Drug Cheats at the Olympics ?

[Silver Fox]

British Olympic ban on drugs cheats overturned
Former drugs cheats, including Dwain Chambers, will be eligible to compete for Britain at London 2012 after the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned the British Olympic Association's lifetime ban on offenders. Lets hope they do not qualify!!! What do you think...should drug cheats represent GB at the Olympics ??

[city4nil]

I know this is an emotive subject but as the two people this effects, Millar and Chambers are available and in Millars case has not only represented their country but also been a crutial part in our successes it does seem silly to exclude them from an individual competition.

[selkie]

While I do think the British penalties were overly harsh, I don't like the way an outside agency is interfering with a national OC's right to select a team using their own criteria. (Provided those athletes meet relevant minimum qualification standards for the event, of course.)

[SplashNblub]

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

What do you think...should drug cheats represent GB at the Olympics ??

Briefly comes out of hibernation before returning to the torpor of Olympic preparation. Well yes of course because they have often enough in the past and won medals for us. How will we have a chance otherwise? Not naming names but think of our best known performers over the last 40 years and there you go. As per usual athletes will be cheating using drugs that are currently undetectable. Eg SRAMS. Also there will be the usual outbreaks of asthma and diabetes. (Not to mention the spread betting issue - so you can now get paid to underperform.) As others have wisely pointed out forget the cheating aspect, instead focus on the fact that enough drug use for long enough makes permanent changes to the body so that many of these athletes even drug free have an ongoing advantage. WADA de nada know but don't care. Best thing is to forget the whole thing. If Chambers runs the pumping irony is that he will be running against other drug cheats.

[ambresolaire]

Originally Posted by selkie

While I do think the British penalties were overly harsh, I don't like the way an outside agency is interfering with a national OC's right to select a team using their own criteria. (Provided those athletes meet relevant minimum qualification standards for the event, of course.)

Imagine this scenario:
Qatar, or any other country for the purpose of this argument, decides to select their Olympic team according to their own criteria. Their criteria includes a punishment of two weeks for drug cheats after which they are free to compete again. Is the outside agency right to interfere with the OC's selection criteria in this case?

As far as I read it, the CAS decision was based on a desire for international consistency i.e one rule for the whole world (and across all sports I presume). I'm not arguing as to whether the 2 year rule is correct - if pushed I think I'd choose a four-year and miss one Olympic Games rule - but I agree in principle that there should be one rule for everyone. Otherwise we could get the situation where drug offenders could switch nationalities to represent a country with more lenient sentences (surprised it's not happened already actually).

[selkie]

Given what happened in Brazil last year, the answer is that a national federation is free to assess the minimum possible penalty under WADA rules in a positive doping result, and there's not much anyone can do about it. (And France last year manged to conveniently schedule Fred B.'s hemorrhoid cream suspension last year pretty conveniently around the major international meets, I must say.)

As for the nationality switch, it's what, a one year 'penalty box' to switch nationalities before you can compete under your new passport, which is as long or longer than many first time doping offenses.

[Dave_G]

Originally Posted by selkie

While I do think the British penalties were overly harsh, I don't like the way an outside agency is interfering with a national OC's right to select a team using their own criteria. (Provided those athletes meet relevant minimum qualification standards for the event, of course.)

Speaking personally, I believe in zero tollerance for using drugs of any kind, except when they are prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner, therefore I do not consider our penalties too harsh. I do believe, however, the ban should apply to ALL competitions and events. I certainly agree with your point, Selkie, that the decision should be made by our own governing body, not subject to interference by outside busybodies.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by ambresolaire

Imagine this scenario:
Qatar, or any other country for the purpose of this argument, decides to select their Olympic team according to their own criteria. Their criteria includes a punishment of two weeks for drug cheats after which they are free to compete again. Is the outside agency right to interfere with the OC's selection criteria in this case?

As far as I read it, the CAS decision was based on a desire for international consistency i.e one rule for the whole world (and across all sports I presume). I'm not arguing as to whether the 2 year rule is correct - if pushed I think I'd choose a four-year and miss one Olympic Games rule - but I agree in principle that there should be one rule for everyone. Otherwise we could get the situation where drug offenders could switch nationalities to represent a country with more lenient sentences (surprised it's not happened already actually).

I understand what you are saying but countries are free to pick their teams how they choose within certain boundaries. There isn't international consistency at all.


Ignoring drugs, there are many countries who don't send all their eligible swimmers (and let us use swimming only because it is something we know a bit about) who have qualified according to the IOC rules as agreed with FINA. We probably won't for example because our selection policy is tougher than the IOCs. It doesn't allow us to send a swimmer for an event that has only met the FINA B time; nor does it allow us to send a second swimmer in an event where two have met the FINA A time but when the second hasn't met the tougher British Swimming set time. We didn't in 2004 either when Mark Foster could have gone.


Australia didn't send Nick D'Arcy to Beijing in 2008, despite the fact that they could have, because he was considered to have brought the sport into disrepute due to the assault charge hagning over him.

I don't see the drugs issue being any different personally. Australia set higher standards on conduct and behaviour. Why should drug taking be any different?

With regards to drug taking, BOA have complied with all the necessary rules from the world bodies and I think they should be free to impose their own further restrictions (provided they are lawful eg it wouldn't ok to say only white people can qualify). Besides, if Dwain Chambers and David Millar haven't brought their sports into enough disrepute through their drug taking I don't know how anyone could do more harm.

And one last thing, if I understand it right, BOA can throw athletes off the team in theory for breaking rules about advertising and slagging off the organising body and sponsors. Other countries won't necessarily be doing that. Surely being a drug cheat is more serious than that?

[selkie]

The problem with zero tolerance and modern drug testing is that there are any number of substances that a) can cause a doping positive b) are not medically controlled in many or most countries and c) may be present in a product even if they're not labeled as such.

I think that Cielo's positive from last summer was honestly inadvertent- there's apparently a fair amount of evidence that the chemist screwed up the usual supplement prepared for that group of athletes. And while I think there should have been some sort of bigger punishment for the positive test than what he got (effectively nothing), I don't think he should be banned for life over his consumption of an improperly-labeled product.

And because the list of products that just might provide a performance enhancement is so large, it can be difficult to find medicines that aren't on the list if asprin or tylenol or midol doesn't work for a condition, especially when you're hurting and just want the pain to go away now. Samantha Riley can tell you all about that sort of scenario.

[Slid]

I believe in zero tollerance for using drugs of any kind, except when they are prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner

East Germany?

What do think happens in contemporary China, please?

Western notions of morality are out of step with the reality of most philosophies.
You want to do what you can? Down to you.
You ask someone else - that's not fair.
But what if you own them?
What if they belong to the state?
What if it is for some greater good?
What if the means justify the end?

What is the point of preventing anyone from doing the only thing they can do?

Answers on a postcard to the usual BBC address.

[ambresolaire]

Originally Posted by Slid

I believe in zero tollerance for using drugs of any kind, except when they are prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner

East Germany?

What do think happens in contemporary China, please?

Western notions of morality are out of step with the reality of most philosophies.
You want to do what you can? Down to you.
You ask someone else - that's not fair.
But what if you own them?
What if they belong to the state?
What if it is for some greater good?
What if the means justify the end?

What is the point of preventing anyone from doing the only thing they can do?

Answers on a postcard to the usual BBC address.

More questions than answers. In fact more questions than substance.

[NotVeryFast]

Originally Posted by Linny

Australia didn't send Nick D'Arcy to Beijing in 2008, despite the fact that they could have, because he was considered to have brought the sport into disrepute due to the assault charge hagning over him.

I don't see the drugs issue being any different personally. Australia set higher standards on conduct and behaviour. Why should drug taking be any different?

The difference, as I see it, is that there is no global sporting body responsible for sanctioning people who have committed assault. If there were, then I would see it as inappropriate for Australia to not go along with that global policy.

Originally Posted by selkie

The problem with zero tolerance and modern drug testing is that there are any number of substances that a) can cause a doping positive b) are not medically controlled in many or most countries and c) may be present in a product even if they're not labeled as such.

I've even heard that some non-banned substances have in the past been contaminated just by being manufactured in the same building as a banned substance, with tiny amounts of powder being circulated through the building's air conditioning system. IMO a lifetime ban for consuming miniscule amounts of a banned substance when the thing you consumed wasn't banned, and you had no reasonable way of knowing it contained the miniscule amounts of a banned substance, is too severe.

I wonder how many of the people calling for lifetime bans for such occurrences would be happy for their own working life to be ended due to such an occurrence. You go to the doctors and get a prescription, check the drug isn't banned, take it, then get drug tested and are told you've failed, the drug you took must have been contaminated with some insignificant amount of a banned substance. Sorry, we're never going to let you work as a teacher / lawyer / accountant / whatever ever again, and you will forever be referred to as a "drug cheat" (some drugs can enhance your performance in white collar jobs, you know).

[Linny]

Originally Posted by NotVeryFast

The difference, as I see it, is that there is no global sporting body responsible for sanctioning people who have committed assault. If there were, then I would see it as inappropriate for Australia to not go along with that global policy.

Heaven forbid that there should ever be one, Europe is bad enough.

Originally Posted by NotVeryFast

I've even heard that some non-banned substances have in the past been contaminated just by being manufactured in the same building as a banned substance, with tiny amounts of powder being circulated through the building's air conditioning system. IMO a lifetime ban for consuming miniscule amounts of a banned substance when the thing you consumed wasn't banned, and you had no reasonable way of knowing it contained the miniscule amounts of a banned substance, is too severe.

That isn't what happened in the cases of David Millar and Dwain Chambers. They deliberately and systematically took drugs and covered up what they were doing in an equally deliberate and systematic way in order to evade being caught. This is cheating as an art form and should not be confused with accidentally taking something when it is not only claimed but believed that this has happened. There can be no excuse for what they did and I think it is perfectly ok to call them both drug cheats. Should we be lenient towards them because when they were caught bang to rights they eventually admitted it (having tried to lie their way out of it until they had no more wriggle room and shared what they practised so others couldn't get the benefits they did?) No! All we learned really is that there are athletes out there who will go to any lengths to cheat and will lie about their innocence until they can lie no more.

Originally Posted by NotVeryFast

I wonder how many of the people calling for lifetime bans for such occurrences would be happy for their own working life to be ended due to such an occurrence. You go to the doctors and get a prescription, check the drug isn't banned, take it, then get drug tested and are told you've failed, the drug you took must have been contaminated with some insignificant amount of a banned substance. Sorry, we're never going to let you work as a teacher / lawyer / accountant / whatever ever again, and you will forever be referred to as a "drug cheat" (some drugs can enhance your performance in white collar jobs, you know).

I don't believe in zero tolerance but I don't think that athletes who have been caught cheating (again, I see this as different from inadvertently having a substance that they shouldn't have in their bodies and the authorities being unable to prove that it was there in order to cheat) should be allowed to compete again. Their cheating ruins other people's careers and if they are found guilty they should be denied the opportunity to do that again. I'm not interested in their rights or their potential rehabilitation. I would be interested to know how athletes who could potentially run in the same relay team as Chambers might feel - and honestly - not what they might say to the press.

I don't think your reference to performance enhancing drugs in business is valid; it is the cheating that is important and should lead to a ban. Drugs is how athletes cheat (unless you want to talk about Drogba and the like here - but then I would ban them too); cheating in business takes other forms and it does lead to bans in many professions in just the same way as taking drugs does in sport. It's a shame for Rangers that Craig Whyte wasn't banned for life instead of the paltry 7 years he was banned for and doctors and teachers who don't do their jobs properly, which in some cases may be cheating, aren't allowed to practise again either.

[NotVeryFast]

Originally Posted by Linny

That isn't what happened in the cases of David Millar and Dwain Chambers. They deliberately and systematically took drugs and covered up what they were doing in an equally deliberate and systematic way in order to evade being caught. This is cheating as an art form and should not be confused with accidentally taking something when it is not only claimed but believed that this has happened.

The BOA Olympic ban didn't differentiate between deliberate and accidental, though, so anyone lamenting its passing is in favour of lifetime bans for accidental consumption of irrelevantly low quantities of banned substances.

Originally Posted by Linny

I don't think your reference to performance enhancing drugs in business is valid; it is the cheating that is important and should lead to a ban. Drugs is how athletes cheat (unless you want to talk about Drogba and the like here - but then I would ban them too); cheating in business takes other forms and it does lead to bans in many professions in just the same way as taking drugs does in sport.

It was a hypothetical scenario to try to get people to see how they could themselves be affected by a similar rule. While it isn't currently prohibited to enhance your performance in a white collar job with drugs, it's hard to see why athletes should be the only ones protected against needing drugs to be competitive in their job. So in the hypothetical scenario where most of the population is subject to drug testing (in the US, I believe drug testing in the workplace is quite common), I think people would appreciate that they wouldn't want to be exposed to the risk of their career being ended due to accidental consumption of minuscule quantities of a banned substance.

[manic porpoise]

Originally Posted by NotVeryFast

...(in the US, I believe drug testing in the workplace is quite common)...

Err - yes. My former company drug tested employees but they weren't interested in performance enhancing drugs. Quite the opposite in fact.