For the good of the sport - no. However if I see some contrition etc then you should always be prepared to break the rules now and again, however he doesn't seem to be that contrite, so again, no.
No, he knew the penatly when he was cheating so its not like the ban was a surprise to him. If they had introduced the ban at a later date then maybe he has an argument. If he does win then I hope other athletes shun him.
That said other countries like Greece are allowing their cheats back.
The discrepancy between the IAA and BOA rules is ridiculous in my opinion and both the organisations have made a rod for their own back so why shouldnt he challenge them?
I know there are plenty of other athletes who are clean and would relish the chance to go to the Olympics and he does make a mockery of that but surely people deserve second chances.
There are other athletes in the team (a shot putter and 400m runner) who in the past have been done for drug related crimes but are competing I think.
The constant spouting off from people like Holmes, Redgrave, Jackson etc however is doing my head in as well. Get off your high horses - there was plenty going on in your day that you very well knew was going on but didnt say a word.
I loathe cheats with a passion, but i currently think the rules are too conflicting. Why is it that only the UK and Norway i think out of the whole world ban past drug cheats from the Olympics ? How can it be possible that someone can be selected for World Championships, European Championships etc but not another competition.
It needs a co-ordinated rule for the whole world from the world's governing body. Whatever it is, a 4-year ban, 5 years etc, ban from all internation championships, it should act as a deterrent that ruins peoples careers without being a complete nail in the coffin.
If everything else in life involves some form of second chance for people that did wrong, then athletics shouldn't be the outliner. If Lee Hughes did what he did and should be able to pick up his career, or other athletes who have taken performance-enhancing drugs and be allowed to return to the sport at all levels, so should Chambers.
The irony is that Chambers has been tested nearly 20 times in the past six months, and is likely to be one of the only athletes you could guarantee is clean at the Olympics if he goes. Part of me also admires the way he has battled back from adversity to find the best form of his career. It was adversity solely of his own making, but i've got a bit of respect for the balls he has shown.
It seems unfair that GB athletes who have missed three drugs tests are banned but then re-admitted. Chambers would have (see what I did there Curb-it) been better off missing the test.
The Lee Hughes analogy doesn't stand as he committed a criminal, rather then a sporting, offence. He didn't cheat at football eg fix a game.
However I still say no. He cheated and he shouldn't be allowed to compete. That other countries have different rules does not automatically make our rules wrong.
Many countries (all of the Eastern Block, China and the USA) systematically cheated, encouraged athletes to cheat and help to cover up that cheating over many years. Why should we follow their example on re-admitting cheats.
there maybe a time to let em take any chemical they want as long as its declared. If the women end up with bollox bigger than big bollox bob from bollox land so be it. If the guys glow in the dark and their eyes go orange so what ? As long as kids are not forced into it and its a TOTAL FREE choice.
Aint to many year ago the Czechs had a World record holder (Scratchercrutchallover well it sounded like that --honest) who had a lunch box !
Lifetime bans are very wrong in my opinion, mainly because what is considered cheating now will change radically over time. For example in the 20's sprinters using blocks were considered to be cheats and any records using them did not stand.
The guy has served his time and as others have said is most likely to be cleaner than many other athletes around. For instance the Jamaican federation has not organised drug testing plan and they have some of the top sprinters in the world currently, a cynical person would suggest the two are connected.
Personally I have no issue with drugs in sport, in fact I object to the term drugs, they are simply performance enhancing (actually training enhancing) substances. There are many of these around that are legal and some that are not. The list of illegal substances changes quite regularly. Caffeine used to be a banned substance but is not longer. Some people want creatine banned, but this won't happen (despite the reasons for taking it being very similar to those for taking anabolic steroids) simply because as a naturally occurring substance in the body it would be nigh on impossible to identify those using it.
I also believe in second chances, because if you give people no way back then there is no incentive for them to stop what they are doing.
I said no mainly because he is a cheat - he didn't just take one drug did he he took a bloody cocktail of them so you can't argue he was being naive etc.
Yeah granted some arguements he served his time etc are valid but there are arguments the drugs he took helped him bulk up his strength which it seems still evident so it's no for me.
BUT on the other hand these bans should be universal not just us
The abuse Chambers has got is pathetic. The drugs laws in sport and life are completely indefensible in a libertarian society. A simple rule should be that people are responsible for whatever they put into their own body and the conseuences there of, the only exception should be when the substance causes them to harm others. This same ridiculous argument is going to be extended to the next generation of Alzheimer drugs which will boost IQ in normal people, should we start drug testing students? Treat people like children and you end up with an infanticised society.
Resounding No from me. He knew when he cheated what the consequences would be and he still did it. Most of us when we commit a crime have an idea what will happen if we get caught and if we start to flip flop on punishments it will lead to further abuse of the system.
This is a clear "no"for me. There have been arguments put forward by AFKA that the rules need harmonising. With respect the fact that they are different in different countries is irrelevant. Chambers is a UK athlete who wants to compete for the UK. UKA has rules, he knew what those rules were before he was chemically enhanced and he chose to cheat. It is wrong then to claim that those rules should be overturned once he has fallen foul of them.
I understand the argument about having served his punishment and second chances. He hasn't been convicted of drink driving, or house breaking, were that the case I would agree that he should be allowed to compete again. In this case he has cheated the rules to gain an advantage.
I don't buy the argument that performance enhancement has gone on over the years in equipement and that taking drugs is just the same as that. These drugs are harmful as has been shown by the effects on East German athletes who were forced to take them in the 70's and 80's. The very use of them is covert/secret whereas the use of say an improved track shoe is overt/available for inspection
For me though, the argument boils down to one of honesty/integrity. He has cheated his fellow athletes and the public to gain recognition/money. Nobody can be certain that he won't cheat again. I liken it to say a bank employee caught nicking money from his employer. Sure after whatever the law provides as a punishment that person will be re-admitted to society but no bank will offer them a job again because they cannot be certain of their honesty. So it is with Chambers. How do we know he isn't still cheating? Remember he has admitted it.
For me then a definite "no" as a cheat cannot ever be fully trusted again.
This is difficult because Chambers' circumstances open a number of separate areas for discussion which mean that it is all too easy to lose sight of the main point.
Sports Science is continually evolving as Kigelia mentions meaning that one man's training supplement is another man's performance enhancing drug or one man's legitimate prescription medicine is another man's performance enhancing drug. The line is blurred and getting more so. One could extend the argument and say that using a fibre glass pole rather than a wooden or metal pole in the pole vault is performance enhancing. Having a nice airbed rather than a small sandpit to land on is performance enhancing. Running on a modern synthetic track rather than cinders or grass is performance enhancing. Yet nobody argues about equipment improvements possibly, the cynic might say, because of sponsorship from the equipment suppliers.
Having said all that the above is a red herring in Chambers' case as the rules are presently clear in Britain that taking performance enhancing drugs is wrong and if caught you face a lifetime ban from Olympic competition so all competitors know, or should know, the penalty for doing it. I don't care what other countries do. Mugabe murders his own people does that mean Britain should? These drugs harm athletes and even kill them (Flo-jo Joyner for example). A responsible governing body will do all that is reasonably possible to protect athletes from the attendant temptations and dangers.
I therefore think the ban on Chambers should be upheld as it may discourage other athletes from exposing themselves to the risks arising from these drugs.
I think the decision would have (sorry Curb_it would of :-)) been easier to make if Christina the 400 metre runner had been banned for not turning up to her drug tests. She was very lucky and Chambers, not surprisingly, is trying to exploit that.
The one good thing that might come out of all this is that the apparent contradiction between training supplements and performance enhancing drugs might now be properly addressed.
[cite]Posted By: kigelia[/cite]For instance the Jamaican federation has not organised drug testing plan and they have some of the top sprinters in the world currently, a cynical person would suggest the two are connected.
But the holy herb is not performance enhancing as such. Think how fast they'd actually be ;-)
They were having this discussion on radio 4 last night - I have to say that this one is a lot more interesting and involves a lot less intellectual masturbation than their panellists indulged in.
The problem with a lifetime ban is that is does not discourage athletes from taking drugs, it encourages those that do to work harder at it to make sure they don't get caught.
You give athletes a way back after a positive test then you give them the chance to prove that you can win without breaking the rules, that ought to encourage athletes to run 'clean' more than the threat of a lifetime ban, because at this level (despite the olympic ideals) winning is everything. If you can show that you can achieve that within the rules then people are more likely to follow them.
No for me - you just need to listen to the opinion of the clean British athletes to reach that conclusion. We should be urging the rest of the world to follow suit, not going soft. He can still return to competition, just not the Olympics, and I think that is fair enough.
lets face it most of them probably cheat, its just he got caught. That being said there clearly are long term gains from taking these ehancing substances - have you seen the fella - so I say no, lifetime ban applies if thats what the rules say.
[cite]Posted By: kigelia[/cite]The problem with a lifetime ban is that is does not discourage athletes from taking drugs, it encourages those that do to work harder at it to make sure they don't get caught.
I understand the point you are making but this is a counsel of despair in my book. You decide there is nothing that can be done to prevent the taking of drugs so you soften the punishment and hope that people learn from their mistakes and will somehow see that winning "clean" is an achievable goal. This may work in "recreational" drug treatment where peoples lives are at stake but I'm sorry I cannot see how this will work where coming second is seen as a failure and winning is all.. Thats what drives the drug cheats to cross the line in the first place.
In my view there are really only two approaches here, either
1. get rid of all restrictions and testing and accept a free for all. This is likely to be dangerous to athletes health and the winners will be determined by how good is their chemist
alternatively
2. you have strict rules for cheating backed up by rigourous testing as pertains now.
There may be a case of harmonisation of rules around the world but this should not be applied retrospectively to Chambers.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]That being said there clearly are long term gains from taking these ehancing substances - have you seen the fella
"So if someone has a muscular physique they are automatically on banned substances ?
1905 achieved it on a legal concoction of pork scratchings, stella and calpol "
(haven't tried to figure the quote system)
There's muscular and there's the steroid look, but proving it is a different matter.. On a sepearate matter what was up with Marcus Bent's leg in that picture tho, varicose veins or what..
Comments
That said other countries like Greece are allowing their cheats back.
Where's he at now....still down on the A20/Crossways?
Does this mean you will be walking wounded in Brighton GH?
The discrepancy between the IAA and BOA rules is ridiculous in my opinion and both the organisations have made a rod for their own back so why shouldnt he challenge them?
I know there are plenty of other athletes who are clean and would relish the chance to go to the Olympics and he does make a mockery of that but surely people deserve second chances.
There are other athletes in the team (a shot putter and 400m runner) who in the past have been done for drug related crimes but are competing I think.
The constant spouting off from people like Holmes, Redgrave, Jackson etc however is doing my head in as well. Get off your high horses - there was plenty going on in your day that you very well knew was going on but didnt say a word.
I too am a YES.
I loathe cheats with a passion, but i currently think the rules are too conflicting. Why is it that only the UK and Norway i think out of the whole world ban past drug cheats from the Olympics ? How can it be possible that someone can be selected for World Championships, European Championships etc but not another competition.
It needs a co-ordinated rule for the whole world from the world's governing body. Whatever it is, a 4-year ban, 5 years etc, ban from all internation championships, it should act as a deterrent that ruins peoples careers without being a complete nail in the coffin.
If everything else in life involves some form of second chance for people that did wrong, then athletics shouldn't be the outliner. If Lee Hughes did what he did and should be able to pick up his career, or other athletes who have taken performance-enhancing drugs and be allowed to return to the sport at all levels, so should Chambers.
The irony is that Chambers has been tested nearly 20 times in the past six months, and is likely to be one of the only athletes you could guarantee is clean at the Olympics if he goes. Part of me also admires the way he has battled back from adversity to find the best form of his career. It was adversity solely of his own making, but i've got a bit of respect for the balls he has shown.
The Lee Hughes analogy doesn't stand as he committed a criminal, rather then a sporting, offence. He didn't cheat at football eg fix a game.
However I still say no. He cheated and he shouldn't be allowed to compete. That other countries have different rules does not automatically make our rules wrong.
Many countries (all of the Eastern Block, China and the USA) systematically cheated, encouraged athletes to cheat and help to cover up that cheating over many years. Why should we follow their example on re-admitting cheats.
Aint to many year ago the Czechs had a World record holder (Scratchercrutchallover well it sounded like that --honest) who had a lunch box !
Served his time, deserves a chance at the Olympics.
Lifetime bans are very wrong in my opinion, mainly because what is considered cheating now will change radically over time. For example in the 20's sprinters using blocks were considered to be cheats and any records using them did not stand.
The guy has served his time and as others have said is most likely to be cleaner than many other athletes around. For instance the Jamaican federation has not organised drug testing plan and they have some of the top sprinters in the world currently, a cynical person would suggest the two are connected.
Personally I have no issue with drugs in sport, in fact I object to the term drugs, they are simply performance enhancing (actually training enhancing) substances. There are many of these around that are legal and some that are not. The list of illegal substances changes quite regularly. Caffeine used to be a banned substance but is not longer. Some people want creatine banned, but this won't happen (despite the reasons for taking it being very similar to those for taking anabolic steroids) simply because as a naturally occurring substance in the body it would be nigh on impossible to identify those using it.
I also believe in second chances, because if you give people no way back then there is no incentive for them to stop what they are doing.
Yeah granted some arguements he served his time etc are valid but there are arguments the drugs he took helped him bulk up his strength which it seems still evident so it's no for me.
BUT on the other hand these bans should be universal not just us
No one talks like this about Lunchbox Christie......
I understand the argument about having served his punishment and second chances. He hasn't been convicted of drink driving, or house breaking, were that the case I would agree that he should be allowed to compete again. In this case he has cheated the rules to gain an advantage.
I don't buy the argument that performance enhancement has gone on over the years in equipement and that taking drugs is just the same as that. These drugs are harmful as has been shown by the effects on East German athletes who were forced to take them in the 70's and 80's. The very use of them is covert/secret whereas the use of say an improved track shoe is overt/available for inspection
For me though, the argument boils down to one of honesty/integrity. He has cheated his fellow athletes and the public to gain recognition/money. Nobody can be certain that he won't cheat again. I liken it to say a bank employee caught nicking money from his employer. Sure after whatever the law provides as a punishment that person will be re-admitted to society but no bank will offer them a job again because they cannot be certain of their honesty. So it is with Chambers. How do we know he isn't still cheating? Remember he has admitted it.
For me then a definite "no" as a cheat cannot ever be fully trusted again.
Sports Science is continually evolving as Kigelia mentions meaning that one man's training supplement is another man's performance enhancing drug or one man's legitimate prescription medicine is another man's performance enhancing drug. The line is blurred and getting more so. One could extend the argument and say that using a fibre glass pole rather than a wooden or metal pole in the pole vault is performance enhancing. Having a nice airbed rather than a small sandpit to land on is performance enhancing. Running on a modern synthetic track rather than cinders or grass is performance enhancing. Yet nobody argues about equipment improvements possibly, the cynic might say, because of sponsorship from the equipment suppliers.
Having said all that the above is a red herring in Chambers' case as the rules are presently clear in Britain that taking performance enhancing drugs is wrong and if caught you face a lifetime ban from Olympic competition so all competitors know, or should know, the penalty for doing it. I don't care what other countries do. Mugabe murders his own people does that mean Britain should? These drugs harm athletes and even kill them (Flo-jo Joyner for example). A responsible governing body will do all that is reasonably possible to protect athletes from the attendant temptations and dangers.
I therefore think the ban on Chambers should be upheld as it may discourage other athletes from exposing themselves to the risks arising from these drugs.
I think the decision would have (sorry Curb_it would of :-)) been easier to make if Christina the 400 metre runner had been banned for not turning up to her drug tests. She was very lucky and Chambers, not surprisingly, is trying to exploit that.
The one good thing that might come out of all this is that the apparent contradiction between training supplements and performance enhancing drugs might now be properly addressed.
But the holy herb is not performance enhancing as such. Think how fast they'd actually be ;-)
The problem with a lifetime ban is that is does not discourage athletes from taking drugs, it encourages those that do to work harder at it to make sure they don't get caught.
You give athletes a way back after a positive test then you give them the chance to prove that you can win without breaking the rules, that ought to encourage athletes to run 'clean' more than the threat of a lifetime ban, because at this level (despite the olympic ideals) winning is everything. If you can show that you can achieve that within the rules then people are more likely to follow them.
So if someone has a muscular physique they are automatically on banned substances ?
1905 achieved it on a legal concoction of pork scratchings, stella and calpol
I understand the point you are making but this is a counsel of despair in my book. You decide there is nothing that can be done to prevent the taking of drugs so you soften the punishment and hope that people learn from their mistakes and will somehow see that winning "clean" is an achievable goal. This may work in "recreational" drug treatment where peoples lives are at stake but I'm sorry I cannot see how this will work where coming second is seen as a failure and winning is all.. Thats what drives the drug cheats to cross the line in the first place.
In my view there are really only two approaches here, either
1. get rid of all restrictions and testing and accept a free for all. This is likely to be dangerous to athletes health and the winners will be determined by how good is their chemist
alternatively
2. you have strict rules for cheating backed up by rigourous testing as pertains now.
There may be a case of harmonisation of rules around the world but this should not be applied retrospectively to Chambers.
Good luck to the bloke.
He was young and made a mistake and he's paid a heavy price. Now he's clean and trying to get back to his best again.
(It's not as if he's going to win a medal at the Olympics now, is it???)
"So if someone has a muscular physique they are automatically on banned substances ?
1905 achieved it on a legal concoction of pork scratchings, stella and calpol "
(haven't tried to figure the quote system)
There's muscular and there's the steroid look, but proving it is a different matter.. On a sepearate matter what was up with Marcus Bent's leg in that picture tho, varicose veins or what..