Dwain Chambers

Indie

Indie

Indie

Soldato
Joined
11 Jul 2006
Posts
4,530
Location
Cradley, West Midlands
dont think anybody has post about this yet (could see one anyway)

all about this dwain chambers stuff...

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-7305930,00.html

whats all your opinions on it?

personally i think they should let him compete, i dont understand what they have against the chap... sure he cheated, but assuming he is clean now then whats the problem? he has done his time just like anybody else...

Lee hughs murdered somebody, he was back on the pitch after 2 years or something like that, nobody batted an eyelid. Rio Ferdinand missed 3 drugs tests, he got an 8 month ban (correct me if im wrong) from the sport... Chambers got caught, admitted, and got a 2 year ban. Which would you rather have? not turn up and get 8 months, or turn up and get 2 years...

then you have people saying that hes not giving the right impression on the up and coming athletes... From link above

""If we're not careful people will vote with their feet. Parents will not want kids going into a sport that they think is remotely ambivalent about the subject of doping."
Former 400 metres Olympic silver medallist Roger Black said: "He is now a shining example of 'give it a go, if you get caught, it doesn't matter, you can come back'."

to this i just think that if the younger athletes see it this way, which i know most of them probably wont... get them to speak to the man himself, im sure he'll definatly tell them that they will get offered the oportunities to do so, dont do it, it ruins your career and way of life...

also hate the way that team GB wont pay for his training either.. he has to go to his local sports centre and pay £6.50 to use their track there... its absolutly pathetic.... not many things annoy me but this really has peeved me off! lol

Rant over...

opinions..? :D
 
The man is now supposedly clean, also, the winnings he earnt has to be paid back and the agreement is that he pays it back from new winnings (should he get any), otherwise he doesnt have to pay them back at all iirc.

So they should be bloody happy that he is working to pay back his debt.

Also, surely it is good to have him back in the sport, as a person who has overcome his need for enhancements, rather than to shun him and stop people knowing that drugs cheats do get caught.

He is a fantastic runner who could do very well for the country again.
If the rules were 'caught and banned for life' then fair enough, never let him compete again, but the rules are 'caught and banned for x years'. He has served his time, let him get on with doing what he does best.
 
This is blatently going to turn into a Rio Ferdinand bash thread, but anyway...

Which would you rather have? not turn up and get 8 months, or turn up and get 2 years...
Click to expand...

There's a difference between the two, one took drugs, one didn't.

He should be banned for life.
 
The rules are that he's allowed to compete again after a 2 year ban. I don't see the problem.

If people have a problem with the rules that's a different matter entirely.
 
Some people think everyone should get a second chance but, in athletics, if everyone gets a second chance, what's to discourage someone from trying to cheat? Lifetime ban for all cheats no questions asked. Norwich Union have done the right thing in preventing him from competing at their forthcoming event.

The other problem here is that UKAF has a different policy to the IAAF in this scenario; one goes for 2 year ban whilst the other is a lifetime ban (the correct one imo).
 
Ripper said:
This is blatently going to turn into a Rio Ferdinand bash thread, but anyway...



There's a difference between the two, one took drugs, one didn't.

He should be banned for life.
Click to expand...

Couldnt have said it better myself - ban Chambers for life

Rio (and Christine) are clots for fogetting to take the test, Christine even more so for the sheer number of times she forgot, but they where undoubtedly clean - so its pretty extreme to ban them completely imo
 
weringo said:
The rules are that he's allowed to compete again after a 2 year ban. I don't see the problem.

If people have a problem with the rules that's a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...

completely :]
it is an issue with the rules that people have.
 
The rules are in place and he's adhering to them so they should let him run. I do agree about drug cheats being banned for life, but that isn't the rule right now so he should be allowed to run.
 
There are two questions here:

- should he be allowed to run based on the rules in place? Answer yes.
- should he be allowed to run based on morals and the rules of international athletics? Answer no.

The first one is a no-brainer, so surely the second question is what we're debating here?
 
Robbie G said:
There are two questions here:

- should he be allowed to run based on the rules in place? Answer yes.
- should he be allowed to run based on morals and the rules of international athletics? Answer no.

The first one is a no-brainer, so surely the second question is what we're debating here?
Click to expand...

Morals do not come into it when there are governing bodies with rules that allow him to run.
 
Morba said:
Morals do not come into it when there are governing bodies with rules that allow him to run.
Click to expand...

Morals are irrelevant in deciding whether or not he is entitled to run in the UK, you're right. But morals are often what forces a change in rules, so of course morals come into it, and especially in this debate.:)
 
Rules is rules, morals don't even come into it.

[edit]Robbie, you are changing your stance. Are you talking about changing the rules (which wouldn't affect Chambers anyway) or about this particular case?

Ripper said:
This is blatently going to turn into a Rio Ferdinand bash thread, but anyway...



There's a difference between the two, one took drugs, one didn't.

He should be banned for life.
Click to expand...
It will due to you posting the above. One of them was caught, the other one wasn't as he didn't attend his test.

The rules are that you attend tests and if you fail you are banned. You are saying one should be banned for life - that is taking away his only source of income - and the other shouldn't be punished I suppose :rolleyes:
 
When did I change my stance? All I'm saying is that with the rules as they are, he should be allowed to compete, but with the rules as they should be (imo) he should not be allowed to compete. Surely there are two ways of approaching the question "should he be allowed to compete"?
 
I think once a cheater, always a cheater. He should be banned for life.

BUT. And thats a big BUT. The current rules allow him to participate, and that is not his problem, thus he has every right to race. The people to blame are the guys that govern the rules.

As mentioned on the news last night, his inclusion in the team will effect new 'clean' talent coming through the ranks. If he didn't win the 60m, the other kid that came second (who is a prospect, apparently) would have made it in the team.
 
He should really be allowed to resume his career once then ban is served, with regular tests if deemed necessary.

From what limited info I have seen on the matter, it seems the bad feeling towards him is in a large part due to comments he made in the past about drug cheats. Was something along the lines of 'It's not possible to win without using drugs, and if a clean athlete does win it's only because the drugs cheat had an off day'.

Pretty easy to see why comments like this would rub many people in the athletics community the wrong way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom