Chambers fights British pomp(ousness) and circumstances

Is it any surprise athletes have only minimal faith in anti-doping efforts when the people in charge of them apply rules as they see fit?

Latest example: efforts by the holier-than-thou British Olympic Assn. to keep sprinter Dwain Chambers off its 2008 team, even though he won the 100 meters at Britain's Olympic trials Saturday.

Chambers, among those identified as dopers in the BALCO scandal, came clean and served a two-year ban that ended in 2005. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, that is the penalty for a first violation for steroid use.

The fact that Chambers took steroids on multiple occasions is irrelevant. A longer ban applies only if a known second violation occurs after the athlete has been banned.

The Brits decided in 1992 to add a by-law to their Olympic association rules that would prohibit any athlete banned for a violation of doping rules to compete in an Olympic Games.

That rule runs counter to the globally applicable anti-doping code, as Chambers' attorneys will argue this week in court, seeking an injunction against the BOA ban. The BOA undoubtedly will argue that its rule predates the WADA code.

No other British athlete has challenged the BOA rule, partly because of the costs involved. That is not an issue for Chambers because he is getting pro bono legal representation.

Many athletes have succeeded in appealing suspensions to the BOA in cases where drug tests were missed or the bans were for "lesser" substances, like stimulants. One of them is runner Christine Ohuruogu, reigning world champion at 400 meters, who could have been banned from the 2008 Summer Games because she missed three scheduled doping controls.

The BOA conveniently waived its Olympic ban three months after Ohuruogu won the 2007 world title, saying the notification system was too new or too complicated or some such poppycock. It also waived the Olympic ban on 2006 triathlon world champion Tim Don for similar reasons.

Former WADA boss Dick Pound, two-time Olympic hurdles champion Edwin Moses of the U.S. and Olympic triple jump champion Jonathan Edwards, a British sports icon, are among those who have criticized the BOA ban of Chambers. Pound did it on purely legal grounds, Moses and Edwards on fairness grounds. Edwards previously had urged Chambers to quit track and field because his presence was damaging the sport.

"I believe in second chances," Edwards told the Daily Mail 10 days ago.

Isn't that what the idea of serving a sentence is supposed to mean?

-- Philip Hersh

Photo: Dwain Chambers after winning the 100 meters Saturday. Credit: David Jones / Associated Press

Comments

[Mark]

Philip Hersh says "Isn't that what the idea of serving a sentence is supposed to mean?".

Philip Hersh clearly doesn't get the point that the sentence is a permanent exclusion from the British Olympic squad. This isn't a retroactive application of rules, Chambers knew the penalty when he chose to take performance enhancing drugs and, contrary to Philip Hersh's vacuous and uninformed claims to the contrary, this rule has been consistently applied since 1992.

Unfair? Far from it - and it is a shame that Philip Hersh doesn't see fit to mention the fact that the vast majority of British athletes fully support the rule and would really prefer not to be on the same team as a self-confessed cheat.

[Tom Cracknell]

On the contrary I think the BOA's stance is perfect. Chambers knew from the beginning that if he was caught taking drugs he would face a ban and would never be allowed to represent Great Britain at the Olympics. No ifs no buts. He's not being overly punished as he is allowed to compete at all other internaitonal championships, but not the Olympics. He knew the consequences and yet he decided to continue, hence it is entirely reasonable to exclude him from the olympics.

We don't want our British team to face the same immense problems of the USOC where practically every olympic champion is assumed to have taken drugs. Far from criticizing the BOA you should be glad that at least someone is trying to retain the integrity of the Olympic Games, something which has been greatly damaged by the USOC and it's many, many drug cheats.

[Colin Livingstone]

I refer to the Dwain Chambers controversy in the British 100 metres Olympic trials. I am a British athletics coach, who agrees with the decision to ban Chambers from Olympic competition.The Olympic ideal encompasses honour, sportsmanship and ethics.

True, Chambers has served his ban, but knowingly took steroids over an extended time frame.Just because 'other countries' restore athletes to competition after a ban does not make it ethically or morally right.

Too many selfish or morally bankrupt people are interested in their 'rights' as opposed to their 'responsibilities'.This is the age of the lawsuit and the whining celebrity.

Chambers was a fool.Completely culpable, any athlete who takes drugs exhibits weak character and lack of faith in his ability and training.These are hardly the qualities of the heroes of Olympus.

I say a lifetime ban for any dopers.No messing about...scalpel the rot out with a clean cut.Chambers should get on with the rest of his life instead of tainting our sport in the UK.