Forum menu
Just watched up him do the double by winning the 100m then 200m at the Euro team championships in Portugal.
Used to think he should never represent the UK again, but I think I'm changing my mind...
if he has served his ban, thats it. let him compete.
it is him who has to live with the shame..
It seems the authorities opinions change depending on the chances of the athletes medalling (that's just to annoy the forumites who hate the use of the word "medal" as a verb 😛 ). Personally, I'd ban the ****er for life but rules is rules.
I think his lack of contrition has annoyed a few folk. The rules are the rules, he knew them and the authorities knew them. No-one has to like them!
He does seem to get a harder ride than someone like David Millar for example.
Personally I think he has a contribution to make, both in performing and to the fight against drugs.
Matt
well whats the point of 'banning' someone for a period of time if at the end of their time served he cant do his required events professionally?. Its like being banned from driving then when your ban is over being told you cant drive on motorways, after 10pm or near school buildings. Simple, a ban is a period where you cant do your discipline, but once served he/she should be free to do what he/she chooses. Let him run again is what i say
LOL, matt, anytime you post, I read your name as matt_bi before realising it's an "l" not an "i" 😯
If the ban is for two years, and hes done his time, he should be allowed to compete, otherwise it should be a lifetime ban. As matt_ says, he probably can make a postive contribution as Millar has
In justice we have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This is a good thing. Why not in sport as well?
As mentioned above, he served his time and now has a point to make. Good luck to him.
Seems most folk on here have the same thought process as me on this one.
I should qualify the "I'd ban the ****er for life" by adding that his post-getting caught actions have done nothing to convince me he's sorry for what he did. David Millar, on the other hand, has acted to try and right some of his wrongs. I'm happy to give anyone a second chance, but only if he/she is properly sorry and shows it by actions instead of words. As you were...
I'm not sure of the exact science but don't the drugs used in cycling cheating (EPO, CERA) have no long-term effect on the athletes physical prowess? Where as the use of steroids creates a lasting muscle improvement, this colours my judgement as to banning the cheaters for life.
The punishment needs to be career-ending IMO. Cheats will always be promised a new and undetectable win-substance. A life-ban will stop alot of the pathetic, low-life @@@@@@@@'s from trying to beat honest, hardworking athletes. Sorry, what if he was never caught? Its the mindset. Against the spirit of competition.
Lets see it closer to home. Imagine a DH finds a wonderdrug- makes him quick, mentally faster, calculating etc. He wins many races and is never caught as the stuff is totally under current testing equipments radar. We are none the wiser and hes taken the laurels of clean mountain bikers.
Sorry- Ban for life. Cheats have no place in the starting line.
they should let him compete, but have 'DRUG CHEAT' tattoed on his forehead
Sandwich - as far as I'm aware the drugs that Chambers took were designed to enable him to train harder and recover more quickly from such training sessions. I don't think they directly led to lasting muscle improvment as he still had to do the work - they just made it easier for him to do it. Doesn't EPO have a more lasting effect than this - eg, it improves the body's capability to get oxgen to the muscles?
Ban for life, and I can't see a good reason why sports can't change the rules to retrospectively and permanently ban cheats like Millar and Chambers who've served a sentence. They'll never have credibility until they do.
Didnt Millar bleet that 'everyone was at it' as some sort of defence before he shut up and took the punishment?
I've more sympathy with chambers than the likes of Christine Ohuruogu who 'got away' with missing her tests and 'achieved' a nice olympic gold as well...I get the impression that her achievement was not celebrated as much as to be expected due to her history.
It has cost Chambers dearly (not allowed to compete in olympics and I'm sure he has lost sponsorship which he will never regain) - he appeared desperate - trying to move to american football and rugy league. I give him credit for sticking with it and to come back after a 2 year ban to still be near the top of his game. He has shown more grit than many others.
p.s. looks interesting...
[url= http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/mar/29/dwain-chambers ][/url]
and to come back after a 2 year ban to still be near the top of his game
Maybe hes on a new and improved cocktail of enhancers? What was he likes before? Remember Linford quit before he was caught but was caught out advising an up and coming runner on the right stuff.
Even though he was banned like Christine Ohuruogu they still train as if they are still in competetion to stay at the top level.
Thing is everyone was at it in cycling
[i]Thing is everyone was at it in cycling [/i]
They still are...
Should be allowed to get the same support as other British athletes, he's served his time for been unfair and is now excelling with very little support which seems unfair. As regards "everyones at it" which I doubt, who cares; just appreciate the spectactle and be less sceptical.
Even though he was banned like Christine Ohuruogu they still train as if they are still in competetion to stay at the top level.
It must be incredibly difficult to train at such intensity when you are banned.
I think he should now be able to compete at both the Olympics and the Grand Prix events. The latter of which are only concerned with the commercial aspect and dont take a moral stance. Ohuruogu also cheated and should have served a ban.
British athletics has moved the goalposts depending on the athletes involved.
Out of interest, why do people think that people who do sport for a living should have to live to higher moral standards than the rest of society?
Thing is everyone was at it in cyclingThey still are...
Funnily, this is why I argue a lifetime ban. There will always be new and improved chemicals out there that offer improvements in performance and cant be picked up by current testing science IMO.
Lifetime ban- sends a very clear message out. A 2yr ban is probably seen as 'doing abit of bird'/worthwile risk for the rewards.
Lifetime ban- sends a very clear message out. A 2yr ban is probably seen as 'doing abit of bird'/worthwile risk for the rewards.
Hardly. Athletes have a relatively short lifespan, to take 2 years away at a key time could end their career.
Also some countries are less strict with punishments. Its an international sport and must be frustrating to know your competitors are getting away with it. Chambers voiced this opinion and he was further punished for it by the media and some peers.
I've more sympathy with chambers than the likes of Christine Ohuruogu who 'got away' with missing her tests and 'achieved' a nice olympic gold as well...I get the impression that her achievement was not celebrated as much as to be expected due to her history.
Although Ohuruogu's offence was different, she's another one who doesn't appear to have been falling over herself to show contrition. Ultimately she's an athlete, bound by a set of rules which seek to protect her sport from cheating, which she failed to observe on [i]three separate occasions[/i]. Sadly, any media interest in pursuing her apparent lack of interest in acknowledging her mistake seemed to evaporate pretty quickly when she became an Olympic medal prospect / winner.
The rules allow these athletes to return to their sport after a specified period of time, but their attitude to their mistakes/wrongdoing certainly has a big impact on how my level of respect for them as they stand on the startline / podium.
The rules allow these athletes to return to their sport after a specified period of time, but their attitude to their mistakes/wrongdoing certainly has a big impact on how my level of respect for them as they stand on the startline / podium.
Maybe, but the ban is defined as 2 years. I suspect Chambers is surrounded by international athletes who are beating him because they are on drugs and are simply better at covering it up. I have no evidence for this of course however Chambers was adamant it was happening and he should know. It was only when he stopped talking about it that people began to view him more favorably again. Its the Ostrich effect!
[i]Thing is everyone was at it in cycling
They still are... [/i]
As are lots of athletes. Cyclists just get tested a lot more than any other group and with much stricter controls. Look at footballers for example. Only a 2 year ban if you get caught and you're never going to get caught because when the testers phone to say they're on the way the blokes taking drugs are sent home and removed from the playlists until the testers have finished.
I'm happy to give anyone a second chance, but only if he/she is properly sorry and shows it by actions instead of words.
So it's down to how good an actor he is?
Why should he show contrition? Who would be the judge? If the ban is x years, then at x years + 1 day he should be free to carry on.
Look at footballers for example ... when the testers phone to say they're on the way the blokes taking drugs are sent home and removed from the playlists until the testers have finished.
Rot.
I've no issue with Chambers running - if we're going to compromise alleged Corinthian values by (a) allowing races for money and (b) only having limited periods for bans, then it stands that there are no higher vlaues that somehow exclude Chambers from running in a GB vest, assuming he otherwise qualifies.
There's been a distinct moving of the goalposts by UK Athletics, mainly because they want to be seen to be "tougher" on rule breaking than their current rules provide for.
Chambers isn't popular, not because he hasn't shown contrition, but because he, like Filippo Simeoni, "spat in the soup" by revealing more than permitted the code of silence surrounding drug taking in professional sport.
So, yes. If he's fast enough, and is clean as far as the current available testing goes, then he's good enough to pull on a BG vest. Let the man run.
It makes me feel a bit grubby. I don't care whether someone in a British vest wins whatever running really fast for a while event he competes in, and it makes me sad that whoever takes these decisions would rather field a known cheat who can win over someone who is clean but can't necessarily win. 😕
I find David Millar fairly convincing in his contrition, and the fact that he isn't much good is rather touching. Tyler Hamilton's endless spiral of Oh For Pity's Sake Go Away and the great soap opera of Being Floyd Landis by contrast are contemptible.
So it's down to how good an actor he is?
I did say "actions instead of words" and it's purely a personal opinion, and UK Athletics won't be coming to me for advice on changing the rules. If one cheats and wants to come back into competition, one should be prepared to make good some of the bad. That's how I feel. You're saying that he cheats, takes the ban and can return to compete which is within the rules and do nothing in terms of making amends. Fair enough, that's how you feel.
The OP asked "what's everyone's opinion..."
Banned substances amongst other things allow for abnormal muscle growth in order to gain an unfair advantage and any athlete taking banned substances will gain abnormally-sized muscles. Can it be shown that ALL of this illegally-gained muscle reverts back again when an athlete stops taking the banned substance? The answer is NO.
Dwain should not be allowed to compete ever again. The same applies to any drug cheat. End of discussion.
He's damaging the sports reputation imo
BigDummy - Member
It makes me feel a bit grubby. I don't care whether someone in a British vest wins whatever running really fast for a while event he competes in, and it makes me sad that whoever takes these decisions would rather field a known cheat who can win over someone who is clean but can't necessarily win.[b]I find David Millar fairly convincing in his contrition, and the fact that he isn't much good is rather touching.[/b] Tyler Hamilton's endless spiral of Oh For Pity's Sake Go Away and the great soap opera of Being Floyd Landis by contrast are contemptible.
I agree, since he has stopped bleating and started talking Millar is very convincing and actually sets a good example to the younger riders.
I can't agree that he isn't much good. Ok he won't win the one of the grand tours but then it's a fraction of a percent of all pros who do. If he chose to ride as a super domestique I think he could be up there with some of the best.
Matt
Thing is, cheats like Chambers etc jolly well have not just harmed their own careers, they've potentially prevented other, clean, athletes from realising their goals. What about the guys Chambers just beat to gain success on the track? Where are they now? Did they ever get their shot at glory?
Here's a very inertesting, and sad article about American sprinter [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2009/06/washington_still_chasing_gold.html ]Tyree Washington, denied his rightful glory, by dirty cheating bastards[/url].
See, the damage is not just to themselves, it can filter way down through the sport. With crimes, the victims can often get compensation. Will those cheated by Chambers ever get what they deserved?
It's not as simple as 'done the time, now let him carry on'. The consequences of Chambers' cheating has had a far greater negative impact on the sport, than people realise.
Chambers is a disgrace. He should just scuttle off and keep quiet. He's even earning money through his biography, the dirty cheating bastard.
And he's ugly. even more reason to keep him out of sport.
Ban for life. Because two-year bans just aren't working.
Christine Ohuruogu tested negative in other tests, at the same time as the ones she missed. She served a one year ban, but was never tested positive for drugs. Bit like Lance...
Linford Christie tested positive right at the end of his career, when he'd given up international athletics. And Nandralone has been found to be present in other stuff, like food supplements used by athletes. Loads were testing positive, whilst not having deliberately or knowingly taken a banned substance. Same as the pseudoephedrine Linford tested positive for earlier in his career; that's found in many hayfever remedies, for example. Linford Christie was never found to have deliberately taken performance enhancing drugs.
Dwayne Chambers did. He knew what he was doing, and deliberately cheated. Should be banned for life.
Out of interest, why do people think that people who do sport for a living should have to live to higher moral standards than the rest of society?
+1 to this and this
If the ban is for two years, and hes done his time, he should be allowed to compete, otherwise it should be a lifetime ban. As matt_ says, he probably can make a postive contribution as Millar has
Christine Ohuruogu tested negative in other tests, at the same time as the ones she missed. She served a one year ban, but was never tested positive for drugs. Bit like Lance...
The rules state that 3 missed tests constitute a positive drugs test. By your criteria she should have been banned for life. Why is she different to Chambers?
Linford Christie tested positive right at the end of his career, when he'd given up international athletics. And Nandralone has been found to be present in other stuff, like food supplements used by athletes. Loads were testing positive, whilst not having deliberately or knowingly taken a banned substance. Same as the pseudoephedrine Linford tested positive for earlier in his career; that's found in many hayfever remedies, for example. Linford Christie was never found to have deliberately taken performance enhancing drugs.
You are simply "spinning" The products Christie took were on the list of banned substances that Christie was aware of. As in other walks of life claiming ignorance of the law is no defence.
Christie ingested illegal products you clearly dont want him to be guilty but thats just tough!
As matt_ says, he probably can make a postive contribution as Millar has
He [i]could[/i] make a positive contribution. But is he?
I have some sympathy with the 'lifetime ban' brigade. If nothing else it simplifies things. If an athlete is caught taking [u]anything[/u] banned, under [u]any[/u] circumstances, ban them.
I don't think for a minute it will prevent more than a handful of athletes over a 2yr ban, simply because they don't expect to get caught.
Christie claimed that the banned substance Nandralone was in some supplement he took, and that he was not aware of it's presence. Loads of athletes were caught out like this. Christie was cleared of deliberately or knowingly taking a banned substance by the UK athletics board. As for the Psuedephedrine; loads of athletes took this, as it was present in dozens of hayfever medicines and other over the counter stuff.
The issue is, wether or not an athlete has deliberately and knowingly taken a performance enhancing substance. Christie was never found guilty of this. Neither was Lance...
Chambers knew full well what he was doing. And therefore should be [s]hung by the neck until he be dead[/s] banned for life.
His presence in athletics tarnishes the sport's image, and devalues it's participants.
No worse than that other 400m running women who couldnt remember to go for drugs tests.
[i]why do people think that people who do sport for a living should have to live to higher moral standards than the rest of society? [/i]
It isn't about moral standards, it's about what the nature of the enterprise is. For some reason, there is this event, called the Running Really Fast Race. It is considered important, and people who win it are regarded as big shots. The Race has a rule, which says that you aren't allowed to race in it if you have been quaffing Go Faster Juice. The rule is there because it is part of the nature of the race that the people running it are not using Go Faster Juice. If anyone involved is, then the whole thing is buggered. The rule is not there for any [i]reason[/i] particularly (the race is afterall more exciting by its own minimal standards of excitement if the runners go faster, more records get broken, more trainers get sold etc etc). The rule is there because it is fundamental to the nature of the race.
The criminal law in human societies doesn't define the very point and nature of the society. It mediates between people who have competing objectives, and just bans behaviour that none of us can live with. If the purpose of human society was to ensure that you lived without ever getting a criminal conviction then the idea of such convictions being spent would be a bit wierd. But the purpose of human society is rather more nuanced than that, so we accept that you can break the law without making the entire society that created the law look like a farce which has to be annulled. Races are not the same.
I'm not sure if that's right, but it seems plausible. 🙂
Christie may have been cleared by UKA but he wasn't by IAAF. He received exactly the same sanction as Chambers. From Wikipedia [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linford_Christie ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linford_Christie[/url]:
[i]Christie tested positive for the stimulant Pseudoephedrine at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but he escaped sanction after the International Olympic Committee's disciplinary committee voted by a margin of 11 to 10. [13] It was reported that one of the judging panel was asleep when the vote was taken.[14] Reference to this is made in a television advert Christie made for Egg online banking in Autumn 1998.
At the 1994 European championships staged in Helsinki, where British team captain Christie won his third European 100m title, he was caught up in a doping controversy after Solomon Wariso, a 400m runner making his international championship debut, tested positive for the stimulant epherdrine. Wariso revealed that he had used an over-the-counter pick-you-up called "Up Your Gas", which Christie had bought at a Florida pharmacy.[15]
In 1999, Christie was found guilty of using the performance enhancing drug Nandrolone following a doping test after an indoor meet in Germany. He was found to have more than 100 times normal levels of the metabolites of nandrolone in his urine. Various explanations were offered to explain the results, including eating avocado, or using nutritional supplements.[16][17][18]
The IAAF rejected that explanation and gave Christie a two-year ban from athletics, despite UK Athletics feeling that there was "reasonable doubt whether the drug had been taken deliberately", a decision which ignored the usual drug testing principle of "strict liability".[19]
Christie has always denied any wrong doing. "If I took drugs there had to be a reason to take drugs. I had pretty much retired from the sport." Furthermore, he denied that his physique was gained through drug use and promoted an anti-steroid approach: "It does not follow that all athletes who are big take drugs... Only by testing all athletes will the sport be kept clean of drugs."[9]
Following the ban, the British Olympic Association announced that Christie would not be accredited for any future Olympic Games, in accordance with their regulations.[/i]
Christie claimed that the banned substance Nandralone was in some supplement he took, and that he was not aware of it's presence. Loads of athletes were caught out like this. Christie was cleared of deliberately or knowingly taking a banned substance by the UK athletics board. As for the Psuedephedrine; loads of athletes took this, as it was present in dozens of hayfever medicines and other over the counter stuff.The issue is, wether or not an athlete has deliberately and knowingly taken a performance enhancing substance. Christie was never found guilty of this. Neither was Lance...
Read my previous post, ignorance is no defence. The policy is that athletes take responsibility for everything they ingest or inject. Claiming afterwards that they didnt know is fine. With hindsight maybe Chambers has marginally more integrity by getting caught then taking the punishment. Christie retired when he was caught thereby evading the public humiliation that would a negative drugs test would bring and the tarnishing of a fantastic career and competitive record.
Christie was a great athlete however dont try to re-write history because he's a local lad!
I have some sympathy with the 'lifetime ban' brigade. If nothing else it simplifies things. If an athlete is caught taking anything banned, under any circumstances, ban them.
Playing devils avocado... There was a lot of support on here a few weeks back for Alain Baxter; everyone seemed fairly happy that he had unknowingly taken a banned substance and had paid the price by being stripped of his medal. Would it have been appropriate for him to have been banned for life?
[EDIT: In saying 'everyone' I mean that the general sentiment of those who participated in the thread was that Baxter was a good guy who had been unlucky]
My point is, that Christie, and loads of other athletes at the time, were being caught out because Nandralone was present in what they thought were 'clean' supplements. All professional athletes use such things, and some sail very close to the wind, to get an 'edge' on their rival competitors. Medical bods have shown that athletes often coon't have been aware of taking Nandralone, as it was not listed in the ingredients of the supplements (naughty supplement manufacturers?). As for Pseudoephedrine; it has actually been removed from many athletics authorities' banned lists.
Ohuruogu missed 3 tests, and served her ban. She never tested positive before, during the time in which she missed those tests, or since. Rio Ferdinand served a simliar ban for the same thing. He has also never tested positive.
My point is, that Christie, and loads of other athletes at the time, were being caught out because Nandralone was present in what they thought were 'clean' supplements. All professional athletes use such things, and some sail very close to the wind, to get an 'edge' on their rival competitors. Medical bods have shown that athletes often coon't have been aware of taking Nandralone, as it was not listed in the ingredients of the supplements (naughty supplement manufacturers?). As for Pseudoephedrine; it has actually been removed from many athletics authorities' banned lists.Ohuruogu missed 3 tests, and served her ban. She never tested positive before, during the time in which she missed those tests, or since. Rio Ferdinand served a simliar ban for the same thing. He has also never tested positive.
You need to read the comments above. Just because you keep saying it doesnt make it so. Christie was caught and thats the end of the story, as inconvenient as you find it!
The fact that certain products are not now on the banned list is neither here nor there. He breached the rules as they stood at the time. He was also very well supported and advised. The "I didnt know" claim doesnt wash.
Not sure how you can be sure Ohuruogu didnt test positive if she didnt appear for testing, bit self fullfilling that one!
The rules state you must be available for testing at all time and you get 3 chances. These are professional athletes who need to adhere to the rules.
Not sure how you can be sure Ohuruogu didnt test positive if she didnt appear for testing, bit self fullfilling that one!
Because apparently, she tested negative for other tests performed around the same time. I've already mentioned this, but you've obviously failed to notice this point.
Christie; I'm not defending him. I'm merely pointing out that he made a mistake (as did Gred Rusedski), and suffered the consequences. With the Nandralone thing, many athletes were perhaps naive and careless, not deliberate cheats, like Chambers.
Anyway, bored now.
many athletes were perhaps naive and careless, not deliberate cheats, like Chambers.
This is the crux of your argument. You dislike Chambers so his cheating is cynical, deliberate and pre-meditated.
You have warm feelings towards Christie so by definition he made an innocent mistake.
"Naive and careless" my Ars* Christie was a savvy, experienced professional athlete! As usual you are "spinning"
With regard to Ohuruogu The other tests you elude to were not the official ones so they are not the same thing.
Anyway, bored now.
Argument's over.
It's Thatcher's fault.
TBH Ohuruogu looks as thick as two short planks.
[i] Look at footballers for example ... when the testers phone to say they're on the way the blokes taking drugs are sent home and removed from the playlists until the testers have finished.
Rot. [/i]
My apologies, you're correct. After a bit of research it appears they just let them carry on playing.
Well, that's only half as thick as you, Hora! 😉
Well, that's only half as thick as you, Hora!
And at least her boobs are supposed to be there.