well... our fastest sprinter over 100 metres has been disappointed in his quest to get his olympic ban overturned.

 

he was caught using banned substances in '03, and under our laws is banned from ever reprisenting us in the olympics... harsh?..

 

he served his ban and is now our top clean sprinter, clocking 10 seconds dead in birmingham recently.

 

should a life ban mean for life?... well in most other countries it WOULDNT!

 

most other european countries dont enforce a lifetime ban for drug abuse, so should we?

 

have we effectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater? he is our fastest man over 100m ...

oh yeh, why overturn a lifeturn ban just so someone can win some medals!

i know what's next, how about we overturn a prison sentence, or anything else. Life is life, druggies in sport need shooting not inviting back in.

He cheated, and has never shown remorse for his actions (see his Inside Sport interview from a while ago - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/6701919.stm).

 

And there is no clear proof as yet whether drugs have a residual effect years after.

 

End of the day he knew the laws of this country's O.A., and has no excuse for his actions.

... but guys...the point is that if he was reprisenting nearly every other european country his sentance would have been paid and he WOULD be elegible to compete in the olympics..

 

are we right or are they?...

He's served his time as far as i'm aware, and I think the band on the Olympics is quite harsh if i'm being totally honest. He's our fastest sprinter over 100m, but even that doesn't mean much really as our sprinters are p*** poor compared to the rest of the worlds.

Under British law once you have served your crime, you are then free.

 

The BOA obviously don't believe in that scenario.

 

This is yet another example of the very British trait of cutting are noses off to spite our face.

 

In my view it is a ridiculous stance to take when every other Olympic nation (with the exception of Canada) would allow a former banned athlete to compete in the Olympics after serving a two year ban, following the rules of the International Olympic Committee's guidelines.

 

If I was Dwain Chambers I would be looking at the offer from Qatar to gain a passport of convenience and represent them at the Olympics.

He knew the rules when he signed up for his athletics licence and then started taking drugs, or at least he should have done, if he didn't then ignorance of the rules is not a defence or mitigation

 

2 year ban is for me too lenient it should be a life ban, taking performance enhancing drugs is basically $h!tting down the back of every dedicated athlete who aspires to reach the top through hard work, clean living and dedication to the sport

 

If Chambers was not very good would there be any fuss ? hmmmmmmmmmmm

I agree with Craig (:drama:), I'm not really bothered what other countries do, he knew the rules before he took the drugs and should face up to the consequences, it's not as if it's a new rule that's just preventing him from competing and if we do let him compete it would be unfair against other athletes who've done the same and our other current sprinters (no matter how poor they may be in comparison) who've stayed clean for all of their career.

I like how everyone is harping on about him being our fastest 100m sprinter etc etc.

 

If it was our 9th fastest would you care about them? Probably not. When people line up against Dwayne can they ever trust him again, no.

 

He's only come back to sprinting because he's flopped at everything else he's tried, NFL Europe, and Rugby League.

 

I don't really care what other countries do, but if you'd prefer to see 9 former drug cheats line up in an 100m final, over 9 athletes who have never cheated then there's something wrong in this world.

 

Plus it's only an Olympic ban, he can still compete in all other events.