When it was announced that the British Olympic Association (BOA) had lost its case against the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), it was met with mixed views. The ruling affected a number of sportsmen and women but the most high profile was of course Dwain Chambers. Indeed, for many, it was simply about whether Chambers should be allowed to compete at the London 2012 Olympics.
Many opposed the ruling with indignation arguing drugs cheats (or just replace that with ‘Chambers’) should never be given the right to compete for Britain at the Olympics. Conversely, others felt drugs cheats (or again, replace with ‘Chambers’) should be given a second chance. I was in the camp of the latter and have been since it became apparent Chambers had been made a pariah of athletics and ostracised by the athletics establishment following his ban.
Chambers was banned for two years after testing positive for THG, a banned steroid. Including Chambers himself, I don’t think anyone would have argued against the ban. It was in line with the rules and Chambers had knowingly broken those rules when he began taking banned substances with the aim of improving his performances. Ironically, with few exceptions, Chambers’ performances were actually average (by his standards) while he was taking THG.
What Chambers and others didn’t anticipate was what occurred following his ban.
By his own admission, Chambers didn’t expect he would be welcomed back into athletics with open arms. But the extent to which he was made a pariah of the sport was not anticipated. Invites to track meetings were not forthcoming and the Euromeetings consortium made the recommendation that their members not invite former drug cheats to any of their events – a recommendation seemingly subtly targeted at Chambers. Chambers had effectively been blackballed. A failed attempt to overturn his Olympic ban to make him eligible for the Beijing 2008 Olympics made that even more apparent.
During and following his ban, Chambers tried his hand at American Football and played in the now defunct NFL Europa league. He also had a short-lived stint in Rugby League playing for the Castleford Tigers. But despite athletics turning its back on him, he eventually returned to the sport. In spite of the lack of opportunities for him to compete, Chambers showed himself to be faster and hungrier than many of the younger British sprinters, many of whom received lottery and UK Athletics funding. Furthermore, in a post-ban high, Chambers made the final of the 100m at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.
So why was Chambers’ return to athletics met with such hostility? Since testing positive for THG and serving his ban, he has shown humility, integrity and contrition, going as far as working with the authorities to share his knowledge of the Balco scandal. Chambers has also worked with and spoken to young people, sharing his story as a cautionary tale for young would-be athletes. Chambers has certainly tried to make amends for his previous transgressions, a fact that the BOA and the athletics establishment have chosen to ignore.
Prior to his ban, Chambers was considered by many within the UK athletics scene to be too braggadocios, a la many of the American sprinters. His physique (albeit the right build for a sprinter) probably intimidated some of the competition and his demeanour just didn’t match what the old guard of athletics wanted to see. He was perceived as having too much swagger for a sport that many felt should be ‘gentlemanly’ in every aspect. Chambers’ involvement in the Balco scandal only served to fuel any disdain the establishment had towards him.
The likes of Lord Coe, Steve Cram and Lord Moynihan consistently pontificated about the disrepute Chambers had brought to athletics. Listening to them would make anyone think Chambers was the only athlete to take a banned substance. But more significantly, it made it increasingly apparent that Coe et al did not see Chambers as ‘one of them’.
This didn’t come down to race (no pun intended) but image. Chambers was too brash to fit the image they sought for ‘their’ sport. In 2009 Steve Cram wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian opposing the decision for Chambers to be invited to the Paris Golden League. Cram described it as “preparing to break a gentleman's agreement”.
With all this talk of “gentleman’s agreements” and the decorum expected from athletes, it’s no wonder some, such as Steve Cram, don’t acknowledge the good character and form on the track that Chambers has shown since serving his ban. His contrition, the fact he is the fastest sprinter in Britain (and that’s without lottery and UKA funding that slower and lazier athletes continue to receive) and his cooperation in sharing his knowledge with the anti-doping authorities has been seen as secondary. To some within the athletics establishment, there is an expectation of certain etiquette within the sport. And if an athlete does not conform, the establishment is not happy.
Following his record-breaking 200m race at the Beijing 2008 Olympics, Usain Bolt was criticised by Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the manner of his celebrations. Perhaps the extent of euphoria shown by Bolt wasn’t sufficiently European or indeed ‘gentlemanly’ for Rogge’s liking. The athletics establishment clearly desire an image void of braggadocio that so many non-European athletes, and indeed athletes not of European descent, now show. Chambers was guilty of doing just that and was therefore out of favour with the establishment, and those like-minded within the public, before he had even been found guilty of taking THG.
Sportsmen and women should of course be sporting in their conduct. But that need not conform to a traditional perception of what being ‘sporting’ is. Had it not been for Usain Bolt, athletics would have continued to experience a slump in its profile since its heyday. Can the braggadocio that has now become part of the sport therefore be such a bad thing?
There are many that genuinely believe in a life ban for drugs cheats and they are entitled to their opinions. Indeed, in some instances, they may be right. But for many that share that view, their opinions are simply fuelled by a disdain for Chambers.
Chambers has served his ban and arguably suffered more than other sportsmen and women in his position. He doesn’t deserve to be vilified by the athletics establishment because he doesn’t conform to their archaic image of the sport. Chambers fully deserves his second chance.
 |
Chambers was banned for two years after testing positive for THG, a banned steroid. Including Chambers himself, I don’t think anyone would have argued against the ban. It was in line with the rules and Chambers had knowingly broken those rules when he began taking banned substances with the aim of improving his performances. Ironically, with few exceptions, Chambers’ performances were actually average (by his standards) while he was taking THG.
What Chambers and others didn’t anticipate was what occurred following his ban.
By his own admission, Chambers didn’t expect he would be welcomed back into athletics with open arms. But the extent to which he was made a pariah of the sport was not anticipated. Invites to track meetings were not forthcoming and the Euromeetings consortium made the recommendation that their members not invite former drug cheats to any of their events – a recommendation seemingly subtly targeted at Chambers. Chambers had effectively been blackballed. A failed attempt to overturn his Olympic ban to make him eligible for the Beijing 2008 Olympics made that even more apparent.
During and following his ban, Chambers tried his hand at American Football and played in the now defunct NFL Europa league. He also had a short-lived stint in Rugby League playing for the Castleford Tigers. But despite athletics turning its back on him, he eventually returned to the sport. In spite of the lack of opportunities for him to compete, Chambers showed himself to be faster and hungrier than many of the younger British sprinters, many of whom received lottery and UK Athletics funding. Furthermore, in a post-ban high, Chambers made the final of the 100m at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.
So why was Chambers’ return to athletics met with such hostility? Since testing positive for THG and serving his ban, he has shown humility, integrity and contrition, going as far as working with the authorities to share his knowledge of the Balco scandal. Chambers has also worked with and spoken to young people, sharing his story as a cautionary tale for young would-be athletes. Chambers has certainly tried to make amends for his previous transgressions, a fact that the BOA and the athletics establishment have chosen to ignore.
Prior to his ban, Chambers was considered by many within the UK athletics scene to be too braggadocios, a la many of the American sprinters. His physique (albeit the right build for a sprinter) probably intimidated some of the competition and his demeanour just didn’t match what the old guard of athletics wanted to see. He was perceived as having too much swagger for a sport that many felt should be ‘gentlemanly’ in every aspect. Chambers’ involvement in the Balco scandal only served to fuel any disdain the establishment had towards him.
The likes of Lord Coe, Steve Cram and Lord Moynihan consistently pontificated about the disrepute Chambers had brought to athletics. Listening to them would make anyone think Chambers was the only athlete to take a banned substance. But more significantly, it made it increasingly apparent that Coe et al did not see Chambers as ‘one of them’.
This didn’t come down to race (no pun intended) but image. Chambers was too brash to fit the image they sought for ‘their’ sport. In 2009 Steve Cram wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian opposing the decision for Chambers to be invited to the Paris Golden League. Cram described it as “preparing to break a gentleman's agreement”.
With all this talk of “gentleman’s agreements” and the decorum expected from athletes, it’s no wonder some, such as Steve Cram, don’t acknowledge the good character and form on the track that Chambers has shown since serving his ban. His contrition, the fact he is the fastest sprinter in Britain (and that’s without lottery and UKA funding that slower and lazier athletes continue to receive) and his cooperation in sharing his knowledge with the anti-doping authorities has been seen as secondary. To some within the athletics establishment, there is an expectation of certain etiquette within the sport. And if an athlete does not conform, the establishment is not happy.
Following his record-breaking 200m race at the Beijing 2008 Olympics, Usain Bolt was criticised by Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the manner of his celebrations. Perhaps the extent of euphoria shown by Bolt wasn’t sufficiently European or indeed ‘gentlemanly’ for Rogge’s liking. The athletics establishment clearly desire an image void of braggadocio that so many non-European athletes, and indeed athletes not of European descent, now show. Chambers was guilty of doing just that and was therefore out of favour with the establishment, and those like-minded within the public, before he had even been found guilty of taking THG.
Sportsmen and women should of course be sporting in their conduct. But that need not conform to a traditional perception of what being ‘sporting’ is. Had it not been for Usain Bolt, athletics would have continued to experience a slump in its profile since its heyday. Can the braggadocio that has now become part of the sport therefore be such a bad thing?
There are many that genuinely believe in a life ban for drugs cheats and they are entitled to their opinions. Indeed, in some instances, they may be right. But for many that share that view, their opinions are simply fuelled by a disdain for Chambers.
Chambers has served his ban and arguably suffered more than other sportsmen and women in his position. He doesn’t deserve to be vilified by the athletics establishment because he doesn’t conform to their archaic image of the sport. Chambers fully deserves his second chance.