Banzai
07-21-2008, 04:57 AM
On thursday, British athlete Dwain Chambers lost his high court appeal to be allowed to join the British Olympic team for Beijing 2008, to run the 100m, despite having a drug conviction. According to the British Olympic Association rules, no athlete who has ever taken performance enhancing drugs can compete in the British Olympic Team.
Chambers' argument was that since he had served a two year ban, to exclude him from the olympic team would be to punish him twice. He also qualified at the olympic trials as the top of the British atheletes.
A host of other British athletes (past and present) have spoken out against his potential inclusion in the squad, and have expressed relief at the ruling of the high court.
Britain is currently the only olympic country which places a lifetime olympic ban on drugs offenders.
What are your opinions on this? Do you think Chambers should or should not be allowed to run?
Chambers' argument was that since he had served a two year ban, to exclude him from the olympic team would be to punish him twice. He also qualified at the olympic trials as the top of the British atheletes.
A host of other British athletes (past and present) have spoken out against his potential inclusion in the squad, and have expressed relief at the ruling of the high court.
Britain is currently the only olympic country which places a lifetime olympic ban on drugs offenders.
What are your opinions on this? Do you think Chambers should or should not be allowed to run?