Dwain Chambers for or against?

[Mikey]

I know its not garden related, but I think its a very unusual position as a nation we find ourselves in. As you may well know his challenge to be allowed into the olympics failed, but was this a just outcome?

Dwain has made a very costly mistake he took drugs to gain an advantage, he doesn't deny it and he has served his 2 year ban. So should he continue to suffer for his mistake? I stand firmly on the no drugs side, but I do feel for him. If he was from another country other than ours he would be going, is it right that we take a sterner approach than others, or are we just harming our own chances of success?

His actions hurt the sport and hurt his colleagues who had to return their gold medals from the relay. Is it right though, that he should be hampered from making a living, he is a sportsman who makes money from appearances after all and the Olympics is a global stage.

Where do you fall in this argument?

[lynda66]

i think a lifetime ban was very harsh, yes i feel for his team mates, and the people he let down, he's served his time ..... in any other profession including any other sport except athletics, he would be back playing the sport he's dedicated his life to ...... if he was from any other country except china, he would be able to run ...... and make up for his past mistakes by proving that it is possible to win without cheating ........ and to me that makes him a good role model ........ he cheated, he admitted what he did, he cleaned up, and could prove to youngsters that they can make mistakes but make things better

if he had raped someone he would probably be able to run, is there a rule that says you cant compete with a criminal record?? ...... he didn't physically hurt anyone else, he just made some really bad choices

[SarzWix]

Dunno, it's a tough one innit?
If those were the rules when he took the steroids, then he knew the choice he was making, didn't he? You know the saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
I would imagine it's supposed to be a deterrant - if you do drugs, you won't be allowed to compete in the Olympics. If they change the rule, they'll be taking away the deterrant.

[gojiberry]

Fraid I'm old fashioned, he tried to cheat and as far as I'm concerned that is the end of it, never to compete again. There are plenty of instances of one mistake and your whole life is never going to be the same again. He new the risks when he took those drugs and was prepared to take those risks, so no sympathy either I'm afraid.

Ian

[Mikey]

Yes and no, sarzwix, should they be allowed to give a lifetime ban in the first place? If he is clean now, and I am sure he is watched more closely than others, is he not also equal. It is their own system that says the first two past the post go, so are they not just bringing up excuses to keep him out? Seems very mean to me, don't make a mistake because we will punish you forever!!!

There are many over the counter drugs which are banned substances by the athletic bodies, its easy to make mistakes. I'm not saying his was in this case.

[rogesse]

Should Nick Leeson be given a job with Barclays

I suspect a convicted rapist would not be acceptable to public opinion!

I do have some sympathy, however what example would it set if he were allowed to compete? A better example to all would be ICL allowing that brilliant young lad entrance to the medical school having turned his life around after transgressions further back in his youth.

[Mikey]

Fraid I'm old fashioned, he tried to cheat and as far as I'm concerned that is the end of it, never to compete again. There are plenty of instances of one mistake and your whole life is never going to be the same again. He new the risks when he took those drugs and was prepared to take those risks, so no sympathy either I'm afraid.

Ian

mmm...should he have been allowed to compete in the first place then? There seems little point allowing him to practise if he is never allowed of the bench?There should be a ruling that either allows it or not, not this hap hazard approach.

[smallblueplanet]

He's a cheat. I'm glad he's not representing us.

Thats all there is to it for me.

[quark1]

I have had many a discussion with my son about Chambers.

He's served his 'time' and is desperate to win an Olympic gold.

I don't recall seeing any campaign other than 'self' that Chambers has waged.

If, and I say IF, he had spent some of his 'down' time ACTIVELY vistiting schools, gyms, and sports clubs lecturing along the lines of 'see what a fool I've been - chucked it all away for short-term gain' - to dissuade would-be 'dabblers' in enhancements away from any temptation before they got involved I perhaps would be more sympathetic. As far as I know he has not.

His argument was about not being able to earn a living by upholding the ban - well did anyone 'force' Chambers to take then enhancements or did he take them volutarily? If he was 'fed' them by a corrupt trainer then perhaps there would be a case - but he evidently took the risk quite knowlingly - on his own admission.

If I was another athlete lined up against him i would simply stand when the starting gun went 'in protest' and let the 'cheat' win under his own strength. It would be quite a sight if 7 other potential world beaters just stood still whilst Chambers ran to the finish solo in a high class field.

The other view could be that if they have all-comers like when they opened up Winmbledon to Amateurs and Pros then we would be looking at the enhanced ones with weeny 'sphericals', liver damage, kidney damage and the failing of many other organs over the course of their lives - not evident when running, throwing or whatever - but in their dotage when long forgotten. Their dotage of course will arrive many years before the noramally accepted age of dotage.

Team GB DOES need Gold Medals - but not at any price - imho.

They MUST be honourably and honestly win or they're worth zilch.

[Mikey]

If he is clean now, is it not honestly won, is he not standing there equal to all others?

[Capsid]

If he is clean now, is it not honestly won, is he not standing there equal to all others?

How do we know that the drugs he took have not enhanced his body muscle and therefore his sprinting abilty more than if he had not taken them? Because there is this doubt he can't compete on an equal footing. The ban is correct.

[SarzWix]

It all comes back to him knowing, when he took the steroids, that he would have a lifetime Olympic ban. They haven't changed the rules, and why should they? He knew what would happen when he took them! If there are punishments for something, you can't change them just because somebody says "Aww, please, I didn't mean it" !! What's to stop others doing it then? If they can think "Oh well, it's a couple of years ban & then back to normal". I rather respect the Olympic Committee for sticking to their guns.
And if you go on about Other countries would allow him to compete, well, other countries don't have such stringent animal welfare standards as us, or an NHS, etc, should we change those things too?!

[Starchild]

The right decision was made. He cheated, he should take his ban like a man, not like someone throwing his toys out of his pram.

[Starchild]

My daughter is 10, she does competative fencing, even she has to take urine tests if asked. We have to provide a list of all medications she is on, including herbal and vitamins before a match. If we don't mention something she can even be banned at her young age.

[jacob marley]

He cheated end of story if he ran in China he would be representing YOU and ME would you like the rest of the world pointing fingers .
There is no need for it as for making a living i thought they was Amatuer's but then i am a bit thick jacob marley