Chambers Knew the Law

In 1992 I still held some hope of getting fit again to possibly challenge for Olympic selection. That was also the year that the British Olympic Association passed their eligibility bye-law which renders any athlete found guilty of a doping offence, from that date on, ineligible for selection to the Team GB.

Dwain Chambers in 1992 was 14 and therefore was yet to consider just how close he may have been to senior, never mind Olympic selection for his country. Therefore throughout his entire senior career he knew that the bye-law he is challenging in court this week was in place. Even when he was taking performance enhancing drugs he was aware that if found out his eligibility would be taken away.

Over the weekend we held the 2008 Olympic trials and chambers won the 100m in 10 seconds flat. A less than 3 years after he was banned by the IAAF. Sue Barkers two sparring partners Colin Jackson and Jonathan Edwards had their own opinions on the ban and these weeks inevitable court case after Dwain's success. Colin was of the opinion that the bye-law was clearly known by all including Chambers. It wasn't protested before by anyone who might be affected and then only rarely by those who have been affect. David Millar accepted his fate and knew he would never be able to pull on an Olympic vest again. Millar, the cyclist, was far more voluntarily forthright about drugs than Chambers was who almost at the last minute helped with further enquiries when he saw it as a a way to possibly sway a judgement in his favour.

Edwards on the other hand argued the case for a redemptive second chance, but only with a condition that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and the other international bodies came down harder themselves of offenders. He argued for a 4 or 5 year initial ban, which as he pointed out would act as far more of a deterrent than the current 2. It would show that the world of sport really wanted to get clean. Then after that period if the athlete still wanted to compete, and was still good enough to qualify there should be nothing in their way to prevent it.

Despite all the drugs-free toil I went through I would have to agree with Edwards. A longer initial ban would act as an initial deterrent. It would also make it harder for someone caught cheating to maintain their level of fitness for the period of the ban to get back. They really would have to be determined to come out fighting. However, it would give a chance for the truly repentant people like David Millar to have a chance to make amends, I can see him still racing in 2012 and possibly up for being part of the GB team in London. He is an example of user turned advocate against in the best sense, I'd rather see Millar given a second chance than the chancer Chambers.

Carry On Upping Khyber Troop Numbers

George W. Bush is in the UK, possibly seeking sanctuary from the attacks from John McCain and Barak Obama. However, with the American President in the area Gordon 'Tim'rous Beastie' Brown took the opportunity of his moral support to announce an increase in British troop numbers in Afghanistan; as is typical of such announcements under Labour the House of Commons will only get their announcement from Defence Secretary Des Browne later at 15:30.

The announcement will take UK troops in Afghanistan to their highest since deployment following 9/11 and shows a sort of pendulum effect as Gordon Brown has been cutting numbers in Iraq. However, it doesn't make it any easier on our forces who will still be being deployed with regularity between the two theatres of conflict. As the commander of our troops in Helmand province said last year we are facing a 30 year marathon mission in Afghanistan.

When you consider that both World Wars took a total of ten years and not even Northern Ireland took 30 years to come to a peaceful settlement it makes you wonder just who is winning this so called war on terror.

Have DUP Paved Way for Nationalists Future?

Iain Dale, that'll be the Tory one rather than my Scottish colleague and friend, raised an interesting quandary over the Democratic Unionist Party's support of Labour in the lobbies on Wednesday night.

If the as yet unsubstantiated rumours that some deal has been done, no matter how surreptitiously, could it help the nationalists? No, not the SDLP or Sinn Fein but the Scottish variety.

Like the DUP the SNP lead a devolved executive within the UK. Like the DUP the Scottish Nats are seeking leverage over financial packages for their part of the union. So what happens if at some point in the future Gordon Brown needs more than the 9/10 Unionist votes to secure a crunch vote? What if Alex Salmond makes an approach to Gordon to shore up what he needs and names his price?

If Gordon has as he said yesterday not made a deal with the DUP he can stand up to Alex, however if it comes to light that some preferential treatment is heading the way of Northern Ireland how can he turn down some quid pro quo concession to Scotland.

Could it be after years of defending the Union and standing up to Nationalism that in one moment of seized opportunism the DUP have manged to aid the process that may unravel the Union that they hold so dear? We live in interesting times, and will look out for developments.

To Talk or Not to Talk

There is of course a world of difference between keeping channels open with terrorist groups and giving in to their demands. In the past, Northern Ireland, Palestine and others have seen the former terrorist come within the fold and actually have some share of power over some regions.

It appears that Tony Blair is not averse to keeping communication channels open with terrorist groups. He had previously wanted to hold talks with the IRA Army Council, to keep the Northern peace talks on track. Now one of his senior aides, Jonathan Powell, is calling for the UK to start talks with Al-Queda. Although the Government is rejecting the calls to keep communication open with Al Queda. But the Security Minister Lord West says not talking is silly.

So who is right? One thing we're constantly hearing from Al-Queda seems to be that they hold a grudge that the West does not understand them. Surely to reach some understanding both of the wests leaders to them and vice versa is to have some sort of conversation going.

Who would ever have thought that Ian Paisley would ever have sat down with Sinn Fein, or that Nelson Mandela could reach and agreement with the National Party or that the PLO would ever have reached an agreement with Isreal. Admittedly that conversation still needs to be ongoing to resolve things but they all started to reach some sort of conclusion by diplomacy.

Our government seems to by rejecting the sensible call to talks taking an altogether gung-ho attitude, that is alien to the great triumphs of British history. Yes there have been times that war has been used, but all the time there was a hope of negotiation to resolve things, often with furtive meetings behind the scenes.

Maybe the government is calling our bluff. However, judging on current performance I doubt that, they just haven't got the poker face to do so.

The Army Says No!

Well as I wrote yesterday the US Army said the situation in Iraq is too unstable to foresee a withdrawal of troops before 2010. Well British Army Cheif General Sir Richard Dannatt can tell them why. It's because we are there!.

This is most forthright statement from inside the allied forces military which says that far from being the peace makers in Iraq our troops are seen as occupiers and a cause of the tension, which will only continue the longer we stay.

So not only has he called for an immediate plan for an exit strategy, but he has also hinted that the way we went into Iraq, i.e. not invited, may be affecting how we are viewed in certain parts of the world.

President Bush wants us to stay until 2010. The British Army says no.