Dwain Chambers

These are Dwain Chambers season best times for the 100 m's

year		time		age	wspeed	date
2011		10.01		33	+2.0	22/05/2011
2010		9.99		32	+1.1	19/06/2010
2009		10.00		31	+0.9	16/08/2009
2008		10.00		30	+1.6	12/07/2008
2006		10.07		28	+1.5	11/06/2006
2003		10.18		25		20/09/2003
2001		9.99		23	-0.2	05/08/2001
2000		10.08		22	-0.3	23/09/2000
1999		9.97		21	+0.2	22/08/1999
1998		10.03		20	-0.2	11/09/1998
1997		10.06		19	+2.0	25/07/1997
1996		10.42		18	+0.7	27/07/1996
1995		10.41		17	-0.9	28/07/1995
1994		10.75		15		01/01/1994

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=GBR/athcode=50331/index.html

When accounting for age factors, did the "drugs" that Chambers took really improve Chambers sprint performances? Is it a question that these drugs are used to replace hard work and a lack of self belief ... that hard work, a careful diet and self-belief will get you were the drugs would have got you in terms of peak performance?

It's very important to note that this table only includes performances eligible for ranking and record purposes. All performances that were retrospectively disqualified from 2002 and 2003 are excluded. This includes his 9.87 from 2002. However, this period also includes his poor performances from the 2003 World Champs in Paris where he missed a medal in a 100m final that he probably ought to have won and lost about 2 metres in the sprint relay to a mediocre American called J.J. Johnson.

Overall, I would say that the drugs didn't seem to work that well!

I didn't think about that so good point. So the listed times are probably those that were achieved "drug free".

Actually I'm not sure how the time from 20/09/03 is on there. As I understand it all times from 2002 and 2003 are disqualified because of DC's later revelations, while he was not allowed to compete in 2004 and 2005.

think the fact that he ran a 9.87(which equaled christies british record if im not mistakin) shows they did lead to at least some improvement. Big congrats to him on grabbing bronze at the indoors aswell, hope he gets to run at the olympics!

I think Chambers should be allowed to run the Olympics. He has served his time. This silly little bylaw of the BOAs is not in line with what happens in the real world. I hope they lose their case.

Super D Boon wrote:I think Chambers should be allowed to run the Olympics. He has served his time. This silly little bylaw of the BOAs is not in line with what happens in the real world. I hope they lose their case.

Maybe we should stop testing out athletes, make sure we cover up and give minimum sentences to any athletes that are caught, or even start a systematic doping programme as well?

That would put us more in line with the rest of the 'real' world. Not this staunch anti-doping stance, I can't see how we live with ourselves treating doping as a very bad thing.

Super D Boon wrote:I think Chambers should be allowed to run the Olympics. He has served his time. This silly little bylaw of the BOAs is not in line with what happens in the real world. I hope they lose their case.

I agree. WADA is right to want to agree globally enforceable common standards but 4 years should be the rule. That's where we should be making our efforts. Also 2 strikes and you are out.

Drug testing also needs to be properly and effectively globally extended to out of season testing with no advance notice other than is given in the UK now. Conte thinks that's when the smart guys are doing it.

djlovesyou wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:I think Chambers should be allowed to run the Olympics. He has served his time. This silly little bylaw of the BOAs is not in line with what happens in the real world. I hope they lose their case.

Maybe we should stop testing out athletes, make sure we cover up and give minimum sentences to any athletes that are caught, or even start a systematic doping programme as well?

That would put us more in line with the rest of the 'real' world. Not this staunch anti-doping stance, I can't see how we live with ourselves treating doping as a very bad thing.

The so called "staunch anti-doping" stance of the British is hugely idealistic, simplistic, in fact it's even moronic. Wasn't it the stupid draconian British system that ruined the careers of perfectly innocent athletes in Diane Modahl and Doug Turner?

On to Dwain Chamber the silly bylaw of the BOA is in effect a ban, it is not a "selection policy" as the draconian Brits like to make out it IS A BAN! How comes he can run, but um....only in certain competitions!? Yet bigger cheats like Justin Gatlin, who conned his way to Olympic stardom gets to run in London. DC was caught in 2003 and since been hauled over the coals, ridiculued, banned, dragged through the streets naked and hated like a murderer so surely he's served his time? Afterall a fake Olympic Champion is allowed to run and he was caught and banned far more recently. Time for the Brits to grow up and live in the real world like everyone else!

Go WADA!

You put the words 'perfectly innocent' and 'Diane Modahl' in the same sentence, good one.

I do agree that Dwain has been treated badly, and I actually quite like the guy, but I don't see how stopping a proven cheat from competing at the Olympics is a bad thing.

So what you're saying is that other countries are going to have (former)filthy cheats competing for them, so why can't we? Why not go the whole hog and say that because other countries (Spain, Jamaica, Russia and many others) have quite extensive doping going on, then we should too because it's otherwise unfair?

Go dopers!!!

Personally I think BOA should align itself with WADA and aim to influence and strengthen WADA, rather than to fight with them.

It's the same as Britain putting 100+% tax on petrol for "climate change" reasons when China, Russia, USA etc hardly tax petrol at all.

Here's why drugs cheats should get LONG bans, simply by taking certain drugs, you give yourself a massive training advantage over anyone who doesn't take them and even when you stop taking them, you already have an edge, so if you continue to train clean as well as you can, you'll still have a slight advantage, even a few years later.

It's still time for the British government to make a stand and simply refuse to grant visas to anyone who's failed a test on the pretence that they would surely be a risk of bringing drugs with them.
It obviously wouldn't stand up to any scrutiny, but would any country actually pull out just because one of their CHEATS wasn't allowed in, it would make them appear that they condone cheating and it's way too late to move the games anywhere else now anyway.

djlovesyou wrote:You put the words 'perfectly innocent' and 'Diane Modahl' in the same sentence, good one.

Interesting?

She had a good lawyer and brought down the BAF.

The fact that she married a dodgy guy and strangely developed a moustache and a square jaw before testing positive were a bit of a giveaway.

So Britain shouldn't do the right thing because other countries are doing the wrong thing (this aimed at most bar dj on this thread)?

Sometimes the right thing is worth doing because... it is the right thing.

The right thing will be to get WADA to toughen up its act. 4 years needs to be applied in a more consistent fashion.

I've always believed in everyone having the right to a second chance in life, especially those who accept their guilt. Chambers in particular has been punished many times over despite the fact that he provided valuable insight into doping and has spoken at schools about the dangers associated with doping. Has Gatling done anything to earn redemption?

djlovesyou wrote:She had a good lawyer and brought down the BAF.

The fact that she married a dodgy guy and strangely developed a moustache and a square jaw before testing positive were a bit of a giveaway.

Wasn't her sample kept out in the sun in a Portuguese lab and thus became contaminated? Wait, but she was aquitted though and finally proven innocent in a court of law? Despite bringing down the BAF she received no compensation and thus got ruined financially herself. What about Doug Turner? Former European champ, gets a dodgy test in the prime of his career, by the time he proves his innocence his career is ruined as well. The anti dopers in Blighty are way too happy to pull the trigger.

Has Gatling done anything to earn redemption?.

-------------------

Precisely. Yet Gatlin caused more damage to the sport yet London awaits him. Poor Dwain is going nowhere unless WADA wins.

I'm not a member of the DC fan club but I can't see what benefit this BOA rule has for anyone.

As for Gatlin, Francis Obikwelu is the real 2004 100m Olympic Champion!

Super D Boon wrote:
I'm not a member of the DC fan club but I can't see what benefit this BOA rule has for anyone.

As for Gatlin, Francis Obikwelu is the real 2004 100m Olympic Champion!

It is not a question of the rule benefitting anyone or anything, it is a question of not allowing a cheat to compete at the highest level.

Mike Selig wrote:... It is not a question of the rule benefitting anyone or anything, it is a question of not allowing a cheat to compete at the highest level.

The issue is that this is an additional rule to the one that WADA employs.

TBH I'd love it if the UK refused visa entry to the country for drug cheats like Gatlin, etc. though I can't see it happening. On this issue I tend to side with Mike and dj, just because other countries don't believe in truly punishing drug cheats by saying "in that case you won't be able to compete at the highest level" doesn't mean the BOA should relax their stance. I think it's a disgrace that Meritt is going to compete at the OG, which means in effect his ban was meaningless (as it conveniently ended just in time for him to compete at last year's world champs).

Yeah well I'd agree with you MFC if eveyone could be treated the way Chambers has been but it's not the case. LaShawn Merritt, Justin Gatlin - both Olympic Champions, both cheats and far worse than Chambers considering they have Olympic Gold medals in a cabinet at home and there's a high percentage of probability that there's more than just a little bit of dirt on those medals.

It needs to be the same globally - either cast all drug cheats to enternal hell fire or punish and rehabilitiate offenders in a manner that is consistent for everyone.

Chambers has been treated so badly in comparion I actually feel sorry for him.

Athletics is a professional international sport with international rules. The Olympics is an international event governed by the rules of the International Olympic Committee and WADA (which was created from the IOC) as well as the professional bodies (e.g IAAF). With the BOC and others fixating on Dwain Chambers and fighting against IOC/WADA they are missing out on the big picture and losing their ability to influence the IOC/WADA.

I am in favour of life time bans for drug cheats. However, as you they tend to be banned under WADA, IAAF & IOC rules for 2 or 4 years etc, then once you return, you should be allowed compete where & whenever, once you qualify in terms of the respective regs for sprinting etc.

I dont much like Chambers but the more this has dragged on and the more hoop jumping (and I'd also say he is probably the most tested athelete in Britain too) makes him seem like a victim when he really shouldn't be.

And I dont mean the hollistic sense of victim in terms of 'needing' to cheat in order to win/validate himself etc. I mean it is clearly now a case of the BOC issuing a further punishment to that of which he was already served.

He's not a sex offender, he is a drug cheat, and thus his ban & loss of earnings etc (and tainted name) are seen as punishment enough in terms of the global authorities, so the equivilant 'tagging & location ban' from the BOC really isn't right or fair.

Once the fixation on Dwain Chambers is removed one can focus on the on-going drug cheats. With the treatment of Dwain Chambers I am sure that has acted as a disincentive for other drug cheaters to come clean once caught about their cheating activity so that the networks and tricks of the drugs trade can be understood better and countered.

Obikwelu has been quite heavily implicated recently too. It's only because it was one of the Spanish scandals that they manage to all get off with saying 'It wasn't me' and they take their word for it.

As much as Gatlin is a 'baddie' I wouldn't go too far as to say X athlete is the real champion. It all ends up pretty disappointing.

I do feel sorry for Chambers but I still think the extra ban is ok. I don't agree with embracing cheats just because other countries do. For me, competing at the Olympics is a privilege rather than a right, if you bring the sport and your country into disrepute, it seems fair that you're not allowed to compete.

What other countries do is of little interest to me, unless our main objective is to top medal tables.

djlovesyou wrote:Obikwelu has been quite heavily implicated recently too. It's only because it was one of the Spanish scandals that they manage to all get off with saying 'It wasn't me' and they take their word for it.

As much as Gatlin is a 'baddie' I wouldn't go too far as to say X athlete is the real champion. It all ends up pretty disappointing.

I do feel sorry for Chambers but I still think the extra ban is ok. I don't agree with embracing cheats just because other countries do. For me, competing at the Olympics is a privilege rather than a right, if you bring the sport and your country into disrepute, it seems fair that you're not allowed to compete.

What other countries do is of little interest to me, unless our main objective is to top medal tables.

This I agree 100% with.

I do feel sorry for Chambers but I still think the extra ban is ok. I don't agree with embracing cheats just because other countries do. For me, competing at the Olympics is a privilege rather than a right, if you bring the sport and your country into disrepute, it seems fair that you're not allowed to compete.
--------------

It's not about "embracing" cheats as Chambers is not a cheat - he's a former cheat. He done the crime, served the time the same as Gatlin. It is therefore not fair that one of them gets to go to the Olympics and the other doesn't.

I suppose the idea of a second chance is lost on you. It's not like Chambers killed anyone.

He cheated, therefore he's a cheat.

The only thing stopping him from doing it again is the fear of getting caught, if he was given 100% guarantee that he wouldn't be caught, he would do it again.

People always talk about 'making mistakes' when it comes to doping, when it reality the only mistake is to get busted.

As for Gatlin, I don't care. That's the choice of that particular nation.
I'd rather he wasn't having said that.

Is it fair that other countries have systematic and government 'supported' doping programs and loads of their athletes will be infesting the games? Should we follow suit to level things out?

djlovesyou wrote:He cheated, therefore he's a cheat.

The only thing stopping him from doing it again is the fear of getting caught, if he was given 100% guarantee that he wouldn't be caught, he would do it again.

People always talk about 'making mistakes' when it comes to doping, when it reality the only mistake is to get busted.

As for Gatlin, I don't care. That's the choice of that particular nation.
I'd rather he wasn't having said that.

Is it fair that other countries have systematic and government 'supported' doping programs and loads of their athletes will be infesting the games? Should we follow suit to level things out?

Following your logic we can call you a thief or a liar because, no doubt, at some point in your life you have lied or have taken something without permission...

Labelling people for past actions is a dangerous road to go down...

djlovesyou wrote:He cheated, therefore he's a cheat.

The only thing stopping him from doing it again is the fear of getting caught, if he was given 100% guarantee that he wouldn't be caught, he would do it again.

Is it fair that other countries have systematic and government 'supported' doping programs and loads of their athletes will be infesting the games? Should we follow suit to level things out?

First of all how do you really know that Chambers would cheat again if he had a 100% guarantee of not getting caught? Likewise, how do you know that a clean athlete given a 100% guarantee of not getting caught doesn't get tempted into cheating? Silly statement based entirley on assumption.

No it isn't fair that anyone dopes, I've read a lot about the former East German nation's terrible doping programmes. Many athletes like Kathy Cook were robbed of golds when drug induced cheats like Marita Koch won everything. However, that doesn't detract from the fact that there needs to be consistency accross the globe. Anti doping codes must apply consistently to the whole world, there shouldn't be any regional variations! It makes a mockery of the whole sport of Cheat A gets to run and Cheat B has to stay at home.

Fair enough. But you believe in consistency by moving the goalposts in the favour of the dopers instead of the other way.

You'd rather have all cheats competing on a level playing field. Fine. I'd rather have as many cheats out as possible.

djlovesyou wrote:Fair enough. But you believe in consistency by moving the goalposts in the favour of the dopers instead of the other way.

You'd rather have all cheats competing on a level playing field. Fine. I'd rather have as many cheats out as possible.

No that's not it at all. I never said that.

Edwin Moses wrote: "Once you serve your penalty, you serve your penalty and you go back to it.

"If you go out and drive drunk, you'll get your drivers' licence back eventually. That's much more critical."

[he recalled of the campaign for improved drug testing.]

"It was a group of seven or eight athletes, some of whom were tired of getting beat by people that they previously were in front of.

"And that was the real impetus to have a fair and level playing field.

"This was back in the late 80s. We knew that having drug control out of competition was the way to control that.

From Edwin Moses http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/17544580

I agree with him - there should be a level playing field, i.e. the same set of rules applied to all. We could discuss strengthening the sanctions but my view is that there should be one set of sanctions. Certainly someone taking steroids / growth hormones etc should receive harsher sanctions than someone taking a different brand of Vic Nasal spray (etc) [if it can be proved to be the case and is not a cover story]. However, djloves and other views are also valid as the Olympics also is about "representing your nation" and it is a question of whether the same standards for "representing your nation" should be applied or not.

Ps actually Dwain Chambers is allowed to represent Great Britain in other championships (selection for the World Indoor championships, the European championships etc ), so this must be all about politics.

Nore Staat wrote:Ps actually Dwain Chambers is allowed to represent Great Britain in other championships (selection for the World Indoor championships, the European championships etc ), so this must be all about politics.

No it isn't. The BOA byelaw that at this moment stops DC being eligible for the British Olympic team was brought in back in 1992 before he took up the sport.

This is what it is all about now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17554106