Lifetime ban, or just a bit of a ban?

robinph

So it look like Dwain Chambers will be let compete in the Olympics again now if he qualifies. I was relatively content with him competing in the European stuff for the last while, but not sure I'm happy with him getting back into the Olympic team.

I was very surprised though to see that Darren Campbell seemed to be accepting of him being allowed to take part again as until recently he was quite rightly the most vocal of those against him after he lost his medals because of Chambers. He seems to be basing that position on the fact that the US are letting people back in, so why shouldn't the UK.

Hopefully the BOA just pick who they want to pick and ignore Chambers whatever times he gets if there are enough others with times.

Pherekydes

I wonder will the policy of excluding Chambers from relay teams come back to bite UKA?

Pisco Sour

Look, I don't agree one bit with him being allowed to run in London. Bans should be for life. But this scapegoating of Dwain Chambers has to stop. There are numerous brazen Eastern European and Russian athletes back from drug bans and nobody is talking about them. Chambers has been completely open and honest about everything, and appears to genuinely regret what he has done. I believe he is running clean now, and while he shouldn't be running, he is at the very least a good example of a reformed drug cheat.

Contrast this to others, who make rubbish excuses, continue to deny any wrongdoing even after their ban has ended, come back as brazen as ever. How come nobody talks about Stambolova? No way should that one be allowed anywhere near London!

It just doesnt seem fair that the one who has shown remorse gets more abuse in the media than those c*nts who repeatedly drag our sport under the mud!

RoyMcC

Pherekydes wrote: »

I wonder will the policy of excluding Chambers from relay teams come back to bite UKA?

The GB relay teams are so flaky anyway I doubt inserting him into the squads will disrupt them.

Generally I'm on the fence on this - there are solid arguments on both sides. In the end though I'll shout for anyone in a Brit vest.

Pisco Sour

RoyMcC wrote: »

The GB relay teams are so flaky anyway I doubt inserting him into the squads will disrupt them.

Generally I'm on the fence on this - there are solid arguments on both sides. In the end though I'll shout for anyone in a Brit vest.

Oh I certainly wont shout for him, but I feel he hasn't had an equal punishment to other drug cheats.

TheRoadRunner

04072511 wrote: »

Oh I certainly wont shout for him, but I feel he hasn't had an equal punishment to other drug cheats.

How crap, the moon must be aligned with Venus or something as I totally agree with 04072511, there's a first

The scapegoating of Chambers is way OTT. He cheated got caught, owned up and served his ban. Based on the current laws he is entitled to compete again. I'm not saying that is right but them the laws. I liked the BOA stance but realistically why should Chambers be banned when other cheaters are allowed to compete. Not only are there Eastern Europeans and Russians competing people like Justin Gatlin are back as well.

I know this is a bit OT but there is rarely any mention of Rio Ferdinand's missed drug test and subsequent ban as well as other professional footballers who have been banned over the years (in fairness those drugs were more likely to be recreational).

robinph

Don't really have a problem with Chambers myself on this, he has just done what is needed to be treated fairly with the other cheats. Can't for the life of me understand why the case went against BOA though and how someone somewhere hasn't thought that it might be a good idea to bring everyone else into line with their position rather than making the BOA move to a less strict position.

They still don't have to take him though as unlike the USA their policy has always allowed them to pick who they want rather than just who wins the trials.

water-man

I'm with Roadrunner & 040.. on this.

He is a cheat but the media seem to be really pick him out. There are also other cheats on the english team like the shot putter and 400m woman (can't remember their names now). And before anyone says she didn't fail a test missing 3 test is exactly the same as failing one in my opinion.

WM

Pisco Sour

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

I know this is a bit OT but there is rarely any mention of Rio Ferdinand's missed drug test and subsequent ban as well as other professional footballers who have been banned over the years (in fairness those drugs were more likely to be recreational).

Diego Maradona. The fact he failed a test for ephidrine (spelling?) at USA 94 is usually very much swept under the carpet, and his reputation is intact.

He is a legend to be fair, but just goes to show how different sports treat such things.

TheRoadRunner

water-man wrote: »

There are also other cheats on the english team like the shot putter and 400m woman (can't remember their names now). And before anyone says she didn't fail a test missing 3 test is exactly the same as failing one in my opinion.

WM

It's the British team by the way

Christine Ohuruogu, great example. Yep current Olympic 400 metre champion. The quote below is from wikipedia

Christine Ohuruogu was suspended from competing in the 2006 European Athletics Championships. The reason for this was that she missed three out-of-competition drug tests, known as the "whereabouts" system, of the World Anti-Doping Code; one in October 2005 and two in June 2006.[10] According to IAAF and British Olympic Association rules, she received a one-year ban for missing these tests, which expired on 5 August 2007.[11]


The British Olympic Association also imposed a lifetime ban excluding Ohuruogu from competing at future Olympic Games for Great Britain.[12] She appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but the original decision was upheld.[13] Ohuruogu submitted a further appeal, and stated that she would probably leave Britain and compete in the Olympics for another country if it was unsuccessful.[14][15] Her Olympic ban was finally overturned on 27 November 2007.

PainIsTemporary

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

I know this is a bit OT but there is rarely any mention of Rio Ferdinand's missed drug test and subsequent ban as well as other professional footballers who have been banned over the years (in fairness those drugs were more likely to be recreational).

Recreational?! There's little doubt about it that some of those boys are on harder stuff than recreational drugs if the rest of Europe (Spain/France/Italy) is anything to go by:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/11/news/oscar-pereiro-rips-press-on-spanish-talk-show-for-favoring-footballers-over-cyclists-in-doping-cases_198209

TheRoadRunner

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Recreational?! There's little doubt about it that some of those boys are on harder stuff than recreational drugs if the rest of Europe (Spain/France/Italy) is anything to go by:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/11/news/oscar-pereiro-rips-press-on-spanish-talk-show-for-favoring-footballers-over-cyclists-in-doping-cases_198209

True wouldn't deny that at all. When money is involved and there is a lot of money in soccer, I would expect some people to cheat.

However the examples where premiership soccer players have been caught are usually linked to recreational drugs. Paddy Kenny and Adrian Mutu are two that come to mind.

Getonwithit

Drug use is as prevalent if not more so in other sports IMO. Excellent Channel 4 documentary on drugs in football last Autumn. FA in England is scared of finding cheats and the testing structures are far from as rigourus as in our sport. Anecdotal eveidence would suggest that its even common in some distinguished amateur sports out here on the rock.

Re the WADA decision it has been clinically proven that some of the bannede substances have a lifetime long benefit. Its a very difficult question to deal with. In order to completly clean the sport and bring in lifetime bans you woud have to re ban previously proven cases and start from scratch. What would it mean to the records of athletes who later tested positive?

PainIsTemporary

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

True wouldn't deny that at all. When money is involved and there is a lot of money in soccer, I would expect some people to cheat.

However the examples where premiership soccer players have been caught are usually linked to recreational drugs. Paddy Kenny and Adrian Mutu are two that come to mind.

That may say more about the testing systems they have in place in the English Premiership than anything else.

Pisco Sour

Getonwithit wrote: »

Drug use is as prevalent if not more so in other sports IMO.

Can that documentary be found anywhere online? I'd love to see it.

RayCun

Getonwithit wrote: »

Drug use is as prevalent if not more so in other sports IMO. Excellent Channel 4 documentary on drugs in football last Autumn. FA in England is scared of finding cheats and the testing structures are far from as rigourus as in our sport.

IIRC the documentary was more concerned with recreational drug use, not performing-enhancing drugs. It's all the same to the tabloids...

T runner

04072511 wrote: »

Oh I certainly wont shout for him, but I feel he hasn't had an equal punishment to other drug cheats.

I think you mean other drug cheats havent had the same punishment as him. Your argument should be to go harder on other drug cheats rather than go easier on Chambers. I think the British approach till now of banning for life from Olympic teams is the correct one.

There is some evidence that the adaptions (psychological in particular) to running faster than youve wver done before may give permanent adaptions. Permanent adaptions from drugs should equal a permanent ban.

Pisco Sour

T runner wrote: »

I think you mean other drug cheats havent had the same punishment as him. Your argument should be to go harder on other drug cheats rather than go easier on Chambers. I think the British approach till now of banning for life from Olympic teams is the correct one.

There is some evidence that the adaptions (psychological in particular) to running faster than youve wver done before may give permanent adaptions. Permanent adaptions from drugs should equal a permanent ban.

In an ideal world we'd never see any drug cheats back in our sport again. Unfortunately this is not the case. I really wish it was, but it isn't. But one person shouldn't be subject to more media interogation than others who have been caught for the exact same crime. Not much talk about Justin Gatlin. Sickens me to the core thinking he could be in London.

It also must be remembered that Dwain Chambers was banned 9 years ago. It's a long time ago. It's old news. Many drug cheats have come and gone in that time. Chambers has been back in the sport for 7 years now (with a few brief retirements in between). I don't know why there is still such hype surrounding him. You'd swear he was the only person to ever fail a drugs test the way the GB media go on!

plodder

Let's be honest though, the potential performance enhancements are much greater in athletics and cycling than most other sports. WADA also seem to have muddied the waters by lumping real PEDs in with just plain illegal (so-called recreational) drugs like cannabis. Failing a test from cannabis is hardly cheating your fellow competitors, the way failing a test for EPO would be.

Pisco Sour

plodder wrote: »

Let's be honest though, the potential performance enhancements are much greater in athletics and cycling than most other sports.

PED's wont give you Maradona like skills, but they will help you stay strong, fit, and tire less in the last 10 minutes of a game. They will help you stay injury free, or come back quicker from an injury. Make no mistake, the benefits from drugs are huge in football. Don't even get me started on Rugby.

PainIsTemporary

plodder wrote: »

Let's be honest though, the potential performance enhancements are much greater in athletics and cycling than most other sports.

Disagree.

Again, referencing Spanish football here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fuentes-indicted-in-spain-but-out-of-jail


But I doubt it's isolated to Spain alone. Multi-million euro contracts on the line for some of those players. A lot more pocket money floating around in football than the vast majority of athletes, cyclists, etc have.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but back when the majority of International sporting bodies were signing up to the WADA anti-doping scheme (or whatever it's officially called), there were some sports and sporting federations that were criticized for not signing up. From what I remember the English FA was one.

walshb

For his tenacity and passion and commitment to fighting and fighting, let him run.

He does seem like he has repented. It happened ten years ago didn't it? And, he won't medal anyway.

No expert here, but if the rules are real clear, then he either is or is not allowed to compete. If not, well, I guess we have to apply the rule.

CoachDudie

So it's alright for Chambers to compete at the Olympics because other drugs cheats will be there too?
What sort of logic is that?
Also are people trying to excuse drug use in athletics by claiming 'sure it's in all sports'?

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

PED's wont give you Maradona like skills, but they will help you stay strong, fit, and tire less in the last 10 minutes of a game. They will help you stay injury free, or come back quicker from an injury. Make no mistake, the benefits from drugs are huge in football. Don't even get me started on Rugby.

Spot on. Drugs can aid any athlete in any sport, even games like golf, snooker and darts can benefit. Games where concentration levels are very intense. A relaxant or nereve easing drug can certainly help players in these games.

Pherekydes

T runner wrote: »

I think the British approach till now of banning for life from Olympic teams is the correct one.

It isn't though. The BOA are breaking the rules by doing what they're doing. The rules they are breaking are WADA's. They are the World body for drug testing. CAS has found in WADA's favour; their decision is binding on all subscribing bodies.

The BOA want their athletes to be honourable and live and compete by the rules; they should too!

plodder

04072511 wrote: »

PED's wont give you Maradona like skills, but they will help you stay strong, fit, and tire less in the last 10 minutes of a game. They will help you stay injury free, or come back quicker from an injury. Make no mistake, the benefits from drugs are huge in football. Don't even get me started on Rugby.

Right, but the benefit still isn't as great in soccer compared to distance running (or cycling or swimming). EPO won't give you Maradona like skills, but it will give you the edge in distance running - the issue is less clear cut in Rugby though. I would have thought the problem in professional football is young lads having time and money on their hands, and more access to illegal recreational drugs. Just don't see the point of these comparisons with other sports. Athletics should just work hard (as it does) to keep its own house in order.

Pisco Sour

plodder wrote: »

Right, but the benefit still isn't as great in soccer compared to distance running (or cycling or swimming). EPO won't give you Maradona like skills, but it will give you the edge in distance running - the issue is less clear cut in Rugby though. I would have thought the problem in professional football is young lads having time and money on their hands, and more access to illegal recreational drugs. Just don't see the point of these comparisons with other sports. Athletics should just work hard (as it does) to keep its own house in order.

Very naieve. If testing was as stringent in football as it is in athletics and cycling then you could guarantee a fair chunk of high profile scandels in the beautiful game.

Drugs wont give you maradona type skills but it would be the difference between somebody with such skill tiring in the last 10 minutes, or staying fit and fast. If the player tires badly late on, then his skills will not be utilised. You are looking at this in a very black and white manner. There are dozens of reasons why teams win, and I'd be certain that half of these reasons could benefit from doping.

RayCun

04072511 wrote: »

If testing was as stringent in football as it is in athletics and cycling then you could guarantee a fair chunk of high profile scandels in the beautiful game.

In England, footballers are tested after games and outside competition.
The Channel 4 documentary mentioned upthread revealed that three footballers were banned for evidence of cocaine use. There were no PED revelations.
The closest thing was an allegation that high testosterone levels detected in four players, including three former England internationals, were not sufficiently scrutinised by the FA.

PainIsTemporary

CoachDudie wrote: »

Also are people trying to excuse drug use in athletics by claiming 'sure it's in all sports'?

Not at all. Cheating is cheating, and it's wrong. However, I don't see a thread on the football/soccer forum asking for Rio Ferdinand being banned for life from the World Cup (Olympic Games equivalent for International Footballers).

RayCun

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Not at all. Cheating is cheating, and it's wrong. However, I don't see a thread on the football/soccer forum asking for Rio Ferdinand being banned for life from the World Cup (Olympic Games equivalent for International Footballers).

Possibly because he missed a single drug test. That wouldn't get an athlete banned for life from the Olympics, would it?

Pisco Sour

RayCun wrote: »

In England, footballers are tested after games and outside competition.
The Channel 4 documentary mentioned upthread revealed that three footballers were banned for evidence of cocaine use. There were no PED revelations.
The closest thing was an allegation that high testosterone levels detected in four players, including three former England internationals, were not sufficiently scrutinised by the FA.

Ha, think you may have contradicted yourself there.

<Snip>

CoachDudie

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Not at all. Cheating is cheating, and it's wrong. However, I don't see a thread on the football/soccer forum asking for Rio Ferdinand being banned for life from the World Cup (Olympic Games equivalent for International Footballers).

This thread was about Dwain Chambers been allowed into the Olympics. That has nothing to do with soccer.
Do you think if Ferdinand was banned from World cups and then had his ban overturned would the thread on the soccer forum start talking about athletics drugs use by post 6?
Why bring up other sports?
Athletics has a big history of dirty athletes, pointing out drug use in other sports doesn't change that.

Hard Worker

04072511 wrote: »

Very naieve. If testing was as stringent in football as it is in athletics and cycling then you could guarantee a fair chunk of high profile scandels in the beautiful game.

I work for a League of Ireland Club. I can categorically state that from my involvement in athletics and football, I have seen far more footballers being tested than athletes. The last time the testers called after a match, the two players who were randomly chosen for testing, had been tested on three and six occasions previously. I don't know of any athlete at National level who has been tested seven times.

PainIsTemporary

CoachDudie wrote: »

Also are people trying to excuse drug use in athletics by claiming 'sure it's in all sports'?

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

Not at all. Cheating is cheating, and it's wrong. However, I don't see a thread on the football/soccer forum asking for Rio Ferdinand being banned for life from the World Cup (Olympic Games equivalent for International Footballers).

RayCun wrote: »

Possibly because he missed a single drug test. That wouldn't get an athlete banned for life from the Olympics, would it?

True. Bad example. There are double standards between sports with regards to the drugs issue. People in some sports (ie: athletics) calling for lifetime bans from Olympic Games for athletes returning from drugs suspensions, whereas in other sports (football/soccer) it isn't seen as being as major an issue, and the governing bodies don't seem to have the same interest in pursuing those implicated as say cycling/athletics.

RayCun

04072511 wrote: »

Ha, think you may have contradicted yourself there.

Come on, we all know there is plenty of doping going on in football.

No. My impression is that the testostorone levels were high, but not so high as to be proof of doping. Just - according to the documentary makers - high enough that the FA should have investigated further.

But anyway, I'm not going to get into this. Apparently everyone knows that there's lots of doping in football, so it doesn't really matter what the testing regime is, or what it finds. It's not fair that athletics has an image problem re. drugs, so let's fling some mud. Fine, have fun.

Pisco Sour

Hard Worker wrote: »

I work for a League of Ireland Club. I can categorically state that from my involvement in athletics and football, I have seen far more footballers being tested than athletes. The last time the testers called after a match, the two players who were randomly chosen for testing, had been tested on three and six occasions previously. I don't know of any athlete at National level who has been tested seven times.

I would bet huge sums of money that Ireland's top athletes (say top 30-40) are tested significantly more often that Ireland's top footballers. I read awhile back that one player in the English Premier League (can't remember who) went his entire career without being tested!

Anyway, weren't Messi and Ronaldo both given HGH as kids to help their growth as kids so they could become better footballers when they grew up? (rhetorical question, as this is known fact) If somebody did that in athletics there would be uproar.

Hard Worker

04072511 wrote: »

I would bet huge sums of money that Ireland's top athletes (say top 30-40) are tested significantly more often that Ireland's top footballers. I read awhile back that one player in the English Premier League (can't remember who) went his entire career without being tested!

Anyway, weren't Messi and Ronaldo both given HGH as kids to help their growth as kids so they could become better footballers when they grew up? (rhetorical question, as this is known fact) If somebody did that in athletics there would be uproar.

Messi was not given HGH as a kid so that he would become a better footballer.
Jaysus, if I thought I could be as good as Messi after taking HGH, I'd be downing loads of it
He was given HGH for medical reasons, as are other children with similar problems.

robinph

Pherekydes wrote: »

T runner wrote: »

I think the British approach till now of banning for life from Olympic teams is the correct one.

It isn't though. The BOA are breaking the rules by doing what they're doing. The rules they are breaking are WADA's. They are the World body for drug testing. CAS has found in WADA's favour; their decision is binding on all subscribing bodies.

The BOA want their athletes to be honourable and live and compete by the rules; they should too!

Following the laws set down by WADA then yes the BoA were wrong to issue lifetime bans.

However, WADA is wrong to not issue lifetime bans and should have taken this opportunity to update their rules to be more stringent and bring themselves into line with the BoA's stance.

Hard Worker

robinph wrote: »

Following the laws set down by WADA then yes the BoA were wrong to issue lifetime bans.

However, WADA is wrong to not issue lifetime bans and should have taken this opportunity to update their rules to be more stringent and bring themselves into line with the BoA's stance.

The problem WADA would have with lifetime bans is that if a top Premier League or Spanish, German or Italian player tested positive, you would effectively be "depriving" him of 5 million euro annually. The story would be similar for basketball and American Football. None of those bodies would sign up to lifetime bans. Therefore, it would be unfair to treat athletics differently.
Personally, I would like to see the Olympic movement sticking with lifetime bans.

fiddy3

Hard Worker wrote: »

Messi was not given HGH as a kid so that he would become a better footballer.
Jaysus, if I thought I could be as good as Messi after taking HGH, I'd be downing loads of it
He was given HGH for medical reasons, as are other children with similar problems.

Yes, and who paid for his treatment....... BINGO, FC Barcelona! I guess they just wanted a tiny Argie to have a better life for himself, right? Anyone who doesn't think Barca and Real Madrid dope players has their head in the sand. Interesting last week how Pep Guardiola was lauded as a hero in the media as he stepped down. This is a man who was positive for nandrolone during his own career in Italy. This is a man in charge of a club, who, in 2005, tried to hire Eufemiano Feuntes as their team doctor. Who's Dr Fuentes.... just the godfather of doping in Spain who was nabbed in Operation Puerto in 2007, and had hundreds of elite sportspeople on his books. Funny how only the cyclists on his books got caught, mainly because as bad as cycling is, they at least aggressively pursue the cheats. One of the cyclists who was doped by Fuentes and got caught, Jesus Manzano, reported that he saw several high-profile Real Madrid players at Dr Fuentes' clinic in Madrid when he was there. The French newspaper Le Monde also reported at the time that it got access to Fuentes's doping programmes when police raided his house in the canaries, and saw doping plans made out for players from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Real Betis, and Atletico Madrid. Due to the police case being conducted, they couldn't report any specifics.

Zinedine Zidane was reported to have had blood transfusions in Switzerland during his career. Didier Deschamps was reported to have a haematocrit in the mid fifties during one test, over 50 usually means EPO unless you have a rare genetic condition. Arsene Wenger has stated in the past that he has seen disturbing blood values in several of the players who transferred to Arsenal from Spain and Italy which almost certainly suggested doping, which then normalised after a period there. What's more disturbing is the lack of effort to catch anyone in Spain, more than in England or France, for example. In La Liga, two matches are selected for post-match testing every Saturday, and from those team, just two players are picked. NO testing is done on Sunday matches. You do the maths on how likely a Messi or Ronaldo is to get tested on any given week. I make it about a 1 in 50 chance each week.

No one is pretending athletics or cycling is any cleaner than soccer. It isn't. What pisses people off is the double standards applied. For example, you have an <Snip> Irish Times writer Brian O'Connor writing about Barca during the week, asslicking of the highest order, while in the same article writing off athletics as not even worthy of mention due to how dirty it is. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0423/1224315049414.html
People as painfully ignorant as him perpetuate the idea among the public that athletics is rotten to the core... that the olympics aren't worthing watching because, as joe schmoe thinks...'they're all at it'. All the while never wondering if maybe, just maybe, there are some immoral people in their beloved sport, who, ya know, might just stumble on the idea to juice up if it means being able to run the legs off a team in their own league one Sunday, do it again Wednesday night in Europe, then do it again three days later in El Classico. Nah, sure drugs don't help soccer players.

Ask yourself this, if an athlete or a cyclist dropped dead in the middle of a competition, how would the reaction have differed from the way fans and media reacted to Muamba and Morosini's over the last few weeks?

CoachDudie

It's funny how defensive people get about their favorite sport.
Look at that rant from Fiddy, amazing.
He even said that ignorant people's view is "that athletics is rotten to the core that the olympics aren't worthing watching because, as joe schmoe thinks...'they're all at it'".
He must have missed the irony in his post where he accuses all sorts of teams and ex players of drug use. Even someone who nearly died recently. :eek:
Look there are drugs in all sports, not to the high level of cycling/athletics but they are there. What this has got to do with Dwain Chambers being allowed to compete in the Olympics..... well I don't know.

robinph

Seems that the reason for Chambers being allowed to compete in the Olympics is because of Spanish footballers then?

Why can the Olympics not have their own lifetime ban rule? They don't allow more than one over 23 year old footballer per country and that is clearly a rule they made up just for the Olympics, why can the Olympics not have their own rule about not having anyone with drug bans compete?

Actually, any kind of drug offence and your chances of getting a UK visa are greatly reduced, can they not just stop anyone at the border who has a drug ban? Would need to stretch the rules a bit to make taking the various performance enhancing drugs a criminal issue, but they could hold people up for a while.

fiddy3

CoachDudie wrote: »

It's funny how defensive people get about their favorite sport.
Look at that rant from Fiddy, amazing.
He even said that ignorant people's view is "that athletics is rotten to the core that the olympics aren't worthing watching because, as joe schmoe thinks...'they're all at it'".
He must have missed the irony in his post where he accuses all sorts of teams and ex players of drug use. Even someone who nearly died recently. :eek:
Look there are drugs in all sports, not to the high level of cycling/athletics but they are there. What this has got to do with Dwain Chambers being allowed to compete in the Olympics..... well I don't know.

Did i accuse Muamba and Morosini of drug use at any point? No. I asked how would fans and media have differed in their reaction to such an event happening in athletics or cycling. Remember the reaction to the Belgian/Dutch cyclists of the 90s who died from heart attacks due to sludgy blood or Bekele's late wife and see how the rumour mill spun for those tragic events. Yet, somehow, footballers are exempt from the same treatment.

Irony... where's the irony? Athletics has one of the worst records in terms of doping, second only behind cycling, and its reputation is rightfully tainted as such. I said as much above about drugs being a major problem so i'm not remotely denying it. What bothers me is idiotic journalists who write off one sport then don't examine their own with the same cynicicm. The ignorance I referred to was in relation to them being blissfully unaware of what the situation is in soccer, not that their view of athletics was wrong or without foundation.

CoachDudie

fiddy3 wrote: »

Did i accuse Muamba and Morosini of drug use at any point? No. I asked how would fans and media have differed in their reaction to such an event happening in athletics or cycling. Remember the reaction to the Belgian/Dutch cyclists of the 90s who died from heart attacks due to sludgy blood or Bekele's late wife and see how the rumour mill spun for those tragic events. Yet, somehow, footballers are exempt from the same treatment.

Irony... where's the irony? Athletics has one of the worst records in terms of doping, second only behind cycling, and its reputation is rightfully tainted as such. I said as much above about drugs being a major problem so i'm not remotely denying it. What bothers me is idiotic journalists who write off one sport then don't examine their own with the same cynicicm. The ignorance I referred to was in relation to them being blissfully unaware of what the situation is in soccer, not that their view of athletics was wrong or without foundation.

The irony is you are bothered by people assuming stuff about athletes, the 'they're all at it' attitude and then you're at the very same thing with soccer.
I'm not a big fan of soccer or anything and I know there has been plenty of drug abuse in the sport but it's no where near the level of athletics.
I suppose if high profile names had failed tests directly after winning something big like the World Cup or whatever then the reputation might be the same.

fiddy3

Nope, wrong again. I'm bothered by people who assume that about athletics while maintaining that football is clean. I'd never have a problem with a well-informed fan or writer lashing athletics, it's more than earned its dirty rep. It's when they fail to treat other sports the same that's annoying. It's pretty hard to test positive for this stuff if you don't test players randomly out of competition. The English and the French leagues are a lot better than the Spanish with testing, though still light years behind the way athletes and cyclists are hounded. The Spanish league, or Fifa, just aren't interested in exposing the problem, otherwise the soccer players involved in Operation Puerto would have been released, like the cyclists were.

CoachDudie

fiddy3 wrote: »

Nope, wrong again. I'm bothered by people who assume that about athletics while maintaining that football is clean. I'd never have a problem with a well-informed fan or writer lashing athletics, it's more than earned its dirty rep. It's when they fail to treat other sports the same that's annoying. It's pretty hard to test positive for this stuff if you don't test players randomly out of competition. The English and the French leagues are a lot better than the Spanish with testing, though still light years behind the way athletes and cyclists are hounded. The Spanish league, or Fifa, just aren't interested in exposing the problem, otherwise the soccer players involved in Operation Puerto would have been released, like the cyclists were.

Would it be fair to say the whole Jamaican athletic team are doping because they don't have proper testing?
That's what you are doing with Spanish soccer teams except there has been proof of Jamaican cheating.
What do you expect journalists to say without any evidence?
You cast aspersions over Real Madrid and Barcelona with little to back it up, if the same was done to any athlete you'd defend them. There's your double standards.

fiddy3

When the Jamaican athletics team try to hire the godfather of doping as their team doctor, then I will say the same. When a national french newspaper (one which wouldn't go making this stuff up or risk having their reputation ruined) reports that they have seen the doping programmes of bolt/powell/blake, then i will apply the same opinion to them. When the jamaican athletics team is coached by someone who tested positive himself during his own career, then I'll hold them to the same standard. When the jamaican athletes are seen visiting the offices of the greatest doping doctor in the last decade, then by all means I'll lambast them. Until then, though, you are actually the one with the theory backed up by nothing at all but your own hunch. And by the way, I never said all of the teams and all of the players are doping, just that many teams and many players are. <Snip>

CoachDudie

I'm not saying I believe the Jamaican team are doping nor the Spanish teams are clean.
I'm saying there's about the same level of proof. The Jamaican team doctor is in charge of drug testing. Numerous Jamaicans have been caught cheating before, the improvement of Jamaican athletes to the highest level at the same time, the never seen before times some of them are running.
Operation Puerto was 5/6 years ago but you are casting aspersions on present players. What proof do you have? About as much as someone suspecting current Jamaicans. You hate the 'ah sure they're all at it' attitude but you do it yourself.
My sport of choice would be GAA, I know there is drug use in it (not to a big scale) and if a player tested positive I'd say ban them for life, not go pointing fingers at other sports.

T runner

Pherekydes wrote: »

It isn't though. The BOA are breaking the rules by doing what they're doing. The rules they are breaking are WADA's. They are the World body for drug testing. CAS has found in WADA's favour; their decision is binding on all subscribing bodies.

The BOA want their athletes to be honourable and live and compete by the rules; they should too!

You have missed my point. In my opinion the BOAs attempts at lifetime bans were correct because there is some evidence that an athlete finds it more difficult to break new ground than to run times already run. That means that drug aided PBs offer an athlete a permanent advantage. There is also some strong evidence that anabolic steroids cause permanent adaptions in muscles.

Your opinion seems to be that WADA's rules are always correct therefore the BOAs position are incorrect as they are both in conflict. I agree with the BOA implication that WADA are not infallable in general and that the 2 year ban is incorrect in principle.
If there are advantages to doping after 2 years then doping athletes are gaining an advantage under WADA rules. Ergo they are incorrect in their method of achieving their primary task of punishing drug cheats. The correct term of punishment should cover the duration of gains from drugs used by doping athletes and that would seem to mean a liifetime ban.

myflipflops

For athletics, I strongly believe a permanent life ban across the sport should be put in place. No exception and no excuses. As it stands, the potential rewards massively outweigh the punishments if you get caught so this needs to change.

Pisco Sour

While 4 and a half years old, this article hits the nail on the head about doping in football:

http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74