Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,500
- Location
- Cornwall
Not only did he knowingly cheat he also said it was part of the sport so why should he apologise. IMO, he's an arrogant ****** and doesn't deserve a second chance.
Dwain Chambers
- Thread starter Indie
- Start date
Firstly you were saying he should not be allowed to compete, which is wrong. Then you started talking about changing the rules, which is debateable
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 2,716
- Location
- Glasgow
Because I believe people can make mistakes in life and not everyone has a strong character to be totally committed to an intensive sport and life for years without succumbing to peer pressure and influences.
I also think it is regulated enough with tests that a cheater cannot get away with it anyway, so it's futile, they will get their ban and the message will get through hopefully.
Thirdly, it is a sport for the best athletes - so if you rule him out now he is drug-free then we will never know what the best is and I feel that takes something away from the sport. I want to see the best compete drugs-free.
and the other shouldn't be punished I suppose
Err no I'm not saying that the other shouldn't be punished, Rio was punished, I'm not even debating that.
Are we supposed to show pity on Chambers because its his "only source of income"? Thats crap, he knew what he was doing and knew what would happen if he got caught.
So was Chambers.
I'd rather a clean athlete thats served his time earning money from the sport than a clean athlete on benefits.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,574
- Location
- Warwickshire
Hmm? My second post in this thread:
Robbie G said:
In any case, saying that particular point of view "is wrong" is a curious stance when there are people that know a lot more than you or I and are far more respected in the field of athletics saying damn the rules, he shouldn't be allowed to compete. I'm not even going that far.
There's what he is entitled to do, and what he should be entitled to do.
He SHOULD be entitled to race because the rules allow it. UKA needing to make a decision on whether he should be allowed is stupid.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,574
- Location
- Warwickshire
Morba said:
Ok but can't we hypothesise about what we as individuals believe the rules should be? Imagine you were god of athletics and had to make a decision, lifetime ban for drugs cheats or 2 year ban - what would you select? Personally I'd go for lifetime ban
.wedgie said:
None at all, which is why the UKAF were correct in allowing him to compete.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,773
- Location
- Under the Hill
He has served the punishment that was set out by the laws of the sport so there is no legal right to stop him from earning a living. People seem to forget that he competed for GB in 06 after returning from suspension and much less fuss was made then.
If the rules were one strike and you're out, there would have to be more accurate testing, or at least a grey area to take into consideration athletes who have taken banned substances which are not performance enhancing.
For example, Alan Baxter the slalom skier. He lost his Olympic medal because he used a nasal inhaler that although the same brand as he used in the UK, in the US has a slightly different chemical make-up than that sold in the UK. The drug it contained was not performance enhancing, but was on the banned substances list. Going by one strike, he would be out on his ear with no way to earn a living through a mistake which gave him no advantage whatsoever.
Blanket enforcement does not and will not work, severity and situation play a big part in the crime and therefore should be considered as part of any punishment.
Chambers should be banned for life given that he knowingly entered into a managed drug use program, but the laws are there and even if changed cannot be applied retrospectively. The only blame for this entire situation lies with UKA for creating this hyperbole without the ability to legally do what should be done.
If the rules were one strike and you're out, there would have to be more accurate testing, or at least a grey area to take into consideration athletes who have taken banned substances which are not performance enhancing.
For example, Alan Baxter the slalom skier. He lost his Olympic medal because he used a nasal inhaler that although the same brand as he used in the UK, in the US has a slightly different chemical make-up than that sold in the UK. The drug it contained was not performance enhancing, but was on the banned substances list. Going by one strike, he would be out on his ear with no way to earn a living through a mistake which gave him no advantage whatsoever.
Blanket enforcement does not and will not work, severity and situation play a big part in the crime and therefore should be considered as part of any punishment.
Chambers should be banned for life given that he knowingly entered into a managed drug use program, but the laws are there and even if changed cannot be applied retrospectively. The only blame for this entire situation lies with UKA for creating this hyperbole without the ability to legally do what should be done.
Is that when he did the relay? If so, I remember there being quite a bit of fuss actually, i.e. one of his teammates refused to do a lap of honor with him.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,574
- Location
- Warwickshire
Wuh? Adopting a one-strike approach does not mean ignoring circumstances.
He should be allowed to compete, just like any other offender he's done his time and he's repaying his debt. If they changed the rule to a lifetime ban I would be in favour of it, but until then he's done his time.
I don't believe that many of them are clean anyway. They just get sloppy and get caught.
I don't believe that many of them are clean anyway. They just get sloppy and get caught.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,773
- Location
- Under the Hill
That was after the race, Darren Campbell. I meant with respect to the lead up to the competition and inclusion in the team. UKA had no problems then.
Ok but can't we hypothesise about what we as individuals believe the rules should be? Imagine you were god of athletics and had to make a decision, lifetime ban for drugs cheats or 2 year ban - what would you select? Personally I'd go for lifetime ban
Bans should be relevant to the act that needs to be punished. hypothesising would not be relevent to the current conversation regarding chambers.
Isn't part of the current issue that Dwain hasn't undergone any drugs tests since he's been back?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,574
- Location
- Warwickshire
From the OP:
Indie said:
That sounds like something that requires a debate on the current rule structure to me
. Not sure you're in a position to decide the content of this thread's discussion tbh.
weird isnt it, we have asociety which on the whole backs second chances for criminals, yet when it comes to athletics we dont want to give anyone a second chance who makes a mistake.
I think the way he has been treated, and villified by the media and the athletics community is nothing short of a disgrace.
The above example of mine may be extreme in highlightin a criminal as an example of a scenario wehreby we give second third, fourth, and fifth chances. however if we look at other sports such as fgootball didnt Mutu get banned for using cocaine or something ?
anyway hes back playing, Ferdinand is playing, Davids, Stamm the list goes on and on, and TBh Footballers are much more in terms of role models than anyone within the athletics community.
Hes done his time he paid for his crime, let him get on with the rest of his life.
I think the way he has been treated, and villified by the media and the athletics community is nothing short of a disgrace.
The above example of mine may be extreme in highlightin a criminal as an example of a scenario wehreby we give second third, fourth, and fifth chances. however if we look at other sports such as fgootball didnt Mutu get banned for using cocaine or something ?
anyway hes back playing, Ferdinand is playing, Davids, Stamm the list goes on and on, and TBh Footballers are much more in terms of role models than anyone within the athletics community.
Hes done his time he paid for his crime, let him get on with the rest of his life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,773
- Location
- Under the Hill
I believe so, however he was registered as an athlete and available for testing in that entire period which met the requirements.