Sprinting leaves morality behind
Matthew d'Ancona 9:06am
As a sporadic but enthusiastic follower of British athletics, I find the Dwain Chambers story very dispiriting. There is something utterly compelling about the sprinters – from Jesse Owens, via Jim Hines’s 9.95 seconds in the 1968 Olympic 100m final, to the prodigious Carl Lewis, our own Linford Christie, and beyond. Britain has done well in these explosive events, and particularly so in 4x100 relay: black youngsters have performed with particular magnificence over the years, and acted as superb role models to children in deprived communities. So the selection of Chambers for next month’s World Indoor Championships sends all the wrong signals.
The worst is the spectacle of an impotent governing body: UK Athletics may well be unanimously opposed to the return of Chambers, who was banned in 2004 after testing positive for the prohibited drug THG. But its unanimity was without a shred of force. The selectors were obliged by their own rules, and the threat of legal action to pick Chambers. One has to ask: why is the banning period of two years so short? Why did the governing body take Chambers off the list of those athletes to be tested, given that he was so likely to return to the track?
If, like me, you are an enthusiast for the 2012 London Olympics, then it is hard to think of a worse message to send to the athletically gifted teenagers who will now be eyeing a place in the British squad for that event. Cheats get away with it and play the system. Those who stick to the rules stay at home. The authorities huff and puff to no effect. Not exactly Chariots of Fire, is it?
Previous
dexey
February 13th, 2008 9:15am Report this commentI've always asssumed that the super sportsman are all drug users and the competition is all in what they can get away with before an early death.
Chris
February 13th, 2008 9:43am Report this commentAthletics and morality don't mix. These are people who think that running round in circles is the most important thing in the world. They are quite happy to go to China to do it and the fact that China is ruled by a particularly nasty dictatorship is a matter of complete indifference to them. They are quite happy to take billions from the British taxpayer to fund the London Olympics in a way which no other group with a hobby would dream of doing. Imagine the British Crochet Association (if there is one) demanding and getting vast amounts of cash from government for a shindig. The idea is laughable. There's no reason for "athletics" to be any different.
Marcus Cotswell
February 13th, 2008 10:10am Report this commentJust for the record, since you mention him, Linford Christie did test positive for pseudoephedrine at Seoul (1988) and for nandrolone towards the end of his career. In the first instance he was given the benefit of the doubt that it could have come from ginseng. But he was handed a two-year ban for the latter offence, which effectively ended his career.
antifrank
February 13th, 2008 10:11am Report this commentIt is curious that so much spleen has been vented at Dwain Chambers. If he had been convicted and imprisoned for selling illegal drugs, on completing his sentence he would have been allowed to compete, no questions asked. For the much lesser wrong of taking legal drugs that contravene athletics' private rules, apparently no sentence is sufficient.
Dwain Chambers is no role model. But he has completed his ban at this level, and remains banned for life from the Olynpics. He should be allowed to compete in this event, and instead of frothing with righteous indignation, commentators should be reflecting on the fact that his ban has reduced him to competing at this level. It seems to me that his original sentence was completely apt.
Max Kaye
February 13th, 2008 10:44am Report this commentMatthew, I am saddened to learn that you are 'an enthusiast for the 2012 London Olympics' (Liking punk rock and dreary bands like New Order is bad enough). Still, I suppose even the Speccie's Editor cannot be perfect....
Any chance that the Sainted Boris - if elected - will withdraw London's support from this overblown and overpriced junket?
Mike
February 13th, 2008 10:55am Report this commentTell me again. How much money are we spending on the 2012 Olympics to allow a series of millionaire drug cheats to run around an oval track? Or swim fast in a swimming pool?
Rohan
February 13th, 2008 11:49am Report this comment"It was revealed that Lewis tested positive three times before the 1988 Olympics for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, banned stimulants also found in cold medication, and had been banned from the Seoul Olympics and from competition for six months. The USOC accepted his claim of inadvertent use and overturned the decision. Fellow Santa Monica Track Club teammates Joe DeLoach and Floyd Heard were also found to have the same banned stimulants in their systems, and were cleared to compete for the same reason." There was no golden age of athletics since steroids and stimulents became widely available between 1970-75. Same sort of myth as the golden age of blameless gentlemen cricketers.
Fergus Pickering
February 13th, 2008 12:00pm Report this commentBut if they are ALL taking drugs then noboy is cheating. I like sport if I don't have to pay for it. All the footbll, rgby and cricket grounds have had loadsa money spent on them, but it isn't MY money. Actually I don't know about the Millenium Stadium in Wales. Anything that happens in Wales tends to be my money. When I sweep to Power I shall withdraw ALL support for the Olympic games and make them seek sponsorship.From the Drug companies maybe.
jm edwards
March 18th, 2008 4:48pm Report this commentAt the sppeds reachedwe have witnessed, displayed by bag/phone snatchers, it is more than clear that drug fuelled youth is an unbeatable Olympic level combo. We have long advocated a Banned Substance Olympics whereby the more you win, the larger the next dose of drugs you must imbibe. For the very few, there would be gold in them thar pills.
Back to top