Drug Cheat Chambers In Olympic Squad

Take drugs athletes because cheats prosper and don't get Olympic bans.

Don't worry about it anyway as he will be lucky to reach the final. His fastest time this year is 10.25. All eight in the Jamaica trials last week ran faster than that. In the USA trials 6/8 ran faster than Chambers. That's just two countries where faster guys are missing out on the Olympics to a drug cheat who runs slower.

 

Don't think that's fair. It was completely accepted that she hadn't taken drugs, the ban was in relation to having missed being in the location that her long-term timetable indicated she would be over a long period of time. The final missed test was due to her training session being moved to a different location because kids were using the track. The testers turned up, she wasn't there = missed test. There are a huge number fo athletes on two missed tests. She was stupid but not a drugs cheat.

 

IMO Chambers and Miller should both be allowed to compete on the basis that the BOA’s ban is inconsistent with the sport’s governing bodies. The real issue for me is that the ban isn’t long enough. I don’t think it should be a life time ban but it should be 4 years minimum so that an athlete found guilty would have to miss an Olympics. I’m not sure that an athlete does benefit from the doping after they have stopped Jay, I’ve certainly never seen that evidence and I’m pretty certain the authorities would introduce lifetime bans if that was the case. However, I also may be completely wrong and if so you have a very valid point and it would affect my opinion.

The deterrent at the moment is not sufficient, but I don’t think there should be disparity in the way athletes are treated. It should be set by the governing bodies of the sport, but those governing bodies need to take a firmer stance and invest more in ensuring young athletes are made fully aware of the issues

 

Convenient.

 

Millar should not be in the squad then. He tarnishes the unblemished reputation of the other riders in much the same way that Chambers did to Campbell and was it Thomas??

 

All athletes have to provide a detailed weekly schedule as to there whereabouts way in advance. Testers can turn up at any point on the basis of that schedule and if the person isn't there then they are classed as having missed a test. They are then contacted and have to go for a test immediately so in effect they are still tested. Ohourugu has never failed a test. Over a long period of time she was not at a location her schedule indicated she would be on three occasions when the testers turned up. Now I fully accept that the principle is that the athlete takes complete responsibility for this and hence she was banned for 12 months. However, there was never any suggestion that she had taken drugs and she has never failed a drug test.

 

The GB 4x100m relay team won a silver at the 2003 world championships. Later, when Chambers failed a drugs test, they had to return the medals.

Team was@ Chambers, Campbell, Marlon Devonish and Christian Malcom.

In 2006, after Chambers had served his ban, the 4x100m relay team won gold in the European Championships. Team was Chambers, Campbell, Devonish and Lewis-Francis. Campbell was so pissed off about losing the previous medal and the fact that Chambers was included in this squad that he refused to do a lap of honour with the rest of the team.

 

I watched an interview on the BBC news channel just yesterday by a sports coach claiming the very thing I've repeated today.

The conclusion seemed obvious to me. Take a body builder for example. If he pumps himself full of steroids to help gain muscle mass, that muscle doesn't just evaporate as soon as he stops taking the drugs. It stays with him for a long time. If he continues to train even without the drugs it can stay with him for decades. The same is true for a sprinter.

 

Firstly I would say I don't really know enough about this to make any informed point. My understanding was that the majority of perfomance enhancing drugs assist athletes by allowing them to train for longer, allowing them to improve their performance by increasing muscle, speed etc.? Therefore by stopping taking drugs they are no longer able to train to the heightened intensity or length of time so their performance would return to an unaided level? If the guy on tv was correct and the advantages does remain with the athlete then that certainly challenges my view.

One thing I never get is its always said that Messi developed at Barca because they paid for the growth hormone he required. a) It obviously didn;t work very well and b) why is that allowed?

 

Technically they are allowed back in because WADA took the BOA to court over the lifetime ban rule. I believe Chambers lost his original court case.

How the World Anti-Doping Agency can object to a lifetime ban for cheats is an entirely different arguement.

 

My understanding of performance enhancing drugs is the same as yours. But I think what you have failed to take into consideration is the changes that have been made to the body while the drugs were being taken. Dwain Chambers could train harder and more often while taking the drugs. This made him stronger and faster. It improved him as an athlete. When he stopped taking the drugs he still had that speed and strength within his body, so he could continue to train and perform at a higher level. He could no longer keep improving at the same rate, but he was starting from a higher platform.

I'm not an expert on it, far from it, but the guy I heard yesterday seemed to know what he was talking about. However, he did say that there needed to be a lot more scientific tests to establish how long after you stop taking the drugs it continues to benefit you.

Something else he said was that in the future any GB athlete testing positive for drugs will be banned from the Olympics for life. The three drugs cheats at this Olympics (Chambers, Millar and Myerscough) will be the last. I'm not sure, because it wasn't explained very well, but it wasn't the bans that were illegal but the fact that they weren't part of the constitution. Now they are and that's how it will be.

Never heard that about Messi before. No idea what's going on there.

 

b) Medical exemptions are allowed - for example steroids are in some asthma inhalers and might be needed for more serious cases. But these have to be known and declared (and agreed) well in advance.

 

I suppose my initial reaction is that I would have thought if you stop training, or train less, whether on drugs or not your baseline position of strength/speed reduces. For example I knackered my wrist last year and couldn;t go tot he gym for 6 months whilst I had treatment. When I went back i couldn't lift what I could before the injury and had to build up again to get to where I was before.

Or is the argument that the baseline postion doesn't reduce as far? So for example, someone can lift 40kg before they start training. Then after 3 months of training they can lift 60kg but decide to stop for 3 months. When they start again after 3 months their natural strength has benefited from that original training and can now lift 50kg?

I can see the principle of that to some extent, but it sounds like the guy didn't have much evidence to support it. I think its a really important issue to have scientific proof because if the drugs have had a permenant impact it would certainly challenge the current position of time limited bans.

I do remember once reading a purposefully provacative artcile that said they should legalise all perfromance enhancing drugs as it is the only sure fire way to guarrantee a level playing field

 

I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.

A drugs cheat will not stop training. They may stop taking drugs, but they won't stop training. Say a weight lifter uses drugs for 2 years and gets to the point where he can lift 200kg. He then stops taking drugs, but goes in to training the next day and he can still lift 200kg. He goes in every day for the next 6 months and he can lift 200kg every day. The muscle he has built up when using drugs does not evaporate it stays on him and because he keeps training he maintains the same level. But it was the drugs that got him up there in the first place. Without them he may never have got above lifting 120kg. Now he is drug free, but he is at a much higher level than if he had never taken drugs.

 

But hasn't he only reached 200kg because he is able to train longer and at a higher intensity because of the drugs, so if he stops taking them he won't be able to train as hard and therefore his optimum performance level will reduce?

Sorry, not trying to be awkward, just find it quite interesting and trying to get my head round it

 

He's been able to train longer and harder to get there, but now he has got there the muscle doesn't go away. You need to train harder to improve, to stay at the same level is much easier. There have been significant changes to his muscle mass so he can now perform at that level without using drugs.

Anyone who goes to the gym knows this. If you usually bench press 40kg, but then you move up to 45kg then you find it difficult the first few times. Then after a few sessions you body gets used to the new level. You've worked hard to get stronger and the new weight of 45kg is no longer such an effort. Maintaining that new level is relatively easy. When an athlete uses drugs the body responds to these changes much quicker, so they get used to the new weight quicker, but if they stop taking the drugs the muscle doesn't melt away it's there on their body and they can train at the new level quite comfortably.

 

I can certainly see what you're saying. Just not sure if it is proven, or an accepted by the authorities, because if it is the case then life bans certainly should be considered.

Thanks for that, I like it when something challenges me to reconsider a strongly held position.

 

Thought of a better example.

A 21 year old guy walks in to a gym wanting to become a weight lifter. He can barely lift the bar without any weights on it. But he's determined. From the off he takes steroids. He takes drugs and trains like a lunatic for 6 years. Now he can lift 300 kg. He's world class. After six years he stops taking drugs. All the strength he has got is down to taking drugs.

How long before he can hardly lift the bar again? It'll never happen, even if he doesn't train another day for the rest of his life. From now on he will always be a strong man. If he keeps training he'll be able to maintain excellent muscle tone for years and years and remain an elite athlete without the drugs. But everything he has got is down to drugs. The more I think about the more I'm convinced that drugs give you an advantage for years.

 

Chambers made the mistake of getting caught. He only did what many others were doing and some I suspect still are.
The games are full of athletes who have only served a two year ban. How many Yanks are in their team who have served two year bans?