing in their next Olympics. I think some people are upset that he has been caught cheating and whilst he received a two year general ban, in regards purely to his Olympic prospects if just the two year ban stands then he gets to compete at every Olympics as if nothing happened.
At the end of the day, punsihments should equal the crime, be consistent and be enforceable. It is pointless having bans if they can be overturned because someone disagrees with them. They should only be overturned if it is shown that the offence was not actually committed. Mitigation should be taken in to account before a ban is imposed.
Lastly, once the time has been served they should be given a clean slate by the media as well as the selectors. Selection-wise they should be treated the same as any other athlete. It will be up to them to rebuild the trust of their peers and rebuild some self-respect.
Complain about this comment
The BOA have selectively applied their own bye-law to Chambers. There is at least one other convicted od drug related offences who is going to Beijing.
I wish Dwain every success when he is competing for Britain in the Olympics, as he has proved himself a real fighter.
What I am looking forward to is the hypocritical wriggling that those media commentators, who have condemned him, will have to go through if he progresses through the rounds towards the finals.
Presumably, they hadn't extrapolated to the possibility that he might be in with a chance of winning...
Complain about this comment
I used to be a great fan of athletics and watched all the big events but in the past couple of years I have lost interest because of drugs in sport. There is now too much money available which clearly tempts athletes to try and beat the testers (successfully much of the time) so watching modern athletics is like a freak show. I feel so sorry for all the club athletes and coaches who work so hard to compete fairly with little or no financial reward while they watch the prima donnas at the top getting all the money and publicity.
If Chambers runs in the Olympics I will not be watching.
Complain about this comment
Firstly can we drop the Myerscough canard please?
He missed the Olympics in 2003 because of exactly the same rule being applied to Chambers now. So how eaxtly are the two being treated differently? If anything Chambers has recieved more help from the media in promoting his cause than Myerscough ever did.
I find it very sad that people cannot separate the Olympics from other events. The Olypics in my opinion is about the triumph of human endeavour and is tranished by allowing cheats to compete. Chambers is a cheat. He knew what the punishment was before he cheated and decided to proceed regardless. I have no sympathy with his argument whaetever. For all those people advocating second chances I wonder how far your magnanimity extends. How many people would be happy entrusting their child to a convicted criminal? After all everyone deserves a second chance right?
Complain about this comment
2003? Oops.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ianphot writes
"If Chambers runs in the Olympics I will not be watching."
You'd better find something else to watch anyway because the Chinese have been gearing themselves up just for this Olympics and will be drugged up to the eyeballs.
Complain about this comment
Mr T
Would giving Chambers a public flogging be a good idea for our resident legal expert?
Thank the lord you aren't in charge of our justice system. If you are inferring would I let my child be put in the care of someone like Chambers? Yes absolutely. I would like my child to learn how you can recover from your (stupid or otherwise) mistakes, take your punishment like a man and get on with life in the best way you can. THAT shows true heart and character. Chambers could have just disappeared, wallowed in self pity, had a nervous breakdown etc. But he didn't did he.
He did something wrong, nothing to proud of, admitted it, did his time in the full glare of publicity. Then he dusted himself down and got on with what he does best, in best way he knows how, according to the rules and the law.
I certainly wouldn't want my child in the the care of people with narrow minded, bigotted, ill-informed, unfair, bitter and twisted attitudes like yours.
Thank god - everyone apart from the very worst violent offenders (in my opinion) - deserve a second chance according to the law of the land. Its what every civilised society bases itself on - or we'd still be hanging youths for stealing an apple. True redemption shows the best side of the human spirit and I'm all for it.
LEAVE CHAMBERS ALONE. Its not his fault its the system - and thats just too difficult for many simple minds to challenge - so you go after the human being instead. Discusting.
Hounding a man in this way is a bigger form of cowardice than he ever displayed.
Complain about this comment
Hmm nice ad hominem there.
You're revision of history is astounding
He admitted doeing something wrong after he had been caught bang to rights and his excuse?
"I didn't think I'd get caught"
Hardly the contrition one may expect from a paragon of virtue is it?
And no he hasn't proceeded by the law has he? he's actively trying ot overturn a ban by a governing body in order to enrich himself. Regardless of the principle at stake.
"hounding"? He's not being hounded he's being asked to serve his punishment.
Chambers undermined the entire sport, cheating clean atheletes out of the chance to compete for all the years he was doping. You'll forgive me if I don't cry myself to sleep over the perceived sleight to his character.
Cheats shouldn't be competing at the Olympics. It's that simple for me.
Complain about this comment
thats your opinion, but fortunately your opinion isnt the law. The mob does not, and should never dictate the law.
ERM - he HAS served his punishment - thats the whole point isnt it. The olympic committee decided to lump another retrospective punishment, just for him (WRONG WRONG WRONG) on top of that.
You'll also find its common that offenders admit what they have done after they have done it. You don't see many thieves or fraudsters walking into police stations before they have got caught do you ? For goodness sake get real.
I don't care who has done what - this behavior against him is grossly unfair. It encourages the narrow minded Daily Mail snipers to come out and think that their weird opinions should be forced through the media turning into some sort of insane witch hunt.
He did wrong , got caught, got sentenced, served his punishment. If people like you simply can't see the reason in that then again - thank god you aren't in charge.
NB - And all those *super-duper* athletes that he supposedly beat just because he was taking drugs .... are they the same ones coming second to him now he is clean ??
Complain about this comment
oh and sorry - look it up -two different sentences (and one retropesctively!!!) for the same offence are (for now at least until Gordon Brown has another fit), illegal under every form of legislation you care to pick.
He has every right under the law to challenge what is clearly at best dubious and underhand piece of decision making that no law court in the land would have the power to undertake.
If he is truly the best we have at sprinting, and he has admitted what he did and is contrite about it, let him run. If he he gets rich on being the best (cleanly of course), who are you to stop him?
Imagine you get a speeding ticket - and the police turn up after you have paid your dues and a ban, and say they think you deserve some more punishment. And when you have done that they turn up at your door again and say they have taken away your job and your car and you can never drive for the rest of your life. And they might be back if they want to - so you every time you try to get back on your feet, you get knocked down again. This, as you say, isn't hounding of course. Its right isn't it.
Oh, and you have no right to appeal this... as you clearly think should be the case - once a nasty evil criminal, always...right? No need for due process then.
Nice world you inhabit.
Complain about this comment
retrospecitvely?
BOA bylaw instituted 1992.
Just Dwain Chambers?
Myerscough missed Athens due to same law.
Your strawman argument about speeding tickets?
Nonsense. It's more akin to a drunk driver losing their licence due to legal sanction and then losing their job as an HGV driver as they no longer meet the requirements set out by their employer.
You are correct of course that Dwain has the right to appeal. However since his guilt is not in doubt it's simply about Dwain Chamber changing laws to suit himself regrdless of the principle at stake. I support the BOA's stance. They don't want cheats representing Great Britain at the Olympics. Nowt wrong with that.
Complain about this comment
I think you will find he can't change the law to suit himself - he is challenging a retrospective punishment that was in addition to his original sentence. Which he is arguing is outside the law.
The only people that truly interpret the law , or seek to change it to suit themselves are the media.
I agree with you actually - cheats shouldn't represent Great Britain. But I believe if the cheat has duly served his time and is clearly contrite and no longer cheating, he should be allowed a chance to redeem himself.
And I also believe that drunk drivers have that same right if they are lucky enough to have been pulled over before they have done serious damage to anyone.
Employers should be allowed to sack HGV drivers in that situation but your example isn't correct. The point is, surely, that the same driver should be allowed to retake his licence, prove his fitness and propriety, and not be barred from earning a living doing what he wants to do, or have the great public at large be judge and jury.
Attitudes in this country are so ridiculously over the top and so pious and holyer-than-thou sometimes it makes me nauseous.
Complain about this comment
diegomarradona - your cheats do it with their hands, live on tv, and still get away with it.....care to comment on that?
Complain about this comment
I'm so fed up of all this
LET HIM RACE!!!!
There is no reason he should be barred as it wasn't in olympic competition, END OF!
He's served his punishment like all people who break the rules and should be given a second chance, CLEALY!!!!!
Besides, I have a good feeling he could make it to the 100m final if he carries on improving as he has done.
Complain about this comment
I'm not going to read through the 83 comments. I'm just going to post briefly to say that I'm fully behind DC racing in Beijing. He cheated and admitted doing so. But, what he's really being condemned for are his comments stating that an athlete on gear would have to be having a very bad day to lose to a clean athlete. Well, he's not completely wrong in saying that and well, he should know after all!!
Anyway, let's get rid of the double standard. Let's not use DC as the example. Just let him get out there and do what he does best - run some fine races. It's gotten to a stage now where it's not about right and wrong but rather it's about ego's.
Complain about this comment
From a legal and unbiased stand point, I can't possibly see Dwain losing his legal appeal against the BOA bylaw. IT has no legal standing as far as I can see.
All this debate concerning Dwain, the BOA and UK athletics has done, is to show how biased and prejudicial British athletics really are, as well as the BBC 's coverage and their commentators subjective opinions on the subject . They talk of moral issues but seriously lack in morality themselves. Their hounding of Dwain is immoral and unethical.
Yes the guy did wrong, but he has admitted his mistakes and taken responsibility for his actions, and is now trying to make amends.
This is all the law asks of anyone.
Complain about this comment
Im sorry but im over 20 and so are alot of my friends and people that i kno who are in favour of Dwain and will continue to do so and here are my reasons for doing so.
At the end of the day life is about picking yourself up from your lowest of lows and come back better and faster than ever.
Life is about 2nd chances and i think Dwain needs the support from everyone everybody has made mistakes and its the comming back and rectifying the wrongs and making them rights, Any lesser man would have walked away and said forget it ima hang my head in shame but not Dwaine Do you guys actually kno how hard it was for him to come back to have to do everything again from scratch??.
For me as i stated before he is a role model to kids cos it shows that you can come back and beat your demons and become a better man through it. This Process has matured Dwain and he is now able to use his in depth knowledge to also help the young sprinters of the day cos he knows the full on temptation to cheat and to dope who else can say do this and is in a position to present the shocking truth to kids other than a person who has been through the whole ordeal himself??? But instead of the British Athletics Association Using him as spokesperson against doping they are victimizing him in such an unfair way which i find quite disgusting.
Fact are facts he is the fastest British Athlete there is over 100 meters at the moment and these slower guys can moan all they want it wont change what is fact, if they cant beat an ex drug cheat like Dwain then what chance have they got against the yanks and the Jamaicans???
I think we all are entitled to our opinions but
we need to look at the bigger picture he is trying to make amends by proving he can do it clean now, is the message that we are giving out now is once we fall astray we can never make amends???
Stop being hypocritical and Let Dwain Run
Go Dwain im backing you 100%
Complain about this comment
I feel a lot of what I believe in has been posted above, but I believe that individuals should be allowed a second chance - Dwain has done wrong and should now be a chance to complete his rehabilitation. For many crimes we ask the public to 'allow' the rehabilitation of criminals, and I feel that similar rules should apply.
As to the validity of the by-law: I've made the comment elsewhere on the site that even Dick Pound (recently the Head of the World Anti-Doping Authority - WADA), said that the BOA by-law was wrong and that "it was on shaky legal ground" - and he is a lawyer, so really should know.
It's important to note (as some of the above posters aren't entirely clear) that Chambers isn't trying to clear his name: instead he's wanting to compete. If he's clean now, and it seems that he is, then let him compete and prove that his statement that "you can only win on drugs" was indeed wrong. You only stoke the fires of the debate by silencing him: let him speak on the track and go to Beijing.
To those that say Edgar is being denied a place - well he finished fourth, and in a clean Olympic trials if you finish fourth, you don't go. If the athletes in that trial were clean, then he failed and he should be man enough to admit that.
Complain about this comment
I am not against lifetime bans from the Olympics for drug-cheats. However, I think the fact that the BOA has a lifetime ban while the IOC nor the IAAF do paints a ridiculous picture of these organisations for not being stronger than it's members and of the UK for appearing to take the issue too far.
Lifetime bans could definitely be effective, but as long as they are not a regulation imposed by the IOC I don't think they should be implemented by naitonal olympic associations.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS