If you have a bad memorywhat sport should you do?

Dave Cornwall

I see that Christine Ohuruogu has had her ban on entering the Olympics overturned!

Good job she's not a cyclist, because then, quite rightly, you'd be banned by the governing body. Seems that you can get away with obeying the rules if you have a chance of winning a medal in athletics.

Perhaps Rasssmusen should consider a change in discipline!

Salsiccia

She was banned by the governing body from ALL competition, which she has now served. The Olympic ban is a British Olympic Committee ban; if memory serves me right they imposed and then lifted one for a triathlete who had committed a similar offence.

If David Millar was a different nationality, that countries Olympic committee might well let him race in the Olympics.

Dave Cornwall

Salsiccia wrote:

She was banned by the governing body from ALL competition, which she has now served. The Olympic ban is a British Olympic Committee ban; if memory serves me right they imposed and then lifted one for a triathlete who had committed a similar offence.

But surely what they are saying by doing this is that we will stop you from representing us in the Olympics because you have brought our the name of our sport into disrepute, UNLESS you might actually have a chance of winning a medal. In which case, all our principals go out of the window.

Salsiccia

Some people may argue that she has never actually tested positive, and so the offence she has committed is not as bad as a test failure, and therefore he Olympic ban was harsh in this instance. I'm not sure, however.

One thing though that does make the rule a bit of a mockery is that athletes that have not just committed a doping offence but have tested positive and admitted guilt are still picked to represent GB at World Championships etc. (David Millar) and win medals (Dwain Chambers).

ddraver

oh, yes did nt you hear Colin Jackson on the matter, Of course it isn't her fault shes BRITISH don'tchaknow

its only them dirty foreigners that need drug testing

spen666

Salsiccia wrote:

Some people may argue that she has never actually tested positive, and so the offence she has committed is not as bad as a test failure, and therefore he Olympic ban was harsh in this instance. I'm not sure, however.

Failing to take the test should be treated more seriously than testing positively- as it is for breath test in motoring

to do otherwise encourages drug takers to simply refuse to be tested and get a lesser ban than if they had been tested and returned a positive sample

Its anti avoidance legislation

ivancarlos

Salsiccia wrote:

Some people may argue that she has never actually tested positive, and so the offence she has committed is not as bad as a test failure, and therefore he Olympic ban was harsh in this instance. I'm not sure, however.

Michael Rasmussen has suffered more for even less.

Salsiccia wrote:

One thing though that does make the rule a bit of a mockery is that athletes that have not just committed a doping offence but have tested positive and admitted guilt are still picked to represent GB at World Championships etc. (David Millar) and win medals (Dwain Chambers).

David Millar has done his time and at least he did admit his wrongdoings.

ivancarlos

spen666 wrote:

Salsiccia wrote:

Some people may argue that she has never actually tested positive, and so the offence she has committed is not as bad as a test failure, and therefore he Olympic ban was harsh in this instance. I'm not sure, however.

Failing to take the test should be treated more seriously than testing positively- as it is for breath test in motoring

to do otherwise encourages drug takers to simply refuse to be tested and get a lesser ban than if they had been tested and returned a positive sample

Its anti avoidance legislation

Rasmussen being the perfect example, admittedly self regulated by his team.

spen666

ivancarlos wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Salsiccia wrote:

Some people may argue that she has never actually tested positive, and so the offence she has committed is not as bad as a test failure, and therefore he Olympic ban was harsh in this instance. I'm not sure, however.

Failing to take the test should be treated more seriously than testing positively- as it is for breath test in motoring

to do otherwise encourages drug takers to simply refuse to be tested and get a lesser ban than if they had been tested and returned a positive sample

Its anti avoidance legislation

Rasmussen being the perfect example,

allegedly

admittedly self regulated by his team.

Salsiccia

ivancarlos wrote:

Salsiccia wrote:

Some people may argue that she has never actually tested positive, and so the offence she has committed is not as bad as a test failure, and therefore he Olympic ban was harsh in this instance. I'm not sure, however.

Michael Rasmussen has suffered more for even less.

Salsiccia wrote:

One thing though that does make the rule a bit of a mockery is that athletes that have not just committed a doping offence but have tested positive and admitted guilt are still picked to represent GB at World Championships etc. (David Millar) and win medals (Dwain Chambers).

David Millar has done his time and at least he did admit his wrongdoings.

I agree totally - I am just highlighting the anomolies in the different rules applied by different bodies. If the BOA are going to have the rule, then it must apply in all cases, including Ohuorogu. A lot of the arguments against the ban for Ohuorogu is that it was too harsh given the circumstance, which as I said previously I'm not sure that argument stands up at all. But even if the ban did stand, she could still go on to represent GB as she has done and win medals, so although she can't do the Olympics she could still do everything else. A bit ridiculous really.

As for David Millar, I would have to say that if the BOA has the rule it should apply to him too, but not if it can be ignored at convenience for others.

ivancarlos

Salsiccia wrote:

I agree totally - I am just highlighting the anomolies in the different rules applied by different bodies. If the BOA are going to have the rule, then it must apply in all cases, including Ohuorogu. A lot of the arguments against the ban for Ohuorogu is that it was too harsh given the circumstance, which as I said previously I'm not sure that argument stands up at all. But even if the ban did stand, she could still go on to represent GB as she has done and win medals, so although she can't do the Olympics she could still do everything else. A bit ridiculous really.

As for David Millar, I would have to say that if the BOA has the rule it should apply to him too, but not if it can be ignored at convenience for others.

Pretty much agreed

SteveR_100Milers

Dunno, what was the question again?