dwain chambers should he be allowed to run or not ?

[vegaslover]

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.

[The Baron]

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?

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.

[The Baron]

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.

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

[kinboshi]

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.

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.

[gatso]

 

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?

[TheChipPrince]

A+  Name

D-  Genuine competitor

[kinboshi]

 

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?

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.

[Acidmouse]

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

[Flea]

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).

[LOJ]

LIFE BAN should mean just that..... 

[boldie]

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).

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?

[kinboshi]

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).

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.

[pokefast]

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).

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.

[kinboshi]

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).

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.

[LLevan]

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.