Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dwain Chambers [Golden League reprieve?]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    he did split 6.41 in seville

    he possibly only looked a poor starter because he was often up against 2 of all-time great starters in mo & bruny

    60m may always have been his best distance ( it's much better than a 9.87 with a +2.0 )

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by lalala
      The interesting thing for me about Chambers' 6.42 is that he never used to be THAT great a starter...his finish was always the stronger part of his race back in ye good old days- indeed, in that 6.42 he appeared to be going away from the field.

      Yes, it doesn't always translate, but he's hardly built for the 60m. I expect great things over the summer...whether I like them or not!
      The fact that he's running faster now than he did with all those PED's does raise some interesting questions.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... ctory.html

      Three years ago, a study of elite powerlifters by medical biology researchers at Umea University in Sweden demonstrated long-term muscle changes in anabolic steroids users.

      The researchers found that, rather than returning to their normal proportions after abstaining from drug use, they remained remarkably similar to those of the subjects who were still doping.

      Prof Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of the International Olympic Committee's medical commission, is not alone in believing the residual physiological changes brought about by sustained doping can offer potentially permanent advantages, as if an athlete had a non-stop supply of rocket fuel.

      Comment


      • #33
        http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?s ... &type=lgns

        Here we go again...

        Comment


        • #34
          telegraph is my local rag & i read it yesterday but didn't think it worth posting

          i'm sure he has some fractional advantage 5y down the line, but probably measured in thousandths not hundredths even with traditional steroids

          the observation that he coudn't run faster then when stuffed to the gills with drugs than now when he's been clean for 5y suggests they really are clutching at straws, but then again he did take a trivial potency steroid, so i woudn'y strictly apply that story to him

          Comment


          • #35
            Just a question is it really your natural ability when you take enhancing aids?

            ... Chambers said. “I took almost four years off. I’m curious what I can really do just on my natural talent. Maybe I can show youths that you don’t need to do [drugs].”
            Anyone else get a shiver from hearing "Project Bolt", Conte and new Supplements all in the same article? :twisted:

            Comment


            • #36
              I can never understand why Chambers seems to be one of the only athletes that is actually banned from these meets - whereas others (including a previously banned Beijing gold medallist) compete freely across the meets. How is that?!

              Comment


              • #37
                In view of the requirement for Chambers to pay back a considerable amount of his ill gotten gains, may one be a little cynical, and ask the experts here how much cash , received by American sprinters , 400m runners and also European cheats, has been paid back to the IAAF.

                The argument that a number of the cheats denied having taken drugs and ,therefore, did not have to return their cash rewards is unconvincing ; White, Jones and Harrison and particularly Pettigrew should clearly have to pay back any Grand Prix monies etc.9 ( in addition to the medal returns)

                Are they doing so and what is the IAAF stance for the cases mentioned.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Chambers is paying back because he wants to keep competing. The others are all "retired" and any attempts by the IAAF to get the monies back would be a complete waste of time. All they can do is take the medals away (even if that may turn out to be largely symbolic as well, as in the physical medals are probably never returned).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If I were into maintenance and champerty, which I'm not, I'd think about getting in touch with some of the athletes who lost prize money to doped athletes, and suing to recover those ill-gotten gains. I suspect, however, that I would find that most of that money was spent long ago and the exercise would not be profitable.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      One thing I really dislike is this implicit idea that those with a media pulpit are free to attack whomever they like whenever they like, but are also free, if it suits them, to impose a moratorium on attacking anybody who is not the current target of their ire, under threat of censure, even if it happens to be their own previous victim! A lot of "journalists" writing their little opinion columns sound to me like would-be dictators. They don't want to illuminate issues for the public, they want to decide them on their behalf.

                      Case in point. Christine Ohuruogu MBE. In 2007 the media treated her worse than they treated Dwain Chambers in 2006! But now she's won a World Championship gold medal, an Olympic gold medal, and received an honour from the Queen, it's some how offensive for anybody to cast innuendos her way! "Well, yes, we were persecuting Christine in 2007, but we've decided not to any more, so you can't either, or we'll hurt you!" There are lots of subtle examples of hypocrisies like this in the Chambers case.

                      I sometimes wonder if the real issue the press and the authorities have with Dwain Chambers isn't that he served his drugs ban. It's that he offers a different narrative to the ones these entitled dictators fight for control over. They don't want him implicating anybody they're not willing to implicate. They don't want him implicating them. And they'll destroy him over it, even if he tells the truth. There's a moral relativism at the heart of track and field even as its leaders try to talk in absolutes, and this conflict renders the sport impotent to address doping in the serious manner it professes to do already. The dictators don't want anybody to expose the lie that they don't have as much authority in these matters as they say they do, or that they might have double standards, or that there are things they don't know, or that there are things they do know which they aren't supposed to know, or that the testing industry creates a sort of arms race, a phony war, of mutual co-dependency, on which funding and employment hinge, and that there are rules to this game, which everybody must follow, and which the public mustn't know about, and that following these rules, and crushing anybody who doesn't, and paying lip service to the correct appearances, and maintaining the hard earned prestige of the dictators, is the only thing that matters. I always wonder where the shoe companies are in all of this. And I wonder why nobody thinks it wouldn't be a good idea to have the whole business regulated by legitimate medical doctors doing research into human physiology. Surely that would fit with their precious Olympic ideals.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        So we have selective morality for me.

                        If an athlete retires , don't chase him up but do so if he still wishes to compete. Funny value system.

                        Anway, the lawyers in the States are not usually so reticent on chasing up petty criminals to get back their ill gotten gains when they so decide.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Difference is that--as much as you'd like them to be--the drug cheats aren't "criminals" in the eyes of the law. They've broken the rules of a private organization, just as you might be expelled from the Masons for giving away the secret handshake. At least that's this nonlawdude's take on it.

                          Perhaps there's some civil action that can be taken? But the legal system certainly doesn't care.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I continue to feel bemused by the whole saga, although it is a little alarming that he's still being advised by Remi Korchemny, he's still being advised by Victor Conte, and they're calling it "Project Bolt", in an unfortunate echo of Tim Montgomery's "Project World Record" back in the BALCO days. Conte's hooked him up with some new legal supplements (does anybody remember ZMA?) and he's got this new training regime where he inhales from an oxygen tank that's pressurised to feel like he's living at really high altitude. The idea is you breath "mountain" air for five minutes then normal air for five minutes and you do this for a hour every day for a few weeks at a time and gradually it increases your body's "natural" production of EPO. They have a whole timing schedule worked out to fit in with the big competitions and they taper the sessions and the levels of air pressure to maximise results. They have to hook him up to a respiratory monitoring system because it really elevates his heartbeat. But it allows his blood to pump oxygen to the muscles more effectively and gives him greater tolerance to the build up of lactic acid. And that enhances his performance and lets him work harder and do more training. But without drugs.

                            Hey, at least it's not the blood doping those Finnish distance runners used to indulge in, where they'd store litres of their own blood in a freezer than give themselves transfusions ahead of competition to raise their levels of red blood cells. That was legal at the time too, although they all had to keep quiet about it. Mind you I think growth hormones used to be legal. Lots of stuff did, not that they had tests for anything back then any way. So everybody could take the really good stuff, sorry, the really bad steroids, the one's that actually did something, without much fear of getting caught, even if it turned your eyes yellow and made your teeth go loose, amongst other, much more serious things.

                            All the serious cheats these days are probably partaking of gene doping by now, and that's real Dr Frankenstein stuff. But at least everybody talks really tough about drugs in sport. That's what matters. Never mind that most professional sports don't actually lift a finger to try and catch anybody, and if they do catch somebody by accident, then they generally give them a slap on the wrist and ask them not to do it again. Occasionally they like to make an example of somebody they don't like. Never mind that it's all a load of bollocks. Nobody seems to know if stuff is banned because it's against the law, because it enhances performance, or because it's damaging to athlete's health. If you ask somebody who is puritanical about drugs to educate you on their position on these subtleties they will start calling you names.

                            There's lots of money in sport these days. Money is good. Drugs are bad. The money takes the drugs and makes more money but the money mustn't talk about the drugs except to say that the drugs are bad and to make more money and meanwhile the drugs take the money and the money makes more drugs and takes more money. Do you see? Money is good. Drugs are bad. I think that's how it works.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The excuses given by the British coaches for excluding him from the 4x100 relay team this season are just risible. This idea that they hold the guy no ill-will but want to build a squad for 2012 is such a lovely little fiction. Now watch every selection decision they take for the next four years make a mockery it.

                              The team in Berlin is unlikely to bare any resemblance to the team in London, and nor should it. We're approaching the end of a three year championship cycle and the UK team dropped the baton last time out. Pick your four fastest guys. Maybe there's a case not to pick Chambers in Korea in 2011, but that seems like a long way off just now.

                              In the mean time, is Devonish suddenly too old? How about Christian Malcolm? Should any fast teenager the BBC wants to run feel good video montage about, dreaming of gold in 2012, go straight onto the anchor leg, right now? Has anyone got any earthly clue who's likely to be around in 2012? I see a lot of guys in their early twenties in the low 10.2s and I really wouldn't want to bet my house or even my shirt on any of them, and I wouldn't say the likes of Scott, Fifton, Yearwood, Baptiste, Dasalou or Bennett-Jackson have done anything to merit selection as of today. Can anybody talk about Mark Lewis-Francis with a straight face any more?

                              Of those who are more distinguished so far, Has Gerald Phiri definitely decided to run for Zambia? Have Harry Aikines-Aryeetey and Alex Nelson got through their injury problems okay? Is Craig Pickering ever going to actually do anything other than give interviews explaining how he should have done better? Are Tyrone Edgar and Simeon Williamson going to be sub ten athletes soon?

                              Because if those two are not ready, there's absolutely no reason why Dwain Chambers shouldn't be anchoring the 4x1 in Berlin. Otherwise, run him on first leg. Either way, he would be involved in one changeover. If your second or third leg gets injured that's two changeover, immediately, that go out the window anyway, good intentions be damned. The idea that you can pick your team ahead of a championship and be sure that it's the team that ends up running after a long season, individual events, and rounds, is pie in the sky. The idea that you can pick your Olympic team three and a half years in advance is a delusion.

                              Do we keep people in the squad if their performance drops off just because they've been to lots of practices? Or do we pick our four best relay guys who are available and running well at the time? If it's the latter, and it should be, then not picking Chambers if he's healthy for Berlin on the grounds that he probably can't run in London is a joke. If somebody new comes on the scene in 2012, will they be excluded from consideration, because they weren't involved in the big masterplan?

                              You know, I almost find myself hoping that the British team is afflicted by some food poisoning catastrophe ahead of the relay in Berlin, and has the choice of running Chambers on anchor, or running a shot putter. I bet they go with the shot putter.

                              And I'd fall over laughing if some guy we've never heard of yet gets the team busted for steroids. The newspapers will be full of columnists saying "We told you to run Dwain, you idiots! At least we knew he'd be clean!" just wait and see. Does anyone remember John Skeete?

                              I hope somebody is going to keep track of the British 4x100 relay narrative between now and London 2012, in all of its scintillating brilliance.

                              I wonder what the excuse will be when they inevitably drop the baton. "We practised too hard. It's like we were on autopilot. We should have just gone out there and ran."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Nice bit of spot-on analysis.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X