Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html en-gb 30 Tue 04 Aug 2015 00:55:40 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html tmjonic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=99#comment149 Dwain, as a professional sprinter was aware of the punishement before he ever took performence enhancing drugs. The saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is relevent here. Wed 23 Jul 2008 14:01:18 GMT+1 laughingSpartan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=98#comment148 The decision went against DC which is a crying travesty in my opinion !we are sooo morally high in this country that we miss the bigger picture ! DC is a perfect example to our youth of today who are submerged in gang culture where drugs and crime and knife stabbings are riot !What message have we just sent them that yes if you make a mistake once in your life you will be forever persecuted for it ! what incentive is that for them to change !DC would make a good role model to todays corrupted youth by saying "hey i cheated to make it to the top got caught and have been ridiculed world wide and embarrassed, have had the fortitude to train hard without a coach or access to training stadiums, i have had to train early hours of the morning in the public park on my own, and now as a clean athlete i have made it to the top still" you dont have to take short cuts as he did it the wrong way and now THE RIGHT WAY !Thats a inspiring story to make even the most troubled teen think twice and say hey if i am willing to change i will be given a chance to prove myself !Bigger question here is the BOA BYLAW IS IT UNJUST again yes in my opinion ! let me give you an example :-A athlete who has been training for say 15yrs dedicated from a very young age has competed on the highest level and now finally gets a chance to make his dream of a Olympics. Now at a qualifying event a zealous rival coach or athlete decides to spike that athlete, or even the athletes coach himself spikes his drink to help boost performance even tho it may be with good intentions to help his athlete,That athlete tests positive and now his whole world and life is upside ! where does he go from here Training and competing for this one goal he has had since a child has been taken away through no fault of his own, he has never had a job he has been dedicated to his trade for his entire life ! where does he go from here ! is it fair to ban him for life from an Olympics and ruin his whole life's work for something he did not do intentionally, or should he be allowed !I think you all know what the decent and honest answer is ! Tue 22 Jul 2008 22:57:39 GMT+1 MSBernie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=98#comment147 some of the comments on here are pathetic. they also show a lack of own knowledge gathering and accuracy. the judge has said dwain has grounds for appeal on this ban, what we may find come march is that its overturned and then he SUES the BOC for restraint of trade. i can't take this ruling or their rule seriously as they are allowing him to compete at the Worlds, European and Commonwealth Games, so he can wear a GB vest when its suits them?!!?!?!??!?!not smart decision making Tue 22 Jul 2008 13:33:07 GMT+1 IzzyMiyagh1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=97#comment146 It is looking increasingly possible that he by-law will eventually be overturned - and if it is, Dwain may still get a second chance as he may be around for 2012...For me, the most unfortunate side of this debate has been the hidden prejudice that has been underpinned the comments of some of the posters...not all, but a few...There has been a great discussion about where the greater moral position lies in this debate - a very healthy discussion to have - but problematically, there has also been some quite difficult, nasty, and effectively irrational rantings aginst dwain that do nothing other than suggest that the main motivations behind their posts have been to register their outright dislike of the man...beyond any rational debating...and exemplified by the venomous outpourings with respect to Dwain and his supporters on such forums...Whilst this issue has nothing to do with the race card, some have made it so... Tue 22 Jul 2008 10:51:39 GMT+1 Jordan D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=96#comment145 I must say that in light of this debate, and ones in similar threads, it is interesting which four faces the BBC has chosen to put at the top of their "Team GB" page on the Olympic microsite. I'm specifically refering to one face, which is mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Tue 22 Jul 2008 07:53:00 GMT+1 GrecianPirate http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=96#comment144 As a moral argument, I am not so sure that not giving someone a second chance is the best possible place to start. We all make mistakes in life, especially when we are young, and most of us rightly get a second chance. The by-law is I feel morally wrong, though perhaps in this case the decision made was the only one that could be made in the circumstances with so little time to decide properly. I feel a little sorry for Dwain and support his case for running in the games but by leaving the case so late he was never going to win in time for the Olympics. I hope however that the by-law is challenged and looked at very soon so that a route is made available for other athletes to have that second chance (though maybe one that includes strict guidelines and more frequent testing to ensure compliance). Besides, morally as stated in an earlier mailing, a missed test should really be treated not unlike a failed test, much like any other test (driving, GCSE etc). Yet the BOA seems to feel there is a big enough difference to impose a lifetime ban. It just doesn’t seem very consistent to me. The case just reminds me of the 'Blackball' story of the 15 year ban for a bowls player ... Mon 21 Jul 2008 15:23:21 GMT+1 pumpkinescobar http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=95#comment143 This post has been Removed Mon 21 Jul 2008 11:21:33 GMT+1 truejelnews http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=94#comment142 I don't believe any athlete who has failed a drugs test should have the honour of representing their country in the Olympic games, 'the greatest show on earth'. The standard which BOC has set is right. However since the rest of the world does not have this by-law in place at the moment it is not fair that Dwain Chambers should not be allowed to run. British athletes will still find themselves competing against drug cheats! Well Dwain has lost the battle in court but he can still make a living from running on the grand prix and other championships which is reward enough. He must realise that he has hurt fans who trusted him. If I was Dwain and really wanted to compete I would find a country like Qatar and beg them to let me run for them just to show that the BOC ruling is a bit of a farce if the other countrys are not with it. Sun 20 Jul 2008 21:38:19 GMT+1 Andy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=94#comment141 I think the 'let's get real' is a fair comment, young people make mistakes, let's not crucify them for it. There are plenty of people out there, and past winners, who took drugs. Let's just be sensible, stop drug takers as far as we can, give reasonable punishments and then test the hell out of them. A life sentence for a first offence is harsher than people get for murder.I'm also not sure that some of the BOA banned substances will be performance enhancing, e;g will smoking dope help you run faster?The BOA, etc needs to get off it's soapbox and start to do a 'reasonable' job of developing UK Athletics. At the moment it's doing a poor job of both developing athletes and also managing the drugs issue. Sun 20 Jul 2008 20:24:04 GMT+1 reggie-hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=93#comment140 the whole olympic movement is corrupt.personally not sure how the olympics have lasted as they are boring. i was at the last olympics and it was a good experience but the sporting side of it isn't that good. Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:37:48 GMT+1 logicalopinion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=92#comment139 To allWhy are we all caught up debating the moral issues concernig the use of sporting enhancements? Surely this is a debate to no where, as no one single person is qualified or experienced enough to offer irrefutable eveidence that they are of any benefit.Drugs and sporting enahncements have been around from the beginning of time, as far as sport is concerned.We ban those substances that are alleged to give an added advantage to performance, on little or no evidence. And yet we allow many other forms of ergogenic aids to be taken legally, in the hope that they can give the athlete an edge.We employ all kinds of different training methods and technology in oder to help anthletes deliver to their full potential. We synthasise hi-tech materials for athletes to wear in order to increase air and water coefficiency, enabling the athlete to go faster than they could otherwise acheive on their own.We supply them with additional vitamin cocktails to increase their biological and physiological efficiency.We define the difference between legal and illegal substances to suit our own morally flexible judgement. But is there really any difference between what we judge to be acceptable and what we do not, on moral grounds? The answer is 'no'. We all attempt to cheat in one way or another. We don't solely and purely rely on our own abilities. So why differenciate between legal and illegal subtances, based on uninformed opinions, and the lack of any evidence, to truely support their use as being of any benefit to any given sport?Morality is subjective and is therfore flawed as a bases of law. We should all look at our own perceptions of what we deem to be the rights and wrongs of any issues, before condemning others to public ridicule. Sun 20 Jul 2008 12:53:04 GMT+1 leysalh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=92#comment138 I totally agree with drugs cheats being banned from the Olympics in principle. It just seems pretty pointless a little country like the UK taking a lone stand and sending clean athletes to lose against the drugs cheats of other countries. Sun 20 Jul 2008 12:08:06 GMT+1 Anglo_Celt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=91#comment137 logicalopinion"I have tried to answer your queries but seem to have been denied the ability to comment further on what has already been said." Sorry to hear that. Hopefully it's due to legal technicalities rather than denial of free speech.It's a shame because I think we both want to discuss the issues rather than abuse anyone.PS I do think Dwain's latest reponse has shown great dignity. If he decides to challenge the bye-law in full I would certainly defend his right to do so. In the end many of the aggravations in the UK over this issue are due to the failure of the international bodies. At he moment we have the worst of both worlds with athletes risking their health because they obviously think that they will benefit long term even if they are caught. We need either a longer international ban (4 years?) or to allow the use of these drugs. I'm not happy about the latter but it would at least allow athletes to have proper medical supervision rather than be in the hands of glorified drug dealers. Sun 20 Jul 2008 12:02:37 GMT+1 logicalopinion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=90#comment136 Anglo_celtInresponse to you reference post 115I have tried to answer your queries but seem to have been denied the ability to comment further on what has already been said.I can however confirm that what has already been sais to be true. Sun 20 Jul 2008 11:44:32 GMT+1 kebars http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=90#comment135 The difficulty I have with this decision is that there would seem to be questions to be answered by some of the loudest Chambers detractors.If my memory serves me well, quite a number of the 'grand old men ' of british athletics broke world records during trips to Oslo, of all places.Now, was it just a coincidence that the acknowledged centre of blood doping at that time was ....? Yes! OSLO!!!Well now, Seb and Steve and Co., Tell us what you think of that! Sat 19 Jul 2008 20:46:40 GMT+1 Digitalburnout http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=89#comment134 mwmonk wrote:Never mind, the football season is just 3 weeks away, and we can then ignore all these poorly run, badly organised, stuck in the dark ages, minor (beacuse they do not want to be major) sports again....Now that did make me laugh. Somebody looking forward to the most corrupt sport of them all! Sat 19 Jul 2008 20:21:58 GMT+1 JobyJak http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=88#comment133 The_third_Ronaldo;How do you feel about Marita Koch and Flo-Jo?Bet you don't even know who they are! Their records still legally stand.This is why all the Dwain bashers and all the Dwain Supporters clash so much.The Dwain bashers are focussed on demonising all drug cheats. The Dwain supporters are focussed on the true reality of Track and Field and feel that everyone should get real. This is why the Dwain bashers and the Dwain supporters will never agree.IMO-The narrow minded Dwain bashers are mentally unable to see the bigger picture of all the Dwain supporters. It is as simple as that! Sat 19 Jul 2008 20:10:13 GMT+1 Spaced Invader http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=88#comment132 'Chambers is a nice guy who made a very bad choice.'He is not a nice guy. He's a cheat. He destroyed the dreams of clean athletes and denied them their moment of glory after years of hard, honest work. HE IS A CHEAT. Serving a sentence may make him think he is due redemption, but it still doesn't bring back the chance for clean athletes to stand on a podium and collect their honestly won medals in front of a worldwide audience, as they deserved.So what if Greece and the US let their cheats compete at the Olympics? At least this judgement means there wll be one less cheat stealing the glory of honest runners. Its a good start. Sat 19 Jul 2008 19:59:57 GMT+1 Donald Donaldson http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=87#comment131 enough is enough, give up now and move on, do something else for a living, coach maybe Sat 19 Jul 2008 18:35:44 GMT+1 JobyJak http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=86#comment130 If we had two Olympics, one for clean athletes and one for dirty ones,DWAIN WILL BE THE ONLY MAN IN THE CLEAN FINAL! Sat 19 Jul 2008 18:27:48 GMT+1 Anglo_Celt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=86#comment129 MwmonkThe point which you miss is that I am willing to accept other peoples opinions and possibly change my position! Before I do that I want to hear some explanation of what I'm sign up to! Localopinion suggested that exclusion of people who met all the criteria was widespread. I keep hearing this but none of the people who say it will give one instance outside the drug bye-law. If someone can do that I'm a convert. In the same way I want to know if Dwain's supporters believe that the bye-law should be squashed or only ignored in Dwain's case. If it's to apply to everyone then I have serious misgivings but I accept that it is a respectable position for people to take. My later cyncism is brought about by people making claims which they seem to be able to support with a few facts rather than abuse. I must say however that whilst "localopinion" seems to hold different opinions to mine, he/she does not resort to accusing everyone of being some kind of nut case. Others who refer to Nazis etc have just lost there perpective. PS Do you object to Rogersack's (52) a rant or do you consider that a rational debate Sat 19 Jul 2008 17:38:27 GMT+1 laughingSpartan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=85#comment128 Follow up to AndricusII yes i not talking about athlete's who have cocktails of drugs found in there system, im talking about athletes who have 1 drug in their system, where the levels are not enough to help enhance athletic performance, merely just enough to show up on a drugs test, Given by a spiker in order to catch a athlete out, i know athletes who are teenagers too young to comprehend what doping is, who trust there coach's so much as they have been with them from a toddlers age, that they won't even question what is given to them by a coach, masked by harmless multivitamins for example or energy drinks.whether it be for that coach to further his own career by producing top athletes at any cost etc,But the ultimate sacrifice has to be paid by the athlete, which i can tolerate for being naive ! BUT SHOULD HE BE CONDEMNED FOR LIFE !??? Sat 19 Jul 2008 16:24:02 GMT+1 AndricusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=84#comment127 laughingSpartan, you make a good point with your claim that the spiking of a drink could lead to a ban when there is no intent on the part of the athlete to cheat. I seem to recall that several athletes have tried to overturn bans on the grounds that they had no idea how the substance concerned got into their system, although I don't recall the result.Regardless of how the spiking occured I believe that no-one knows who will be tested after any event in most cases, and so I don't believe that a competitor would be willing to take the risk of not making it to the Olympics by being unfairly beaten and the spiking not being caught. The unscrupulous coach is far more likely, and given the possibility of it happening I suspect that we might need a measure to make such people think twice about doing so. A ban from coaching might work on the grounds that the coach is probably aware of what supplements (legal and illegal) the athlete is taking, although I suspect that this is on even more legal quicksand than the permanent Olympics ban for athletes. Sat 19 Jul 2008 16:12:49 GMT+1 cfwtalks http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=84#comment126 For me the the decision is right.Dwain knew it was wrong, he went ahead and did it anyway. You reap what you sow.Maybe we should have 2 Olympics, one with natural talents and one with drug enhancing talents. It would be up to the competitior to put their lives at risk for taking drugs to compete. I for one would like to see how fast a man can go .. okay maybe not.The thing is Dwain was our best 100 metre runner at the time, very high profile, kids looked up to him. We have the Olympics coming to London and there will be so much pressure on our althetes to win medals that I am sure some of them will be tempted into going down the drugs route. This law/rule is a deterrent, sending out a clear message - if you take drugs you will be banned. It might also save their lives.Good decision and good luck Dwain for the future.Come on Team GB !!! Sat 19 Jul 2008 16:10:38 GMT+1 laughingSpartan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=83#comment125 Just a little add to my post above :- That yes that is a realistic possibility as drink spiking is happening everywhere in clubs bars and sport ! Sat 19 Jul 2008 15:38:47 GMT+1 laughingSpartan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=82#comment124 The decision went against DC which is a crying travesty in my opinion ! we are sooo morally high in this country that we miss the bigger picture ! DC is a perfect example to our youth of today who are submerged in gang culture where drugs and crime and knife stabbings are riot !What message have we just sent them that yes if you make a mistake once in your life you will be forever persecuted for it ! what incentive is that for them to change !DC would make a good role model to todays corrupted youth by saying "hey i cheated to make it to the top got caught and have been ridiculed world wide and embarrassed, have had the fortitude to train hard without a coach or access to training stadiums, i have had to train early hours of the morning in the public park on my own, and now as a clean athlete i have made it to the top still" you dont have to take short cuts as he did it the wrong way and now THE RIGHT WAY ! Thats a inspiring story to make even the most troubled teen think twice and say hey if i am willing to change i will be given a chance to prove myself !Bigger question here is the BOA BYLAW IS IT UNJUST again yes in my opinion ! let em give you a example :-A athlete who has been training for say 15yrs dedicated from a very young age has competed on the highest level and now finally gets a chance to make his dream of a Olympics. Now at a qualifying event a zealous rival coach or athlete decides to spike that athlete, or even the athletes coach himself spikes his drink to help boost performance even tho it may be with good intentions to help his athlete, That athlete tests positive and now his whole world and life is upside ! where does he go from here Training and competing for this one goal he has had since a child has been taken away through no fault of his own, he has never had a job he has been dedicated to his trade for his entire life ! where does he go from here ! is it fair to ban him for life from an olympics and ruin his whole lifes work for something he did not do intentionally, or should he be allowed ! I think you all know what the decent and honest answer is ! Sat 19 Jul 2008 15:34:13 GMT+1 laughingSpartan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=82#comment123 Seems like my post's are so blatantly honest and tell it like it is, they wont even post them ! HA !! Sat 19 Jul 2008 15:21:43 GMT+1 Jordan D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=81#comment122 Anglo_celt: I did indeed make reference to your post in my response (the now removed post 116). Apparently it was "potentionally defamatory" - I had suggested that what I've wanted is consistancy in the issue of the ban: If you ban Chambers for cheating, then other athletes (including one who has prominantly been let back into the fold) should also be banned. Apparently I'm not allowed to name that athlete, although they (singular) have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Sat 19 Jul 2008 14:52:26 GMT+1 mwmonk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=80#comment121 Anglo_Celt:I just think that no-one is that interested in your points, because you rant too much!!If you allowed others to debate with you, you would hear many sensible points being raised.I accept what you say, and can understand you opinions. It is just that you keep on belittling what others say, and when an erudite counter opinion to yours is raised, you go on the attack.The zeitgeist in the country regarding Dwain Chambers is that he should have been allowed to compete - he has served his time and come back clean and stronger than everyone else in the UK, ergo give him a break, and everyone else who is in the same situation.Unfortunately because you disagree you are not listening to, or understanding the counter argument. Those are fundamental rules of debate.The UK is out of step with the rest of the world, and we need to change. Sat 19 Jul 2008 14:49:52 GMT+1 JobyJak http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=80#comment120 The British Empire died 50 years ago!People here are talking like it still exists and we have to set a moral example to the world.No other counries care, and the result of all this is that we won't have a single runner in the Olympic flag ship event, the mens 100m final.At least we can hold our heads high, that we are setting an example to the world on how to behave on an international stage.This just makes me crack up. The only example that we have set in recent years that the world is aware of, is the invasion of Iraq!I bet all the people who think Dwain should be locked up forever also supported the war in Iraq. Sat 19 Jul 2008 14:40:37 GMT+1 Anglo_Celt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=79#comment119 NOBODY wants to rise to the challenge of POST 115 then!!! Sadly I'm not surprised. Lots of empty rhetoric but no facts and no interest in justice for all.PS I am astounded by the number of people who claim to be actively involved in sports etc. but JUST A LITTLE surprised that so few of these experts realise that other athletes have been banned just the same as Dwain. If we are going to get hot under the collar and start abusing everyone who holds a different view it helps to have some facts to back up your assertions. I think I'll give up waiting for that to happen!!!!!!!!!! Sat 19 Jul 2008 14:23:29 GMT+1 mwmonk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=78#comment118 Perhaps only Rugby Union is run by a more pompous set of bureaucrats than Athletics.Never mind, the football season is just 3 weeks away, and we can then ignore all these poorly run, badly organised, stuck in the dark ages, minor (beacuse they do not want to be major) sports again.... Sat 19 Jul 2008 14:07:20 GMT+1 levdavidovich http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=78#comment117 What an absurd pompous article!I didn't realise that pomposity was contagious. Did you catch it from Seb Coe?...whoops, sorry, LORD Coe - mustn't forget that. :S Sat 19 Jul 2008 13:45:06 GMT+1 mwmonk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=77#comment116 Unfortunately, I believe Chambers is not being punished for taking drugs in the past, he is being punished now for daring to stand up to the establishment and follow his dream.If he had said, "Yes Sir, Sorry Sir, Thank You Sir" and tugged his forelock on the way out of the door, everyone would be hoping he would keep on improving and would be backing him to win at the World Championships or the Euros over the next few years.Instead he is being bullied, pilloried and abused.Britain has let itself down this week - we are a nation that accepts people do occasionally make mistakes, but this lynch-mob out to attack Chambers refuse to countenance that. Sat 19 Jul 2008 13:35:32 GMT+1 Jordan D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=76#comment115 This post has been Removed Sat 19 Jul 2008 13:12:00 GMT+1 Anglo_Celt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=76#comment114 logicalopinionAm I to understand you correctly? You are saying that you know of people who attained the A standard and finished in the first two in the trials (i.e. met all the criteria for automatic selection and not banned) but were left out of the team. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING then please name JUST ONE case because that would certainly been grounds for a discrimination case in the courts. If true I would very strongly support such a case. However if you cannot give one such an example you should not be too surprised if you appear less credible. It is easy to make this kind of accusation but it neeeds to be backed up I hope your not going to disappoint me.TO THE REST of Dwains supporters I say....I am waiting for JUST ONE of you to say that this Olympic ban should not apply to the other sports people who would also be elligible for Bejing. Until then you will be continuing to claim special favours for the athlete with the biggest publicity team BUT showing NO interest in JUSTICE. I won't hold my breath! Sat 19 Jul 2008 13:07:16 GMT+1 deathcap http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=75#comment113 He had his time, its gone. for him the olympics are over, live with it good bye. find some thing else, oh sorry ! you failed at them too. When will these cheats of sport realise they are doing no good for themselves or their sport? Sat 19 Jul 2008 10:56:03 GMT+1 darloholic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=74#comment112 Wow, my comment didn't last long!Which vindicates my points! Sat 19 Jul 2008 10:08:26 GMT+1 posivibe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=74#comment111 It,s is now time for the rules to become consistent for all athletes. Surely the Olympic movement can adopt the principal of not allowing proven drug cheats to compete at any future games, following a ban.There still remain inconsistencies on the commercial athletics front also, where I feel Dwaine is being made a bit of a scapegoat in not being allowed to compete at these events because of probable behind the scenes manoeuvring with promoters! Other previously banned athletes have previously been welcomed back after fulfilling their bans. Time to be clear methinks Sat 19 Jul 2008 10:04:23 GMT+1 darloholic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=73#comment110 This post has been Removed Sat 19 Jul 2008 09:55:44 GMT+1 steeley991 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=72#comment109 I kind of feel a bit frustrated. Dwain is Britains best sprinter who is extremely talented. Before he took drugs i new he could be an olympic champion for the future.But why did he have to take take drugs?Maybe he wanted to be that little bit better. I'l never know but what i will know is that he had a great chance to be a world champion and he blew it big time.He was probably better when he was off drugs to be honest.Should he have been able to run in the olympics?NO. Any cheat shouldnt be able to take part in the olympics but i do think that ohuruogu should have the same punishment too.Disappointment but not the End of the World!!! Sat 19 Jul 2008 09:47:55 GMT+1 Flt_Lt_Jamie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=72#comment108 This post has been Removed Sat 19 Jul 2008 09:35:35 GMT+1 arathrael http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=71#comment107 A few counter-points to various comments:"... allowing him to run in the Olympics would not be forgiveness, it would be vindication - a cheat would prosper."That's just wrong. He had his medals stripped and he was ordered to pay back his earnings. He would be vindicated if his medals and earnings were restored, not by later being allowed to compete fairly! Not allowing cheats to prosper means not allowing them to benefit from their cheating - it doesn't mean punishing them for the rest of their life whether they're cheating or not!"Punishments are there to punish the offender, but also importantly to deter others."A life ban does nothing to deter someone considering cheating. Threatening to ban someone who feels they need to cheat to compete is an empty threat."Yes, Chambers has served his 2 year ban, but lets remember that this would (and should IMO) have been 4 years..."He was banned in 2003. Even if it was a 4 year ban he'd be eligible to compete now."I believe it possible to get to the top without using drugs. A Cheetah (no pun intended) can do 3 times the speed of any man. The limits of athletic achievement have not been approached without drugs."And you've got to be kidding me. What kind of logic is that? A cheetah can run faster, therefore a man can? In case you hadn't noticed, there's a few differences between cheetahs and men. There's the 'running on four legs' thing to start off with. The maximum speed one species can achieve is not determined by the speed a completely different species can attain! Sat 19 Jul 2008 09:18:42 GMT+1 dudepod45 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=70#comment106 This post has been Removed Sat 19 Jul 2008 09:12:53 GMT+1 Anglo_Celt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=70#comment105 At the end of the day we are beating ourselves up because the international bodies have failed. The BOA bye-law may well be misguided but it has been there for years. Had Dwain challenged the bye law any time in the last4 years he might well have won. His last minute challenge was not to have the bye law removed but to avoid having it applied to him. In other words he wanted to be made a special case. I honestly believe that the whole thing has been a publicity stunt.I am not aware of anyone who suggested that David Millar, Carl Myerscough etc should have their ban removed.I think that the bye law will be ruled unlawful if it is challenged properley. Internationally we then have toa) legalise use of drugsb) introduce mandatory lifetime bans and make it criminal .... just like any other kind of fraudulent activity.There are arguments for both but the two year ban is clearly not working. It simply discriminates against those who stay clean. Sat 19 Jul 2008 09:04:36 GMT+1 Andy M http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=69#comment104 This post has been Removed Sat 19 Jul 2008 08:59:42 GMT+1 bungalowtour http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=68#comment103 Why is anyone here supporting Chambers on this?He has disgraced his sport knowing full well what the consequences would be if he were caught. But now he doesn't like it and sought to unashamedly drag the sport he supposedly loves through further controversy.Yes, Chambers has served his 2 year ban, but lets remember that this would (and should IMO) have been 4 years if a deal wasn’t done many years ago to satisfy the two most drug riddled sports – namely cycling and weight-lifting.No, I’m sorry but Chambers deserves not one ounce of sympathy. He cheated, he shamed his sport, and he should quietly go back and reflect on all of this with a massive dose of contrition. Sat 19 Jul 2008 07:27:29 GMT+1 uka2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=68#comment102 The drugs ban of 2 years is insufficient.Thats the problem. For years a lot of the worlds top sprinters were passing tests whilst using drugs. Have you heard of Balco and 'the clear' If we don't take a harder line, I may as well advise my athletes to get on the latest gear. There's only a small chance they will be caught. If they do, well come back in 2 years after and have another go. What about another chance? If I was a drug tester and thought, I know this guys at it, I'll add a little something to the mix for a positive result. Do you really think I would be back doing my job in 2 years? I believe it possible to get to the top without using drugs. A Cheetah (no pun intended) can do 3 times the speed of any man. The limits of athletic achievement have not been approached without drugs. Back to the case in question, nobody is taking athletics seriously anymore and a harder line has to be taken somewhere or no kids will take up athletics and they will be on a street corner taking some other type of drug! Reply to this if you want, but while you are typing I'll be out there coaching running and still plodding round a bit myself! Sat 19 Jul 2008 07:15:28 GMT+1 pcl1111 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=67#comment101 He was a cheat. He knew there would be a life ban; he did it anyway.Punishments are there to punish the offender, but also importantly to deter others.The rules are fair, because they are objective.If we ignore rules for one person, because he seems sorry or seems like a nice guy, the rules are no longer fair and objective. They are also no longer a deterrent, and therefore become pointless.We can as individuals chose to morally forgive a cheat or not - but that should have no bearing on applying the rules - the ban should stay in effect. Sat 19 Jul 2008 06:43:03 GMT+1 IRSWalker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=66#comment100 I've seen a lot of comments espousing that British society should show Chambers forgiveness and compassion.But allowing him to run in the Olympics would not be forgiveness, it would be vindication - a cheat would prosper.He has the opportunity to turn his life to other things - become a vociferous anti-drugs campaigner, perhaps, or a coach who submits his athletes to voluntary as well as compulsory testing.We have to take into account that the people who go to Beijing and pull on a British vest are representing a dream for a generation of aspiring athletes. If, like the Americans and Greeks, we send the message that cheating is OK, providing you win, then I can't think of anything less British.I like the moral high ground. The air is cleaner. To quote Steve Harley: "You've spoilt the game, no matter what you say, for only metal; what a bore." Sat 19 Jul 2008 06:08:46 GMT+1 nigeweir http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=66#comment99 A great result, a great decision by the court. Everytime Chambers runs, he turns the whole event into a freak show. That clown has even got people turning against the likes of Cram and Coe who were superb athletes who gave us plenty of pleasure. Good Riddance to all the cheats, and that is exactly what Chambers is. Sat 19 Jul 2008 06:07:15 GMT+1 Bob Long http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=65#comment98 It really should be a basic requirement of the IOC, not the BOC, that no drug users are allowed to compete.But, regardless of that, the rule was in place when Chambers decided to cheat, so he knew this would happen to him. In fact, he's very lucky. I personally would not allow him into any athletics event at all.Running quickly is not such a great or rare skill that we have to scrape around to find people who want to try it. If you can make a living in such a simple, enjoyable, and safe way while there are people risking their lives for little or no pay then you should thank your lucky stars for every day that you can continue to do so, not abuse it and then whine about being caught.Chambers needs to get down to the dole office and get a job like all the ordinary people who didn't have his gift to waste. Sat 19 Jul 2008 04:48:25 GMT+1 levdavidovich http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=64#comment97 Yet again a judge has made a political decision as a result of pressure from the British government. Sat 19 Jul 2008 04:02:26 GMT+1 Roger Shellard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=64#comment96 I am so glad the ban was upheld. I now live in USA and sport over here doesnt seem able to survive without drug ridden paticipents in most sports.Good for the UK board we dont need drug ridden scum in the UK teams we hopefully compete honestly even if we dont win we tried honestly.Chambers you gone for ever thankfully as far as sport is concerned. Sat 19 Jul 2008 03:37:43 GMT+1 Jordan D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=63#comment95 Janice_5: I think it's the assumption that as someone who has previously tested positive, he'll be subject to testing at meetings more often, not least after last week's Olympics trials.No doubt the BOA/Meeting Organisers would have tested him as the winner in the 100m event. Sat 19 Jul 2008 00:31:58 GMT+1 Janice_5 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=62#comment94 Reading through the comments it's been raised a few times that Chambers is now clean, and this has raised the question in my mind :How do we know he is currently clean? Sat 19 Jul 2008 00:17:30 GMT+1 sladeywadey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=62#comment93 What's with the race issue that some have mentioned? The issue is not one of colour but one of an athlete that willingly took drugs knowing that if he was caught, he would be banned from future Olympic Games. This is the case with Chambers, David Miller, Linford Christie, Carl Myerscough etc. Race doesn't come into it I'm afraid. In addition, if Chambers wanted to run in the Games, why leave it to as late as possible to try to overturn the ban? I'm proud that my nation for once, is taking the lead in something. If others want to follow this lead, great. If not, it doesn't mean to say we can't continue with this ruling.Finally, the reason why Chambers can run in World Championships is because that team is selected by British Sthletics. The Olympic Athletic Squad is chosen by the British Olympic Committee. Fri 18 Jul 2008 23:50:12 GMT+1 JobyJak http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=61#comment92 Why does everyone keep harpin on about the athlete who took drugs debate?Dwain is legally and professionly clean now. The only issue is that he has to obey the British only by-law, preventing him from competing at the Olympics.What I don't get is how people are using this one indvidual as a pawn in their own selfish crusade against the world of drug cheats.Even his harshest critics have to admit that he has been unduly and unfairly targeted and condemned way beyond the level required. Fri 18 Jul 2008 23:30:54 GMT+1 AndricusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=60#comment91 To BournmouthWhite on comment 68: Christine Ohuruogu was punished in exactly the same way as Chambers in that she was given a lifetime ban from the Olympics. The reason, assuming my memory of this case is accurate, she is now going to the Olympics is that she went to the Court for Arbitration in Sport and argued that as there was no evidence she had taken drugs (and I'm not aware that anyone in authority believed that she had) she hadn't broken the spirit of the bylaw, not to mention that there were recognised difficulties of applying the testing regime in her case, and therefore the lifetime ban should not apply - she won. This is not an argument that Chambers can use, and in any case he sought to wipe the bylaw off the statute books rather than overturn his own personal ban in the sporting courts (possibly because he knew he wouldn't win a case in the CAS?).To now make my own comments on this issue: In most fields of life if you act in a certain way knowing that there will be concequences if you are caught, then you clearly believe that the risks are worth whatever you will get out of it. To bleat after being caught that the consequences are too severe is surely hypocritical. Yet this is exactly what Dwain Chambers has done - he took drugs knowing that if caught he would be banned for two years and be unable to represent the UK in the Olympics thereafter, and now he complains that the punisment is too severe.As for the lifetime Olympic ban for drugs cheats - if nothing else it is an important symbolic gesture that the taking of performance-enhancing drugs is unacceptible in sport, and since it is the only symbolic gesture that makes this statement should remain. As other commentators have pointed out this ban does not apply to other sporting contests, but then these contests are purely about the winning of medals, they were not set up to be the prime example of a utopian ideal of fair play as the Olympics were and so selection for them should not necessarily use such a restrictive moral code. Having said this I would not be opposed to a ban on representing one's country in a sporting event if one has been proved to have taken performance-enhancing drugs providing enough of the other countries backed us up - a pyhrhic victory isn't particularly enjoyable.With regards to the comments on the effects of drugs on the human body, it is a fact that very few studies on the long term effects of drugs have ever been carried out, and as far as I'm aware none have ever been conducted by a body dedicated to hunting out drugs in sport. I believe that the few that do exist, though the numbers involved were small, do suggest that the effects of taking drugs are noticible several years after stopping the treatments. Perhaps someone should do a long-term study involving many volunteers and work out how long the positive effects of drug taking last for, and then we might argue about whether such a ban is right or wrong without both sides having one hand tied behind their back. Fri 18 Jul 2008 23:09:08 GMT+1 lukedunstan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=60#comment90 Firstly nothing suprises me of the institutionally racist country we live in. It now seems that the 'the blacker the berry the harsher the sentence approach' is being applied to the world of sports and not only crimial justice matters. On a second point:What can you expect of a nation that champions losers? Maybe we will be successful in dressage or even tiddlywinks Fri 18 Jul 2008 22:32:19 GMT+1 TommyOnita http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=59#comment89 This decision will give a wrong message to children, bad for their education.Dwain has made a mistake once, but he should be given a chance to prove that a person who made a mistake can still rebuild his career and make a success again.There will be some athletes from the other countries in the Olympic games who had a drug before. This is totally unfair. Fri 18 Jul 2008 22:31:03 GMT+1 PabloDon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=58#comment88 I've just heard on a news item that British Athletics are suggesting that other countries should follow their lead. While they are on their moral high horse maybe they can lobby for the return of the death penalty in those countries that do not have it like us. Fri 18 Jul 2008 22:28:53 GMT+1 PabloDon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=58#comment87 Olympics and integrity? Tommy Smith, John Carlos, Jesse Owens or perhaps all those sportsmen of past eras denied entry due to their social class and occupations.Athletics and Hypocrisy have always been finely matched in the UK. Coe versus Thatcher over 1980 Moscow boycott. Coe, Cram and others during the "Shamateurism" years when it was illegal to earn money from athletics yet these people blatantly transgressed IAAF and AAA rules at that time. A case of rules and rules. Whilst Dwain was morally wrong to attempt to gain unfair advantage from drugs, he has been rehabilitated. Finally, what about all those costly training camps at high altitude? Was that an attempt to gain unfair advantage over those athletes/countries unable to afford it.Former athletes have even used Dwain to return to the limelight to sport their romantic prose.......integrity they must be joking. Fri 18 Jul 2008 22:16:29 GMT+1 nicknb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=57#comment86 ahem...not 'anyone who beats him must be dirty' but having one clean world class runner is a useful barometer... Fri 18 Jul 2008 21:52:33 GMT+1 nicknb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=56#comment85 I wanted him to win - so that we could see him run in the Olympics, knowing that HE is clean NOW. At least we would know there was one clean runner - anyone who beats him must be dirty. Fri 18 Jul 2008 21:42:16 GMT+1 Eofric http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=56#comment84 If the sole aim was to bring home medals, steal them or make your own. If the aim was to do 200m quickly, get a motorbike. Otherwise follow the rules. Any sport has rules which set the parameters for fair competition. That's what makes it interesting / exciting / unpredictable and thereby gives it purpose. Cheating and allowing cheats defeats the object. Fri 18 Jul 2008 21:23:41 GMT+1 andyfish71 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=55#comment83 the saddest thing about this whole week is that there has been a genuinely refreshing bit of althletics news that has had about 2 lines in the papers, with the women's 100m record (GB) being broken. Montell Douglas probably stands as good a chance of progressing through the rounds (barring experience of big events) as Dwayne Chambers? Fri 18 Jul 2008 20:21:13 GMT+1 hackerjack http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=54#comment82 This is (and could still be if he goes through with the full hearing) a very important ruling, but not for the reasons that most of you think.Yes there is the issue of drugs and 'Olympic Ideals'.But for me what is more important is the idea that the BOA could be forced to select someone as not doing so would be a restraint of trade.The reason for the attempted restraint (if it is proven to be so) would not actually be relevent. That means that other reasons for non-selection could also be vulnerable to court action. How long before we get a case where an athlete claims restraint of trade because he/she missed the A qualifying mark, or indeed claims that it is discriminatory to exclude someone on the basis of a lesser genetic ability in an event. Taken to the extreme it could mean that I or anyone else could sue and force their participation in the Olympics and any other event.Indeed how long before an athlete claims restraint of trade against the IAAF for not being aloud to take legally available performance enhancers?How long before a footballer sues for not being selected in a world cup squad? Or to be allowed to switch countries at will? Fri 18 Jul 2008 20:20:08 GMT+1 boilerbilly http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=54#comment81 Of course rules are rules and you break them at your peril. So the question is - is the rule a good one?We should condemn cheats in sport. But what is cheating? Gaining an unfair advantage - as you can have a blatant cheat there is nothing undercover about cheating as such. If an athlete gains advantage by persuading someone to sponsor their training is that an unfair advantage over someone who has no financial support? So cheating is gaining advantage in ways which we arbitarily do not approve of.Drugs - another problem area. We approve of dietary supplements (including vitamins), but not steriods. They may be completely different types of drugs but athletes take dietary supplements (even if it is to achieve a balanced diet) because it will help them achieve better performances.So I am fed up with people talking about 'drugs cheat' because the concept is too subjective. The fact remains that Dwain broke rules (their quality is not relevant) and that is the end of the matter for him.My final point is that if there is no possibility of redemption ( it can be difficult to achieve - I'm not being soft) what sort of society do we have? I'm not religious but the concept of 'there but for the grace of God .......' should be in all our minds. Fri 18 Jul 2008 19:56:34 GMT+1 paxmana http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=53#comment80 Good news, Dwain - it's still not over! You can become a citizen of Qatar or Bahrain and run for them! They've nationalized Kenyan and Nigerian athletes, why not a Briton? Fri 18 Jul 2008 19:40:04 GMT+1 pvandck http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=52#comment79 70. At 7:26pm on 18 Jul 2008, Toe2Toe wrote:See all the powerful muscle mass Dwain carries in his legs and torso? That was a result of drugs in the past whose results are still evident.British justice has done the right thing.I expect in your head that might be true but you offer no evidence for the assertion. In the real world, outside your head, it is just not true no matter how much you wish it were so. Steroids and other performance enhancing substances just don't work like that, and neither does the human body. Fri 18 Jul 2008 19:18:19 GMT+1 grandslamgeorge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=52#comment78 most idiots making comments here av taken one form of drugs or the other i.e cigarettes (nicotine), speed, marijuana, cocaine or some sort. 52 have said it all. why serve him a death sentence, even fter coming out clean. we all make mistakes. Fri 18 Jul 2008 19:18:05 GMT+1 armchairsportsnut http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=51#comment77 Duped...?! Most of us who have an opinion on this would not consider ourselves duped by anyone. You have to have rules, period. If this by-law is so wrong why on earth is it only now that people start bumping their gums about it? Its been in place for 16 years!!!I for one would not be cheering Dwain Chambers next year and its not because I'm claiming the moral high ground either...he did wrong and should not be allowed to represeent his country. I do not hold a grudge - he can still compete for himself as far as I'm concerned. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:52:08 GMT+1 Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=50#comment76 For Matt Slater, Congratulations on an excellent article. I support your article and I support the stance of China and Great Britain on punishing those who use drugs and play sports. I believe that Drugs has no place in Sports and that the Life Time Ban should serve as an example for those to think clearly and reflect. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:51:36 GMT+1 freddawlanen http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=50#comment75 It's a sad indictment of morals in the modern world, when only Britain and China have the decency to ban cheating druggies from competing in the greatest sporting spectacle in the world.The IOC should hang their collective heads in shame, as should every other nation that allows any cheat to compete in what is supposed to be a festival of honour, with ideals to match.The Olympics has become nothing more than a cash-cow and I for one (maybe the only 1 juding by most comments) feel let down and ashamed. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:46:00 GMT+1 JobyJak http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=49#comment74 Why are people so dumb?He will be allowed to repserent GB in any other event other than the Olympics. This is where he had every right to challenge the wavery BOA by-law.All the people who say he should never represent Britain ever again because he has used performance enhancing drugs in his past have been frankly duped.Whilst you've all been duped by this Dwain is a drugs cheat argument and should be demonised forever, you've all actually missed that he can race in every other race bar the Olypmics. How this issue became a Dwain Vs Drugs Vs Integrity of Sport argument, is simply because UKA, the BOA and their mates at the BBC, knew that was the only way to protect the illegal by-law.It makes me smile though, knowing that all those who were duped by these very powerful conmen, will have NO CHOICE BUT TO CHEER NEXT YEAR WHEN DWAIN WILL BE OUR BEST HOPE AT THE ATHLETIC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS! LOL Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:42:06 GMT+1 2 of 3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=48#comment73 For him it's a restraint in trade as his options for meets are very very limited . . . almost non-existent. So his career is over now. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:35:37 GMT+1 logicalopinion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=48#comment72 Anglo_celtLike you I wouldn't want any of my children to take up athletics.This would not be because of the issues raised here over the last few days concerning the use of drugs. They have their own standards and their own minds, and would not so easily be tempted by those who supply the drugs. Or at least, that is what I would hope.NO, it would be more to do with the behind the scenes political click that I would not want to expose them to.I have seen too many times that no matter how hard you train or how well you perform, even if you meet all the selctors criteria, you have no guarantee of being picked. I've seen too many of my friends achieve the standards set, either win or come in the top three at the trials, only for the selctors to choose a more favoured athlete.I wouldn't want them to go through that continual heart ache.No matter what you may say on this subject, I know it to be true. It happens all the time. Which is why I don't believe that we always send the best athletes to the games, and also why we are, as a country, not as successful as we should be.Even the coaches are a favoured few, who don't always possess the required knowlege to guide our athletes. And who are not always open minded enough to question what they believe to be tried and tested techniques. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:30:37 GMT+1 Bournemouth White http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=47#comment71 At 7:26pm on 18 Jul 2008, Toe2Toe wrote:See all the powerful muscle mass Dwain carries in his legs and torso? That was a result of drugs in the past whose results are still evident.British justice has done the right thing.--------------------------You clearly know nothing about drugs in sport and athletic training!!! Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:29:09 GMT+1 Shelfsider35 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=46#comment70 Chambers will still benefit from the muscle mass he previously gained through cheating.I think the decision is the correct on in respect of the olympics Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:26:38 GMT+1 Toe2Toe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=46#comment69 See all the powerful muscle mass Dwain carries in his legs and torso? That was a result of drugs in the past whose results are still evident.British justice has done the right thing. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:26:29 GMT+1 lambo_pc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=45#comment68 For thoses that claim he is being punished twice over and being unfairly treated since other countries don't have the same rules.He knew the rules were in place and the punishments that go with them. So shouldn't now question them. America has the death penalty which we don't have but murders over there don't get off of death row just because it isn't a universal punishment for their crime.He should accept it and consider himself lucky to compete at all. As I feel the benefit he could have gained by taking drugs 5 years ago could, should he have trained fully throughout the time, be felt now. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:23:12 GMT+1 Bournemouth White http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=44#comment67 It amazes me how Chambers has been so brutally treated by the BOA. We all have opinions on the matter but mine is that this decision is unfair on a guy who has already served his punishment. This by-law or whatever it is meant to be is meant to allow GB to take a moral high ground on such matters? When was the last gold medal handed out for being moral? Christine Ohuruogu should also be classed as a drug cheat just like Chambers. Not turning up to 3 drugs tests clearly shows she has something to hide. Yet she is opened back to the BOA with open arms and not a question asked now. Why do we not have Steve Cram all over the BBC slaming how much of a disgrace her inclusion is?Chambers has been robbed, a lot like Ben Johnson was all those years ago. Both were caught doing drugs but are you telling me they are the only Olympians not doing drugs? I feel sorry for Chambers, he could have been a role model. He made a mistake, admitted it, served his time and got on with things and trained hard to become the best this country has! This is a sad day for British athletics. At least he brought some interest to this sport, which is lets face it, hardly pulling in a crowd these days! Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:15:20 GMT+1 AndyPlowright http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=44#comment66 The Olympics are vile. The selection of a venue is a gross exercise in splashing cash and buttering people up. Yet so many people talk of the Olympics as if it's some incredibly pure event. It isn't so please stop pretending it is. Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:13:12 GMT+1 eposmike http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=43#comment65 RE. post 63Appalled! Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:11:28 GMT+1 armchairsportsnut http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=42#comment64 This is a fantastic result! I ask why should anyone ever think this by-law is illegal? Its clearly there to send out a loud message that taking drugs will exclude you from taking part in sports flagship event.Imagine if, hypothetically speaking, a large number of british sportsmen and women had taken drugs a few years ago and then were all allowed to take part in these Olympics - would we seriously entertain Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Justin Gatland et al in our team for the Olympics? How tarnished would any medals that they subsequently won be?I repeat what I've said on other message boards that the Olympics is unique amongst sporting events; its not just about athletics and it needs to stand up and be counted when it comes to drugs cheats. At the moment Britain and China stand alone and its time that other countries who are serious about stopping drug cheats made a stand alongside.Look at the example of cycling this week - whole teams are withdrawn from the Tour de France because of one member being found out. Do we hear about those other team members preparing court appeals and shouting about restraint of trade.Dwain Chambers should have taken his medicine (excuse the pun) and accepted that the by-law would have protected him had he not succumbed to the drugs. I wonder what he would think if he had been clean and another drug taking athlete had been able to go to the games in front of him if the by-law were not in place? I say he would have been incensed! People are saying he has served his sentence when in fact he hasn't - the by-law was already in place when he cheated and he must have known then that if he was caught he would never be allowed to compete in an Olympics. The by-law is a just one and I believe it is vital it stays.To end with I suggest people look at the fundamental principles of Olympism..."Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."Olympic Charter, Fundamental principles, paragraph 2 - no mention of drugs playing any part whatsoever! Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:10:41 GMT+1 Bournemouth White http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=42#comment63 It amazes me how Chambers has been so brutally treated by the BOA. We all have opinions on the matter but mine is that this decision is unfair on a guy who has already served his punishment. This by-law or whatever it is meant to be is meant to allow GB to take a moral high ground on such matters? Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:09:20 GMT+1 JobyJak http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=41#comment62 To all these people who are so happy and over the moon that justice has been done and Athletics can now go back to "normal".How do you feel about "controversial drugs cheat" Dwain Chambers wearing a GB vest and representing Great Britain at next years World Athletic Championships? Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:07:02 GMT+1 receporter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=40#comment61 AHHH! The Olympics!So my personal survey among local Americans while chatting with a good many of them in the in the Orlando area showed the following:NOT ONE could name an American Olympic Athelete. After all the publicity over 50% could not tell me which country the Olympics were in this year. Over 30% didn't know it was Olympic year. Only 9% said they would possibly watch the Olympics on TV! Over 90% said drugs in athletic sports were a problem and not being controlled strongly enough!So, rest of the world, have a great Olympic month! Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:06:53 GMT+1 Anglo_Celt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=40#comment60 Will someone out there help RogerSacks. This is NOT a joke I'm seriously concerned about his mental state. I just hope his submissions are some kind of Joke.PS my concern is not over his views on this issue but on his crazy references Fri 18 Jul 2008 18:01:45 GMT+1 Nick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=39#comment59 "hard on Chambers?"Yes, because as he is a convicted drug cheat I would have loved him to represent my Country at the OG.Get a grip. Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:57:14 GMT+1 grandslamgeorge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=38#comment58 i wont be surprised if a white athelete test positive and he is forgiven. as far as i am concerned you cant throw the baby away with the bathing water, and two wrongs dont make a right! he has done enough to merit a fair trial, but as usual the colour of your skin is your sin! wish you the best Bruv! move on! Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:54:51 GMT+1 JobyJak http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=38#comment57 Look forward to seeing Dwain in the World Championships next year.At least the BOA can't enforce their Imperialistic views on them. Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:47:06 GMT+1 ManofMunster http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=37#comment56 jordan d, i think you underestimate the level of support for life bans being imposed on certain professional footballers who miss drugs tests (who shall remain anonymous) - especially as a liverpool fan ;) Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:43:50 GMT+1 eposmike http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=36#comment55 Why don't all the sportmen and women who think cheating is ok go and form their own "Cheats and drug takers games". So long as they don't claim to represent GB I don't mind. Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:38:58 GMT+1 Jordan D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=36#comment54 Apparently my post in 47 contained possible "defamatory" comments - as such, I've rewritten it:"All those calling for people who are "drugs cheats" to be banned for life, should remember that people like certain professional footballers are "drugs cheats" for confirmed positive drugs test/missing drugs tests. Imagine the public outcry if you'd banned him/them for life. Quite simply, it wouldn't have happened - and therein lies the double standards I mentioned in the 1st post." Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:32:30 GMT+1 RogerSacks http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=35#comment53 Has anyone ever taken any enhancing medication or paid privately to enhance their performance in asserting themselves in any way in order to perform better than any other person that they are in competition with at school or in a work environment? This is in fact unfair on the other competitors in everything we do - especially if they cannot afford to do what we are doing. Do you find yourselves right now feeling the guilt and shame of having done this? Do we go to the police and asked to be punished when we see that we are speeding or have carved someone up on a roundabout or driven over a Zebra Crossing when someone is waiting to cross it? Well, we are just as guilty as Dwain Chambers by doing this, we too have cheated and it doesn't matter how big the 'stage' is either! What the British Olympic Committee has done to Dwain Chambers is just as bad as what Dwain Chambers did. However, the Law of This Land states that once the sentence has been served and Justice is done, then the person is a FREE MAN. What the British Olympic Association has done is they have overridden the Law of this Land and served a 'Death Sentence' on Dwain Chambers. By doing this - those who have taken drugs will see no light at the end of the tunnel to give them any reason to repent of their sins and sin no more! God and His only son Jesus Christ would have allowed Dwain Chambers to compete again at the very highest level. Only those who have something to hide or who are not FREE of sin would not.Roger Sacks Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:29:07 GMT+1 RogerSacks http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=34#comment52 What was it that Jesus Christ told the manic crowd and woman accused of Adultery, as a crowd of people were about to 'Stone Her To Death' ? He bent down and started to draw something in the sand just in front of him and first looked up at the crowd above him, saying to them - "Let anyone without sin cast the first stone !" Gradually the manic crowd dispersed one by one until only He, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ remained there with the woman. He then turned to her and said, "Go away and sin no more !" This is what I say to each one of you and to Sir Arthur Gold and The British Olympic Association and specifically to the presiding Justice in this case. Dwain Chambers has served his sentence, repented of what he has done and turned away from the sin that he had committed. This in itself has been proved beyond doubt. No-one is above the 'Law of this Land', and all of our Laws have been based upon 'God's Laws and Commandments found within the Bible'. If God's Only Son Jesus Christ tells us to follow these Laws explicitly and shows us just how to administer them fairly, legally, ethically, and morally and shows us through His Word and By His action just what to do in a Crisis like this - then we must adhere to what He tells us. Mathew 17 tells us that God's voice came out from beyond a bright cloud and said to Jesus Disciples, "This is my dear Son, LISTEN TO HIM !" God is telling us to do this in a '3 DIMENSIONAL WAY'. Don't just listen to Jesus words and take no notice or interpret them in your own way, but listen to precisely what He says, live the very life of what is contained in the words that Jesus tells us. Think like Him, taste the very morality of what he says, drink His refreshing existence and dwell upon every mannerism of Jesus and DO PRECISELY WHAT JESUS WOULD DO IN EVERY INSTANCE AND IN EVERYTHING YOU COME AGAINST. "ASK WHAT WOULD JESUS DO IN THIS VERY INSTANCE OVER THIS VERY MATTER BEFORE MAKING YOUR OWN DECISION?" Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:28:36 GMT+1 RogerSacks http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=34#comment51 What was it that Jesus Christ told the manic crowd and woman accused of Adultery, as a crowd of people were about to 'Stone Her To Death' ? He bent down and started to draw something in the sand just in front of him and first looked up at the crowd above him, saying to them - "Let anyone without sin cast the first stone !" Gradually the manic crowd dispersed one by one until only He, our Lord and Savious Jesus Christ remained there with the woman. He then turned to her and said, "Go away and sin no more !" This is what I say to each one of you and to Sir Arthur Gold and The British Olympic Association and specifically to the presiding Justice in this case. Dwain Chambers has served his sentence, repented of what he has done and turned away from the sin that he had committed. This in itself has been proved beyond doubt. No-one is above the 'Law of this Land', and all of our Laws have been based upon 'God's Laws and Commandments found within the Bible'. If God's Only Son Jesus Christ tells us to follow these Laws explicitly and shows us just how to administer them fairly, legally, ethically, and morally and shows us through His Word and By His action just what to do in a Crisis like this - then we must adhere to what He tells us. Mathew 17 tells us that God's voice came out from beyond a bright cloud and said to Jesus Deciples, "This is my dear Son, LISTEN TO HIM !" God is telling us to do this in a '3 DIMENSIONAL WAY'. Don't just listen to Jesus words and take no notice or interpret them in your own way, but listen to precisely what He says, live the very life of what is contained in the words that Jesus tells us. Think like Him, taste the very morality of what he says, drink His refreshing existance and dwell upon every mannerism of Jesus and DO PRECISELY WHAT JESUS WOULD DO IN EVERY INSTANCE AND IN EVERYTHING YOU COME AGAINST. "ASK WHAT WOULD JESUS DO IN THIS VERY INSTANCE OVER THIS VERY MATTER BEFORE MAKING YOUR OWN DECISION?" Has anyone ever taken any enhancing medication or paid privately to enhance their performance in asserting themselves in any way in order to perform better than any other person that they are in competition with at school or in a work environment? This is in fact unfair on the other competitors in everything we do - especially if they cannot afford to do what we are doing. Do you find yourselves right now feeling the guilt and shame of having done this? Do we go to the police and asked to be punished when we see that we are speeding or have carved someone up on a roundabout or driven over a Zebra Crossing when someone is waiting to cross it? Well, we are just as guilty as Dwain Chambers by doing this, we too have cheated and it doesn't matter how big the 'stage' is either! What the British Olympic Committee has done to Dwain Chambers is just as bad as what Dwain Chambers did. However, the Law of This Land states that once the sentence has been served and Justice is done, then the person is a FREE MAN. What the British Olympic Association has done is they have overridden the Law of this Land and served a 'Death Sentence' on Dwain Chambers. By doing this - those who have taken drugs will see no light at the end of the tunnel to give them any reason to repent of their sins and sin no more! God and His only son Jesus Christ would have allowed Dwain Chambers to compete again at the very highest level. Only those who have something to hide or who are not FREE of sin would not.Roger Sacks Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:24:57 GMT+1 namwobniloc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/07/chambers.html?page=33#comment50 Law is very important. Law which is consistently applied, and accepted because we agree it is good law, is essential if we are to see fairness.Bad law or poor law, where we end divided as to whether it should continue to be applied, or in some disagreement as to its fairness when it is applied, is law which requires review.To say: "The irony is that from purely legal point of view, Chambers should probably be going to the Olympics"; is to say all that need be said. The views (ideals) of a small group are to trump law. Whatever the rhetoric this is then clothed in, this is bad news.If, under law, "Chambers should .. be going to the Olympics": then anything which obstructs that, is not just; by definition and if we take law seriously.When we let individuals or largely unaccountable groupings act as if above the law, then we reverse the course of a civilisation which has striven to regulate human occurrence through law. To argue that (some individual's or group's) ideals should trump law, is to revert to something primal.It might not look, to everyone, as if this covers the Chamber's case, it depends upon what you emphasise. You can focus on what the judge offered as the detailed justification for his judgement, for example. Step far enough back however, and take in enough of the whole picture, and its a straight choice between the rule of law, and somewhat arbitrarily (BOA) selected Olympian Ideals. I would choose the rule of law, and being part of the twenty-first century global community, every time.Sport too often begs the indulgence of not being part of the world the rest of us live in. When that extends to acting as if above the law, then the (pundits for) sport go too far. Fri 18 Jul 2008 17:19:47 GMT+1