posted May 12, 2008

I fail to understand how people can argue for Dwayne to be allowed back. I admit that he served his ban but he had not had enough clear tests to allow him to compete. Plus he knew the rules re: the Olympics before he decided to cheat.

He's making a mockery of the entire sport by even contemplating challenging the rules let alone coming back, leaving for rugby, coming back...

If he really loved athletics he would stop causing so many arguments and do something constructive, like educating others on his experiences.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 12, 2008

The guy is a cheat and a laughing stock. A disgrace to himself, Great Britain and sport in general

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2008

When a person has served a prison sentence, are they allowed to go back to work? Yes, even if they are on probation for a period. Shouldn't Chambers be allowed to compete on the circuit and at championships.

If UK Athletics are concerned then they should increase the frequency of drugs testing for athletes who have served a ban for a probationary period.

If they didn't want banned athletes to compete then they should have had a lifetime ban. They are simply back pedalling because Chanbers is a banned athlete who actually wants to come back and compete and they are upset that he is still the best.

The Olympic ban has been standard and is set due to the ethos of the Olympics so this shouldn't change. I hope Chambers doesn't try to overturn this but he should be allowed to get on with competing.

It's not really a justice system if there isn't room for people to try and reform.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2008

I think this is all going a bit far now.

This is the kind of rubbish that could lead a person on the receiving end to contemplate suicide.

Its ridiculous the comments Baulch has made, as though he is the lighthouse keeper of intelligence and opportunity.

Quite sad, all of this. Not Chambers but all the people jumping on to put their own knife in, a right royal display of the British kipper, some would say?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2008

beefcake23

How exactly are UKA back pedalling the Olympic ban is not theirs. Their ban came to an end and he ran at the World Indoors. The lifetime ban is from the BOA.

The Olympic ban is not a set standard. The IOC set a minimum, the BOA choose a higher ban than that.

As to the circuit, they get their money with which they ay athletes, from sponsors. to protect the sponsorship they have decided to ban people who are proven cheats. DC cheated they don't want him to besmich the sponsors who provide the money so he isn't allowed to compete, tough.

I suggest you go read up a bit.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2008

i think most peoples argument is that even though hes served his time, the effects of the drugs could still be on his body, which would therefore give him a advantage,

however, IMO, let him run, least we will win something.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 13, 2008

Actually the BOA stance is more you cheated once you might do it again, so you will never represent the BOA again. If you want to represent the BOA don't cheat.

It's a clear cut deterrent to cheating and one which Dwain was well aware of before he took the PED's.

As to let him run at least we will win something, how exactly? He hasn't shown anything to demonstrate a sub 10 time yet, and certainly not sub 9.9.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 14, 2008

all this drivel is really pathetic
if he goes to court, he can make a claim that they are restricting his earning pwoer and ability to work, which actually is not allowed. i think that some posters are right - that they are upset that he is the best and actually wants to come back. athletics has not been made a laughing stock by DC, honestly its was in tatters long before that. at least he has teh gumption to stand up and try to come back, once a cheat, always a cheat is ridiculous, you can't assume people will repeat their past actions, if that is the case we can all assume christine ohurogu will not test again, and then we will have to go through all this. i seem to remember a female shot putter for team GB being allowed to compete many years after her doping ban for the GB team in particular events - Whats the difference that he might actually win something.

I think part of teaching young people pride in their country is showing them that actually the systems which we hold dear do work - i.e. you have served your sentence now you can get on with your life. we have all failed to remember the things he achieved before this ban, and could still achieve following his return to the sport, we sit here and judge as if we know what is happening and what his motivation is when in reality we know nothing of the sort.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 15, 2008

Personally I would rather team GB didn't win any sprint medals rather than a "tainted one".
This guy is a cheat - he should move on with his life instead of persisting with his attention - seeking pretence of being remorseful about the whole affair.
He has brought shame and ridicule onto the GB team, and particularly himself - if he has any dignity he will disappear gracefully.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted May 15, 2008

MSBernie

Do you actually know anything about the topic?

DC had two bans.

1. handed down by UKA which he has completed, and he is now allowed to compete in IAAF competitions, including Grand Prix if he organisers choose to invite him. He has returned to international competition with UKA at the world indoors.

2. Lifetiem ban from the BOA. this si a lifetime ban, and as such he wil not have served his sentence until he dies. That is the sentence he was handed down for the closed competitions where he can only compete as a member of the BOA team.

So he has served his first sentence and ahs got on with his return to that part of athelteics. He has not served his second sentence. If you hold true to the principle of "you have served your sentence now you can get on with your life." you shoudl agree witht eh continued BOA ban as that was the sentnece he was handed down.

However, you appear to be holding more to "if you get more than one sentence you only need serve the shortest one".

add comment | complain about this comment