I'm Robdob's brother, as mentioned above.
OK, Frames don't CAUSE chainsuck, but the design can make it's consequences worse.
The first time I had it on my Inbred it jammed the chain between rings and chainstay so hard I had to remove the chainset to get it out, and the chain was wrecked. OK it was muddy, but this was the first instance of it happening and I was only pedalling gently at the bottom of a hill, (Last lap at MM 2007) freewheeling almost, no pressure on the pedals.
After that I replaced my middle ring at the first sign of chainsuck but the first sign was obviouly too late as this happened. -

To be honest I didn't realise it was that bad. The worst of it was casued by the chain jamming incident though, and I'd painted over thatas you can see.
I like the frame so I took it to Argos Cycles and explained the problem. They welded a new chainstay in, with a different profile at my request

Now, from that angle it looks like you'll loose a lot of mud room, but that's not the case. I reckon it's only a couple of mm, if anything. This is with a 2.25 tyre fitted. Not much difference is there? but you can clearly see all that fancy shaping on the original stay is, frankly, a waste of time. -

But as you can see here there's a lot more chainring/chainstay clearance. There was literally about 2mm (a HT2 BB spacer used as a feeler gauge was a snug fit. What are they? 2mm?) between outer ring and stay before, with a correctly set-up HT2 chainset. -

The result of this is that I've not had any chainsuck since building the bike. I'll check the stay if I remember, but I reckon it'll be just about perfect.
Like I said, a frame won't cause chainsuck, but this obsession with mud room makes the consquences of it a LOT worse, and as I've proved here, it's only the design of the chainstay that makes the difference. On-Ones are great riding bikes, but this isn't the only instance of poor design detail they are hampered with, is it?