Comments for en-gb 30 Sat 29 Aug 2015 10:25:45 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at boogieeck I suspect Christine Ohorougo would get more sympathy if she was as pretty as Katrin KrabbeI suspect she would not have missed the second or third tests if she was not such a divvy. I suspect she would not have been such a divvy if her first missed test had cost her a 90 day ban and her second miss a 180 day ban. I strongly suspect that the ongoing cost of a techical ban is lost earnings from sponsors forwever I very strongly suspect she is clean and always was. Congrats Christine. fairly won medal. Still no Persil ad. Tue 26 Aug 2008 10:57:18 GMT+1 kal77uk Cheating? How was this cheating? If Blonska was exposed five years ago ,she was not cheating at anything. She merely turned up to the Olympics with the approval of her governing body, the IAAF, the IOC and everyone else. You cant allow her to compete and then say she was a cheat because she failed a drugs test. Based on her past it was more than not likely she was aided by drugs, doesnt mean she was chating us to believe she was a clean athlete. She clearly wasnt. Sat 23 Aug 2008 15:31:15 GMT+1 Paint Me Yellow Here my take on Ohuruoga. Missing tests isnt as bad as testing positive, especially since in her case the testers conceded they were in part to blame for her missing them (circumstances due to poor timing from both parties).If she gets tested positive at a later date then by all means strip her of her medals and ban her for life because that's what she'd deserve. Thats what Chambers got afterall. Until then, and as far as I'm concerned, she has earned her gold medal.Speculating about wheather she's taken drugs and deserves to be at the Olympics or not is futile because its purely speculation, not fact. Fri 22 Aug 2008 15:31:51 GMT+1 woodsy1977 since no-one seems to be able to agree on where to draw the line on failing a drugs test versus missing one, is there merit in simply letting everyone poison themselves with whatever drug they choose to enhance their performance. At least that way we are absolutely sure everyone is on the same footing. We could even apply taxes to the steroid sales and help the economy. As an aside I think that Sothertons idea of making Blonska come back to the stadium and give back her medal is an excellent suggestion. Fri 22 Aug 2008 12:38:10 GMT+1 assyrix This post has been Removed Fri 22 Aug 2008 09:56:38 GMT+1 NightRider What about Christine Ohuruogu?Look at the irony of this article - actually writing that if Blonska was British, she would not be allowed to compete.Very funny. Fri 22 Aug 2008 09:18:04 GMT+1 earthelement At least it seems that most of us are wanting the drug cheats banned.While i feel a ban may be harsh on OC, the rules need to be enforced vigorously. Maybe they needed better clarification in her case and that the right thing was done . I dont believe in second chances if you are caught in a scandal like Balco. Also second chances made Blonska richer.Does it matter if she was caught a second time if she has a healthy bank balance? Thu 21 Aug 2008 19:02:07 GMT+1 halfwheeler #91 - Bring on a national training centre, a national training regime and a blood passport - that will set us on the right track, maybe. Thu 21 Aug 2008 18:08:06 GMT+1 United Dreamer #89 Well for me there wasn't much wrong with this Olympics if you want my honest view. I think with what happened this year and last with Balco it has been a pretty bad year or two but on the plus side the US got their hides kicked and they now have a wretched reputation worldwide as a result. Jamaican athletes and athletics as a whole will start getting the sponsorship funds their athletes deserve which no doubt would have gone to American athletes so that divide will be reinforced (ok a little wishful). Hopefully now sponsors will become more circumspect with how they dish their money out. Bolt has been heaven-sent for me. As for drug-testing - I think the UK are finally getting their act together and hopefully this will provide a model that the IOC will follow. Thu 21 Aug 2008 18:04:03 GMT+1 Sir-Jaymore-Sterling This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 17:39:33 GMT+1 halfwheeler #87 - We're all just telling people what the view from our living room is and we're all pulling in the same direction, but with different strokes - we all want clean sports we can believe in, and with no debate, there's not much impetus for change. Thu 21 Aug 2008 17:34:37 GMT+1 RealTime cute girl, they should've let her compete :) Thu 21 Aug 2008 17:27:56 GMT+1 United Dreamer Yeah #86 did come across a bit that way to be truthful. Replace we with I. Not ashamed of my attitude either nor too stupid to realise what those criticising Ohuruogu are saying. Just don't agree with it as an approach to life. Thu 21 Aug 2008 17:21:14 GMT+1 halfwheeler #85 - Well, we're all just one person in a world full of people. Deciding who can and can't enjoy sport and for what reason seems a little shrill from my perspective, but whatever subjective floats yer invective. Thu 21 Aug 2008 17:08:42 GMT+1 United Dreamer The truth is those of us who enjoy sport are not afraid of getting egg on our faces occasionally if it allows us to enjoy true feats of human endeavour and get caught up in the excitement of the moment, provided there are reasonable safeguards in place. If we didn't think that was the case we wouldn't watch it but nor would we comment on how wrong the others were to watch it. (too much of the royal we?) Thu 21 Aug 2008 17:03:51 GMT+1 mwpmo12 Freddiect wrote about doping being a disgrace, I take he is watching the games as he is writing about them with such forceful words, showing passion etc. Do you not think that a lot of these athletes are on drugs? how do you think world records keep getting broken, seemingly year in year out. Yes they train hard but they are only human and humans can run only so fast. The ever changing world records would suggest that human beings are evolving at an incredible rate. We all they are not, we are essentially the same as we were 500 years ago, even a thousand. Training has changed, nutrition also. There are some athletes such as Phelps and Bolt who have the required physicality to thrive in their chosen sport but they are rare cases. There are drugs that for the moment are undetectable but just because we cant detect them doesn't mean they not there. Why take drugs? sponsorship, money, fame, making a better life for you and your family the list goes on but they are a large part of sport and for the interest to continue in the Olympics more and more world records will have to be broken which I think we all know deep down will partly be down to doping.Take a look at the medal table positions of countries that cant afford the drugs.Type in Angel Heredia into your search engine and click on the Times article (other newspaper websites are available) a ex athlete who was involved in the development and distribution of performance enhancing drugs. Thu 21 Aug 2008 17:03:38 GMT+1 halfwheeler The true sportsfan will always give athletes the benefit of the doubt. Enjoying sport and having a questioning or cynical mind are mutually exclusive.Good one! Worthy of a t-shirt. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:57:05 GMT+1 United Dreamer "1. It's a democratic principle that underpins our freedom. The alternative is mob rule, and I cannot see a pitchfork being metaphorically wielded without taking a stand against it, hence my opposition to your rants. I don't mind incurring the contempt of the likes of you, in fact it's almost a bonus.2. If I didn't take that attitude, I could derive no pleasure in watching athletics. Just why do YOU watch?3. I think cheats will be caught sooner or later. Balco taught us that. So why get wound up now about who might be caught in the future?"Nicely put. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:47:43 GMT+1 Grouchmonkey This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:44:15 GMT+1 lwelshbloke Of course "it's not fair" is it? Cheating I mean.What is the difference between cheating and working within the rules but not in the "spirit of the rules"?Well basically one is a technical breach of a set of rules and the other is an ethical breach of what we British would call "fair play". A bit like what we did in the Bodyline series in Australia as an example.Which makes us a bunch of hypocrites really.Shall we open up the debate on creatine and other supplements? On technology? On training systems simply not available/affordable in other countries?Let's be honest the playing field is most certainly not level. There is a great article comparing Olympic medals to GDP per head.But that said, the rules are there at the moment. Whether they are right on wrong they are there. If you don't agree campaign about them. Or go to the court of appeal if need be. Fact is there are a set of rules in any sport and indeed in the games. There are a set of penalties that go with those rules. If you wish to partcipate you agree to abide by those rules. If you break the rules you accept the penalty. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:43:46 GMT+1 Tim #54, oh yeah, we don't mind British cheats. That's why Dwayne Chambers is so popular round these parts... You're really not giving reality a fighting chance in your rants, are you? This thread is about Blonska, but you're here lambasting Christine Ohuruogu, so a more reasonable interpretation is that you blindly accuse British athletes, not that I and others blindly defend them.I notice you can't answer my questions. You can't find a single reason why CO is any more likely to be a drugs cheat than any other athlete on the start line. I, on the other hand, accept that any or all of the starters in that race could be cheats. I choose to take the "innocent until proven guilty" line for these reasons - 1. It's a democratic principle that underpins our freedom. The alternative is mob rule, and I cannot see a pitchfork being metaphorically wielded without taking a stand against it, hence my opposition to your rants. I don't mind incurring the contempt of the likes of you, in fact it's almost a bonus.2. If I didn't take that attitude, I could derive no pleasure in watching athletics. Just why do YOU watch?3. I think cheats will be caught sooner or later. Balco taught us that. So why get wound up now about who might be caught in the future? Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:39:13 GMT+1 hitbarker It's a shame we walk down this path at every sporting event known to man, we lose our focus on what really matters, the accomplishments of the athletes, however, what are the accomplishments when they are tainted by drugs?I wonder how many athletes have won medals this year taking drugs without getting caught, I guess we'll find out in another 2 years or so... Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:33:41 GMT+1 halfwheeler shinyAllspark wrote:#69 - The Rio argument is being raised over his involvement with the England football team. As he missed a drugs test, should he be allowed to represent England?In the world cup and any other 'professional championships'? Yes. In the Olympics? No.This is the situation as it stands. It isn't hard to grasp - the issue is the British OLYMPIC Commitee lifetime ban. Not an IAAF or a UEFA or an FA or a BAF ban. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:33:20 GMT+1 xenomuller What I find incredible is the inability of CO's critics to read the facts. She couldn't have deliberately missed any of her drugs tests because she didn't know they were coming. She had no idea. Not a clue. DID NOT KNOW they were turning up that day. Therefore, how could she have deliberately avoided them? Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:31:45 GMT+1 United Dreamer I agree #73 - it was pretty ignorant. I guess you mean rude. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:30:28 GMT+1 halfwheeler UKrescueparty wrote:Of the 4 drug cheats caught this time round, i can understand why a cyclist, runner and gymnast may take performance enhancers but a shooter ?? - what is there to gain ?Beta blockers. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:26:25 GMT+1 jasonvivi Look!How rule you British Player is!!!Swimmer David Davies soaks Chinese official at Beijing OlympicsShame on you! Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:26:04 GMT+1 Tez Would it not just be easier to allow drug taking? I notice no one has brought this up. Given such a high number of known "cheats" why not allow everyone the same level.Drugs allow you to train longer and achieve better results. You still need to train! Surely if everyone was on the same level you would see all the althletes who has trained the most efficiently winning all the races, no longer would there be a suspicion of an athlete gaining an unfair advantage.If we did this then there would loads of new world records.The only thing that is mentioned as to why drugs should not be taken is it"threaten(s) your heart, screw(s) your hormones and can shorten(s) your life"Most female athletes with less than 8% body fat do not menstruate, they are already screwing their hormones. Most studies on longevity conclude that light exercise such as regular walking leads to the greatest life expectancy, so by definition you are already reducing your life expectancy by olympic training.How many athletes would accept a reduced life expectancy to be the first sprinter sub-9 seconds...The only counter argument I can see is that China and the USA would probably win most of the medals with the most effect drugs programs... Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:22:36 GMT+1 shinyAllspark #69 - The Rio argument is being raised over his involvement with the England football team. As he missed a drugs test, should he be allowed to represent England? Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:21:42 GMT+1 assyrix Legalise doping. In an age where 13-year old athlets are allegedly passed of as 16-year olds and swimsuits shave off seconds from previous world records yet Oscar Pistorius is denied permission to race because his feet are carbon-fiber prosthetics I am unable to see the problem with sportspeople using performance-enhancing substances.As Scientific American wrote in an editorial, extolling the virtues of the (fictional) hyper games:"The Hyper Games recognize the hypocrisy of extolling the “purity of sport” when modern athletes aggressively seek every advantage they can find, on and off the playing field. They do not compete nude like classical Olympians: they wear running shoes, they box with gloves, they vault on poles of space-age materials. Swimmers shave off their body hair to reduce drag in the water. Baseball pitchers undergo “Tommy John” surgery that replaces a ligament in their elbow and supposedly gives them better fastballs. Top athletes and their coaches routinely use every available method of training, nourishing and otherwise grooming their bodies and psyches that is legal (or undetectable).Critics sniff that the Hyper Games are hurtful to the athletes. But are conventional sports much better? Football players end up crippled with arthritis. Basketball players destroy their knees. Hockey players lose teeth. Boxers accumulate brain damage from uppercuts, as soccer players do from heading the ball thousands of times."(see for the full article)Hollywood actors undergo plastic surgery and nobody bats an eyelid or brands them "cheats". The same should apply to professional athletes. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:19:15 GMT+1 halfwheeler "And before we all run at bolt speed into hypocracy, Just remember Rio Ferdinand was also banned under the same testing laws. he recently held aloft the FA premiership and champions league trophies... and no mention of him missing any drugs testing or cheating were ever mentioned."Will people stop mentioning Rio Ferdinand?His missed test and subsequent ban mean he is banned from ever competing for Britain IN THE OLYMPICS, so unless he appeals and gets his lifetime ban overturned, he is a terrible example for this non-argument.All the drug failures are allowed to compete in professional sport as soon as their ban ends, the issue in hand is Britain's unilateral decision to consequently impose a lifetime Olympic ban for a doping conviction.What are mr Farquhar's views on the Triathletes who pretty much all did the course with a salbutamol inhaler in their shorts? It's not just Beijing pollution - all triathlons seem to be won this way. Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:17:15 GMT+1 United Dreamer Jaymore - you are missing a conveniently placed "fanboy" and "naive". And "if it was a foreigner..." should be in there as well. But apart from that. Damn straight! Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:16:42 GMT+1 genimast While I appreciate and support wholeheartedly the views so far, why are we so upset about cheating. It happens every time you watch a football match - gaining yards at free kicks and throw ins are just two examples. Then there's claiming for goal kicks and throw ins when the players know very well it's not theirs. It's more obvious than drug taking and endemic in the sport yet we do nothing about it. Why? Thu 21 Aug 2008 16:04:58 GMT+1 Sir-Jaymore-Sterling Go and read Victor Conte's letter to Dwain people have you no eyes can you guys and gals not read. Based on that letter I am now convinced without a shadow of a doubt that all athletes that have a gap of more than say two weeks between tests should be re-classified as cheats!I know more than the IAAF, the BOA, the arbitration panel et al. They have not got a clue about sports that was why Christine was eligible to compete. If only they had asked me I would have told them all I know about athletes and performance enhancing drugs. Infact I know everything why stop with athletics. Anybody eating meat is a drug user they should be jailed. Any one found drinking milk should be hanged. Anybody breathing in more than their fair share of oxygen should be executed electric chair style yee ha. Why you ask because I know everything. Anybody that does not agree with me is a fanboy and is blinded by patriotism and the BBC and ... and.... and .... and .... and ....:o)Again that's what some folks on here read like... Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:57:50 GMT+1 Titanium_KO If youre caught cheating, I.E red handed, or with your hand in the cookie jar, then the book should be thrown at you. But untill then, all the speculation and potenetial defamation of character should be left well alone. This whole drugs things is getting too complicated so we should just persecute those who have been found guilty of knowingly defrauding the spirit of the olympic games and atheletics as a whole.Its the one world event where the majority of the world attends one place for two weeks with peaceful intentions in mind. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:47:03 GMT+1 shinyAllspark If the panel that investigated Christines test found nothing suspicious about the missed tests and in fact conceded their procedures didn't help, why is there still doubt over whether Christine is clean?As for the topic of the blog, she has repeatedly been caught and yes should serve a life time ban. First offences though I think 2 year ban is sufficient Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:42:38 GMT+1 betarider What I know about football could be written on the back of a postage stamp but YES they are both in exactly the situation, Ferdinand should never represent Britain at the Olympics either......DOH!!!!!Come on folks, please. Open you eyes to that fact the doping is rife at the top end of practically every sport on the planet. If you are naive enough to believe that every British Team Member is clean and always has been you are kidding yourself. I believe certain athletes are clean but I'm not blind enough to expect some of them to test positive at some point.It's a sad world but please don't be fooled by yourselves, patriotism, the BBC and the blind faith that a British Sportsman wouldn't cheat Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:38:39 GMT+1 Sam This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:37:01 GMT+1 chris I completely agree with you STEVE9989. In fact, I recently had to ask my Dad who won the 1988 100m race as all the attention has only ever been on Ben Johnson. A medal handover ceremony could solve such confusion in the future. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:33:22 GMT+1 Sir-Jaymore-Sterling DHesketh I agree with your post 47, but will like to add that in reading the facts of the case, and I urge anyone making an opinion to do that, she was not entirely at fault.I feel there also needs to be a penalty for the people that instituted the ill thought out administrative process. I will like to see them banned from working for a minumum of five years. The system they set in-place nearly cost Team GB 23 Athletes. That's 3 that missed three tests and were re-instated Christine included, and also 20 that were on 2 missed test say.If you are not willing to meet her at a place she was receiving treatment for one of them, and take into account a school sports day had forced her to change her plans for the other one and meet her there, then incompetent is not even the word.Heck I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't work for the French or Australians even, and were attempting to decimate Team GB.Oh for people that know better than the arbitration panel and other such bodies. Have you ever considered that you may be in the wrong job, seeing that you know everything there is to know about the case, how athletes should behave. Oh and this goes to those directing vitriol at Christine, but also those people that get offended and cannot understand why some people might want to question three missed tests, whether rightly or wrongly. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:31:39 GMT+1 Titanium_KO At #53what a rediculous comment! Rio ferdinand IS an athelete, i take it that youve never seen football at the olympics??and besides, its not the case of he got off lightly, its the fact that cynical members of the public tend to forget Rio Ferdinand and lynch Christine Ohuruogu. In yours eyes theyre guilty of the same crime right?so how comes he lead Man Utd and England with his past history with the backing of many of the English / UK Public? Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:31:11 GMT+1 UKrescueparty Of the 4 drug cheats caught this time round, i can understand why a cyclist, runner and gymnast may take performance enhancers but a shooter ?? - what is there to gain ? Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:28:58 GMT+1 MrJimThompson Apologies to Jaymore-Sterling. I just saw your follow up comment in #49 posted as I was submitting #51.The scary thing is that your comment in #46 does indeed read like some of the other ones posted here. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:28:13 GMT+1 KMBayes I'm not sure if there is anything more to add after #47. However, it's worth noting that if she is juiced up she must have been a pretty poor athlete in the first place given that she was a full 2 seconds slower than the (East German) world record. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:27:26 GMT+1 MrsJohnMurphy LOL. The fanboys are out in force. 50 read Conte's letter to Chambers. It shows exactly how and why an athlete would miss tests. She might claim they were accidents and mistakes but then every athlete has an excuse when they get busted. No one ever hold their hands up and says 'yeah, I was doping you got me bang to rights.'But hey she's a Brit so that makes it all ok, she is just forgetful, but a foreigner... Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:26:22 GMT+1 betarider Post 40....when you have time do you fancy joining us in the real world ....Pity someone could not write a balanced view on Ms Ohurugu. She served a ban for missing tests, there's no smoke without fire. Had Blonska been a GB athlete it would be amistake, had some of the horses been Brirtsh team horses, they would have been spiked. Had a positive been a UK cyclist then certain BBC journalists would have had a field day. I'll expect this post to be removed as well there seems to be no stomach for a proper debate on doping matters, the blogs seem to be a site for open and rampant patriotism, why let that get in the way of reality?? Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:25:52 GMT+1 akatimewaster As said in a previous comment, it makes no difference what the circumstances of the missed test are. Any missed test is and should be treated as a failed test.There are masking agents available which can work very quickly so an athlete suggestin gto the testers that a test is re-arranged is ridiculous. I feel that CO should not have been allowed to compete at the Olympics.Oh and by the way, Chambers never failed a test, he admitted his guilt and took his punishment. I also feel that Rio Ferdinand was treated very lightly. If he was an athlete, he would have been given a two-year ban. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:25:16 GMT+1 QwaarJet I believe everyone deserves a second chance. Zero tolerance is something that shouldbe abolished in this day and age. We aren't in the dark ages anymore.I believe Blonska should be banned for life as this is her second offence, but I still find it disgraceful that Chambers couldn't take part in the Olympics, especially as public opinion seemed to favour him. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:23:58 GMT+1 MrJimThompson #39 - "If a British Athlete's A sample were to test positive, would this blog have been written? No it wouldn't". Really; are you sure? I have no doubt that amid the weeping and gnashing of teeth, there would be numerous calls for a public lynching.Why stop at #46's suggestion, let's also ban all athletes breaking a world record while we are at it. Clearly, this is suspicious behaviour. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:20:15 GMT+1 Tim MrsJohnMurphy, I am certain that I cannot stem the tide of your inexplicable vitriol against Christine Ohuruogu, but I can still challenge you on your version of the story. One thing that you seem utterly incapable of grasping is that Christine Ohuruogu did not knowingly skip any drugs tests, not ever. Very occasionally, she was not where she said she was going to be for unscheduled drug tests, on one occasion even going to the lengths of arranging a sports day at her usual track in order to have an excuse to go and dope herself, at least in your fantastical version of events. Let me see if you can do 2 things for me:First, I want you to name names. Which drugs could she have taken on those 3 days of interrupted training that could have so altered her performance and yet cleared her system within hours? Most drugs help athletes by improving endurance, allowing them to train harder and longer. That won't have been the advantage that she gained, however, since her training was interrupted, so what was the advantage? It should be a drug that exists today, would provide an advantage in the circumstances stated, and would be detectable by drug tests. After all, why else would she have avoided being tested on those days?Second, if I will accept that Christine Ohuruogu may indeed be a drugs cheat, although I do not accept that there is any evidence of this, will you accept that she is no more likely to be one than anybody else in the blocks at the start of that race? Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:18:37 GMT+1 Sir-Jaymore-Sterling No wait let me go one better. The IAAF should ban all athletes. Yes you heard right ban all of them. Why you ask me because I know what I am talking about, I know better than the BOA, I know better than everybody. What I say goes.They are all potential drugs cheats. Believe me it is not humanly possible to complete the 100 metres in less than 14 seconds why you ask me well because I cant. So any body going faster must be on drugs. Oh don't bother explaining any case to me. I know what I am saying. I know everything.:o).................That's actually what some people read like on here... hihihi.... lol... Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:16:53 GMT+1 LeeBJames This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:12:52 GMT+1 DHesketh I wonder whether those who have written all the self-righteous high-handed nonsense about Christine Ohorugu following the "there's no smoke without fire" argument have bothered to research the facts about her case.Christine was the first athlete to fall foul of the 3 strikes rule. At the time of her ban there were approximately 20 other UK athletes on two missed tests. There are currently more than 1,000 missed tests worldwide.It is also not a question of missing appointments. Every athlete is required to provide a schedule of their movements every single week detailin a minimum of five separate times and locations that will be available for random testing. In the vast majority of instances those times come and go without event. However a tester could turn up at any one, unannounced, and if the athlete is not there within an prescribed time limit (1 hour) then its classified as a missed test.Changes to the athletes schedules have to be given 24 hours in advance. No exceptions.There are many recorded instances of athletes getting delayed or stuck in traffic or, in Christine Ohorugu's case, changing their plans at the last minute. I would challenge anyone, any single person, to be able to say with absolute 100% cast iron unshakable certainty that they would never change their plans once during an entire year or more and would always remember.Yes, we can pontificate about "if it were my job I'd make certain" but how many of us have made silly mistakes at work and got away with them. I know I have made many. It hasn't cost me my livelihood for the rest of my life.Those who compare Dwain Chambers with Christine Ohorugu are missing a fundamental difference. Chambers set out knowingly to defraud the sport he operated in, the public and his fellow athletes. He was caught with his hand in the till. Christine Ohorugu was guilty of bad management and bad communication. There's a big, big difference between disorganisation and dishonesty.During the period between missed tests 1 and 2 (8 months) she was tested many many times and was clean on every one. During the 12 months out of competition while serving her ban she was tested on no less than 14 occasions and was clean on every one.The one year ban is proportionate to her mistake. She has served it. She since has been tested over and over and over again and been clean.Lyudmila Blonska was a known drugs cheat and should never have been allowed to compete in these games. If Christine Ohorugu had been in the same boat I would be the first to say she should be banned.But she wasn't. She was a naive girl who fell foul of a difficult and necessarily tough system and has served her punishment.Let her be and give her the credit she deserves for her performance. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:10:27 GMT+1 Sir-Jaymore-Sterling I would like to add that anybody missing even one drug test should be banned because really they might only need to use the performance enhancing drug once. Thu 21 Aug 2008 15:00:27 GMT+1 KMBayes Big big difference between explaining your way out of a positive test result (I think it was elevated testosterone for Mitchell, and these days the test can distinguish between natural and synthetic testosterone so his 'up all night having sex' excuse would not wash, assuming he's guilty that is) and explaining why the testers would not wait for you. Even bigger difference between the US, who have a history of burying bad news, and the BOA. Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:52:29 GMT+1 Titanium_KO Here, here @ united dreamer Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:52:04 GMT+1 United Dreamer I mean Christine Ohuruogu. Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:48:02 GMT+1 United Dreamer Well #39 all I can suggest is not watching the Olympics as it will be a frustrating experience unless you enjoy moaning with displeasure. I in my child-like naivety will continue to allow the authorities to draw the line for me and continue to enjoy the awesome performances when they come to pass. So, if you don't mind, I will salute Christine Uhuruogu for her performance (and Bolt and the rest of the magnificant Jamaican team) and applaud the authorities for hoiking Blonska who has brought shame to her country. Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:47:02 GMT+1 Titanium_KO Congratulations to team GB who have quite franky surpassed all expectations in the games. I also extend this congratulations to the Jamaican track team who have done exceeding well and look like they will top the track and field medal table. In terms of the CO story, i believe there will always be people (especially the US now) saying that she was a drugs cheat. this seems all a bit rich where the west of forever condemning china etc for their human rights records. She has never been found guilty of taking any drugs whatsoever, and has reasonable explanations for missing the tests. so innocent until proven guilty, and she's proved to the world that the world championships were no fuke. Does this mean we also have to tear down the jamaicans achievements as well, knowing that the team as tested 32 times already? And before we all run at bolt speed into hypocracy, Just remember Rio Ferdinand was also banned under the same testing laws. he recently held aloft the FA premiership and champions league trophies... and no mention of him missing any drugs testing or cheating were ever mentioned. Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:35:24 GMT+1 Norman Conquest no way there are no drug cheats in this edition of Team (G)B Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:27:11 GMT+1 MrsJohnMurphy If a British athlete's A sample were to test positive would this blog have been written? No it wouldn't.36 - Yes potentially given how rampant doping is in elite sport. Look at the hundreds of athletes who have been banned for doping. Ricardo Ricco was tested 10 times for EPO and only 2 of those tests returned positive results. 80% of the time when he should have turned in a positive test he passed the test.34 - spare me the misogyny - expert panels also cleared Dennis Mitchell. The authorities continued to back Marion Jones until the end. You can trust the authorities if you want but some of don't retain your child like naivety and confidence in them. Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:21:44 GMT+1 popefridge This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:19:46 GMT+1 jazzbutchbaby As far as I understand, in some countries kids are given growth hormones to improve their 'opportunities for sporting success'. Designer Basketball Team anyone?Difficult to monitor, but should we allow this? Thu 21 Aug 2008 14:03:44 GMT+1 United Dreamer "As Marion Jones has shown - passing tests isn't proof for being clean. It just proves you can pass the test. "Does that mean every single athlete out there is dirty then seeing as we are relying on tests? Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:59:25 GMT+1 United Dreamer Well #33 of course you are the expert and not the two arbitration panels that exonerated her from blame of taking drugs but gave her what even they admit was a harsh twelve month competition ban. And the fact that two other athletes had their Olympics bans overturned under precisely the same circumstances prior to this presumably has no bearing on you. Or the fact that the administration of the testing was admitted to be flawed and has since been changed. Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:57:14 GMT+1 KMBayes The BOA believed this 'excuse' which is why she's competing. Baxter is a different case since he failed a test, but he also won his appeal against an Olympic ban because he had a valid arguement (In his case the medicine he took in America contained an illegal substance that the version sold in the UK does not contain). I trust the experienced professionals at the BOA to listen to the evidence in each case and make a decision on it's merits. Obviously a ranting housewife knows better..... Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:53:47 GMT+1 MrsJohnMurphy 31 - every cheat has an excuse - sometimes the fanboys and authorities believe them, other times they don't. Some blame the chemist like Baxter, some blame a conspiracy like Gatlin, some offer up bizarre alien excuses like Tyler Hamilton and Dennis Mitchell, some claim to be forgetful.As Marion Jones has shown - passing tests isn't proof for being clean. It just proves you can pass the test. Apparently - the BBC has banned criticism of its 'journalists' because they might be offended. Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:45:08 GMT+1 MrsJohnMurphy This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:30:28 GMT+1 KMBayes She's already had to argue her case to the BOA and has provided evidence as to why she missed the tests. It's already been argued by united_dreamer that this entire saga could have been avoided if there was a little flexibility in the system.CO has been subjected to extensive out of competition testing ever since she returned from her ban, and lets face it, our testers have already shown how ruthless they can be. If they are happy, case closed. Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:13:48 GMT+1 mrireland First congratulations to a truly fantastic British Olympic teams performanance.There is no valid test to find use of growth hormone and it is common knowledge it is used.As I have said its really hard to see those weightlifters esp women lifting such weights without assistance, or explain the unusual muscularity of both male and female athletes.When the drug use was first detected and so many caught we should note that the performances are back up to that standard but not the detection.Marion was touted as the greatest female track star and tested clean and in fact was only uncovered as a drug user by admission not detection. Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:10:23 GMT+1 BulletMonkey 'Guilty until proven innocent'. Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:09:36 GMT+1 MrsJohnMurphy This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:08:29 GMT+1 NuclearChicken I'd quite like to see drugs allowed in sport. After all, all manner of "technical doping" is seen as acceptable in all manner of Olympic sports. The difference, in many, respects seems arbitrary. Thu 21 Aug 2008 13:08:02 GMT+1 United Dreamer "Seems we British have an inate ability to destroy our best sportsmen and women."Unfortunately no innate ability to think logically though. Ha I'll give that post 5 minutes - Not that the point made is not true;-) Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:58:09 GMT+1 KMBayes Well put united_dreamer,I think for the second missed test she was injured and receiving treament rather than at the track where she had indicated she would be for specified one hour window when the tester turned up. Another case that could have been resolved but lets face it, it's easer for the tester to tick the box that says althlete not present rather than use a bit of inititive and collect the damn sample. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:57:04 GMT+1 superchunky1 This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:54:46 GMT+1 United Dreamer This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:49:01 GMT+1 United Dreamer "Ohoruogu ineptly failed to tell the testers when she turned up to the stadium she trains in only to find it was being used by a school sports day. One is a cheat, the other is a pillock."Not quite true. She did ask them to come to the new venue she was training at but they refused and she could not make it to the agreed venue in time.Still there were two others that did the same thing. I guess they were pillocks as well. Not to let CO off the hook entirely as she certainly mismanaged it but I think the intransigence of the testers was a bit jobsworthlike given that she was on an automatic ban and it should be about being drug free not how well you follow the testing process. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:46:17 GMT+1 Cyclespur They should do what they do in cycling - one cheat in a team he goes, two cheats the whole team goes!Peer pressure got us into this mess maybe it will get us out. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:46:00 GMT+1 jahprovides This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:40:07 GMT+1 eMpTyness Missing a drug test is the exact same as failing one - it has to be or all cheats will avoid tests to continue dopingChristine Ohuruogu missed not one, or two, but three tests!!!Come on! Do you really think these were all just mistakes. Surely if you missed a couple you would make damn sure to make the next appointment. And as someone pointed earlier - the out-of-competition doping is the most important.Quite sad to listen to the pundits tripping themselves up to celebrate her gold as she "inadvertently missed three drug tests".Congrats to Team GB but in all the eagerness for a high finish on the medals table the excellent standards (imposed on Chambers) should not be let slip. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:37:20 GMT+1 MikeFay schneider_kreuznach - Rasmussen deliberately lied to the testing authorities, saying he was going to be training in Mexico when he was actually training in Italy. Ohoruogu ineptly failed to tell the testers when she turned up to the stadium she trains in only to find it was being used by a school sports day. One is a cheat, the other is a pillock. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:35:02 GMT+1 amazonmothe Wherever possible a ceremony reallocating the medals should be held. I think the cheat should handover their medal at the ceremony and leave as it is presented to the rightful winner.I really dont think many athletes would risk this public condemnation of their cheating. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:24:04 GMT+1 mjsisson I fully agree.However, this poses a problem. Do we now extend the term 'cheat' (with similar penalties) to those in team sports who (for example) score a goal with their hand, or feign injury to waste time, or pretend to have been fouled in order to win a free-kick, and don't own up to it etc etc etc.Cheating is cheating in my book, regardless of the sport or the method, or the risk of being caught, or the consequences imposed. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:17:03 GMT+1 flyboyone1 Are all the other countries going to come onboard? I guess they seek success.Anyway, all athletes should have their medals presented at the Olympics, those who are due them due to doping violations of other athletes should have the record state they won either Gold, silver or Bronze but should receive the medal at the next Olympics prior to their individual section starting. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:11:28 GMT+1 wattie Zero tolerance: absolutely. So why was Christine Ohuruogu in the Olympic team given that she has served a ban for missing out of competiton drugs tests? If the British team rules meant they couldn't bring Chambers then, I'm sorry, but they shouldn't have brought her either. Its not enough to say she didn't test positive, because the rules treat a missed test as the same as a failed one. To miss a test is considered effectively to attempt to cheat the system. Also consider that these days most drug cheating takes place out of competition using drugs that enhance training but are out of the ahtlete's system by the time of competiton, which is why missing an out of competition test is such a big deal (it's also why it's a surprise to see an athlete test positive during the games - Moreno the Spansish cyclist was caught before the games started by the way). Quite probably in Ohuruogu's case the British federation and her coaches were at fault for not managing her correctly and ensuring she met all requirements, but rules are there to be followed, and missing out of competion tests gave her the opportunity to dope without being caught. She has served her ban, but is the British team consistent if it won't take Chambers but will take her? The cyclist Michael Rasmussen has never tested positive, but inadequacies in his availablity for out of competition testing have seen his career effectively ended. Zero tolerance should be just that, otherwise sport is open to charges of hypocrisy. If as people suggest the stakes need to be high, then we cannot excuse anyone. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:06:33 GMT+1 jamesmwoood Surely everyone is a suspect. As we have seen and read before the cheats are getting better at hiding that they are cheating. It's unfortunate but whenever I see any World records being broken now, I have a nagging feeling that they have taken drugs to get that record.I do like the idea of having a ceremony for handing back the medal, ultimate humiliation. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:05:59 GMT+1 glos_iron Don't ban the eastern europeans...they are so much more attractive than our general offerings Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:05:23 GMT+1 rmarkwilliams A simple solution for the London Olympics: All drugs tests administered by the Metropolitan police. Any medal winner who tests positive is prosecuted under the Theft Act (1968):"s15.(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with intent to permanently depriving the other of it shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years." Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:02:08 GMT+1 KMBayes If you go to the trouble of examining Cristine Ohuruogo's case, as the BOA did in allowing her to compete, you realise that her missed tests were very unfortunate, although with better organisation and planning on her part they could have been avoided. Only a fool would equate her circumstances with a failed test. Thu 21 Aug 2008 12:00:55 GMT+1 boogieeck Her teammate keeps the gold. Now the entire teams of some nations in some sports were wthdrawn because of systematic doping. I think weightlifting expels entire national teams if an athlete tests positive. I wonder then if this is the next logical step. A teammate tests positive, and your whole team in that sport is expelled. To me that sounds too harse. Maybe then the first offence, not so. Second offence in a two year period at a major championship, the whole team goes. Outcome would be that after a first positive test, national teams would have a very strong incentive to test and indeed to not select even on basis of doubt. Thu 21 Aug 2008 11:39:00 GMT+1 earthelement If you win a medal in a team that contains a drugs cheat, you have won a medal by cheating. There should be no place at all for cheating even though it is very unfortunate for the clean team athletes. Even Christine Ohuruogu has a tainted medal as far as i am concerned.The sooner there is absolute zero tolerance the better. Thu 21 Aug 2008 11:36:45 GMT+1 Ryan86 With the current weather in Beijing, we'd be denying them their moment in the rain! Thu 21 Aug 2008 11:17:03 GMT+1 Ryushinku Another ceremony for the heptathlons would definitely be a great idea. Don't deny them that moment in the sun. Thu 21 Aug 2008 11:13:57 GMT+1 Ian_the_chopper It is easy to criticise an individual but what if it was in a team event?All their team mates that won with the cheat have to hand their medals back too. Michael Johnson had to hand one of his 2000 Olympic gold medals after I believe two of his team mates admitted doping.Also the British sprinters who lost medals due to Dwaine Chambers.Perhaps we should also ban the equestrian events after two gold medalists in 2004 were banned and and more medallists today had drugged up horses?The article seem to pose the point that this is a hangover of the bad old days from the Eastern bloc but it's not just Ukrainians that fail drugs tests.I wonder how much the Americans dropped down the medal table in Sydney after Marion Jones's medals were taken back and the mens relays. Also remember the previous American gold medallist for the 100 metres from Athens Justin Gatlin has also been banned for taking dugs.I'm not defending Blonska as I believe she shouldn't have been allowed to compete in the first place but by failing a second test at the Olympics she has brought shame on herself and her country.Also her compatriot that won gold will now have to put up with snide comments about the possibility that she was also helped but got away with it. Thu 21 Aug 2008 11:10:39 GMT+1 beatlened This post has been Removed Thu 21 Aug 2008 11:02:42 GMT+1 FreddieCT Cheating is a disgrace.Cheaters should definatly be banned for life. Thu 21 Aug 2008 11:00:50 GMT+1 Steve9989 Even better, force the drug cheats to attend another ceremony in which they hand back their medal in public. The humiliation shown on TV screens around the world might make others think twice.It really is time though that the IOC had a similar rule to the British and banned all drug cheats from all future Olympics. Thu 21 Aug 2008 10:57:46 GMT+1 Jordan D Exactly correct Gordon. Can the BOA enforce that rule against all people who have 'failed a test' under their own guidelines? Thu 21 Aug 2008 10:33:43 GMT+1