posted Feb 7, 2008

it's a real turn around from the last time dwayne came back and uka were falling over themselves to select him, and in fact gave him the discretionary place for the euros. if they wanted to take a tough stance on drug cheats why did they do that? probably regret it now which is why they have been so heavy handed.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 7, 2008

Rocco,

You are missing the point. He had to do the out of comp testing before he came back last time. All other drug cheats who are possible GB & NI internationals were tested out of comp before coming back and have been on the program since their return.

Chambers wasn't on the program for a year, could have doped out of comp and now wants to represent the country again.

There should be no regret about letting him back before because he served the ban and underwent out of comp testing prior to his return.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 7, 2008

At the moments we're in the crazy position that it's almost the lawyers who are picking the team. It would be a bit like David Beckham taking the FA to court because they didn't select him for the Switzerland game last night.

Isn't there an easy answer to all this? Just make all GB teams invitational and entirely down to the selectors. No GB qualification times or distances, no guaranteed places for winning the trials, just totally at the whim of the selectors. Anybody who wants to be considered for selection can put their names forward, but by doing so have to agree to the terms and conditions of the way the team is selected. On that basis there can't be any legal recourse against the system if they aren't selected as it's based entirely on subjective judgement rather than statistics.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

"as it's based entirely on subjective judgement rather than statistics."

Why don't we also award athletes points for technical merit after they finish their events?

After all, it does seem rather strange that we base the winner of a race on who completed it in the quickest time.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

"After all, it does seem rather strange that we base the winner of a race on who completed it in the quickest time."

Well that's obviously what most of the 'subjective judgement' would be based on obviously, but by removing the absolute (and presumably legally binding) guarantee that doing a certain time or finishing first in a specific race would get you a place on the team removes the issue of convicted cheats making the team. Let's face it, this is the way teams used to be selected, and the trials were brought in largely to make money by trying to inject some excitement into it. Bite the bullet on the money the trials bring in and base the team on season-long results.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

Actually teh trials were also brought in so that early season events (such as southern hemisphere based Championships) were not all about who ran well last year. It gives the up and coming athelte a chance.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

soreshins, I can't agree with the David Beckham analogy as the rules as to performance and selection rights are vastly different between sports. In football opinions subjective (because Benjani has scored a lot more goals than Wayne Rooney - 99% of people wouldn't say he was better). Athletics isn't subjective, hence selection based on opinions as opposed to performance would lead to discriminated selections.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 8, 2008

To leave it up to the selectors is an awful idea. You need to have the trials: win and you get selected on merit. simple as that. It also means that athletes can't sit back on previous performances and get picked by some old guy who doesn't really know what he's doing or who he's watching.
The selectors would just pick the people they've heard of from before or know well without trials.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 9, 2008

The author of this article has deleted this comment.

posted Feb 9, 2008

The last two posts (on the BBC site) are entirely correct. UKA's CEO, De Vos is making a real pigs ear of the situation with his ill considered and ill advised views.

UKA cannot have a "right to select whom they so wish" because the selection process is based on objective performance targets and trials results.Currently the first past the post or on the podium (with the necessary entry qualification in hand) is automatically entered and does not need to be "selected"

If De Vos were able to implement his idea then there would be no need for trials and we would revert back to the old days of Harold Abrahams and Jack Crump when athletes were likely to be selected according to which university they attended, with Oxford and Cambridge taking precedence. (This enabled the BAAB to keep out most of the "hoi poloi" - working classes) !

UKA must also accede to the international rules on selection both for IAAF global events and IOC Olympic Games. Both require all participants to have satisfied the Championships or Games qualification criteria. And only they have the right to determine what that might be. So UKA would be opening themselves up to legal challenge where an athlete was clearly the country's best, had the qualification required but was arbitrarily overlooked in favour of a lesser athlete for the same event.

What UKA would be entitled to do is to ban an athlete for any period, in excess of the current IAAF "legal" requirement, they so wish, providing it was previously implemented as a rule, if it was found, beyond all possible doubt that an athlete was guilty (by proof or admission, as with Chambers) of having taken PED's. They could impose bans according to their own strictures. 2-5 years or even life, as most would have it for Chambers!

As long as the ban was at least the minimum required by the World Governing Body, the IAAF (currently 2 years as in Chambers case) they can do what they like.

This does not imply they would be free from any legal challenge on any individual case as the law of the land must always be superior. This would require the existence of a right of appeal under the sport's rules and following any failure there, the right of an independent arbitration hearing as currently exists with the ICAS (International Court of Arbitration in Sport)

Even then, as Modalh's case showed, the right of appeal can go all the way to the House of Lords and failing that, the European Parliament if it is deemed a Human Rights issue.

add comment | complain about this comment