- 13 Jul 08, 10:17 PM
All the drama was around Dwain Chambers and it was always going to be.
Whatever decision is made later in the week it was a fascinating race. Most athletes struggled with the conditions this weekend but all the 100m runners performed excellently.
You want the younger guys to step up and do well and Simeon Williamson and Craig Pickering did just that. There is some irony in that Tyrone Edgar - who has always been a big supporter of Dwain - might be the one who loses out if he wins his Court case.
He stormed off the track and didn't speak to anybody after the race so I'm wondering if Tyrone's still got the same thoughts as he did earlier in the week
At this moment, Dwain is not eligible to be nominated in the team so they'd be well within their rights to not name him at all. If they do name someone and Chambers wins the case, they'd have to deselect him, so the wisest thing to do would be to name two people - like Williamson and Pickering - and then say to someone like Edgar his place would become available if the case is unsuccessful.
Or they might not name anybody or just name Williamson. This is what I get annoyed about as this situation causes issues for all the other team members not knowing what they have to do. So I would understand if the selectors go halfway.
There haven't been many startling performances overall, but given the injuries and the personal problems (his grandfather was recently diagnosed with cancer) he had in his build-up I will go for Greg Rutherford in the long jump as my favourite. The 100m was the show of the championships, but considering the level Greg needed to get to in that situation was brilliant.
It was indicative of the type of athlete he is. It's disappointing we haven't seen more young athletes grasping the opportunity.
Helen Clitheroe's run in the 3,000m steeplechase was my highlight for Sunday. You could see she was very keen to secure her Olympic place and it was great to see that exuberance and hunger at the age of 34. Tom Lancashire also won a brilliant 1500m.
Marilyn Okoro got her tactics rights and did what she had to do in the 800m. Jemma Simpson looked disappointed, but, along with Jenny Meadows, I think it will be those three - they've got the potential to make the Olympic semis.
We haven't seen too many genuine medal prospects. Yes, we want to get them selected safely, but sometimes you want them to come on to the Olympic trials and push on.
Although they didn't run in the 400m, Nicola Sanders and Christine Ohuruogu have met the criteria easily. There was a slight risk if somebody other than Lee McConnell had got a qualifying time, but that wasn't likely.
I think Kelly Sotherton would like to have done better. She did OK in the javelin but that is a key event for the heptathlon and she'll need that to be a mediocre event for her, rather than a really bad one. But she's very good at raising her game at major championships.
If Phillips Idowu is able to produce his best form then he's favourite for triple jump gold. If you want to win a gold in Beijing it's really helpful to go there as world number one, be in form and consistent, and he's doing all those things.
He's just got to continue this path and if he does that, he won't come back empty handed.
I think five Olympic medals is achievable for Britain. To win five you would want them to go in with seven or eight good medal chances and convert 75%-80%. The team are probably going with five good medal chances and will hope to convert 100%.
There are a few fringe athletes, but the five are Idowu, Ohuruogu, Sanders, Sotherton and the 4x400m relay girls.
There is enough ability in the men's 4x100 squad but it's an untried team, and we'll be up against the Americans and Jamaicans. I would prefer to see more athletes in the 4-8 category and have one step up like Katherine Merry in Sydney in 2000.
And then there's Perri Shakes-Drayton who beat Tasha Danvers in the 400m hurdles. She doesn't have the Olympic qualifying time, but she's rapidly improving and only 19.
Four years from now she's going to be a huge talent. You have to look at the future and I would take her to Beijing. It's harsh on Tasha, but there's an athlete with bags of ability rising to the occasion. It's a wide open event as well, so I say send her out there and give her some experience - it will make her an even better athlete for 2012.
I went to the Olympics when I was 19 and of course it's intimidating. But you have to learn that. My medal was making the final. It pays huge dividends years later.
About this blog
Links to the blogs of all the contributors can be found below.
Subscribe to BBC Sport: Olympics blog
You can stay up to date with BBC Sport: Olympics blog via these feeds.
BBC Sport: Olympics blog Feed(RSS)
BBC Sport: Olympics blog Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Olympics headlines
Visit the BBC Sport website
Visit the Olympics index
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
He ruined the extreem hard work and dreams of other true athletes, this cannot be changed and neither should the decision to ban him, the law is too often wrong.
Complain about this comment
ahh - that's better - a more balanced / unbiased appraisal of the Chambers situation from Cram - shame you couldn't commentate on the live race in the same fashion.
why do you get annoyed / why is it so hard for the 100m athletes to wait until wednesday to find out what the final selection is going to be - a couple of extra days shouldn't be a problem ?
as you say the selectors can just name a couple of provisional spots, pending the hearing... and, as I think everyone is full aware, once the courts rule in favour of DC... he can take up the third place.
you've also not mentioned paula in the list of potential medalists above, surely if she gets on the plane, along with phillips, these are our two best medal hopes.
however, i would love it if DC came through on the final leg of the 4x100m and brought home a medal for team GB - can't wait to hear your live commentry on that :o)
Complain about this comment
opinionated2 - I don't see how he's ruined the hard work of other athletes. Bottom line is they weren't good enough to beat Chambers. I think he should be allowed to go. He's met the minimum qualification criteria as laid down by the BOA.
Good to see some strong performances from other athletes. Not ground breaking as Cram has said but some really good medal prospects coming through.
Complain about this comment
Lucasmp
It is possible that the courts will not rule in Dwaines favour. Steve Cram is not alone in being angered by all of this. Next year are Premier league clubs going to the High Court over off-side decision. Dwaine has attracted so much anger because he is demanding special treatment. Meanwhile on 606 his supporters are abusing everyone. Black athletes who undoubtedly overcame prejudice are being attacked by people who no nothing about athletics but who want to turn this in to a race issue. The rules should apply equally to all. We should be honouring black athletes who were clean not abusing them to support someone who cheated and knew the penalty
Complain about this comment
I wish people would get off his back, including you Steve!
Why don't you just stick to the reporting Steve, I include Backley in that and leave the opinions outside of the track.
It seems the media and making far more of this than anything else. Yet it you lot throwing your hands in the air and saying "it is damaging to athletics!"
I wonder how much of your column length has been spent writing about Dwaine. In fact this whole affair as enabled Backley to be a newly crowned pundit! Go figure that one and concentrate on the athletics please!
Complain about this comment
Anglo_Celt
Yes, it's possible the courts may rule in favour of BOA. But, IMHO very unlikely... in the eyes of the law three missed tests are on a par with admission of guilt... and Christine O was allowed to serve a one year ban and BOA more than happy to expunge the Olympic Ban - is the DC case very different (in the eyes of the law) ?
Similalry, as I understand it the BOA is the only international body that has this by-law - in any European court I understand it would be torn to shreds... personally, I think BOA should fall into line with the rest of the world's governing bodies - athletics is an international sport and all athletes should compete on level playing field.
Anyone who makes this into a race issue is sick - this is simply about whether an athlete should be given a chance to redeem himself and represent his country at the Olympics - as he can do at any other athletics meet... why should the Olympics be any different ?
Complain about this comment
Yes I have to agree with a number of the comments posted regarding the commentary during the UK trials. Thankfully Mr Cram, Jackson and Backley are not involved in the UK judiciary as redemption and forgiveness do not appear to exist. One comment was made by a commentator that this was not like a criminal case when you serve your time etc. sport is different they said. Eh no it's not and should never be. Next they'll be advocating sending teams to Zimbawe as it's sport and not real life!
Chambers won the race. He is now clean, he is the best, he should be selected. The BOA law as it stands is subjective. Why else is Christine O being selected.
Forgive, forget - move on!
Complain about this comment
Steve Cram's endless harassment (which is essentially what it amounts to) of Chambers is shameful. His commentary this weekend was incompetent and the BBC should terminate his contract. How much more punishment does Cram think Chambers needs to take? He has suffered enough. He has been broken financially and has more than paid for his mistake. No one is saying what he did was ok. Clearly it wasn't. But he has admitted his mistake and has suffered the punishment. Cram clearly has a personal vendetta against Chambers and this has made his commentary on the BBC tainted. Chambers has served his time and now should be allowed to run without Cram's holier than thou endless attempts to discredit him.
Complain about this comment
Teutonic1000
I agree entirely and now Backley (to make a pundits name for himself), has joined the bandwagon.
It also seems if Colin Jackson is joining, although this may be because he is being dragged along in the tide!
The BBC seem to be getting as much people as possible with bias views against Chambers than for!
A witch-hunt through and through!
PS I actually pity him if he runs at Beijing, because they won't drop it and may end it marring the whole athletics commentary.
Complain about this comment
Teutonic1000,
Chambers hasn't served his time - the BOA had a life ban in place before Chambers became a drug cheat - as long as he's breathing he hasn't served his time, and he knew this at the time.
People need to get a grip and realise that people competing in sports are treated far more leniently than in any other walk of life;
if a bank employee were to steal from his/her employer, do you think they would just get two years off work, but with their liberty intact, and then be able to get another job in a bank?
Everyone banging on about a second chance - well, yes, you deserve a 2nd chance in life, but not in the same area where you've already messed up.
I messed up once, when I was younger than Chambers was when he cheated, I accepted my punishment and got on with my life in a different sphere - I wish he'd do the same.
As for the trials, the girl Perri in the 400hurdles was impressive - she should go to Beijing; the first and second in the wonmen's 800m ran well, and Rimmer looked good in the men's equivalent, although the rest of the field looked sub-standard.
Complain about this comment
Chambers has admitted his mistake - in getting caught . Personally I would be more than happy to forgive him if he showed any remorse. I accept that other countries have different rules on this but lets not kid ourselves. Dwaine is capable of running as fast as he does because of what he has done in the past. The message to athletes like Edgar is clear if Dwaine is selected
Complain about this comment
"He stormed off the track and didn't speak to anybody after the race so I'm wondering if Tyrone's still got the same thoughts as he did earlier in the week [Tyrone Edgar - who has always been a big supporter of Dwain]"
That is pure speculation on your part. You have no evidence to substantiate your view. It sounds like your antipathy towards Dwaine is getting desperate. Now, you are attempting to create scenrios that may not exist at all.
It's sad that you want to adopt such an approach - you were a great athlete, don't spoil it by losing the respect of the public who enjoyed your success.
Complain about this comment
I do not want Dwain Chambers representing GB in the Olympics. I coach an Under 9's football team and I don't want to have to say it is alright to be a drugs cheat then represent your country.
This is not about racism, we have some fantastic Black, White and Asian athletes out there who have not willfully cheated.
We must stamp out the drugs cheats, and be honest to our own ethics not what other countries allow to happen. Lifetime ban from the Olympics for all drugs cheats
Complain about this comment
KentuckyKid - Shane Warne was banned for 12 months for taking performance enhancing drugs and he was allowed to continue in cricket after his ban. So yes, you can (and in my opinion should) be allowed to continue in the same field
Complain about this comment
Yes Dwain has made mistakes in the past, but we as a society should take some of the blame. The pressure that we place on our athletes to do well can be overwelming.
The reality is that we give them very little support to enable them to achieve our expectations, unless they're already at the top of their chosen event. Even then the rewards for all their time, effort and sacrifice are miniscule compared to other sports. Its understandable, to some extent, that some athletes feel that they need a little extra help, especially on the world stage. I feel very strongly that the BOA and Uk athletics have only added to the sensationalism of this debate and should have handled this situation with more decorum. As for tyrone Edgar and the others not knowing what they need to do! Simple - run faster.
Complain about this comment
I watched the grim-faced sanctimonious Messrs Cram and Edwards on the BBC coverage after Dwain had won. I was intrigued when Sue Barker suggested to Jonathan Edwards that it was not just a legal question, but a moral one. Those with long memories of British athletics will remember Andy Norman being sacked as BAF Promotions Officer in the 1990s, after a coroner recorded that his false allegations and threats were material in Cliff Temple's decision to take his own life (Cliff was athletics correspondent of the Sunday Times, and planning a story on Norman). Despite this, Norman remained a powerful figure in athletics and acted as agent for some high-profile athletes, including Jonathan Edwards. Many high-profile athletes continued to do business with Norman, despite him bringing athletics into disrepute in a far worse way than Dwain Chambers. Unlike Chambers, he was not an easy target, but he was a more deserving one. Unfortunately, many of the people now lining up to villify Dwain Chambers were unable to locate their spines when it came to Andy Norman. I guess they consider personal drug-taking worse than contributing to a man's death. I think many of the people preaching morality to Dwain and us should take a long hard look at the dubious choices they have made in the past before continuing with this campaign.
Complain about this comment
Can I just say that I find it incomprehensible that the BBC would allow its coverage of the olympic trials to be marred by the bias and subjective opinions of its commentators, concerning Dwain Chambers.
The BBC have a duty to the public to provide a balanced debate concerning all issues of public interest. Instead however, it seems that this weekends coverage of the Trials, served as nothing more than a soapbox for the voice of the BOA and its former golden athletes personal opinions.
It is only the BOA's insistance on airing its dirty washing for all to see, that fuels the flames on this contentious issue. It is clear that they only apply their rules when it suits and to whom they choose, as do the BBC athletics commentatory team.
Contrary to popualr belief amongst the commentators and the media, Dwain seems to have far more support than they would like to have us believe. But this is not a case that people are apathetic about the use of drugs in sport, but more about the seemingly victimisation of any one individual. People don't like bullies, and no matter what the BOA believes, this is what their public humiliation of Dwain really is - and its dividing a nation.
The Olympic games, as we all know is full of contradictions upon its philosophies. But at its heart is the fundamental concept of equality, fairness and compassion. It is an ideal that unites the world. The BOA should consider this idealism more closely.
Complain about this comment
This whole affair is just so wrong on so many levels, it's difficult to know where to start. But here goes:
1) UKA and the BBC are both culpable of an extraordinary level of bias. The same fuss was not made of Janine Whitlock (British record holder in the Pole Vault) when she tested positive for steroids. Nor was the same fuss made of Carl Myerscough when he won the shot putt this weekend. He has been allowed to get on with his career without any fuss, despite testing positive for steroids in 1999. If the BBC and UKA have any decency about them, they should ensure that all athletes that have failed drugs tests are treated equally for the same transgression.
2) UKA failed in its duty of care to Dwain back in 2001 when he first went to the USA. Here was a funded GB athlete, at the age of 22, who goes off to the US to train with a group of American athletes, and nobody in UKA thought it necessary to check it out? It's not like it was a collegiate set up, where you expect the athletes' welfare to be looked after. If this was an equivalent in private sector employment, someone would have lost their job. UKA's lax attitude to the welfare of its athletes is, at best, negligent.
3) Surely the fact that Dwain felt it necessary to go to the States in the first place is a damning indictment on the state of coaching in this country? Anyone in the sport knows that UKA's attitude to its coaches is a disgrace.
4) An athlete who is effectively out of the sport for 3-4 years (as in Dwain's case) has no business coming back to the top of the sport. Surely if UKA had been doing its job properly we would have a number of young sprinters (not just Simeon Williamson) at a decent level. 10.1/10.2 is just not good enough - which is why we haven't had a sprinter in a World or Olympic final for 5 years. Try running 10.00 in the US trials? You wouldn't make the final.
5) Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the BOA byelaw, Jonathan Edwards was spot on when he said that the problem was that two years is too short a time for a drugs ban. Make it 8 or 10 years (or more) and you won't have this problem. UKA and the BBC (and all those retired athletes that they bring out to comment) should be lobbying WADA to make this penalty a strong one.
6) UKA and the BBC's hand-wringing and self-flagellation on this topic is shameful. It is this, rather than Dwain Chambers or Carl Myerscough's actions which continue to make a mockery of the sport. These bodies are trying so hard to appear to be doing the right thing that they are making anyone connected with the sport look foolish by washing its dirty linen in public. If we want to have a clean sport, and one that we are all proud to be associated with, lets do something positive - have sensible, legal, strong INTERNATIONAL drug enforcement policies to bring back the integrity to our sport. Let's take more of an interest in our athletes and coaches welfare, and of all those who give their time up for nothing to make GB athletics successful.
Complain about this comment
I have to say irrespective of Steve Cram's achievments, his comments during the final of the 100m at the trials were highly unprofessional. Mr Cram should know there are those that support Chambers and there are those that do not. Irrespective of view, he has gone down a great deal in my estimation after his comments.
Complain about this comment
Some interesting and informed opinions on this blog recently. I don't find it objectionable that Steve Cram has an opinion -- we are free to disagree with him, and many do, as this blog demonstrates. I think there is far too much bland sports commentary and punditry on TV (Colin Jackson is a frequent offender, though he is improving). Cram, in particular, is usually a measured, articulate and well-informed commentator, and it is interesting to hear his thoughts. I did find it rather tiresome, however, that the coverage sought to sensationalise and draw attention to the issue at every opportunity, so that we heard those thoughts over and over again. This was not solely Steve Cram's fault; rather, it was a bad decision by the producers, assuming that this was what people were most interested in.
On the subject of the athletics itself -- I think Tom Parsons is also worth congratulating (alongside those already mentioned), for pulling out a personal best when it really mattered to win a fascinating high jump competition.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Twinspeed
Your point about Janine Whitlock and Carl Myerscough is well made. Both failed drug tests like Dwain and both are banned from Olympic competition! Obviously we should all whip a fuss and demand that they are reinstated ! No the truth is these athletes cannot become clean again. They have gained a benifit which they still have. I agree that the real answer is to ban all drug cheats for life. If we are not prepared to do this than scrap national teams and let the whole thing be sponsored the Dwain could run for BALCO etc.
PS Is it possible that he knew exactly the benefits of being in the USA?
Complain about this comment
I was appalled at the way your BBC commentators handled the 100m men's final and the various interviews afterwards. Messrs Cram and co were irresponsible and biased in their comments on an issue which still lies in the courts and is unresolved.
Their high-handed moralising was shameful and regretable. Someone at the BBC should be re-considering whether such comments and behaviour does not require an urgent re-assessment of their contracts.
I have never witnessed such an unprofessional approach to a commentary in all my years of watching athletics.
It raises something very unsavory ~ was the whole of the commentary team briefed to be quite so hard on Mr D. Chambers?
Did someone at a higher level consider that the moral imperative was to have a go at an athlete who was not even invited to answer his critics?
SHAME on the BBC commentary team!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Logicalopinion
Sorry but the message to Tyrone Edgar and co is don't bother training get the right drugs. If you get caught claim your being victimised. You will make millions as a TV celeb in a few years. Far more than those mugs like Colin Jackson, Kelly Holmes, Paula Ratcliffe etc who think this is a sport and wasted their time trainig. What support do they get from the great British public? No we love and underdog/cheat
Complain about this comment
I find it quite funny that just because the Dwain article has seen overwhelming support towards his way the BBC have all of a sudden removed it after my comment.
Wow its hows how objective you really are and what i dont understand is why they cant be two opposing views instead of what the bbc want you to feel and agree with, thats sickening on the bbc's part in my mind.
The whole Chambers Saga has long run its course and i do believe that the BBC are on some kind of vendetta against him especially Steve Cram i feel that the shear blind biased nature of your commentating is just disgusting, im paying my license to hear your rambling is just a joke.
In regards to the chambers issues its simple as this he is the fastest brit out there so he should go.
I hear the a cheat should not be alowed to go to the olympics debate now we should use the word cheat as in "past tense" he was a cheat did his time and is now clean so should be able to run its simple as.
Its funny how Christine can go and have her ban overturned but not Dwane double standards is what i must say and i can see that this victimising is only going to continue so to spite them i say dwane you keep doing what your doing and when your in the final and hopefully geting a medal then show your true worth and just grin teeth while The very same Steve Cram will be trying to suck up to you.
GOOOOOOOOOO DWAIN GOOOOOOOOOO
Full backing 100%
Complain about this comment
Anglo-celt
Contary to misinformed belief, drugs do not enable a person to simply run faster. They still need to be inherently predisposed genectically and physiologically gifted to a certain degree, and train immensily hard for a very long period of time to achieve the highest standards.
Also, as with all drugs, medication and stimulants, no two individuals would gain the same benefit as the other, with some gaining no benefit at all. Our bodies are very complex systems and react very differently to the substances we expose ourselves.
However, I would like to make it very clear, that I do not advocate the use of any form of sporting enhacements, just because I am able to recognise clearly discrimination, bias and victimisation of any one individual.
Dwain certainly does not deserve the humiliation that he is now undergoing at the hands of the media and the BOA.
And, although I do recognise that MR Edgar and others are extremely talented athletes, the simple fact of the matter is, if they want to compete for their country then they need to win consistantly and at international level.
As on average it takes approximately 8yrs of hard training for an athlete to achieve their full potential, I am sure that we will be seeing Mr Edgar and others doing very well sometime in the future. But quite simply put running 10.2 plus does not cut it at international or world level.
Complain about this comment
I back Dwain Chambers all the way.
Way before he was caught taking drugs he came out and admitted his misdemeanours in the knowledge that he would never be eligible, by rules he ran to, to run in the Olympics and he certainly aint gonna argue now! He's not the type of person to hide his cheating and hope he doesnt get caught. We need more of these people not only in sport but in society in general. These athletes are role-models - parents, teachers etc cant be expected to show children how to live their lives for Gods Sake.
And as far as I am concerned, admitting guilt should mean a dramatic cut in punishment.
When I get lashed tomorrow and drink drive I will expect a hefty cut in my ban and jail term purely by admitting my guilt.
Its only fair.
After all words speak louder than actions.
Complain about this comment
I have just seen the selectors choice for the GB olympic squad that they're sending to Beijing.
However, could any one explain to me why we even bother having an Olympic Trial if they're not going to pick athletes from the first three past the post, so to speak?
Once again their choices make a mockery of the very system that is in place to ensure that we send only the very best athletes. Once again it is only the favoured few that have been chosen, and not those athletes who did the best on the day.
With this kind of systemic bias we stand very little chance of ever achieving the goals that we set our athletes.
Is it ever a wonder that some athletes feel that they must cheat just to make the squad!
Complain about this comment
Dwain should be allowed to run...
There is a lot more to be gained by that than if he was prevented from representing Britain...
Have posted elsewhere, that, in this one example, we can observe the degree to which UK Athletics takes the issue of using banned substance seriously, and in this one example, we can observe the fallout from being found out, the negative impact it would have on athletes chosen career path and that athletes ability to make a sustainable living from their chosen career if the do transgress and get found out...and if he is allowed to run, we also observe how that same athlete can redeem himself without the aid of banned substance...that they could have made it regardless...that double example is a powerful one...for both himself and for others, particularly, other young athletes...
The BBC have, unfortunately, shot themselves in the foot a little with this one...I watched the televised trials...what little there was, and they served to drag the whole trials down with their negativity and their lop-sided, biased commentary...was really sad to watch...
Mr Cram - I know you care about these issues, the vast majority of people do, that includes Dwain Chambers' fans...of which I have become one...and believe me, it took me some time to get to like him again...but you do yourself, the BBC and the public no favours continuing as you have...
I suspect given the backlash post-trials that is there for all to see, it probably has made you and others a little more self-reflective...at least, I hope it has...
Here's to a top Beijing Olympics - with all our best athletes out there...
Complain about this comment
localopinion
So Dwaine Chambers has not gained an unfair advantage? In that case why bother to take illegal drugs. No thinking person would claim that taking drugs can turn an average person in to a world beater. But can "mediocre" athletes who run say 10.2 become 10.0 runners if the take the right drugs for a few years? I think we all know the true answer to that one. This is the heart of the problem with the 2 year ban. The athlete still benefits.
But the real issue here is that the BOA has its rules which have been applied consistently to other athletes. The situation with Christine O is patently not the same. She broke the rules but she has never tested positive. She served her ban for what she did. All British athletes with positive tests have been banned from the Olympics. Some appealed to the BOA but they did not take it outside the sport. The only justification for that is if the rule is being applied unfairly.
We are heading for the American situation were serving your drug ban, and hiring a lawyer is part of your development programme.
Complain about this comment
The fact is that by taking drugs DC was able to train longer and gain more muscle power. That can never be taken away. If the BOA bylaw is not upheld in Court I am concerned the following may become the norm:
Any morally suspect but ambitious young sprinter will (rightly) rationalise that the best way to maximise success is to take as many drugs as possible and train hard. If they get away with it great. If not, they just do the two year ban (whilst training hard) then come back (clean): the extra benefit of the drugs will never be taken away from them and they will be more successful after the ban than if they had never taken the drugs.
This is total farce and could lead to athletics being ruined.
Complain about this comment
Anglo_celt
Further to your query concerning the imporvements in performance due to the use of drugs in sport - Indeed drugs may or may not provide an edge to sporting performance. However the simple truth is that nobody really knows. For every research paper confirming the effects of a particular substance there is another research paper that disputes the same effects. The same goes for any applied training method that athletes use to try and improve performance.
Personally I would err on the side that the use of any form of drugs or ergogenic aid to enhance performance has more of a placebo effect than actually gives a physiological advantage. This would also be the same for all the legal substances that athletes take to improve performance such as vitamin cocktails, caffeine suppliments and creatine monohydrate supplimnets etc, etc...
No, indeed, the greatest contribution to sproting enhacement would be intelligent structured trainig, peridized programs and the accumulation of the training effect of a period of time.
Any particular sport is extremely complex. For anyone to achieve there full potential there needs to be an indepth understanding of things such as specific physiological attributes for the event, energy system and nutritional requirements, specific technical requirements, specific musculo skeletal strength, power, flexibility and mobility. And above all the desire to compete and succeed.
So to answer your point 'no' Idon't think that it was very advantageous for Dwain to have taken any form of drugs to improve performance, as he already has all the qualities for him to perform at the hightest level. He was, however, very stupid to listen to those people who advised him that he needed to take them to win.
Complain about this comment
logical opinion
I am sure that what you say about the effect of drugs is true but even if it is marginal at best it can be enough to make a significant difference in selection processes or medal winning. I know a lot of our new found "athletic fans" think that 10.0 is fantastic and 10.2 is rubbish but frankly such people have clearly attemted to run 100m. and I doubt if most of them ralise that it represent approx 2metres difference. When it comes to sprinting marginal effects make all the difference.
None of the above however alters the fact that Dwaine broke the rules knowing the punishments in this country. If he wins all the other drug cheats will come back too. I assume that is want what people want although nobody actually says so.
PS Dwaine will make a fortune out of all of this and is getting all the sympathy. My sympathies are with his relay team mates who lost their medals because he cheated. But our Dwaine fans thing the're all rubbish because they probably never heard of them.
Complain about this comment
anglo_celt
Actually I do agree that our sympathies should also lie with all the athletes caught up in this controversy, past and present.
It is a shame that there is very little positive press being given over to the sport of athletics, with this debate overshadowing the performances of other athletes who deserve there efforts to be recognised.
Unfortunately, I really do believe that much of the negative press has been fuelled by the sports governing bodies and or their representitives and their inconsistancy in effectively applying their own bye-law to all those concerned.
The only real way around all of this, is for all the worlds athletics governing bodies to show solidarity and consistancy, agree upon the rules to abide by and apply them with the upmost integrity and conviction.
Complain about this comment
Saturday's 100m final:-
Rikki FIFTON
Mark FINDLAY
Craig PICKERING
Marlon DEVONISH
Dwain CHAMBERS
Simeon WILLIAMSON
Harry AIKINES AYREETEY
Tyrone EDGAR
Now check this link:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/960109.stm
Are the BBC pundits and in particular Steve Cram over the top with their comments on Dwain Chambers? I think you'd have to say yes.
And note that the opening credits of the BBC athletics coverage included shots of past British Olympic Champions - one of whom has also tested positive.
Complain about this comment
logical opinion
ALL British sports persons found to have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs have been banned from the Olympics as far as I'm aware. It does not get much more consistent than that and I have to say when they served their time and returned to non Olympic competition the BBC commentators made their objections absolutely clear in every case. None of the others ran to the High Court and said change the rules for me and as a result the fuss died down. The problem is that many of those blogging on this issue do not normally follow athletics and therefore are easily manipulated into thinking Dwaine is the only athlete to suffer a ban or be criticised. The others and their advisers were not smart enough to realise that if the went to the high court it would become high profile and they could become much bigger celebs. Lets face it Dwaines going to be much richer than someone like Kelly Holmes with her two gold medals won cleanly. But there is no doubt Dwaine has the public support because the public prefer a good story to the truth. Almost without exception all the former athletes, who know what this is really all about, have criticised Dwaine for damaging the sport. I'm glad you have some sympathy for the clean athletes who lost their medals as a result of Dwaines cheating. There has been a carefully orchestrated media campaign through blogs and whatever to make out that Dwaines Olympic ban is a personal attack on him. Most of his early defenders talked as though his Olympic ban specially designed for Dwaine and that no one else had been treated this way by the BOC. It's been a very effective campaign because most people seem to think that he is our greatest ever athlete and that people like Kelly Holmes, Colin Jackson, Steve Cram etc are jealous of him. Why?????? ...athletically he does not come close to any of there achievements. But we of course are all jealous of them ... they played by the rules and were succesful ... can we ever forgive them? Dwaine on the other hand is a proper British hero .... he turned out to be a loser in the end....someone we can all love!
This really does show that they know nothing about athletics and should go back to watching Big Brother! I predict that Dwaine will be rolling in the millions on the celebrity version or similar before long. In a few years some of his supporters will believe he would right up there with Jesse Owens in terms of greatness if it had not been for Steve Cram, Kelly Holmes, Colin Jackson etc holding him back!!!!!!!
Some believe that drug use should be legal. It is not my point of view but it is a reasonable one. But until the rules are changed they should apply to Dwaine Chambers who like the others new exactly what was in store if he got caught.
I'm glad you at least have have some sympathy for the clean athletes who lost their medals as a result of Dwaines cheating. Your one step ahead of Dwaine and most of his supporters in that regard.
Complain about this comment
obviously dominated by the chambers debate but i'm interested in steve's comments on the five gold medal chances.
steve - you name sanders, ohuruogo, idowo, sotherton and the womens 4x400m but in reality this is only 4 gold medal prospects - sanders and ohuruogo both comepte ion the 400m and only one can win gold.
is there one medal hope you've missed out?
Complain about this comment
I can recall lending my spikes to a fellow long jumper who had split his own. He took his jump and forced me into fourth place in the competition. Did I regret lending him my spikes? No, not then nor now. He was at a disadvantage and it was the decent thing to do.
Dwaine Chambers is is at a disadvantage because of some past miss-guided behaviour. He is an immense talent who has served his sentence and unlike many has tried to make reparations for his mistakes. He deserves our sympathy. Do the decent thing and let him get on with his life.
If you're really serious about cleaning up Sport, then test all sportsmen in all sports and ban for life all who test positive. There's nothing decent about making a scapegoat of Dwaine when others who tested positive are allowed to compete.
Complain about this comment
What does puzzles me about the Dwain Chambers ‘saga’ is how he was able to compete in trials for a place in the Olympic team when he had been banned from taking part in future Olympics.
My own view on his participation I suppose is somewhat irrelevant since I cannot understand why all athletes of integrity don’t withdraw from the competition given the role played by China in helping to support corrupt and brutal regimes such as Zimbawe and Sudan, not to mention their treatment of Tibetans. Whilst few governments are ‘clean’ , the evidence against China is irrefutable.
I wonder if Steve Cram has a view on this.
Complain about this comment
I am disgusted with Steve Cram's constant persecution of Dwain Chambers. Despite serving his ban and co-operating with the appropriate people, he is practically being labelled a serial killer! Murderers don't have to suffer this kind of treatment.
Steve Cram is entirely biased and the BBC should be stopping this ridiculous man from commentating if he cannot represent the other side of the story as equally as his own "high and mighty" opinion. Perhaps Mr Cram has never made any mistakes he is not proud of.
If he is not happy to give a balanced point of view on the situation then he should not comment on it at all, but devote his commentary to other athletes he deems worthy. He should not set up rivalries and conflict between other athletes either, like he has tried to do with Dwain and Tyrone Edgar - this I find most disgusting. He is not qualified to speculate on other people's thoughts about anything with NO PROOF whatsoever.
Mr Cram does not seem to realise that he is the person shouting the loudest about Dwain Chambers and in effect, he is responsible for deviating the attention away from other athletes.
I believe in forgiveness. I am not condoning what Dwain did, but he paid for his mistakes and that should enough. A murderer does not serve a life sentence nowadays. Are we honestly going to say that Dwain should serve a life sentence over this??
This country is quick enough to kick a person when they're down and not winning all the time, saying they're past their peak or a disappointment. Yet the moment they start winning again - they are the celebrity of the moment. Of course people try to stay at the top through serious means, sometimes those means are desperate. But the public only has itself to blame for the mistakes our athletes make.
Mr Cram, just do your job. You are making a fool of yourself and of the wonderful sport of athletics.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS