So Dwain Chambers and David Millar could be competing for Great Britain in the 2012 Olympics, despite being banned for doping offences. The Court for Arbitration in Sport (CAS) has decided that a lifetime ban by the British Olympic Association does not comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency code and is therefore unenforceable. This has caused a big kerfuffle in the sporting world, with clean sportsmen and women understandably feeling outraged that the good name of their sport could be tainted. Yet I can’t help thinking that it’s the right decision.
Of course, nobody wants to give the nod to doping offences, either directly or indirectly, and I can quite see why sports people who have always scrupulously competed without chemical assistance should be upset. But I can’t get away from the notion that everyone – including sports people – should be allowed to serve their time and then get on with their lives and careers. They made a mistake, they’ve paid the price, so now let’s see what they can do without the drugs. Test them and retest them and then let them compete properly, like they should have done in the first place.
This isn’t a popular point of view, so let’s hear what you’ve got to say about it. Should Dwain Chambers and David Millar be allowed back in the fold? Are the Olympics tainted if they compete? Should doping always lead to a lifetime ban or is everyone entitled to a second chance even if they’ve fallen prey to the temptation of taking drugs? Girl on the River has had her say: now it’s over to you.
There are three reasons why I drug cheats shouldn’t be allowed to compete at the Olympic Games no matter how ‘penitent’ or ‘reformed’ they might appear to be (now they’ve been caught):
1. Deterrence: Given the potential rewards, there are undoubtedly great temptations to cheat. A slap-on-the-wrist-2year-ban-but-back-in-time-for-the-next-games just doesn’t cut it.
2. Fairness: There is good evidence that the beneficial training effects of steroid abuse last for a long time after their time of use, so if you are racing against a cheat who has recently completed his 2-year ban, the drugs they took could still be giving them an unfair advantage.
3. Idealism: Despite being much tarnished, there is still such a thing as an ‘Olympic Ideal’ and drug cheats just must not be allowed to sully this.
Let Dwain, David et al ply their trades if we have to, but they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Olympics.
It never ceases to amaze me how contrite and and apologist people can be once they’re caught. The dawning realisation that their career, livelihood and reputation are now tarnished is sobering enough for most. But a decision to take drugs in order to enhance your sporting ability is just that – a conscious decision, and one which is taken in the full knowledge of the consequences that should and (more often than not) do follow.
I understand the argument that they have served their punishment, but their character is still tarnished by the decision they made. The rule at the time they committed their crime was a lifetime ban from competing for their nation at Sport’s greatest festival. Surely that is still part of their punishment? How can you ever trust them again? Should they have to submit to a more rigorous testing regime? How galling it must be to those who compete as 100% Them to see those who have chosen the alternative lining up beside them. And to sully the Olympic Ideal (to use John’s phrase) is just plain wrong. The sporting heroes that the Olympics produce are held up as examples to be followed – I remember the first time I ever saw an Olympic medal when I was at school like it was yesterday – are we now saying ‘it’s ok folks, this person is a shining example to us as a medalist/competitor (lets not talk about their drug history)? I want to be proud of the athletes that represent their (my) country, and this all leaves a rather bitter taste.
I may be entirely cynical, but if the punishment is now watered down and you serve a finite ban and then are still allowed to compete at the Olympics, will some see it as time well spent if it allows them chemically enhanced time to train?