Yesterday I realised I had published the 1500th entry on this blog (it didn't seem that long ago since the millennium). 1500 was quite a significant number in my formative years.
I was never a sprinter when I was growing up, even at the age of 11 I was far better suited to the race around the circumference of my Primary School appox. 400m to the 50m sprint up the track. Sadly with a 5 metre lead in the qualifying I looked over my shoulder at the wrong point and twisted my ankle in a hole.
However, I'm digressing slightly as it was 1500 which for most of my secondary school career was the longest event on the menu. Of course in the 80s there was a great deal of British interest in the event there was Ovett v Coe in 1980 at Moscow, Coe v Ovett with minor role for Cram in LA in 1984. Then just as I finished my A levels shock of shock, Coe was omitted from the event for Seoul.
Coe had gone to Loughborough to study Economics and Social History. I applied to Loughborough as my first choice to study Economics and Accountancy. Who as an aspiring sportsman doesn't apply to the best equipped sporting university in the country. A reputation enhanced by its fastest ever graduate over the metric and imperial mile. Coe of course later did a masters in sports science at the University.
Coe of course then got involved on retirement from running in the politics of the sport, and eventually the politics of the country, although for the 'wrong' party. So he inspired me run maybe in more ways than one. After all as in sport there was an Ovett to shadow Coe why not in politics to.
Of course my athletics career eventually doubled the distance and put barriers in the way. Maybe the same is true of my political career trying to break through the allusion of two party politics. But Seb Coe was a childhood hero and apart from the party affiliation and some policy judgements still is.
Showing posts with label athletics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label athletics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Monday, July 14, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
