He has just run 10.00 clean - imagine if he hadn't fucked it all up when he took the drugs. He shouldn't be in the Olympics, I just hate wasted talent.
and running 10.0 or thereabouts - and this is without full training. It's not a massive stretch to say if he was even two years younger (and with a full years training + meets + clean) he would have been 9.8 easily.
which I probably don't. I'm not condoning drug-taking, I just think it is farcical that we have tougher rules than the IOC. I wouldn't have a problem if they imposed lifetime bans but as the banning rules stand he has followed those laid down by the IOC and so should be allowed to run.
my point was just that I think it is understandable that he appealed under the current rules and he think he will be right to be aggrieved at the ruling.
surprised. He's served his sentence, I assume they are drug testing him every 15 minutes at the moment and so I also assume he's clean, and he's proved to be the best sprinter in the country at the moment.
I don't like the guy and I won't lose any sleep if he's not allowed to compete but other than the fact he doesn't seem widely liked, what good reason is there for stopping him? Bearing in mind all of the other sports where drug takers are allowed to come back to the sport and compete at the highest level?
understand the law is in place, but for what good reason is it there? Just because a law is, doesn't make it right. There are some right bizarre laws still in effect out there that we break every day, however I'm sure we won't question them until we are actually accused of breaking them. There are British competitors in other sports that have failed drugs tests, served their time and then bounced back to the top of their sport, being hailed as a hero.
My surprise is that the rule has been questioned and upheld, is all
It's what the BOC feel is the best way to tackle drugs in athletics. Simple as that really. I for one agree with it (ban from olympics but not the whole sport).
Remember, representing your country is a privilege, not a right. By all means allow him to compete (under certain conditions - i.e. more regular testing) at other levels, but there should be a stand taken at the top level of any sport against individuals found to be cheating.
He was banned for two years under the IOC laws and served his sentence like evryone else.
However, the British Athletics board have had a byelaw that bans drug cheats for life since well before Chambers first started hopping himself up.
It is irrelevant whether or not similar 'extra' byelaws exist in other countries, because Chambers cannot compete for them. He would only be disadvantaged if other Brits were allowed to compete having failed a dope test in similar circumstances to himself.
Today's hearing was about getting an injunction effectively suspending the British byelaw before the case as to whether or not it is fair is heard next year. The Court has decided that it will be less disruptive for everyone if the law stands until it is properly challenged. Which is reasonable.
Otherwise the court would effectively have been pre-judging next year's appeal.
I read an article a while ago about him going to American Football trials or something - is that still on the cards?
I agree with Mart, I hate to see wasted talent but he shouldn't have cheated in the first place. I'd like to think that there was some outlet still for his ability though.
He spent a year in NFL Europe, that collapsed, tried Rugby League, was found out to be rubbish (unsurprisingly) and so went back to athletics after publicly speaking out negatively about the sport.
to doing the time for your crime and being rehabilitated etc? Eeesh. So they may as well just have locked him up for life? Shall we just punish everyone for life regardless of the mistake they make, or lapse in morality however serious?
don't, and we can't know. It is fairly sure that any benefit is minimal though, and anyone contemplating doing it would have to weight it up against a lengthy ban from whatever it is they are competing in
that some guy who robbed a shop and goes down for a couple of years and is then released and gets on with his life doesn't still have a few coppers knocking around that he uses for spare change every now and then?
what is the bloody point in punishment if not in part redemption?
have any of you really suffered punishment where there was no second chance? i can't help but think that if her were a slightly meeker, more deferent competitor he might have been treated with a little more forgiveness... he'd also be a boring athlete.
but also probably wouldn't have got his band lifted - he's not the first to appeal to the BOA and have it rejected.
He's got the opportunity to run in pretty much any other meet available, including the Golden League which is where athletes win most of their prize money, plus represent UKA at any other international event (since I think he's now been back on their drug testing list for long enough). It's not unreasonable to not select him for the Olympics given that he knew that would be a consequence of his actions and that he's got plenty of opportunities still open to him.
it is the rules after all, but I do feel a little sorry for Chambers, as arrogant a git as he is. He's not the first person to take drugs and he won't be the last, but he's become a useful pinata for the press and everyone to beat, especially after this verdict. I've seen serial killers get better press than some of the vitriol aimed at Chambers lately. But rules are rules and so it is the right decision.
Plus (and I know it's not really relevant but still) if Christina Ohorougu had been a non-British athlete coming back from a ban after missing drugs tests and had beaten a British athlete into silver (as Ohorougu did to Nicola Sanders last summer at the World Championships), you can bet the press and various British athletes would have screamed blue murder and lots of 'no smoke without fire' nonsense.
OK that last paragraph is more an unreleated rant I guess.
good
that is all.
huzzah!
Aftyer 16 years of Radio5 going on and on about this....
good - he looks like Larry Blackmon from Cameo.
brilliant.
dirty fucker.
I think it's a shame
Shame
He has just run 10.00 clean - imagine if he hadn't fucked it all up when he took the drugs. He shouldn't be in the Olympics, I just hate wasted talent.
^ this
Right decision. It's just a shame he was such a momo way back when.
clean eh?
funny how he could only do a touch better than this when loaded on 8 (or was it 6?) different drugs...
I'm glad he's failed. He wouldn't win anything running 10.0 anyway (that was wind assisted too)
He's 30 now
and running 10.0 or thereabouts - and this is without full training. It's not a massive stretch to say if he was even two years younger (and with a full years training + meets + clean) he would have been 9.8 easily.
he couldn't win any world titles when loaded up
why the hell would he have won anything clean?
LOLZ
Good - fuck em!
Good athlete, but you should pay for your mistakes
he knew the risks, he knew what he was taking. Doesn't deserve it.
I don't understand why our rules
are tougher than the IOC's. Or have I got that completely wrong? The IOC should toughen up, but I think he should be allowed to compete.
Really?
I don't think so at all. He deliberately took a banned performance enhancer. Inexcusable, it's a complete failure of morality.
The only shame is that he's a very good athlete and the best runner we have.
all depends on whether I have my facts straight
which I probably don't. I'm not condoning drug-taking, I just think it is farcical that we have tougher rules than the IOC. I wouldn't have a problem if they imposed lifetime bans but as the banning rules stand he has followed those laid down by the IOC and so should be allowed to run.
See it more as
the BOA taking a moral stance on drug taking rather than anything else.
fair enough
but I still think it's completely absurd that the IOC rules aren't tougher
I'd agree with you there
If it were down to me, it'd be a blanket IOC ban.
agreed
my point was just that I think it is understandable that he appealed under the current rules and he think he will be right to be aggrieved at the ruling.
i think it's good to have the olympics that bit harsher
he's not being banned from plying his trade, just a particular competition within it
yeah
but is this just a UK thing? I need to actually re-read something about this.
Britain and Norway I beleive
i'm really happy we have it in place
hopefully this will be the last we hear of Dwayne
I enjoyed his brief soujourn in rugby league
and how all the rugby people had to pretend that there was something to it other than a publicity stunt.
brief isn't the word.
gutted for him
he's a fantastic athlete and a top guy as well. Hopefully he'll move onto a sport where he is more appreciated.
competitive eating?
Good
I'm
surprised. He's served his sentence, I assume they are drug testing him every 15 minutes at the moment and so I also assume he's clean, and he's proved to be the best sprinter in the country at the moment.
I don't like the guy and I won't lose any sleep if he's not allowed to compete but other than the fact he doesn't seem widely liked, what good reason is there for stopping him? Bearing in mind all of the other sports where drug takers are allowed to come back to the sport and compete at the highest level?
because there has been a clear line from the BOC about this
ie - positive drugs test means you won't represent the BOC ever again.
he knew the way it worked, he didn't argue with it before, he made his choice.
I
understand the law is in place, but for what good reason is it there? Just because a law is, doesn't make it right. There are some right bizarre laws still in effect out there that we break every day, however I'm sure we won't question them until we are actually accused of breaking them. There are British competitors in other sports that have failed drugs tests, served their time and then bounced back to the top of their sport, being hailed as a hero.
My surprise is that the rule has been questioned and upheld, is all
it's there as a deterrent and a punishment
It's what the BOC feel is the best way to tackle drugs in athletics. Simple as that really. I for one agree with it (ban from olympics but not the whole sport).
^ a million times this
Remember, representing your country is a privilege, not a right. By all means allow him to compete (under certain conditions - i.e. more regular testing) at other levels, but there should be a stand taken at the top level of any sport against individuals found to be cheating.
People seem to be getting confused.
He was banned for two years under the IOC laws and served his sentence like evryone else.
However, the British Athletics board have had a byelaw that bans drug cheats for life since well before Chambers first started hopping himself up.
It is irrelevant whether or not similar 'extra' byelaws exist in other countries, because Chambers cannot compete for them. He would only be disadvantaged if other Brits were allowed to compete having failed a dope test in similar circumstances to himself.
Today's hearing was about getting an injunction effectively suspending the British byelaw before the case as to whether or not it is fair is heard next year. The Court has decided that it will be less disruptive for everyone if the law stands until it is properly challenged. Which is reasonable.
Otherwise the court would effectively have been pre-judging next year's appeal.
Where for him now then?
I read an article a while ago about him going to American Football trials or something - is that still on the cards?
I agree with Mart, I hate to see wasted talent but he shouldn't have cheated in the first place. I'd like to think that there was some outlet still for his ability though.
He's already done that
He spent a year in NFL Europe, that collapsed, tried Rugby League, was found out to be rubbish (unsurprisingly) and so went back to athletics after publicly speaking out negatively about the sport.
We shoudl have a sweepstake on which sport he will try next.
I'm going for Speedway.
I told you, competitive eating!
And I told you!
I just can't hack it in the world of competitive eating.
what happened
to doing the time for your crime and being rehabilitated etc? Eeesh. So they may as well just have locked him up for life? Shall we just punish everyone for life regardless of the mistake they make, or lapse in morality however serious?
How do we know though...
that he's still not gaining an advantage from the drugs that he took?
We
don't, and we can't know. It is fairly sure that any benefit is minimal though, and anyone contemplating doing it would have to weight it up against a lengthy ban from whatever it is they are competing in
how do we know
that some guy who robbed a shop and goes down for a couple of years and is then released and gets on with his life doesn't still have a few coppers knocking around that he uses for spare change every now and then?
but if the shop that he stole stuff from
says they don't want his custom that'd be fair enough right?
suppose
he dons glasses and mustache?
I would pay money for THAT
Lined up in the olympic final with sunglasses, fake beard and a wig.
i feel sorry for him
what is the bloody point in punishment if not in part redemption?
have any of you really suffered punishment where there was no second chance? i can't help but think that if her were a slightly meeker, more deferent competitor he might have been treated with a little more forgiveness... he'd also be a boring athlete.
He probably would have done
but also probably wouldn't have got his band lifted - he's not the first to appeal to the BOA and have it rejected.
He's got the opportunity to run in pretty much any other meet available, including the Golden League which is where athletes win most of their prize money, plus represent UKA at any other international event (since I think he's now been back on their drug testing list for long enough). It's not unreasonable to not select him for the Olympics given that he knew that would be a consequence of his actions and that he's got plenty of opportunities still open to him.
the olympics is so important to an athlete
the most important. that's why it's the one they've taken away. it's just spiteful.
It's the right decision I feel
it is the rules after all, but I do feel a little sorry for Chambers, as arrogant a git as he is. He's not the first person to take drugs and he won't be the last, but he's become a useful pinata for the press and everyone to beat, especially after this verdict. I've seen serial killers get better press than some of the vitriol aimed at Chambers lately. But rules are rules and so it is the right decision.
Plus (and I know it's not really relevant but still) if Christina Ohorougu had been a non-British athlete coming back from a ban after missing drugs tests and had beaten a British athlete into silver (as Ohorougu did to Nicola Sanders last summer at the World Championships), you can bet the press and various British athletes would have screamed blue murder and lots of 'no smoke without fire' nonsense.
OK that last paragraph is more an unreleated rant I guess.
The BOA are a mob of pompous Tory twats
I think its bullshit