Sports drug cheats

emmie | 18:05 Fri 27th Apr 2012 | Sport

36 Answers

do you reckon that the likes of Dwain Chambers should be allowed to take part in the Olympics. I don't, and anyone who has done it. It surely sends the wrong message, and those who don't do it must feel pretty hacked off.

whats the financial rewards for finishing 6th , 7th or 8th in ...

BSB on Euosport.

Answers

1 to 20 of 36

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by emmie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

hideaway

I would be hopping mad if I'd have been training like a dervish to get to the Olympics and then possibly lost my place because a drug cheat has been given another chance. A ban should mean for life. Who would now trust any result that the athlete in question attained.

emmie

Question Author

exactly, just like the bad old days. They should ban them for life, and that should mean they don't get to take part.

Everhelpful

All cheats,never mind drug cheats, should be banned for Life.

emmie

Question Author

i agree, however if someone takes performance enhancing drugs, why should those who haven't cheated be made to perform against them. Says a lot for our idea of fair play.

zebo

I think that the BOA wanted a lifetime ban but were told by some international organisation that they couldn't do that. We like to knock ourselves as a country but this is one of the few countries to take drug cheats seriously, the fact remains that the other major sporting countries prefer to win medals rather than take a stand. If the BOA can't impose a lifetme ban however, there's no reason that they have to select him or any of the others.

craft1948

I think you'll find zebo that Dwain Chambers would kick up a huge fuss, and have some very good lawyers, if he wasn't picked for the Olympics under the current selection process.
Personally I don't know how the man has the gall to continue in athletics.

emmie

Question Author

not just him, any cheat, its unfair to all the clean athletes.

snags

Let the druggies compete but in their own separate Olympic races: I bet I'm not the only one who, out of curiosity, would like to see the 100 meters run in under 6 seconds ;-p

daffy654

I'm with snags on this one. lol :)

emmie

Question Author

the thing is, if Chambers takes part and wins, how will anyone believe it wasn't done because of performance enhancing drugs. With the best will in the world i would imagine that there are ways these can be hidden from the screening process.

MichaelZZ

One way to really show up Dwain C in front of the whole world would be for all the other competitors in his race to just amble out of the blocks when the starting pistol goes. DC would be off like a ferret up a drainpipe and the others could just stand there applauding. They could also take it one stage further by not turning up for any medal ceremony that he might be involved in.

emmie

Question Author

good idea, but doubt they would do it. After all they could all end up disqualified.

NOX

I personally think that until there is a global board of arbitration ( so that it is fair for all countries) that he should be allowed to compete, bearing in mind he'll be competing against all sorts of international drug cheats, or are we to shoot ourselves in the foot and say 'Our best runner isn't allowed to play because he once made a huge mistake, so we'll let your drug cheats beat our second best and take the moral high ground'. Sorry but that's just so unrealistic it's laughable, no wonder we never get any medals.

Brenden

The unfairness is that we impose a life-time ban and other countries a two year ban, I loathe cheats and wish he were not competing, but he has a point. Cannot see him beating Bolt - so maybe some poetic justice.

emmie

Question Author

so if they all cheat, which i very much doubt, what is the point of having the games, or indeed any sport where you award medals.

Slapshot

This is a very important piece of sports law that's being looked at just now, the BOA's Lifetime Ban was being challenged by WADA, the World Anti Doping Authority.

Background: When WADA was created by the IOC to be the WORLD Authority on doping it was with the backing of EVERY national Olympic Authority and a multitude of sports federations who wanted to take part in Olympic Competition, being a signatory is compulsory if you want to compete. The WADA Code is The Sports Law which governs Anti Doping and as a signatory BOA like many other federations must comply. If you are found guilty of a doping offence you serve a TWO year suspension and that's it you are entitled to compete again you cannot have additional sanctions. The BOA's Lifetime Ban (though I agree with it) is against the Sporting Laws created and managed by WADA at their behest as an IOC body.

What this means is that sporting law is becoming fairer and more open. While it may not be right that the likes of Chambers and David Millar are allowed to compete it means that Team GB compete on the same level playing field as every other Olympic Nation, I'd rather have that.

This judgement by the Court for Arbitration in Sport, a body set up by the IOC and it's members to rule in these cases, will allow a fairer application of the WADA Code as it currently stands. The WADA Code is also currently being looked at to revise, evolve and create new rules to govern sport fairly for all, this is likely to include new guidance on sanctions and do away with the Strict Liability Clause which has seen many athletes unfairly convicted of offences over the years, Alain Baxter the British Skier jumps to mind and Alberto Contador the Spanish cyclist. Alain used a Vicks Nasal Spray which was legal in the UK but a different US formulation of the spray rendered him guilty, the Strict Liability Clause did for him. In Contadors case a trace of Clenbuterol so small it can only be measured electronically was found in his system. Neither the cyclist, the UCI (cycling's governing body), WADA or CAS were able to prove what caused the drug to be in his system but had to sanction him because of strict liability.

While you don't want to lose your place to a doper at any time how would feel in fourth knowing the whole podium had past doping offences against them but could legally compete?

What the BOA fails to talk about is the number of times they have turned a blind eye to athletes who have been sanctioned under anti doping law, the most prolific being Christina Ohurugu at the Beijing Games, favourite for a GB gold on the Track therefore she gets a pass. This hypocracy within British sport needs to be wheedled out to remove any threat of unfairness. Sport has to be fair on a global scale.

Slapshot

@ NOX....that body exists, it's called WADA (see above) problem is that many federations and Olympic authorities think they are above it despiter the fact they fought to set it up...

emmie

Question Author

but it obviously isn't fair. I don't believe the likes of Seb Coe ever cheated, and that whilst there have been others who have, they should have been banned for life, and no come backs.

Brenden

Could not agree with you more em, but until they get their house in order and make cheating a global life ban cheats will still be able to partake in the games.