farfromfearless
Dwain Chambers - Should He Stay Or Should He Go?
Earlier today, British sprinter Dwain Chambers clocked an even 10.00 seconds to win the 100m title at the Olympic trials in Birmingham, confirming his status as the United Kingdom’s number one and, on paper at least, one of our strongest athletes for Beijing. However, in 2004 Chambers was given a two-year ban for taking performance-enhancing drugs, and his position within the British team remains highly controversial. Earlier this year, Chambers himself admitted to using testosterone, EPO, HGH, insulin, Modafinil and Liothyronine in the past.
Great Britain selectors are due to announce most of the British athletic squad on Monday, but may have to hold on for the results of a high court ruling on Wednesday before making a decision on Chambers, who is challenging a British Olympic Association (BOA) by-law which bans athletes who have previously failed drug tests from ever competing in the Olympics. If successful, and Chambers is permitted to compete in Beijing this August, it’ll take a brave (and essentially illegal) stance from the BOA to stand against him.
Chambers is confident that the verdict will go his way. “I strongly believe the decision will go in our favour and I can go and have some fun in Beijing,” he said, adding, “I’m in good shape and it will be a shame if I don’t go.”
Chambers’ appeal has not been well-received by the athletics world, with many well-known British names, including Steve Backley, Steve Cram, Steve Redgrave, Allan Wells and Lord Sebastian Coe, firmly opposed to the idea that he should be allowed to represent Britain at the Olympics. Other athletes from around the world, including Olympic gold medallist Ed Moses, and fellow 100m sprinter and former world record holder Asafa Powell, have come out in support of Chambers.
“You have to be fair to the athletes and there will be other athletes in China who have tested positive in the past. I don’t like the fact that Dwain has had a positive test but from an athletes’ rights point of view you have to stand up for him on this matter.” said Moses.
###
Chambers personal rights aside, does any of this really matter? He’s hardly going to be a factor at the games, is he? He ran 9.97 in 2001 - seven years ago, when he was 23 - a time that, even if he could pull it off now likely won’t even qualify him for the 100m final at Beijing. He ran an even 10 seconds today, but the last time 10 seconds had a chance of a medal at the Olympics was in the mid-to-late 1980s.
Of course, what’s laughable about all of this is that if a pretty run-of-the-mill performer like Chambers needs chemical enhancement to *only* run 9.97 then it makes you wonder what in blue blazes the likes of Tyson Gay are taking, who recently clocked a wind-assisted 9.68 in the US Olympic trials. Let’s not be naive or whimsical about this - they’re *all* taking drugs, as we know - not being caught is not proof of anything (apart from that you haven’t been caught).
It makes me chuckle. Almost one-tenth of one second has been taken off of Ben Johnson’s drug-assisted 1988 gold-medal winning run (9.79), but some people still seem to cling to the idea that he was a rare bad egg. It’s only two years since Justin Gatlin’s 9.77 was stripped from the record books.
It’s only a level playing field if you’re taking the same stuff as everybody else. As far as I can tell, the last legitimate 100m record-holder was probably Jim Hines back in the 60s/70s, but even then, who knows?
Let Chambers go - he’s not doing anything different to anybody else (and yes, he’s inevitably still taking something), and he won’t be a factor anyway. It’ll be Ben Johnson at the 1992 Olympics all over again, where he makes the semi-finals and then disappears without a trace. If an example needs to be made, then there aren’t many better ways than being found out as being actually quite ordinary.
- Copyright 2009 iRun365.com. All Rights Reserved.
- Back To Top
- Home
Leave a Comment-