Dwain Chambers for the world indoors?

xebec

What do people think of the whole Dwayne Chambers/UK Athletics situation? Do you think he should be allowed represent the UK in the World Indoors?

Having seen the performance he put in in the trials today they're going to have a hard time not selecting him. Personally, I'm a bit up in the air about this, part of me thinks he's served his time and realised that he was in the wrong but the other part of me knows why UKA are reluctant to have him on the team. I think it was great how he let his running do the talking today though, and he was quite candid about the whole situation in the interview afterwards. Maybe it is time to put the whole situation in the past and let him represent the UK again.

(Mods, I'm a relative newbee to this forum so if it's been discussed already feel free to merge etc.)

Pherekydes

He's already represented the UK post ban. He was part of their European Gold medal-winning relay team in 2006.

I don't know what they're trying to prove by turning up their collective noses at him now.

The Brits seem to be specialists at hypocrisy.

DaveH

It was questionable picking him as the British Olympic assocation wont pick him, so he really shouldnt be on UK Athletics team when he wont be going to the olympics.

I think that life bans should be applied to convicted drug users. I know some ppl will see that as a bit extreme, but the reailty is people who are using performance enhancing drugs know full and well they are breaking the rules.

If you cog the leaving cert you get a 7 year ban(i think).

I posted a while back about Cathal Lombard and should he represent Ireland again? Lombard's reason for using EPO was to LEVEL the playing field.
Chambers said along those lines, That he wouldnt be able to win with taking EPO.

The ban used to be 4 years for drug abuse, its 2 no for reasons unkown.

Stupid_Private

The reason they're turning their noses up at him is not fully to do with the fact that he used drugs before. From what I gather he effectively retired and went to play American Football (!!) but he didn't offically retire. When he left athletics he was removed from the testing list, so he hasn't had a drugs test in over a year. Now he's turned up, saying he didn't really retire and its not his fault he was removed from the testing lists. The UK Athletics are now saying they don't want to select anyone that they hasn't had a drugs test in so long.

Pherekydes

Well, he was tested only about 3 weeks ago.

And anyway, this lark about him not being tested is a red herring. Marion Jones passed 160 odd tests during her during her reign as Drug Queen, so negative tests mean nothing.

Secondly, the fact that he was off the test lists is the UKA's problem; why should he be punished further for their stupidity?

Thirdly, the governing bodies, coaches athletes and fans bemoan the fact that athletes break the rules and want life bans for doing so, but they don't want the current rules upheld. The rules are in place; two years for a drugs' ban. Now that he's served his, the governing bodies (and other interested parties) can suck it up and play to the rules themselves.

Fourthly, UK athletes (and some others) get life bans from the Olympics, while athletes of most other countries do not. All Olympic sports and all nations should have to follow the same set of rules, don't you think.

Lastly, The Olympic Games and the World Indoors are two separate competitions. They are not linked. Many athletes will skip the World Indoors as they see fit. The UK authorities are trying to link the World Indoors to Chambers' lifetime ban from the Olympics. That ban is probably not legally sound.

Rules are there for all to follow, from the top down.

High&Low

I think he might have been "retired" last year and not registered as an athlete. In order to be eligible to run (even at club level) you have to be regsitered with UK Athletics. Its the same with Athletics Ireland.

As he was not registered as an athlete last year he was not obliged to make his wherabouts at all times known to the official body, therefore he was not subject to any out of competition drug testing last year.

Technically he could have trained all last year without the fear of being tested, taken whatever he wanted and have everything out of his system for the start of the season. That is why the rule is in place.

He decided not to be a registered athlete, not UK Athletics. He has obviously been in training for a while, he is in great shape and running as fast as he ever has indoors, so he should have registered earlier or at least made it known that he was planning on coming out of retirement.

The Olympic ban is a rule that was put in place by the British Olympic Association and is for all olympic sports not just athletics.

petethedrummer

High&Low wrote: »

He decided not to be a registered athlete, not UK Athletics. He has obviously been in training for a while, he is in great shape and running as fast as he ever has indoors, so he should have registered earlier or at least made it known that he was planning on coming out of retirement.

I think his argument is that they removed him from the register even though he never requested to be removed. They did send him a letter of notification, but he chose not to respond.

I think on balance he should probably be allowed represent the UK.

Pherekydes

High&Low wrote: »

The Olympic ban is a rule that was put in place by the British Olympic Association and is for all olympic sports not just athletics.

Yes, I know that. I'm referring to the cases of athletes representing other nations. Many athletes who have served bans will be in Beijing representing their nations.

Other sports do not have the same rules regarding drug bans that Athletics has, despite the fact that they're Olympic sports. Rio Ferdinand got away with a 9 month ban for a missed test that would result in a 2 year ban if it were Athletics. Manu weren't deducted any points even though they won a fair few while Ferdinand played for them while awaiting his hearing.

It should also be noted that World Triathlon champion, Tim Don, served only a 3 month ban for the exact same offence that Christine Ohurougu got a year for.

Athletics and athletes are getting a raw deal.

The rules should be consistent and fair across all sports, particularly all Olympic sports.

Dodge

Slow coach wrote: »

Rio Ferdinand got away with a 9 month ban for a missed test that would result in a 2 year ban if it were Athletics.

He missed one test. Aren't athletes allowed miss 2 before a ban is issued?

Athletics and athletes are getting a raw deal.

The rules should be consistent and fair across all sports, particularly all Olympic sports.

Its because Athletics (and cycling) is a sport where performance enhancing drugs have an almost immediate impact. Rio Ferdiand going 3% won't really help his career, in the 100 metres it could be the difference.

If Chambers was Irish I wouldn't like to see him represent us. I don't feel athletes are hard done by at all.

A P

Dodge wrote: »

If Chambers was Irish I wouldn't like to see him represent us. I don't feel athletes are hard done by at all.

I couldn't agree more. I recommend the book "Game of Shadows" by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. It describes the investigation of Victor Conte and his Balco operation, and it sheds light on the extent of doping in top-level sports, especially baseball and sprinting. I don't think I'll ever look at a 100m final again without having the word drugs in my mind. I never want to see Chambers on a track again.

Dodge

A P wrote: »

I don't think I'll ever look at a 100m final again without having the word drugs in my mind. I never want to see Chambers on a track again.

This is the thing. I think the majority of sprinters are clean but as long as people who have used performance enhancing drugs are still around, there will always be a cloud around the sport. And thats simply not fair on the clean athletes

Pherekydes

Dodge wrote: »

He missed one test. Aren't athletes allowed miss 2 before a ban is issued?

Nope, this is not the case.

The testers turned up to test Ferdinand, and he skipped off. This is a doping violation. He knew about the test but didn't take it.

In Ohurougu's and Don's cases, the testers turned up but they missed the athletes. It's impossible to account for your whereabouts 24/7, so that's why they're allowed 3 of these in 18 months.

robinph

Although UK Athletics were not testing him it seems that his removal from thier testing program was just down to them and he didn't consider himself retired according to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7237499.stm

BBC News wrote:

UKA agreed to accept Chambers could compete in Sheffield under IAAF rules as he had constantly informed the athletics' governing body of his whereabouts.

I don't think he should be part of the team though, but mostly due to the fact that he is excluded from the Olympics.

Pherekydes

Well, he's in.

news

Jay P

I think its all a load of rubbish. Yes, he did wrong but he served his sentance. I dont see why they cant just leave him be and let him run. Fair play to him for coming back, and stickin it to the man.

thirtyfoot

Jay P wrote: »

I think its all a load of rubbish. Yes, he did wrong but he served his sentance. I dont see why they cant just leave him be and let him run. Fair play to him for coming back, and stickin it to the man.

I mostly agree, served his time and time for all to move on. It'll be interesting to see what he does clean. I'm tired of how this is such a huge media story when the sport is pretty exciting at the moment with many great athletes. No failed drug tests in Osaka, no large govt run governing bodies (except China) so less chance of eastern block style institutional doping and with reducing popularity and less money there is less motivation and reward for drug cheating - maybe naive but thats how I see it.

You can read as many books as you want or read as many journalists who make their living by writing about doping as opposed to the sports, but the vast majority of athletes now are clean and until they test positive I will believe in them. There are cheats in all sports and t&f and cycling do get lynched the most.

myflipflops

The decision taken to pick him was purely legal. UKA went to their lawyers and said "If we refuse to pick him are we liable to legal recourse", the lawyers have said 'yes' so he's in.

Chambers is perfectly entitled to compete under the governing rules but it's incredble the rules allow him eligibility. I mean, he's admitted steroid use before and then he went and spent a year trying to make it in American Football. American Football is a arguably the dirtiest sport in the world with regard to steroid abuse. If his goal was to get to the NFL then he would have needed to use drugs again. He has serious front coming back to athletics and i shall openly boo him at any live event i see him at this year.

TheRoadRunner

pwhite587 wrote: »

The decision taken to pick him was purely legal. UKA went to their lawyers and said "If we refuse to pick him are we liable to legal recourse", the lawyers have said 'yes' so he's in.

Chambers is perfectly entitled to compete under the governing rules but it's incredble the rules allow him eligibility. I mean, he's admitted steroid use before and then he went and spent a year trying to make it in American Football. American Football is a arguably the dirtiest sport in the world with regard to steroid abuse. If his goal was to get to the NFL then he would have needed to use drugs again. He has serious front coming back to athletics and i shall openly boo him at any live event i see him at this year.

Yep I agree totally. Its legal for him to run and based on that then he should. You are right the rules should be altered in some way but as they stand he is eligible to run.

I personally think he is still dirty. He looks pretty "pumped" up and his performances the weekend were amazing considering he was training for a different sport.

Pherekydes

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Yep I agree totally. Its legal for him to run and based on that then he should. You are right the rules should be altered in some way but as they stand he is eligible to run.

I personally think he is still dirty. He looks pretty "pumped" up and his performances the weekend were amazing considering he was training for a different sport.

I think he's clean now. He's lost a bit of the bulk he had back when he tested +ve. It wouldn't take an experienced sprinter long to get really race sharp. Getting in shape is a skill that is common across many sports, and American Football, with its emphasis on explosiveness, has a training regime that is highly conducive to fast sprinting. The 2nd placer at the US national championships, Trindon Holliday, played for LSU the last 2 seasons.

thirtyfoot

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

I personally think he is still dirty.

What are you basing that on? Sounds like a pretty unsubstantiated statement which shouldn't be allowed on this forum without some backup. Do you have backup or are you just going on a hunch? Maybe he should he run a little slower so not as to create suspicion.

myflipflops

Tingle wrote: »

What are you basing that on? Sounds like a pretty unsubstantiated statement which shouldn't be allowed on this forum without some backup. Do you have backup or are you just going on a hunch? Maybe he should he run a little slower so not as to create suspicion.

I think it's fair enough for him to state what is clearly a personal opinion. I certainly would be sceptical about anybody from American Football coming into the sport. If you consider that in the NFL, the ban for a 1st steroids offence is 4 weeks, it is not a sport looking to clean up it's image.

Having said all this, Chambers is entitled to run and as such is doing nothing wrong. Blaming an athlete, whoever they may be, for a flawed system is wrong.

myflipflops

Jay P wrote: »

Fair play to him for coming back, and stickin it to the man.

Just saw this now, what "man" is he sticking it to? The man trying to clean up the sport? The "man" trying to compete drug free in a dirty sport?

TheRoadRunner

Tingle wrote: »

What are you basing that on? Sounds like a pretty unsubstantiated statement which shouldn't be allowed on this forum without some backup. Do you have backup or are you just going on a hunch? Maybe he should he run a little slower so not as to create suspicion.

Not basing it on anything, it is unsubstantiated, is totally based on personal hunch and is just my opinion. I'll include disclaimers in future.

Maybe I should rephrase by saying, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out he is using steroids again !

Jay P

pwhite587 wrote: »

Just saw this now, what "man" is he sticking it to? The man trying to clean up the sport? The "man" trying to compete drug free in a dirty sport?

The "man" that doesn't want him running again, ie the British Athletics Federation or whatever they're called. They can't prevent him from running if he can run the times required.

Stupid_Private

Tingle wrote: »

What are you basing that on? Sounds like a pretty unsubstantiated statement which shouldn't be allowed on this forum without some backup. Do you have backup or are you just going on a hunch? Maybe he should he run a little slower so not as to create suspicion.

I'd personally base it on the once a cheater, always a cheater rule.

thirtyfoot

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I'd personally base it on the once a cheater, always a cheater rule.

Do you apply that to all sports? Ronaldo or Andy Johnson dives in the last minute of a game and gets a penalty, do you then presume everytime he wins a penalty after that he has dived? Jerry Flannery stamps on a guys head in a ruck, do you presume everytime there is an incidint in a ruck that Flannery automatically stamped on a guys head after that? Joanne Cuddihy is DQ'ed for running out of her lane, do we presume she will always do this in future races or Michelle Carey breaks the plane of the hurdle on the bend etc etc? Incidents not as serious as doping (or are they!) but still it can be seen as cheating and once a cheater, always a cheater.

I see your point but rules are the rules and you have to give people the benefit of the doubt, I can't see how you can watch the sport otherwise.

TheRoadRunner

Chambers is back and running in the world indoors. Fair enough.

I'm guessing he is hoping to win a medal and continue this into outdoor racing and any other major champs he is permitted to compete in.

This is the same guy who said you cannot win a championship medal if you are not on drugs. So it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to suggest he may be on on something. Well that is unless

1) He is running just to be competitive and scrape into finals.

2) His outlook has dramatically changed and he now thinks it is possible to win clean.

By the way anytime I see Ronaldo fall in the 18 yard box I generally think he is cheating so yeah once a cheat always a cheat (with my tongue firmly in cheek ).

Stupid_Private

ok... I was taking the piss with the once a cheater, aways a cheater rule...

I personally don't believe he should be allowed to take part. I realise that the UK Athletics messed up by assuming he had retired without getting confirmation from the IAAF. I don't think someone should be allowed participate for their country if they haven't been regularly tested over the past 12 months. Yes, he was tested a few weeks back but that was after he announced his comeback and if he had been taking anything while "retired" he was hardly going to still be taking it after making a comeback. He's clearly stupid for doing it in the first place but not that stupid.

You can't really compare taking drugs for over 18 months before getting caught to going out of your lane in a race... can you??!

thirtyfoot

Stupid_Private wrote: »

You can't really compare taking drugs for over 18 months before getting caught to going out of your lane in a race... can you??!

You're right, I wasn't intending to.

Think the problem is the rules are problem. Maybe it should be a lifetime ban for drug offences. Chambers isn't a monster. He has been competing in track all his life, he loves the sport like most top athletes and wants to train and compete. He was stupid and probably misguided when the carrot was dangled, the same as Lombard, and probably made comments when banned which weren't wise. The rules allow him to compete so if I was him I would compete too. Presuming he is clean if he can run close to what he did when dirty it will be a great achievement and possibly an indication to those out there who believe you need drugs to run very fast times that there is another way thats clean. But then again if he does run fast and never fails a test, we all know what they'll say:(

justsomebloke

there are a lot of sports out there that people come out of retirement to compete again, so I think people can really use that excuse to judge him.

Also as indicated he moved to american football, chances are as something like a wide receiver where he probably would have maintained quite a bit of sprint training and with the money in american football he may have had access to training methods that he never did before.

Ok he broke the rules and now everyone here is looking for the UKA to brake their rules and get him out. I think hypocrites is the word I am looking for. Truthfully I don't know why people are so against chambers, as such he isn't the problem. The problem is the rules that let him compete in the first place, so if you want to boo someone why don't you boo the people who created the rules that are letting him compete in the first place

A P

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Not basing it on anything, it is unsubstantiated, is totally based on personal hunch and is just my opinion. I'll include disclaimers in future.

Maybe I should rephrase by saying, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out he is using steroids again !

Well you're not alone in your personal hunch! Maybe his current physique can still be attributed to his THG days from a few years ago, but I have my doubts. The BBC website last year reported that Chambers was getting supplements from Victor Conte again (legal of course). If the man has turned over a new leaf, I reckon this is a questionable move.
In fairness to Chambers, David Walsh (Sunday Times journalist) made some valid points about the case last night on Newstalk. He is vehemently anti-doping, but he argued that Chambers is a convenient scapegoat; that there are thousands of cheats worldwide evading justice and that our anger should be directed at the current laws which allow a mere 2-year ban for a positive test for anabolic steroids.
Anyway, for what it's worth, any time Chambers runs again will have a little asterisk beside it in my head.