Dwain Chambers free to run at London 2012

I'm surprised this hasn't been covered yet on v2.

So what are your thoughts guys?

Ive always thought that if an athletes served there time they should be allowed a second chance, especially the likes of chambers who i believe has been helpful in the whole BALCO thing.(no third chances though!). However if the IAAF were to come out with a ruling that said all drugs cheats were banned for life i would be in favour, just think its totally unfair that the UKA take such a firm stance where as the likes of Merritt and Gatlin are free to compete!

This has already been discussed in another article I think. My personal view is that competing in the Olympics should be a privilege rather than a right, and that if BOA wish to have a tough stance then it's their right. Certainly most of the British athletes seem to support the BOA stance on this one, and I for once think it makes a refreshing change to see athletes properly punished for doping offences by denying them the right to compete at the pinnacle of the sport. I'd go further and say when you consider the number of high level British sportsmen who have been involved in doping scandals (probably only Christie, Chambers and Millar that I can think of off hand) it seems to work pretty well.

Let's hope everyone can now work towards a universal 4 year ban.

I think Dwain has been punished many times over for this and deserves a second chance.

Not sure of the accuracy of that reported 'overwhelming' support amongst GB athletes for the BOA rule. Started off as 90% then has been whittled down consistently over the last few months as various athletes spoke up for Dwain in particular.

I'm in agreement with Ifc91 and teassoc...

Chambers has doen the time and his punishment, and that of other British athletes in a simlar situation, goes beyond fair and just, particularly as we athletes from other nations can compete after even 2 years [ I'm in favour of a 4 year ban, specifically to coincide with an Olympics i.e. that the athlete has to miss one ].

Like the fact that Jonanathan Edwards is coming out on favour of Chambers [ raising Edwards in my level of estimtaion somewhat! ];

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17818958

Over the last few years, Chamnbers has proven himself to be able to redeem himself. He has worked hard and tirlessly to make amends. Chambers for London Mayor, I say! Good luck to Chambers!

I would agree it is fair enough to allow Chambers to run. I was angry with him when he went to the dark side - both for the moral failure and also because I thought he had such promise and threw away a potentially fine career by listening to the wrong people.
But I have to say he has conducted himself very well in recent years : accepted he had done wrong , not sought excuses , and just got on with his running wherever he has been allowed. He has competed well for his country in other international events, and it is time to let him appear on the greatest stage of all before his career ends.
A good showing in London might be an appropriate final act in his redemption.

Still opens the door for more cynical cheaters to try the system.

If you're daft/unlucky enough to get caught, you serve your two years and you're back to compete again in whatever you want and can even carry on cheating (you have to be exeptionally stupid or unlucky to get caught twice.)

It's not just about Chambers, it's about supporting cheats in general. I always thought the by-law was a very good deterrent to stop cheating. Now what have we got?

(By the way, I don't give a stuff what other countries are doing, they're are always going to be other nations that are completely lax on anti-doping, but is stooping to their level the way to go?)

Not two years though - or shouldn't be. Edwards is quite correct , should be pushing strongly for a return to four year bans.
Four years is a significant lump out of a career and not many have come back successfully after that long out so it should be a decent deterrent ...

I can see where the "life ban" advocates are coming from , but (a) Even a cheat can repent and should they be denied any hope of redemption ? I agree there are arguments each way... and anyway (b) A life ban isn't enforceable and just makes lawyers more money trying...

It's not a life ban as such though. It's a law which allows the BOA to not pick cynical cheats for the Olympic team.

The whole 'life ban' thing is to get people emotional about human rights and the like. They can still have a career in the sport, despite this 'life ban' and despite being cynically dirty in the past, so I wouldn't feel too much sympathy for them.

People have turned this into a Chambers vs BOA thing, when in reality, it's a (Former) cheats vs BOA thing. I like Dwain, and will support him in London, but I still think the by-law was a good thing.

We (Britain) still have time to prevent the cheats from coming to the Olympics, visas can be witheld as these cheats are obviously a far greater risk of smuggling illegal substances than noncheats.

...and ALL Olmpic competitors should be told in advance that anyone found guilty of cheating at these games will never be allowed to set foot on British soil again.

OK , I didn't actually mean to equate the BOA rule with a life ban - was referring to that option in a general sense , in the whole penalties for doping issue.

I actually quite approved of the BOA rule , especially as they were not so inflexible as to apply it religiously in all cases , but reviewed all cases on merit when appealed. However it is clearly also going to be a casualty of legal decisions , so I'd prefer not to fight an unwinnable battle and rather concentrate on getting a serious but enforceable alternative...

So I actually pretty much agree with you , dj. And in the circumstances , will also be happy to see Chambers run in London (which I wouldn't have been a few years ago)

Yep, that's it really. It's all about the legality of the whole thing and it's turned into a bit of a mess.

It's probably best all round if it's all forgotten about now and we can just get on with things. It's gone on long enough.

I'm a huge supporter of Chambers now - but like Alfie, wasn;t for quite some time. When news first hit, I was gutted and really pi553d off with the guy

At the beginning, I'd put all my support behind him - and was rooting from him left, right and centre - and I'm sure many other people were too. His trangression must have made him public enemy number 1 in Britain for a little while For me, subsequently, it felt good to know that he was struggling, trying to make a go of other sporting careers. I almost applauded his failures

But he's a human being. He was young when he made those mistakes. These aren't the kinds of mistakes that should lead us to hating someone for the remainder of their lives. He has repented and worked hard to genuinely redeem himself

I would add, though, bans should be for 4 years, ensuring that transgressors miss at least one Olympics. That way there is a meaningful deterent As it is, the 2 year ban is way short of what's required. Certainly, Gatlin shouldn't be in a position to compete in London

Chambers, however, has served more than the reequired sentence, and should be allowed to compete at the Olympics. Sounds soppy, but this would set the greatest example. If he competed in London, we would be hard pushed to find a more appreciative and proud athlete

Yeah, I already said I like the guy.

But for his struggles and problems over the last few years, all the ruling means is that you can cheat as much as you want and once you've served your rather minor penalty, there's nothing to stop you from competing again.

Essentially the ruling makes doping a more viable option for British athletes.

I think it's all rather academic with regard to Dwain Chambers - he is not going to make the finals - although he might help the British team make the 4x100m relay final (if he were to be selected in the relay team).

If David Millar is able to recover from his injury (?) then he could be important for Cavendish in terms of challenging for the road race gold.

Nore Staat - I don't think it is academic regarding Chambers. I don't think he'll make the final. However, it is more a case of simply being able to see him there - which is what would be the most important thing for me...though naturally, goes without saying, that if he made the final, would be delighted

Anyway, I do recognie that this topic has been done to death - so apologies for continuing to go on about it

i didn't know you guys knew over a week ago.
I thought this just came out today!

as others have been let back in i think its ok but i wish they weren't let back in in the first place!

The BOA bye-law has now been officially over-ruled: "The BOA has lost its battle with the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas)"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17853070

Personally I am pleased - now the focus should be on tightening up the sanctions and improving the testing uniformly across the globe. BOA should now put their energies in getting WADA and IOA to improve matters globally.

Agree Nore Staat!

SJ

I'm delighted that the BOA lost their case. I could not stand their holier than thou atttitude when it came to doping.

Chambers has been through the mill enough. He's not going to ever win anything now so no real harm done unlike the hideous Justin Gatlin who has a dirty Olympic gold.

Time the same rules applied for the whole world rather than having irritiating bylaws passed by the sanctimonious Brits.

Really do dislike Gatlin as well...

He should not be in a position to have even the remotest opportunity to compete at London. Should be a case that any transgression results in an athlete missing the next Olympics - preferably, a straight up 4 year ban...which would ensure non-eligibility at a respective Olympics...

SJ

reaction from decathlete Dean Macey to the outcome

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/apr/30/dangerous-message-athletes-doping

echoes my thoughts quite closely. Simply put, at the moment, the punishment for dopers is too small compared to the (potential) gain they get from cheating...

I will support Dwain in London, this has in a sense nothing to do with him personally. Gatlin of course should be nowhere near the Olympics (and I still harbour vague wild dreams of the UK denying him visa entry), but that's the US anti-doping fight for you. Give me "sanctimonious Brits" over the hypocrisy of the US and Jamaicans any day...

Remember this all started with the USOC supporting LaShawn Merrit's claim against the International Olympic Committee banning him from the 2012 Oympics. With the USOC support, the IOC ruling was overturned and LaShawn Merrit, who tested positive three times for testosterone use between 2009 and 2010, will be competing at the games.

"Merritt, the reigning world 400m champion, was given a two-year suspension , later reduced to 21 months, for failing three tests for a banned steroid in early 2010."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/15196177

One thing that we can all agree on, is that 2 years is too short.

The trouble is that with much longer bans, the USOC and others are concerned that they won't be able to implement 4 year years because of 'restraint of trade' type arguments. They fear if I recall correctly lots of costly court cases.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Give me "sanctimonious Brits" over the hypocrisy of the US and Jamaicans any day...

What is your view on the validity of Usain Bolt and the Jamaican relay team?

good question SDB.

Bolt: you know, I really really want to believe he's clean. Unfortunately, I also think that if he is on something we probably won't hear about it (remember Marion Jones? never actually tested positive IIRC). However, innocent until proven guilty, so for the moment I take the view that he's just a freak of nature, and an incredibly gifted athlete.

Relay team: my views on them are less complimentary, particularly Blake. It surprises me that someone who gets a rather silly 6 month (I think) ban in the off-season suddenly goes to running frankly ridiculous times (19.26 in the 200? before Bolt no one would have believed this possible, and yet people didn't bat an eyelid).

You expect evolution and progress in sports as the science improves, but the progress the Jamaican sprinters have shown in the last 5 years or so goes way beyond that, so I do regard it with a slightly suspicious eye. Even moreso when you see that on the rare occasions an athlete does get caught he gets a mere slap on the wrist.

I also have a question for those who know: supposing you've been on something, for how long do the benefits actually last?

Imagine what it would do to the sport of athletics if its main superstar was found to be taking PEDs! I assume thats why you think any positive tests would be swept under the rug? I sort of agree on the jamiacans, but as i said on another thread, i have different views say on usain, where you can see clear gradual progression in times from an early age, to say steve mullings who all of a sudden knocks 2 tenths of his PB at 28 years old! And as for PEDs, ive always been under the impression that once you stop you lose alot of the gains you made quite quickly, say a matter of weeks. Could be wrong though.

im sorry but i find it disgusting that he has been allowed to run at this year's olympics..