Should he be allowed or not?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by finknottle, Jul 6, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Dwain Chambers' legal team have launched a case against the British Olympic Association in order to reverse the sprinter's Olympic ban and allow him to run in Beijing.

    Chambers is currently banned from running at the Olympics after serving a two year ban for testing positive for designer steroid tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) in 2003. Under BOA rules, any convicted drug cheat cannot compete for the British team unless there are mitigating circumstances.

    The Guardian.

    IMO he should not be allowed to compete and my reason is that if he thought he could get away with using performance-enhancing drugs again he would use them, once a cheat always a cheat in my book.
  2. Fin at long last we have some commen ground, IMHO when he was tested positive for drugs he should have been banned from all sports for life. with no remision no time off for good behaviour
  3. There is the argument that having served the ban he was imposed with, he should now be allowed to compete. Surely that's the point of imposing a timescale on the ban. If you were caught speeding or drink driving and lost your licence for 2 years then you'd expect to be allowed to drive again after serving your ban, on the basis that you've learnt your lesson and won't do it again.

    On the other hand; if the rules say that no convicted cheat can compete for the British team then, them's the rules. I can't see what mitigating circumstances there can be.

    Personally, despite what I wrote at the start of this post, I don't think he should be allowed to compete again. By pushing to become an olympian he should accept that he will become a role model for other young sportsmen/women. He should be an example of what can be achieved through hard work and determination. Regardless of how clean he is now, or remains, he is a proven drug cheat. That surely goes against all olympian ideals.
  4. He should not be allowed to compete due to the British Olympic committees rules.
    However as his ban has expired there is no reason why he should not compete at other events.
    I would think that his challenge in law will be directed that the ban means that he cannot carry on his profession. This being the case the Olympic committee need to point out that the ban is only for British Olympic representation and there are a great many other events that he is free to compete in.
    I hope he losees the case
  5. He should not be allowed to benefit from his drug enhanced past.

    That includes his physique, track experience, technique and any money that goes with the publicity associated with this story.
  6. I hope he loses as well , the cheating barstewards supposed to be a role model , :pukel:
  7. It only needs two things.

    1. Even if the court find for him the BOA refuse to select him and accept the consequences.

    2. Every time he appears in public the paying public or non paying public should turn their backs on him and remain silent. The same treatment should be given to any company or media outlet who sponsor or employ him.

  8. Begs the question of whether the Brit Olympic team would want him anyway? They are quite rightly concerned about the athletes as role models, this guy being the poorest there could be.

    Even if he wins his case, he has no chance IMHO
  9. The British Olympic Association is really just an elite club which can select it's membership.
    Now if you applied for membership of a club and were blackballed, would you consider going to a civilian court to have this overturned?
  10. Using drugs etc in sports once caught, banned for life.
  11. But of course this is not his profession as he is an amateur athlete is he not? In answer to the original question, a resounding NO. Although polluted the ideal of the Olympics is fair and friendly competition, he is a cheat and a liar (confirmed by drug use and denials of same until caught) who under the rules remains banned (pedant mode, standing by for correction) not from the competition but from selection by the BOC. As to competing in other events, I would like to see him banned from any activity involving publicly funded or subsidised, including Lottery funding, any activity related to sports. That would set an example to all potential users of drugs of exactly what to expect when caught. As an aside was his coach or other training staff involved because of they were I would apply the same to them.


    Mong spelling
  12. I personally think the Olympics are a totally discredited and corrupt event.

    It's not a case of "I'm a better athlete than you are", but more a case of "my chemist is better than yours"

    The failings of the authorities to penalise those caught further reinforces my feelings.

    Why countries want to bribe the olympic authorities to hold the olympics beats me.
  13. Once the trust has gone it will never return,There will always be doubt there.
  14. It's strange: what's the point of imposing a ban for x years if it is effectively a lifelong ban?

    I have seen a couple of other athetes interviewed on television and they don't seem too fussed on him joining the squad.

    My opinion is that this is a bit different though - it's not like he was doing 38 mph in a 30 zone. He is obviously a talented athlete in himself but he was naughty. Whilst, in general, I think that once you have served your sentence you should be allowed to continue with life, I don't think Chambers should because of the role model thing. People should look up to and aspire to be Olympians - if the message gets out that you can cheat, get slapped over the wrist and then go back to the way it was before then our country will end up in a bigger mess than it's already in, vis a vis respect for authority.

    As a doctor, I would continue to have professional sanctions imposed on me by the General Medical Council after any custodial sentence or Court action.

    I suppose the counter-argument is that he is now a reformed character - maybe that is something the youf of today could aspire to. Not sure.

    I'll stick with my original opinion: he should go to night school and take up sparking. He'd probably earn more money that way!
  15. all i can say Angry doc is i do actually agree with you
  16. They either ban athletes for life after drugs offences or you will get people who have served their drugs bans asking to compete in the olympics. I personally think that he does have a case, as he has served his ban, even though I myself do not agree with him competing in the olympics.
  17. His crime was being caught. Allegedly, IIRC, the likes of Linford Christie and ohers could not be found when compulsory testing was supposed to take place. Lots of excuses given when they are supposed to let the authorities know where they are.
    Life ban for all cheats!
    Amateur? Very loose meaning these days. The top athletes are very rich.
  18. Whilst I agree with many of the sentiments supporting a lifetime ban for those caught using drugs, I think that there is a very large grey area where, for example, use of a simple cough medicine or hayfever treatment can lead to an athlete falling foul of the anti-doping rules.

    So, where would you draw the line?

    Is using a stimulant on the list of banned substances but in common use outside the sporting arena in a different category to drugs such as THG, and thus deserving of a different response from the various sporting bodies? Is failure to give a specimen the same as the greater or the lesser of these two different types of drugs misuse, somewhere in between, or lower down the scale?
  19. One of those occasions when the law is not an ass, Chambers failed today in his bid to overturn a lifetime Olympic ban because of doping and he will not be able to compete at the Beijing Games.
  20. A stand has to be taken. This one individual is at present taking up an awful lot of the budget which could well be spent on others..
    A lot of decisions handed down are unfair, but, you have to run (pun intended) with it not cry foul at every occasion.

Share This Page