Dwain Chambers...
IanTrcp
Posts: 761
Dwain Chambers has been included in Great Britain's squad for next month's World Indoor Championships. The sprinter, who was banned from athletics for two years after testing positive for the performance-enhancing drug THG, will run over 60m in Spain.
Full story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7240294.stm
Were UK Athletics right to reach this decision? Will you be cheering Dwain on in Valencia?
Full story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7240294.stm
Were UK Athletics right to reach this decision? Will you be cheering Dwain on in Valencia?
0
Comments
-
At the time he admitted to taking drugs he was given a two year ban. Now you can debate whether or not the penalty was severe enough but the fact he admitted it was in his favour in my book. He has served his penalty and should be allowed to move on.
Now he is back in contention he is supposed to be setting a bad example to all athletes about taking drugs in sport. On the contrary if he wins and we assume he is clean then that is an endorsement of his rehabilitation and all that under extreme pressure from the media and other athletes. I think what he is doing is incredible. I hope he gets to run in Beijing.
Good luck Dwain0 -
I don't understand why there's a big fuss now when Chambers has already competed for GB since returning from his ban. Why wasn't everyone up in arms when he won gold in the 4x100m at the European Championships in 2006?
And more to the point, why haven't any of the press noticed the selection of shot-putter Carl Myerscough, who was banned for 2 years in 1999?
Seems like a witch hunt to me.0 -
0
-
Personally, I think UKA's language today was disgusting.The committee was unanimous in its desire not to select Dwain.
In contrast, we have to take an individual whose sudden return, especially when considered against his previous actions and comments, suggests that he may be using the whole process for his own ends.
Unfortunately, the committee felt that the selection criteria pertaining to the winner of the trials, coupled with the manner of Dwain's performance, left them no room to take any other decision.
We wish all the selected athletes well at the event but will certainly explore ways in which future selections can be made to match the true 'spirit' of our sport.
I don't like drug cheats any more than they do, but if they don't like the criteria they select under they should change them and not bleat on about 'having' to select people. As it is, under the current rules he is eligible to compete and under UKA's selection rules he is eligible to be picked. They can't then bend or disgregard their own rules, as this is no better than an athlete disregarding the rules on banned substances; so they had to pick him, but to carp on in this way is disgraceful.
On a personal level, I think the rules are wrong and his ban should have been longer if not for life. But he has completed his punishment under the current rules and therefore if he is eligible for selection he should be allowed to compete.I was only joking when I said
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed0 -
z000m wrote:he cant run in Beijing hes banned for life from competing for Britain at the Olympics
can a life ban be reversed?
On the basis that there are athletes who have missed 3 out of season tests and who have been subsequently banned suffering an automatic life ban from representing UK at the Olympic games and then to be re-instated on appeal; then he may have a legal case to challenge his right to be re-instated also.
After all it is assumed that by not being available for 3 out of season tests that you are guilty of taking drugs. In some sections of the media Christine Ohoragu is considered a drugs cheat and shouldn't be running for UK either.0 -
If the length of the ban was 2 years and that time has now lapsed then UKA can't really stop him according to their own rules which surely must appy to the authority as much as they apply to the athletes.Two wheels good,four wheels bad0
-
What I don't understand is why they're moaning about having to select Chambers because he won. They made the rule about the winner of the trial being automatically selected for the GB squad. He's been banned and served his time, so if they can't accept he's apparently clean and the best sprinter then they shouldn't have made the automatic selection rule in the first place."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
z000m wrote:can a life ban be reversed?
No . But if you are reincarnated then perhaps you can start again.Two wheels good,four wheels bad0 -
There's the legal argument and the moral one. Legally he seems to have the right to be selected. Morally he's a scumbag.
He went to my kid's primary school in 2003 to enthuse about athletics. Needless to say my son was very impressed. Imagine his disappointment a year later when it turns out his hero had blatantly cheated to "achieve" success.
a serious case of small cogs0 -
I think Chambers' recent comments that the only way to win in athletics is to take drugs haven't helped his 'image' with UKA.
He doesn't seem particularly contrite either.0 -
A complex issue this one, and as ever the press are generally only reporting half the story (the juicy 'shock, horror, outrage' part).
I'm no fan of Chambers, even before his positive test and subsequent ban he always came across as rather arrogant (par for the course I guess) and often underperformed on the big stage - in contrast to Darren Campbell who often raised his game - and offered excuse after excuse. Seemingly this led him down a path where self-belief was replaced by resorting to artifical means. Ironically, a one-off 9.87 aside with a bang-on-the-limit following wind at the end of 02, he didnt generally run quicker in 02 and 03 than prior years. Michael Johnson commented in summer 03 (before the announcement of the failed test) that Chambers looked too big & bulky - perhaps Johnson knew the tell-tale signs of overcooking the 'juice'.
Anyway - back to the current issue. As has been rightly pointed out in this thread:
1) Chambers has already competed for the UK since returning from his ban.
2) This new issue came about as UKA claimed he had 'retired' and took him off the drug testing register, and therefore claimed he wasn't eligible to be picked. Anyone with any working knowledge of UKA in the last 10 years or so (prior to the recent new appointments at Cheif Exec & Chairman level) whould be aware that this is typical of UKA bungling, and that they hadnt actually asked him if he was retired or not.
3) Carl Myerscough has been consistently selected for Uk teams since returning from a ban (UKA even tried to get the BOC to overturn his life ban from the olympics, claiming the usual 'he's a young lad, made mistakes etc etc' twaddle). He's been selected for the world indoors, along with chambers, without a comment from UKA. Interestingly Myerscough consistently throws big distances in the states, where he is based and where he was when he took drugs and failed his ban, but throws less far in Europe and usualy bombs in champs - where there is mcuh more testing....
IN summary the whole thing is a mess - De Vos comments / beliefs are admirable, but he needs to get things in order policy-wise with his organisation (which I am sure he will do sharpish) before making the sort of statements he did. Whether new rules can be applied retrospectively - i.e. weren't in place when Chambers / Myerscough failed tests, therefore won't apply to them? - will be in question. The legal arguments about restraint of trade etc are typical muddying of the waters from the lawyers - no-one can prevent Chambers entering open events (as shown last sunday) that is true - but if meeting organisers will reserve the right to invite who they want to big meets, and UKA may sort their rules so they can pick who they want. Chambers 'trade' is to go training and enter races, not to have automatic rights to run in certain events.0 -
This is fine if it is applied evenly.............just look at the current confusion over the Giro organisers inviting their favoured teams on "ethical" grounds to see how much of a minefield this can become.YorkshireRaw wrote:but if meeting organisers will reserve the right to invite who they want to big meets0 -
Chambers has served his time. We might not like this, but we all live under a regime where once you've done the time, your debt to society is cleared.
He also one the trial, fair and square. All this bleating about Pickering being put off is rubbish. Pickering, especially won't use that as an excuse.
So Dwain must go to the World Champs.
Personally, though, I'd prefer he took a much more vocal anti drugs stance, a la Millar.0 -
I heard on the radio this morning that he won't be able to compete in the Olympics because he admitted to taking drugs and therefore has a life ban. Christina O(can'tspell it) had her ban revoked because she hadn't tested positive but had "just" missed drugs tests and so no proof of actual drug taking.
Could be a load of bollox 8)0 -
rdaviesb wrote:Chambers has served his time. We might not like this, but we all live under a regime where once you've done the time, your debt to society is cleared.
There's a difference between being allowed freedom of acton i.e. to run and try to compete where races will accept him, and the right to represent the country.
A bank robber may serve 10 years and then be free having 'done his time'. You wouldnt expect said bank to then employ him though. Similarly people who are convicted of defrauding employers arent generally invited back upon serving their sentence.
I don't think he will go down the Miller route because 1) i dont think he appreciates the impact of his actions on the sport and 2) he doesn't actually seem all that sorry for them.0 -
popette wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that he won't be able to compete in the Olympics because he admitted to taking drugs and therefore has a life ban. Christina O(can'tspell it) had her ban revoked because she hadn't tested positive but had "just" missed drugs tests and so no proof of actual drug taking.
Could be a load of bollox 8)
This is true - essentially they made an exception for Christine Ohorugu as they seemed to think it was some unfortunate technicality that ruled her out. Funny that on coming back after a ban she suddenly recorded a PB - if that was a Chinese or eastern European athlete (or a cyclist) everyone would be up in arms, yet what happens when they're British? they get shortlisted for the Sports Personality of the Year!
A month or two ago Oliver Holt wrote a decent article on her missing tests. On one occasion she was at home and when she was called by the tester to be where she should have been within an hour, she chose to stay at home. OH drove the route she should have took, he got lost, stopped by police at a random tyre check - and still made it within an hour.
At least Chambers has been rightly shamed by his cheating.0
