ChatterBank2 mins ago
Sports drug cheats
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.
Answers
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.