In 2003 Dwain Chambers tested positive for anabolic steroids and was banned for two years. Five years on the ban still haunts him, and is threatening to destroy his dreams of competing at the Olympics.
He was stripped of all his medals won since 2002, including the whole Great Britain relay team having their medals stripped as Chambers was in their team.
He was banned for life from the Olympics and had to put up with the tag of the disgraced sportsman as his face appeared all over the back pages.
But should he be forgiven? Should he be allowed to compete at the Olympics?
Well, he was handed a lifetime Olympic ban, so why has the case gone as far as the High Court? Well, I think people have seen that he is truly sorry, and that he has worked extremely hard to overcome adversity and to hit the back pages for all the right reasons—becoming the best 100m runner Great Britain have.
Murderers are let out of prison after less than half their sentence for "good behavior" because they have changed. Dwain Chambers took drugs and so can never be forgiven and the ban should be upheld. When you look at it that way it doesn't seem too fair.
The Olympic committee is hard on drug-use so others are discouraged to try it. Chambers was seen as a bad example. However, I think he is a great example for the way he has come back from it.
Sure, the drug use was a mistake and I'm not trying to promote it, but it takes a strong person to, against all the odds, return and excel in whatever you do, when everyone seems to be against you.
However, if you flip the coin over and look at the other side, imagine if you are the young athlete who has worked for years to get where he is, set for a trip to the Olympics, and have never gone near drugs in your life.
You've gotten to where you are through grit, hard work, and determination, and someone who has been banned from the Olympics for life because he cheated by using drugs suddenly is allowed back in and you miss out.
That certainly does not seem fair either.
So what should be decided? Should Chambers be allowed to go to the Olympics or not?
I myself am still undecided on this. He is our best 100m runner, I am in no doubt about that, and he appears to be on the straight and narrow and perhaps deserves a second chance. He has served his sentence with his two-year ban; perhaps they should start with a clean slate.
But at the same time, he was given a life ban from the Olympics, and they have always been tough on drug users, so why should Chambers be different to any other drug using athlete, just because he is performing well at the moment?
What does everyone else think? Should he stay or should he go?
4 comments Last one added 11 months ago — Leave a Comment
Duncan Mackay 11 months ago
Readers who want an even more in-depth view on this topic might want to read a very insightful piece by American Jim Ferstle on the topic. It can be read at http://www.insidethegames.com/show-news.php?id=1912.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Griffin 11 months ago
I think he should stay. Chambers knows that he made a massive mistake, and knew that drugs wern't going to get him medals, so he has put in a lot of hard work and showed pure grit and determination to be in with a chance of the games.
He should be used as an example, that example being that you don't need drugs to get this far. he has now done it without drugs, and I think many will think twice before taking them now.
let him stay. he's learnt his lesson and is showing how much of an asset he really is.
Edit Comment Cancel
Georgina Roberts 11 months ago
No!!
He shouldn't its not fair on everyone else and the persons place he is taking up.
He knew he was taking drugs and he knew what would happen.
ITS NOT FAIR
Edit Comment Cancel
Dave Harris 11 months ago
The question that needs to be asked is not necessarily whether it's right for Chambers to compete in the Olympics or not - that's a whole different argument that revolves around the integrity of the Olympic Ideal (and how it seems to have been thrown out the window with the inclusion of Professionalisation in sports allowed into the Olympics).
According to the rule of the IOC, Chambers is allowed to compete - he has served his ban and deserves a second chance according to their rules. It's just that the British Olympic Association have institued a policy of not selecting athletes for the Olympics who have a history of steroid abuse.
Whether that policy is inherently right or wrong (and the decision of the High Court on Thursday will have no impact on that moral decision), shouldn't it be left to the sport's governing body or bodies to determine the rules for selection? If the BOA want to have a rule that bans drug cheats from ever being selected, what's wrong with that? Is it any different than having a rule that specifies that the first three in the trials will be selected, regardless of their stature or previous accomplishments (as per the US team selection policy)?
Surely, interference in the policy of the BOA is tantamount to saying that you don't care about the rules that have been instituted for the good of the sport; either that or you are denying that the BOA are the people who should be responsible for instituting said rules. Where does that lead us?
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.