Dwain Chambers' bid to run in the Olympics could still be alive

Charles van Commennee, UKA Head Coach, has hinted that he could back a renewed legal appeal from Dwain Chambers to have his Olympic ban imposed by BOA overturned, which would be an astonishing turnround of policy given the relations between the two sides in recent years. So could Dwain still entertain hopes that he could pull on a British vest and step on the track to race over 100m at the Olympics next year? van Commennee comes out now saying, "people deserve a second chance", and judging by the latest settlement of relations and Dwain's recent UKA funded training stint in South Africa could be another strong hint towards this direction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/9413676.stm

I'm a strong believer in giving people a second (but not third) chance in life so I'd be OK with Dwain getting his 2012 chance.

From an international perspective, seems odd that we are practically the only country taking such a high ground.

Adult athletes who cheat lie and thieve must lose their right to compete in the Olympics otherwise the status of these great games becomes threatened, this should apply world wide.

These sorts of athletes know all the rules and consequences yet still bring the sport into disrepute for financial and egotistical gain, there should be no further opportunities at this the highest and purest level of the sport.

We do not need any Dutch coach on a £1,000,000 retaianer down grading the british standpoint simply to try and improve his squads chances, UKA have had 13 years and £200,000,000 to prepare for this eventuality of a Home Olympics...end of rant.

My own view is that the Dutchman has done a very good job so far, he's shown to manage his teams and athletes at his command superbly and the results of British squads at international championships around speak volumes for his work.

Dwain, on the other hand, has got to have a chance of a reprieve. After all, there are going to be many athletes turning up in London that have served bans over doping offences, so why shouldn't he?

The fact that we take a moral standpoint whilst other countries don't is absolutely no reason for us to change our standards. Look where bringing standards down to match the lowest common denominator has got us elsewhere in life!

Dwain Chambers may consider fighting Olympic ban according to BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/9413676.stm

Soreshins wrote:The fact that we take a moral standpoint whilst other countries don't is absolutely no reason for us to change our standards. Look where bringing standards down to match the lowest common denominator has got us elsewhere in life!

We aren't talking about lowest common demoninators we are talking about whether GB is right to be virtually the only country to have such a disqualification. Seems odd to be so isolated.

I understand though that this is something lots of people have very strong opinions on and respect to those that view it as unredeamable. I've never had such an approach in live and think in this instance my view is that he's served his time. I'd also take into account the hardships he's suffered, the money he has had to return and/or still owe, his full confession and help with promoting anti-drugs campaigns.

Do you think it's down to the lack of talented sprinters? And that Chambers would be the only chance of securing a medal?

Don't believe in second chances for athletes personally. Imagine the damage if everyone got caught taking but came back. I believe we should take a stance higher than the minimum rules.

I think he should be given another chance, he served the time and in any other profession this wouldnt be able to happen as is a restraint of trade

Teachers police nurses etc cannot go back to there proffesiion after commiting a serious crime, neither can coachs who are caught as paedophiles.

Lets make the Olymopics what it is supposed to be, keep all the ex cheats out,
he knew the rule before he cheated and this would go down badly for him in court.

Teachers, police officers or nurses cannot go back to their professions on crimes that involve physical or psychological abuse, threat or exploitation of other persons, which don't fall into committing a doping offence by any means.

On the other hand, people that may have committed murder, robbery or other serious crimes can be accepted back into working or social environments as long as they have served their sentences.

Not into nursing, police, teaching, child care, Lawer, accountant the list is endless where you cannot go back to your old employment because "THE RULES2 say you cannot , and Chambers crime was a terrible one so therfore forfits his right to perform at the highest level which represents the highest ideals, he knew this was the rule and deliberatley chose to lose his rights to the Olympics or was he deliberately chancing it? and did he think his potential would be to much of a good thing for a struggling NGB desperate for medals for survival?

Chambers would do untold damage to our beautiful sport if he purues this avenue, given his past lack of integrity though one wonders if this would even bother him, and would we really want someone who sunk to these depths to represent us...I wouldn't!!

Yeah, you can not go back to your employment in these professions, depending on circumstances in certain cases as well, but on grounds of committing abuse, threat or exploitation of third persons that you're also charged with protecting and/or nurturing into society.

Nevertheless, you still haven't showed where Dwain Chambers or anyone to have committed doping offences fits into similar treatment since there is no such case. Further, since people that have committed far more serious crimes like murderers, rapists or robbers can be admitted back into working or social environments like anyone else an athlete has every right to have got a second chance.

Chambers has served his ban, has suffered more than his fair share, and is perfectly eligible to compete on the track. Even more so since there is no international rule in place by either the IOC or IAAF to prevent him from competing at either the Worlds or Olympics. The BOA ban is only a by-law and can be overturned if taken to the courts, where I don't think it's going to reach that far.

Last, I don't see any strugging NGB around, the medals are flowing in at all levels, more and more new medal prospects and up-and-coming athletes emerge on the way and Britain can afford to go to the European Indoors and claim eight medals without the bulk of their top athletes.

Nobody has explained why GB is practically the only country with such an approach. Virtually the whole of the World allows a second chance. Seems stupid to me, to be so different.

At the very least, I'd therefore like to see the eligibility rule softened a bit to allow for exceptions.

I have respect for him as an individual after admitting what he'd done, and showing remorse, unlike practically all the others who claim innocence long after being caught. To my mind he'd be the kind of exception I'd relax the rule for.

He got caught thats why he coughed up other wise he might well still be at it. Lsabre we obviously have a different set of standards, mine are aimed at improving the drug problem not curtailing to it, the rule will not be overturned in court and Chambers nor CVC will not be allowed to bring athletics into disrepute take it from me, we are not just talking athletics here!!!

The drug problem runs far deeper and it's not going to ever be dealt with by cheap solutions of creating 'scapegoats' to cover the real size of the matter. Further, as long as there are certain regulations over drug offences everyone have to abide by them.

Therefore, since international rules specify a two-year ban over serious offences that has to be observed by all parties involved, as well as the right of the offenders to return to action after completion of their time out.

Now, as far as Dwain Chambers is concerned my own view is that he stands a good chance of overturning the BOA by-law, which is also not favoured by WADA. UKA have shifted their stance to hint that they could back him in that light and I do think that BOA will 'reluctantly' follow suit.

They can't afford to go to court over a case they could well lose as well as drawing the spotlight over matters of this nature with just a year to spare on the Olympics. My take? Chambers will be lining up over 100m next summer in London and quite possibly Carl Myerscough in the shot, along with David Millar in cycling come to that.

I've found this Telegraph article very interesting as World Anti-Doping Agency claim that BOA by-law needs legal test:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/8386219/Britains-hopes-of-2017-World-Championships-fade-as-Qatar-enters-race.html