blonde poker forum

There at court tomorrow to decide if he should be allowed to run or not ? just wondering people thoughts about this.

I think he should he's the only half decent 100m runner we got and think hes served his time, were only 1 of 2 countires in the world who has a life time ban and they even overturned there own decsion about Christine Ohuruogu, know it wasnt quite the same but she did miss 3 tests and overturned it cause they wanted her as the face for the 2012 olympics.

Run

Regards

M

Let him run there all on it.

no he shouldnt

Let him run.  I'll be cheering all the other runners to beat him.

let him run if it keeps him of the streets

100% Spot On.

  100 percent wrong

No they're not.  If you mean 100m runners, I think there are a greater percentage who are using drugs compared to other events - but I don't think they're all taking illegal substances.  As far as other events go, I know plenty of athletes who are cleaner than clean.

i feel ill i actually agree with him

Oh, and as someone who has cheated other British athletes out of medals (or the opportunity of winning medals - 4x100m relay team) he doesn't deserve a 'second chance'.

It's a privilege to run for your country, and he's abused that privilege.  Let someone else who is better deserving run instead.

if you was sat at a poker game and someone blatantly cheated would you just say let him carry on playying

And I know a lot of athletes who are on 'roids  and i know for a fact that Linford and Colin Jackson were concerned with the supply to a number of athletes over a number of years.

I don't think everyone is on the gere, but I do believe that those at the very top level are indeed using PED!

Like "Down-Town" Chad Brown? He is on teh roids'

Colin Jackson!  LOL.  Seriously doubt that, as he's one of the most vehement opponents to drug cheats, and has been all the way through his career.  You have evidence that makes your statement a FACT?

Christie - yeah, he's a cheat.  He's also an utter disgrace.

Marion Jones was also a"vehement opponent" to drugs............. ;whistle;

Geo

...and Stalin was a communist.

Obv wooshed, I don't get it.

My point was that just cos someone says they are against drugs in their sport don't neccessarily mean they don't take them. ask any athlete you like and they are obv gonna say "I don't do it"

geo

Yes I have evidence.

Remember Linfords interview after he won gold in Barcelona?

Is the same evidence you have about Amir Khan?

lol.

No.

When Chambers took the drugs he knew the BOA by-law and as such he knew if caught he would never be able to run in any future Olympics but he made the choice to cheat. Regardless of whether he has served his time under the IOC rules Chambers was fully aware of the consequences of taking drugs and as such theres no way he should be allowed to take part in any future Olympic games. Personally I feel it's bad enough to see him wear an English or British vest and the publicity he's been getting is akin to making him into a martyr. He broke the rules end off.

The BOA by-law is a joke.  Its akin to English clubs saying they are limiting the number of non Europeans allowed to play in the league.  Chambers has the Olympic qualifying time he has served his ban. 

made me crack up outloud. wp.

I'm not sure about this now, although morally he is guilty, legally Chambers has "done his time".

If it was such a bad offense surely he would have been given more"time" and not now be eligible for selection.

You cheat (and get caught) as a British athlete you know the rules.   I'm trying to think of a situation that's analogous, and all I can think of is what happens to football hooligans who serve a custodial sentence but even after their release they are banned from all football stadia for life.

Here's another question.  Does this photo fill you with pride or loathing?

(http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/Image/newsArchive/Dwain_Chambers_main2002.jpg)

Why is it a joke, either we want to try and do something to stop drugs cheats from taking part in sports or send out the message OK take a chance take drugs and you might get caught but you'll only serve a 2 year ban or in other words you'll be OK to compete in London 2012.
He hasn't served his time since at the time of his taking drugs the rules stated fail a drugs test and you can never compete in the Olympics again, allowing him to overturn the rules is sending the totally wrong message to kids out there and theres no way anyone caught cheating in the Olympics in Beijing should be allowed to serve a 2 year ban then come back in time to compete in London 2012.
Drug testing won't catch all the cheats but if we do nothing we might as well make it a free for all and just allow everyone to take whatever substances they like and see which scientists are the best.
Cheats should not be allowed to prosper whether it be to win medals or to gain financial rewards - Chambers had his chance to prove his worth without drugs but he got greedy and in the end got caught - like Kin said earlier in the thread what about the poor athletes from the relay squad that had to return their medals.
Drugs have no place in sport end of.

I understand what you are saying, but why was he not given a longer sentence ?

Different bodies - IAAF and the BOA.  The IAAF gave him the 2-year ban, the BOA the lifetime ban from the Olympics.

I think the IAAF should have given him a longer ban.

The only sentence is a 2 year ban hence my point about get caught in Beijing, serve your ban and then compete in London in 2012 - makes a mockery of the rules IMO. Don't fofget theres always the chance that you wont get caught in Beijing too.

Neither, it fills me with disappointment that such a talented athlete decided to feck it all up by trying to take a short cut to the top when he probably could have got to the same level without the drugs with hard work and patience.

Personally I think he has done his time and should not be restricted in plying his trade, a two year ban from all competition was his punishment, time served.
The by law only works if the team is selected, Dwain Chambers qualified and is eligible to compete under IOC rules.

I will point out I think his cheating in the first place was a loathsome act but he should not be punished forever.

No, though i base on the only way the sport will make the drug cheat stop is by imposing the harshest fine possible, ie life time bans.

Saying everyone is on it, is not a positive way to look at it. If you allow ppl to take what they like, you will have anarchy. These athletes will happily risk their own lives on drugs to be successful.

He's not banned from plying his trade.  He can still earn money (and lots of it) in IAAF events.  He can earn more for one meet than many hard-working, honest people earn in a year.

He should not however be given the privilege of representing his country at the Olympics.  Neither should he take the place off a more deserving athlete.  

Let's just say he does get into the GB team.  Should he be allowed to run in the 4x100m team?  Would you be happy with him in the team if you were one of the other runners?  

No question for me, let him run. The laws on drugs cheats should be consistant across competing countires for me.

Everyone makes mistakes in life, if thats the worst he ever makes he'll be doing a lot better than many others who get second chances. It may even make him a better athlete and a better person now its done. I don't think the fact he's the only British sprinter looking half decent at the moment should influence the choice though -but it must be tempting, britsh sprinting has gone from top of the world (okay 2nd and getting lucky once) to probably just top 8 in 4 years.

Oh and a positive story about the Olympics.  A friend of mine, Helen Clitheroe qualified for the Olympics at the weekend whilst breaking a British record in the 3000m steeplechase.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7505640.stm

She works bloody hard, and has devoted her life to training and competing.  No short cuts, no cheating, and nowhere near the rewards that Chambers has got from him athletics.

So because we don't have anyone who looks like making the final we should change the rules?  That's crazy logic.

No, I'm saying we shouldnt do it because of that - but I can see the motivation for that. Olympic sports are not good value for money at the moment imo.

Sorry, I mis-read your post.  I agree that he definitely shouldn't be allowed back in the GB Olympic team for any reason.

But when she gets to being in the top few in the world in that field then she might get the rewards that he did (though she won't because she's a woman, but relatively speaking). He was a top runner before drugs, is and always has been a dedicated athlete, you can see that from looking at him.

FYP! Now we agree!

Will be interesting come Thursday either way. My gut feeling is that he won't be successful anyway.

I would expect his legal team to argue that preventing him from competing is a restriction of his earnings potential. If he were to medal at the Olympics (unlikely I know) would his earnings potential increase?

As for the whether I would want him in the team if I was one of the relay team, of course I wouldn't, if I was one of the guys who lost their medal I'd be full of loathing for him. I feel for those who have lost out to him in the past, they have seen their careers and earnings suffer because he cheated to beat them, maybe they should consider seeking advice on the chances of a successful legal action against him for their losses.

Let him race but I'd rather he didn't win.

But why let him in the Olympic team at all?

This I don't understand. 

If he's in the Olympic team, the logic should extend that he's in the 4x100m team, and if you're happy for him to represent GB in the team you'd also be happy with him carrying out the flag for the opening ceremony?

He knew the rules before he broke them.  He knew the BOA penalty before he cheated.  Why let him in?  I think I must be missing something.

Let him run.
If it's good enough for the 400m runner(can't spell her name) it's good enough for him. Good enough for plenty others too.
The only difference being he has been honest enough to admit, and state the reasons why.
Personally I abhore drug use, and cheating. However there has never been any consistency, whether from the BOA or the IAAF.
Most athletes ARE on something or another, at least most of the successful ones. As has been illustrated by all the previous drug hating athletes in the past, being exposed as cheats. Chambers did it clean at start of career and knew that he wasn't going to reach the top of the sport clean, as most at the top were on banned substances.
The BOA like to come over all prim and proper , but they know when people are on something, they have enough back up team to know when people's performances have increased too dramatically.

Yes I am happy with all of the above. I'm a forgiving kind of guy. I really don't expect everyone to agree with me or even understand. That's just my view.

I'd rather someone won who really did struggle 100% of the way to the gold medal and who's character couldn't be called into question in our shark infested media. If Chambers did race because of my decision I'd have to face the prospect of him winning but I could live with myself if he did.

If dramatic improvement is evidence for drug abuse then no athlete is clean.

He didn't admit it, he continued to deny it even after he was shown to be cheating.  He appealed against the decision, and denied doing anything wrong.  He cheated, he was found out, and still tried to cheat.

Some of the stuff he's said since is a disgrace as well.  

I can see an argument for letting him run IAAF events (although I don't agree with it), but not in the Olympics.

can you explain that? why can you see an argument for him running in some events but not others?

A+  Name

D-  Genuine competitor

The IAAF ban was for 2 years.
The BOA rule is that if you're caught cheating with drugs, lifetime ban from the GB Olympic team.

So there's the rules. 

I personally think the IAAF ban should have been longer, but it wasn't.

he knew the punishment when he cheated, hope to god he dont go.

A lot of people are saying he's done his time and so should be allowed to compete and others are along the lines of No (once a cheat always a cheat).

The IAAF and the BOAC can't agree on what penalties to impose either but there's probably a very good reason for that.

The IAAF oversees all international athletic events and is responsible for the athletes livelihoods (sp?) but the BOAC are responsible for sending athletes to one major event, drug-abuse just doesn't stack up to the Olympic spirit (neither does professionalism but that's a different argument) hence the lifetime ban.

Life should mean life as the offence goes against everything the Olympics stands for, however the arguments for only a 2 year ban from other athletics events is again IMO about right as you are talking about a persons livelihood at the end of the day (it's a short enough career as it is so as long as people do their time and are then proven to be clean a 2 year ban is sufficient punishment).

LIFE BAN should mean just that..... 

This is an interesting point and one I've heard a lot but just can't agree with.

If you have a conviction for dishonesty you can not be a cop or a lawyer, If you have a conviction for doing Pervie things you can not work in schools or with vulnerable people, so does that mean that that rule is unfair as well?

Noone is saying he can't be a bricklayer, or find another job..they are just saying; "Your crime means you are not allowed to work in this field anymore". I think that's fair enough, no?

I agree with that.  Unfortunately, the IAAF don't, and so he's allowed to compete in athletics.  However, that's completely separate from the BOA who have rules in place that say if you're caught using drugs to cheat, you're barred for life from representing GB in the Olympics.  A good rule it is too.

An excellent rule but if it gets overturned where do they go from there.

Backwards, imo.

It would send out a terrible message to young athletes.  Someone mentioned this earlier in the thread - a young athlete with his eyes on competing in 2012 could use drugs to give themselves an advantage - and if they get caught, they'll be safe in the knowledge that they can get back in the team.

Apparently if selected as 1 of the 3 100m runners he has to be automatically part of the relay squad. I can foresee some of the relay runners wanting to pull out and personally I wouldn't blame them either if they did.
I don't think there has been 1 uk senior ex-athlete who has come out saying he should be allowed to compete in Beijing yet there are loads who are condemning him for even taking the BOA to court to try and compete there.
He knew the rules when he took the drugs so why should the BOA move the goalposts now to accomodate an average sprinter who can't compete at the highest levels without resorting to drugs. He's cheated and let UK athletics down once in the past and to me this attempt to take legal action is akin to cheating anyway. There are no direct financial prizes for competing in the Olympics so how can the BOA ban be in anyway construed to be stopping him from plying his trade, he is still free to run in Grand Prix events where he can compete to earn a living, something that the Olympics does not provide.

</end thread>

British sprinter Dwain Chambers will not be able to run at the Olympic Games after he loses his attempt to overturn his lifetime ban.

oh noes.

 ;iagree;

Agreed, at least the courts saw sense and IMO rightfully so, we don't want cheats to represent us at the Olympics or any other sporting event for that matter.

Totally agreed

Correct decision

rofl he got pwned so so bad. Maybe he will try his hand at Rugby Union? :P

Was about to post exactly that!

(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44843000/jpg/_44843529_dwain226.jpg)

I am actually surprised at the judge's decision but it does do a lot for the integrity of the British Olympic team. One bit of sympathy I do have for Dwain Chambers is that he'll watch on TV as Christine Ohuruogu runs in the 400m, surely she too should be banned as missing tests is on a par to having failed them. Ban them both or let them both run, a bit of double standards IMO.

What about if he finds out his great great grandad was chinese or something can he swap sides.... to get in their team i think its a stipulaion you have to be on something !  ;D