David Millar at stage 7 of the Tour de France 2007 on the Col de la Colombière. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Dwain Chambers at the European Athletics Indoor Championships 2009 in Turin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, 100-metre sprinter Dwain Chambers gave his first interview since his lifetime Olympic ban was overturned last month.
On April 29, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that the ban, imposed by the British Olympic Association, was unenforceable. This is seen in some quarters as a major setback to the fight against drugs in sport.
But just how fair really was this punishment?
Those affected by the ban will likely see themselves as being continually punished. As Chambers points out: “I made a mistake, and all I want is another chance to correct it.” Both Chambers and David Millar, who was also affected by the ban, have already served bans from their respective sports, and so, it would seem to them at least, that they have already received their punishments.
Both men, particularly Millar, have become outspoken critics of drug use in sport, and have helped to educate younger athletes of the dangers involved. Millar is now a very well respected member of the cycling world, and is frequently selected as a spokesperson for the professional peloton.
Since their initial bans, both have been allowed to compete in every other competition in the calendar. Chambers ran in the World Championships in Daegu last year, whilst Millar was instrumental as part of the team that delivered Mark Cavendish to gold in the Road Cycling World Championships last September. So, one could argue, why the fuss for the Olympics?
The answer to that question is very simple – they both knew the consequences for being caught doping. That this did not prove enough of a deterrent to stop them committing the act in the first place is not in their favour. The decision to allow them to compete in the Olympics reduces the power of the deterrent still further. Now performance-enhancing drug users will know that, apart from taking a couple of years out of the sport, they will face little consequence for cheating. The potential benefits of doing so will, no doubt, for many outweigh the consequences.
Chambers says: “I didn’t even bother dreaming [of competing at the games]. I thought I would be sitting at home watching.” If they knew and accepted that non-participation at Olympic events was a part of their punishment, then what right do they really have to demand to be allowed to compete?
Bradley Wiggins, a good friend of Millar’s, and somebody who stands to gain a good deal by the decision to allow his teammate to compete in the cycling Road Race, sums it all up for me. He told the BBC: “From a purely selfish point of view, it would be great to have Dave on the start line. But [morally] he should never be able to do the Olympics again.”
Related articles
- Sports News: Cycling: Great Britain ready to pick David Millar for London 2012 (walesonline.co.uk)
- Friday Feature: The Brits are coming (velovoices.com)
blogofmanysports 