So then...
Dwain Chambers: should he represent team GB in Beijing?

Lets sort this out once and for all.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 11:45, 23 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

He's not going to...
and that's the right decision.

Running = boring anyway*.

*unless running away from angry, jungle animal
( thealternativefact, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 11:55, Reply)

Ah.
I see the high court has sorted it out for me.

See? This is what happens when you try and have an honest debate. The courts get involved.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 11:57, Reply)

Ok...
Runners go around an oval track...
Greyhounds run round an oval track...

I hereby call for "X-Treme Dog Walking".
( Cawl, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 11:59, Reply)

He IS a cheating cunt.
Why did he think that a lifetime ban could be overturned simply because he's been good enough to not take illegal performance-enhancing (ahem) drugs since then?

Oh three fucking cheers for you Dwain. You've managed not to cheat. You deserve a reward.

Anyway, he might have won, and that's just not British.
( thealternativefact, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:00, Reply)

Only the English
would prevent their greatest ever sprinter from representing them in the Olympics. He's served his time. The ban is up. If he's clean, let him run.
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:01, Reply)

fair point al
still, the boy should run.

Tiocfaidh ar la!
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:05, Reply)

I hope your day will come.
However, Dwain's won't.
( thealternativefact, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:07, Reply)

^Yeah...
But according to the rules of the BOC, a ban (of whatever length) invalidates an athletes opportunity to compete at the Olympics.

He knew that when he was taking the steroids. He knew he might get caught. But he persisted.

He should be banned. It's not anything to do with the fact he's the best sprinter we've had for ages, it's to do with the fact he's a cheating shit.

EDIT: and if you're that good at running fast, why should you have to take steroids? If you want to run faster, then train harder. I wouldn't mind if he was rubbish, but he's run a 10-flat this season. He's clearly very good.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:07, Reply)

I've mixed feelings...
He's done his time and repaid his debt, but he'll be forever tainted by his doping conviction.

If he does compete in Beijing then the press will go crazy, but I can't help feeling that it's only right he's given a chance to redeem himself.

Even if he's a cheating bastard.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:12, Reply)

I suppose there's a point there...
But how would you feel if you were a 'clean' athelete who'd worked hard and long to get to the Olympics, ponly to have a convicted cheat among you?

Not only does it take the shine off of the team, the press would focus on the performance of the drug cheat and not on some of our great olympians.

Bring back Eddie the Eagle, that's what I say. Drop the minimum requirements, and make the Olympics about endeavour again.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:15, Reply)

I know spriniting is not the same as rowing.
But, Sir Stephen Redgrave managed to win 5 olympic gold medals without performance enhancing drugs.

He is a true olympian.

Dwaine Chambers cheated then thought everything would be ok because he admitted to it. If you admit to cheating on an exam to you still expect to get keep your grade? In my opinion owning up to cheating does not make you brave. It makes you a twat for cheating in the first place.
( wanderlust, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:17, Reply)

DiT makes a good point
He knew that by cheating he would receive a lifetime ban from the Olympics.

Surely now he's been caught he can't really complain about receiving a lifetime ban from the Olympics...
( Moey, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:20, Reply)

I agree with DiT.
Dwain knew the risks when he took the steroids, but he did it anyway. If you stand to lose eveything but know it'll be reinstated in time for possible Olympic glory, where's the deterrent?

Surely winning whilst drug-fuelled can't feel anywhere near as good as coming second or third driven only by determination and skill, can it?
( thealternativefact, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:21, Reply)

"and if you're that good at running fast, why should you have to take steroids?"
Listening to his interviews on the subject he sounds reasonably pragmatic about it. He asserts that the best runner in the world has to hope someone on drugs either has an off day or gets caught - it makes that big a difference.

So when you're a top class athlete you've quite probably got a "must win, no matter the cost" attitude and will therefore possibly consider steroids as a measured risk. I'd be interested to know if other countries would enforce a life-time ban for their best sprinters in the same situation.

For steroid abuse it's black and white, we can clearly see it's cheating. Look at something a little more blurry though like footballers diving e.g. the Italians' last minute penalty against Australia in the 2006 World Cup. Diving is a concious decision to cheat but top class footballers still do it because to them it's more important to win than be the best.
( djtrialprice, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:27, Reply)

I forget which comedian it was...
But someone suggested that we make steroids in athletics mandatory.

Or give them dope.

Of course! It was Eddie Izzard!

The problem is, though, that steroids are rife in athletics. Even Linford Christie admitted to taking them. And they let him present 'Record Breakers'.

EDIT: I see what you're saying, djtrialprice, but to me that attitude is retarded (the athletes, that is, not yours). If you want to be the best at something, you've got to work at it, not take short cuts. A victory won by cheating must feel pretty hollow.

I'm not sure that a dive in football can be viewed in the same light. There is a referee and several line judges on hand for that. You can't punish retroactively in football (for that kind of thing), so we have a fairly good case for video refereeing there.

The problem with athletics is that drug testing is random. If there was some kind of constant screen they had to do and submit to the IAAF (maybe something like a diabetes prick test?) it might help eradicate drugh cheats.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:29, Reply)

Kriss Akabusi
If that man wasn't completely fucked off his tits the whole time I would be very surprised.

Gurning buffoon!
( Boss Keloid Got your mother's maiden name tattooed on my arm, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:32, Reply)

AWOOOOOOOOGA!
Kriss Akabusi never said AWOOGA! (it was Fash) but those stories are fucking hilarious!
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:34, Reply)

this sort of thing crops up in law and people's perception of it quite frequently
with speed cameras for instance. the tabloid letter pages are constantly full of people complaining about them.

if you don't like it, don't speed. simple as that.

this is a similar issue when you get to the bones of it.

if you choose to break the rules, you have to accept the punishment.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:46, Reply)

^this
although I like Clarkson. he amuses me.

edit: he's turned into a caricature of himself
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:56, Reply)

I must say...
That I like Clarkson too. I think a lot of what he says is for shock value.

But Speed Cameras? Well, they're a necessary evil, aren't they? OK, they might make money for councils that isn't ploughed back in to roads or road safety... But the point, as Al has already so eloquently made, is that if you don't want a speeding fine, don't speed.
( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:58, Reply)

Clarkson.
I bought one of his books and laughed my arse off.
My friends were dismayed.
( thealternativefact, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 13:06, Reply)

@DiT
I agree, if you're the best you shouldn't take shortcuts otherwise any victory is ultimately empty.

With regard to the refs etc. being on hand to witness the diving, well, they sometimes do but it doesn't stop a lot of players from doing it. I view it as the same mentality as a drugs cheat (of course to a much less serious degree) but it's concious cheating as is fouling a player you know you know you're not quick enough to tackle. Winning by purposely breaking rules isn't winning.
( djtrialprice, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 13:07, Reply)

Only problem I have with Speed cameras
...is that they put the emphasis on the wrong thing.

I completely agree with the fundamental purpose, i.e. that there's a limit, you break it and you may get caught. I'm not even going to make an argument for "appropriate for the conditions", e.g. doing 35mph at 4 AM on a tuesday morning.

What I mean is that the focus is taken from those factors which are more jedgement based, e.g. tailgating, driving w/o due care, recklessly eating a banana, drink driving. Where you have a physical policeman (not council employee in a van), who can make a judgement and determine what is poor or dangerous behavious, this avoids the yes/no nature of the camera. It's organisational nature to redirect resources to targets, and if the road policing targets are primarily speeding, then where these are achieved, resources will be suffled elsewhere (e.g. Brazilian electrician patrols)

There is one more thing that I dislike abou them though. the increasing digitisation and convergence of surveilance technologies mean that the country becomes a surveilence culture by stealth. We already know that the Congestian charge system is available in real time to MI5. SPECS and ANPR systems for tax discs checking provide a simple method of tracking individuals through existing government records.

For a long time I've asked how long it will take for SPECS systems to be mounted on all road networks, so that an individual vehicle can be tracked across the country point-to-point. With the announcements this week about the proposed £6bn managed motorway system - this is exactly what's proposed.

Once this is in place, what's to stop then next phase being automatic analysis of every journey? Analysing your average speed and automatically ticketing you if you go above the limit on any segment? Recalling you for additional driving behavioural retraining if you drive for more than 10 hours in one day? Generating a motoring environmental impact statement and charging you accordingly.

The worst of it is that I'm not necessaily saying that these would be bad things(!), but I for one don't want to have my every move scrutinised by whitehall...

...and to think people are getting miffed about Google Street View cameras.
( Fireflier La la la la, not listening on, Fri 18 Jul 2008, 13:57, Reply)