# Millar and the IOC



## Alun (7 Mar 2012)

BBC article about the ongoing Millar and Chambers situation and the Olympics here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/17280765

No new information though, just opinion!


----------



## ColinJ (7 Mar 2012)

I don't like cheating in sport, but it doesn't make sense to allow people to compete after their bans are finished, but not do the Olympics. Valverde is busy winning races again and I wouldn't be surprised to see Contador re-emerge just in time to win the Vuelta this year. I don't see the Olympics as being inherently different to the World Championships - in both cases, you represent your country, as well as yourself.

I would have a _2-strikes and you are out_ policy. 2 years for a first offence, and a life-time ban for the second, but you would be able to do everything after the first ban elapsed. You'd get a genuine second chance but wouldn't be able to take the piss and get away lightly a second time.


----------



## festival (19 Mar 2012)

I like the idea that the Olympic movement is like an private club, anyone can join if you abide by the rules and respect the ethos of fair play etc.
As its a club run by its members, if they decide to ban cheats forever,I say good for them.
By the way, if the ASO, organisers of the TDF (another private body) can refuse a team from their race due to their dislike of certain individuals why not the IOC?


----------



## Steve H (19 Mar 2012)

I'm not sure it is the Olympic movement itself. I think it is a rule of the British Olympic Association. Therefore an extra hurdle that the rest of the world doesn't have to abide by.

Although I'm sympathetic to David Millar (I've read his biography and really felt for his situation), I'm not sure there should be any second chances. The rules are pretty clear. If you break them you should be out. It is essential we get the sport squeaky clean to ensure the big corporations (outside the cycling industry) feel comfortable putting their names and their money into the sport again.


----------



## oldroadman (19 Mar 2012)

The Olympic ban is a BOA policy. In direct contravention of WADA rules. IOC work to WADA rules. So, the rest of the world is out of step and GB is the only one in step? People at the Olympics will have returned from a ban, and compete again. It's the good old British being such good losers that they remove competitors who might just make a big contribution. Not just Millar, either.
The how about athletes who seem to change country for money, like africans who suddenly become Qataris, for instance? Or the well nown "British" athlete some while ago, Zola (I'm not really South African) Budd, who GB were happy to take when she was seen to be a winner?
Be realistic, the Olympics is simply a super-worlds for all sports, and if you have done something stupid and paid the price, a second chance is reasonable. Otherwise everyone who commits the most minor offence should be in jail for life, by the same reasoning.

The CAS will probably rule againts BOA, then maybe the posturing chairman will move aside, as he appears to have staked everything on winning the case.


----------



## Alun (19 Mar 2012)

festival said:


> I like the idea that the Olympic movement is like an private club, anyone can join if you abide by the rules and respect the ethos of fair play etc.
> As its a club run by its members, if they decide to ban cheats forever,I say good for them.
> By the way, if the ASO, organisers of the TDF (another private body) can refuse a team from their race due to their dislike of certain individuals why not the IOC?


It's not the IOC that have refused Millar and Chambers. It's the BOA who agreed with the rest of the sporting world for a 2 year ban for first offenders, but are now trying to say that Millar and Chambers are not "banned" but just "not selected".

WADA have ruled that the BOA is therefore "Non Compliant" with it's code and the BOA have appealed to CAS against this. The BOA are the only National Olympic Committee to be "Non Compliant". LaShawn Merritt will probably run in the 400m for USA having had a similar ban overturned by CAS.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (20 Mar 2012)

BOA is a out of line with this, if they were so completely moralistic like they seem to want to be seen as, then they should still be picking strictly 'amateurs' and not what are essentially professional athletes. They can't pick n' mix their stances.


----------



## psmiffy (20 Mar 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> BOA is a out of line with this, if they were so completely moralistic like they seem to want to be seen as, then they should still be picking strictly 'amateurs' and not what are essentially professional athletes. They can't pick n' mix their stances.


 
I think they can pick and choose their stances - drugs is cheating - playing for money is now the way of the world - The BOA position is that if you want to race/compete and earn a living after your ban is finished then OK but you are not going to do it for us in the Olympics - whilst the Olympics has become just another circus there is still something to be said for a competition that has some sort of moral high-ground to it - where the participant have generally qualified due to honest endeavour alone - personally I believe it is the rest of the world that is out of step


----------



## Rubber Bullets (22 Mar 2012)

Also bear in mind that the BOA regularly ask the athletes in the team whether they support the ban, and have always had a majority, at around 70%, that do.

It also irritates me that David Millar and dwayne Chambers are always mentioned together in this. Millar has become a great ambassador for clean sport, entirely honest about his past and has accepted his punishment with good grace. Chambers on the other hand has never show any great contrition that I have been aware of, beyond being sorry he got caught, and yet he is the one that keeps shouting about this, and making legal challenges. Maybe I am biased as a cyclist, but I do have a lot of sympathy with Millar in this, and absolutely none with Chambers, and I very much hope that he doesn't represent GB at the Olympics, and with a heavier heart that has to include DM too.

Oldroadman, I'm not sure that it is linked really, but I absolutely agree with you on the issue of athletes for hire. Zola Budd was one of the first and most high profile cases (there are many reasons to dislike the Daily Mail, but this is the first I remember in my life), and one of the most mercenary of the lot, but for my money Greg Rusedski was always Canadian, Wilson Kepketer is not Danish and Fiona May is not Italian, even by marriage. The problem is that the lines are not as clear as that, many people hold dual passports, or were born in countries that that they're parents are not native of. Once these uncertainties exist it is no surprise that people push them further and further, Tiffany Porter is a great example, with a Nigerian Father, English mother and born in the USA. I feel uncomfortable with her representing GB, but with a British passport have difficulty rationalising that feeling even to myself!

RB


----------



## Alun (22 Mar 2012)

Country of birth is not always a good indicator of nationality.If Greg Rusedski is Canadian, then perhaps John McEnroe should have represented Germany.
What I disagree with is where a sportsman represents one country and then chooses to represent another country later in their career like Peter Nicol.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Mar 2012)

Rubber Bullets said:


> . *Chambers on the other hand has never show any great contrition that I have been aware of, beyond being sorry he got caught, and yet he is the one that keeps shouting about this, and making legal challenges*.
> 
> RB


 
Absolute garbage


----------



## thom (24 Mar 2012)

How long does it take to recover from a broken collarbone ?


----------



## Noodley (24 Mar 2012)

I would guess at 4 weeks max before he is back and riding


----------



## thom (24 Mar 2012)

1779579 said:


> He should be fine for the Olympics. Not at the peak of his match fitness but, since we want him as leader on the road not as a contender, that should be OK.


Well, thing is there are only 5 in the team and BW is likely to be not fully committed, so it would be placing a lot of pressure on the other team members.
I expect it to be lottery. And I have tickets for the Mall ;-)


----------



## oldroadman (24 Mar 2012)

thom said:


> Well, thing is there are only 5 in the team and BW is likely to be not fully committed, so it would be placing a lot of pressure on the other team members.
> I expect it to be lottery. And I have tickets for the Mall ;-)


 
I can't agree, he played a perfect team captain role at the worlds, has possibly the best tactical brain of the likely selection, and could do the same - more difficult with only 5 riders - job at the Olympics. It isn't Team Sky that's racing at the Olympics, it's GB. There is only one rider with a real chance on a sprinters course, and that means 4 riders will sacrifice everything to get him to the finish in the right position.


----------



## thom (25 Mar 2012)

oldroadman said:


> I can't agree, he played a perfect team captain role at the worlds, has possibly the best tactical brain of the likely selection, and could do the same - more difficult with only 5 riders - job at the Olympics. It isn't Team Sky that's racing at the Olympics, it's GB. There is only one rider with a real chance on a sprinters course, and that means 4 riders will sacrifice everything to get him to the finish in the right position.



I don't see this course as being a sprinter's course. Sure there are no mountains but I think Box Hill will cause breaks with non-trivial teams represented. Given Cav is likely to win any mass bunch sprint, no team represented in a break will do any work to help bring it back.Team GB alone won't be able to do all that and particularly if there are weaker links. If any team member is below par, it places more pressure on the rest and I don't see how you could disagree with that.
Don't get me wrong, from a GB point of view I'd like Cav to win but I'm just trying to explain my opinion on team GB's chance and in particular people's expectations for Cav.

From the point of view of an interesting race... I might commit treason and say a successful breakaway with real hardmen individual rouleurs slugging out a tactical finish would give a more worthy winner than Cav nipping past on the line.


----------



## oldroadman (25 Mar 2012)

thom said:


> I don't see this course as being a sprinter's course. Sure there are no mountains but I think Box Hill will cause breaks with non-trivial teams represented. Given Cav is likely to win any mass bunch sprint, no team represented in a break will do any work to help bring it back.Team GB alone won't be able to do all that and particularly if there are weaker links. If any team member is below par, it places more pressure on the rest and I don't see how you could disagree with that.
> Don't get me wrong, from a GB point of view I'd like Cav to win but I'm just trying to explain my opinion on team GB's chance and in particular people's expectations for Cav.
> 
> From the point of view of an interesting race... I might commit treason and say a successful breakaway with real hardmen individual rouleurs slugging out a tactical finish would give a more worthy winner than Cav nipping past on the line.


 
Interesting viewpoint. First, I agree ath Box Hill is not adifficult climb at pro level, but nine times will have a wearing down effect. However it's a long flat run back The Mall. More than one team will have people who believe they can win a sprint, so there are likely to be quite a few working to fetch any break back. If you were say, USA's DS and had a non-sprinter in a six man break, would you gamble? Er, no, you would get Farrar there inside 10km to go at flat out pace, with help from others. Or maybe play poker and lose. Or possibly get help from other teams who have no hope of a win, but might just appreciate returned favours another time at a race where they can get a result. It happens in pro racing, even at the Olympics (!!) and after 200+ kilometres only the bigger players will be left anyway.


----------



## Alan Tullett (25 Mar 2012)

Is there any American who believes Farrar will beat Cav in a sprint? Goss maybe, but not on today's form, Greipel ditto. I think a break with some strong riders could stay away although they'll have to go by the 5th or 6th time around if they want to get some distance. On current form Boonen must have a good chance! We need a plan B just as Sky did today.


----------



## thom (25 Mar 2012)

Alan Tullett said:


> Is there any American who believes Farrar will beat Cav in a sprint? Goss maybe, but not on today's form, Greipel ditto. I think a break with some strong riders could stay away although they'll have to go by the 5th or 6th time around if they want to get some distance. On current form Boonen must have a good chance! We need a plan B just as Sky did today.


 
I agree. Farrar is not a problem for Cav these days. As in the worlds, Goss and Greipel are the only likely to really challenge him in a bunch sprint.
Who really knows how form will turn out in 4 or 5 months time in any case ? Boonen's got resurgent good form and Cancellara seems back to being a train at times.

Funnily enough, Garmin refused to work with Sky in MSR to get back to the front, at which point Sky gave up. And today Sky couldn't bring back a split in the peloton in Gent-Wevelgem. It's not so much that it might not be a large sprint field, its just that on Box Hill all teams will look to drop Cav. That tactic is being executed time and again this season already.

Cav with a fully committed team will pick up Grand tour wins where there can be pan flat stages and many teams are not really competing because they have other race priorities. One off races where teams are smaller, courses are hillier, where there's more at stake and at which there are many more interested parties competing really lessen his prospects.

So I do think a split will form and stay away from Cav unfortunately. I thought best GB plan would be to bluff fully committing to Cav and then let Geraint Thomas get in a break. Geraint will not be in the road race though...


----------



## Alan Tullett (27 Mar 2012)

Yes, there aren't many other options, are there? We're not a great 'classics' country after all? Maybe Froome as he can handle Box Hill but is no sprinter on the flat as far as I'm aware. We have 2 top riders, one on the flat and one as a TT/GC contender but not a lot at the highest level of racing in between those two extremes. This is an area we need to work on. The Maldon Hell of the East is on the same day as the Tour of Flanders. We need more races like that to develop 'break' and 'classic' style riders.


----------



## festival (28 Mar 2012)

Box will be a wearing down process only to shead some of the lesser riders, its not tough enough. The big teams will all ride a high tempo up box hill trying to stop any attacks. Anyone who does escape will find it almost impossible to stay away on the run in unless Cancellara is on form. Bunch sprint finish.


----------



## Alan Tullett (28 Mar 2012)

If there is any kind of split on one of the earlier or middle ascents of Box Hill and Cav and a few of the other 'pure' sprinters are the wrong side of it we can expect quite a few teams to work hard to keep it that way. Belgium will I'm sure, they've got loads of options - maybe too many; Spain, if Freire is in the right place; Australia, with Goss and Gerrans and probably some others as well. Not sure we're going to have many allies in bringing back a split and with Wiggins concentrating on the TT, Millar, who knows, and only a couple of other riders a bunch sprint is far from assured. Hunt and Stannard couldn't bring back a split at GW nor could a 5-man Sky team at MSR. The Olympic course is nowhere near as tough as either of those two races and that is our ace in the hole, but there will be a lot of effort put in by some big countries to get rid of Cav; 'blocking' tactics, which I think may have been employed at the descent during GW or high-tempo riding to get rid of Cav rather than to stop attacks and then there's always the possibility of crashes, badly timed punctures etc. It's going to be an interesting tactical race with a lot more difficulties for Brailsford than Copenhagen. I'd probably say 70% bunch sprint; 25% split in the peleton and 5% mediumish break succeeds.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (28 Mar 2012)

Good show on radio scotland today, which heavily featured Millar. He came across very well. He also made it clear he does not see himself as an Olympic athlete. Listen on iplayer here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dtgl1/Cheats_and_Champions/


----------



## thom (28 Mar 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Good show on radio scotland today, which heavily featured Millar. He came across very well. He also made it clear he does not see himself as an Olympic athlete. Listen on iplayer here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dtgl1/Cheats_and_Champions/


Related article here : David Millar hints he may not compete in Olympics even if BOA lifetime ban overturned


----------



## oldroadman (29 Mar 2012)

Alan Tullett said:


> If there is any kind of split on one of the earlier or middle ascents of Box Hill and Cav and a few of the other 'pure' sprinters are the wrong side of it we can expect quite a few teams to work hard to keep it that way. Belgium will I'm sure, they've got loads of options - maybe too many; Spain, if Freire is in the right place; Australia, with Goss and Gerrans and probably some others as well. Not sure we're going to have many allies in bringing back a split and with Wiggins concentrating on the TT, Millar, who knows, and only a couple of other riders a bunch sprint is far from assured. Hunt and Stannard couldn't bring back a split at GW nor could a 5-man Sky team at MSR. The Olympic course is nowhere near as tough as either of those two races and that is our ace in the hole, but there will be a lot of effort put in by some big countries to get rid of Cav; 'blocking' tactics, which I think may have been employed at the descent during GW or high-tempo riding to get rid of Cav rather than to stop attacks and then there's always the possibility of crashes, badly timed punctures etc. It's going to be an interesting tactical race with a lot more difficulties for Brailsford than Copenhagen. I'd probably say 70% bunch sprint; 25% split in the *peleton* and 5% mediumish break succeeds.


French dictionary alert....peloton. Two "o", think how a bike looks as a little aide memoir.


----------



## Andy84 (29 Apr 2012)

London 2012 Olympics: Dwain Chambers lifetime ban lifted after British Olympic Association bylaw is overturned

Dwain Chambers and David Millar will be cleared to compete for Great Britain in the 2012 Olympics tomorrow after the British Olympic Association’s life ban for doping offenders was ruled illegal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...-Olympic-Association-bylaw-is-overturned.html


----------



## Alun (29 Apr 2012)

The BOA accepted a while ago that they would lose, something which comes as no surprise to a lot of people. I wonder how much this little charade has cost?


----------



## rich p (29 Apr 2012)

I hope Millar doesn't take up the option. I'd hate to see it all dragged up again, him having to defend his stance and the brickbats thrown by the press and some of the other athletes.
He has more to lose than gain IMO.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (29 Apr 2012)

Tell me this though, just because an athlete is eligible for selection, does it mean they must be selected, could the BOA simply not select the person ?
I don't think Millar will ride this summer in London even if given the chance, the interview on Radio Scotland kind of made that clear.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Apr 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Tell me this though, just because an athlete is eligible for selection, does it mean they must be selected, could the BOA simply not select the person ?


Chambers' lawyer was saying that if he (Chambers) wasn't selected, he'd go to court and force them???? How would that work? (I think the BOA are resigned to picking him).


----------



## rich p (29 Apr 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Chambers' lawyer was saying that if he (Chambers) wasn't selected, he'd go to court and force them???? How would that work? (I think the BOA are resigned to picking him).


 Athletics has a time based criterion IIRC but cycling doesn't, so it would be possible for UK Athletics to be obliged to pick Chambers. Cycling has a different way of choosing the teams for obvious reasons.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Apr 2012)

of course, but I had somehow imagined that the places on the team were absolutely in the gift of the selectors. Apparently not....


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Apr 2012)

The road race is a team sport, so the selectors have all kinds of discretion as to how the team is made up. 100m sprint is very different. You pick the fastest individuals. Doesn't matter if anyone likes them or not.


----------



## mcshroom (30 Apr 2012)

The criteria for the 100m is first 2 in the trial definitely (if they have the A standard) and then BOA decides for the other place. If Chambers finishes third then I doubt he'll have a hope of being selected on discretion, but if he's in the first two then there's no real choice.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 May 2012)

Alan Tullett said:


> If there is any kind of split on one of the earlier or middle ascents of Box Hill and Cav and a few of the other 'pure' sprinters are the wrong side of it we can expect quite a few teams to work hard to keep it that way..


the problem with that is that the roads around Headley are not helpful to a breakaway. Actually they're pretty helpful for excursions in to hedges.


----------



## oldroadman (1 May 2012)

he road team needs a good leader to run the tactics, and DM proved he can do that better than almost anyone at the Worlds. So if GBCT decide he is the man, in he goes. I can't imagine he would be bothered in the slightest by all the "holier than thou" people who have popped up in the media this week. He did, after all, put his hands up to using EPO, took his ban YEARS AGO, and has moved on as a leading person in the clean racing campaign. Now Ben Swift has declared his intention to try for a place, there could be a very strong and well run team there, with any luck ready to deliver Cav with the best possible chance on the Mall.
The British are a strange nation, we would rather lose than play all the options, whilst EVERY OTHER COUNTRY accepts people do something wrong, get punished, and they get to play if good enough. Never mind in past days when we raced against eastern block "amateurs" who were full time "students" or "army officers", with full state support including medical "assistance" and "preparation". And lost, but being terribly fair and British we didn't mind!
Moral wins don't get medals - and that is all the public and funders care about in the end.


----------



## raindog (1 May 2012)

I'd quite like to see him selected and then refuse. The problem is, if he rides, the ordinary public will simply think there's a doped up rider in the team - not good for the sport imo. In fact, the whole thing's a mess as usual.


----------



## gavintc (1 May 2012)

raindog said:


> I'd quite like to see him selected and then refuse. The problem is, if he rides, the ordinary public will simply think there's a doped up rider in the team - not good for the sport imo. In fact, the whole thing's a mess as usual.


 
I hope does this. Indeed, he has been quiet of late on the subject. I suspect he is evaluating the issue and will make a comment once ready.


----------



## just jim (1 May 2012)

raindog said:


> I'd quite like to see him selected and then refuse. The problem is, if he rides, the ordinary public will simply think there's a doped up rider in the team - not good for the sport imo. In fact, the whole thing's a mess as usual.


I was thinking along the same lines but Millar in particular has paid the price and has made his current views (formed by a personally and financially destructive experience) as public as anyone could. Hasn't Millar atoned for his sins?


----------



## Scoosh (1 May 2012)

Good article by Richard Moore in Scotland on Sunday.


----------



## Boris Bajic (1 May 2012)

I have a very high regard for DM. His recent book did its best to lessen that, but failed. He has more than enough talent, guts and determination to make up for coming across not very well in print.

I was so pleased that he took his ban on the chin and got back down to racing. In the professional world where he operates, I think it right that he was welcomed back. 

But I think the Olympic ban should be for life. He, Chambers, Ohurougu* and others have cheated. Drug cheats will generally win over WADA, but the victory can be slowed by Draconian measures against those who cheat.

I retain my very high regard for DM and I continue to hope that he won't ride in the Olympics.

_* I know there was no positive test, but the circumstances were laughable. _


----------



## gavintc (1 May 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Good article by Richard Moore in Scotland on Sunday.


I had not spotted this one - as you stated, a good article.


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

I think that Wada should be bringing their code upto the BOA byelaw not the other way around. At the end of the day they knew about the byelaw but took the chance anyway. They can't (or shouldn't now its been decided they can) have their cake and eat it.


----------



## Alun (1 May 2012)

green1 said:


> I think that Wada should be bringing their code upto the BOA byelaw not the other way around. At the end of the day they knew about the byelaw but took the chance anyway. They can't (or shouldn't now its been decided they can) have their cake and eat it.


The BOA signed up for the 2 year rule, if it wants to impose a lifetime ban, it should campaign and get the support of other sporting bodies to get the rule changed.


----------



## raindog (1 May 2012)

just jim said:


> Hasn't Millar atoned for his sins?


Yes, but that's not what I meant.


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

Alun said:


> The BOA signed up for the 2 year rule, if it wants to impose a lifetime ban, it should campaign and get the support of other sporting bodies to get the rule changed.


 
The BOA have never stated that it's an additional ban but a eligibility rule that has been in place for over 20 years, it's not like it's been introduced on the fly. Those athletes knew the risk of been made permanently ineligible for selection and made the conscious decision to cheat. They made their beds, now they should lie in them.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 May 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Good article by Richard Moore in Scotland on Sunday.


I can only disagree. If you delayed doing anything until the entire world agreed you'd have no agreement on carbon emissions, factory farming....(you see the point). The BOA believes in the lifetime ban. The only athletes troubled by it are British athletes who are caught. I genuinely don't see how other athletic associations have a complaing.

As for the WADA line about undermining the fight against drug cheating, I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Alun (1 May 2012)

green1 said:


> The BOA have never stated that it's an additional ban but a eligibility rule that has been in place for over 20 years, it's not like it's been introduced on the fly. Those athletes knew the risk of been made permanently ineligible for selection and made the conscious decision to cheat. They made their beds, now they should lie in them.


CAS have ruled that it is an additional ban!
A decision that didn't come as any surprise to those who have followed events, not even the BOA themselves. It follows a precedent set in the case of LaShawn Merritt, an american athlete.


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

Alun said:


> CAS have ruled that it is an additional ban!


Yes they have and it's a f***ing terrible decision for sport.

The WADA Code should be the minimum, and if associations want to have additional critera for selecting who represents them with regards to being drug free they should be free to do so.


----------



## Alun (1 May 2012)

green1 said:


> Yes they have and it's a f***ing terrible decision for sport.
> 
> The WADA Code should be the minimum, and if associations want to have additional critera for selecting who represents them with regards to being drug free they should be free to do so.


And what about the LaShawn Merritt decision?
Do you think we should have different rules from other countries, what's the point of that?


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

Because if someone doesn't set an example nothing ever changes.


----------



## Scoosh (1 May 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I can only disagree. If you delayed doing anything until the entire world agreed you'd have no agreement on carbon emissions, factory farming....(you see the point). The BOA believes in the lifetime ban. The only athletes troubled by it are British athletes who are caught. I genuinely don't see how other athletic associations have a complaing.
> 
> As for the WADA line about undermining the fight against drug cheating, I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.


Sorry but I don't understand your point.

My reading of the article is that the only way that _any_ agreement is going to be reached is by _everyone_ signing up to a "basic" agreement (my quotes), then tweaking it to increase its effectiveness and bringing all countries along/on board. That is why Richard Moore emphasises the words "_World_" and "_harmonised_" - the need to keep everyone going along together.

Of course we all want to see everyone competing clean but it seems as if the BOA have gone a bit too far, a bit too fast and therefore established a different set of rules for British athletes - which is what Richard Moore's opening and closing paragraphs are all about.

'Softly, softly, catchee monkey'


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Sorry but I don't understand your point.
> Of course we all want to see everyone competing clean but it seems as if the BOA have gone a bit too far, a bit too fast and therefore established a different set of rules for British athletes - which is what Richard Moore's opening and closing paragraphs are all about.


 A bit too far, a bit too fast? The bye law has been in place for over 20 years.
Ask your self this question, if your were competing in a team event at the games this year. Would you want a former drugs cheat on your team, or if it later transpired that someone was doped and you were stripped of your medal through no fault of your own would you want that byelaw to still be in place?


----------



## Scoosh (1 May 2012)

Have you read the article ? 

Richard Moore is pointing out the 'irony' of Cavendish not winning a medal, being beaten by athletes who have been banned for drugs offences but whose national federations/Olympic Associations allow them to compete; while David Millar, who captained Team BG at the Worlds, is not allowed to compete because the BOA is was the _only_ Olympic association to have a permanent ban.

I'm personally in a real quandary about whether Millar/Chambers should be allowed to take part.

My 'best case scenario' ?

Chambers fails to qualify and doesn't get the selection for the 3rd slot.
Millar is selected - then withdraws himself ....
... or Millar says he is 'unavailable for selection'.
 
I know the rules should be the same for all but I have a feeling that, whereas Millar (on his own, in a team atmosphere where drug-taking was considered the norm) admitted his mistakes, paid a high price and is now working hard to prevent others following his footsteps, Chambers (in the GB athletics set-up) has used every method he could find to overturn his ban - without ever having admitted liability. Did he dope ??? 

This feeling may be that I have followed Millar's case and read his book, while I've never liked Chambers much.

Unbiased ? Doubt it !


----------



## gavintc (1 May 2012)

And to add to Scoosh's scenario, Ohurougu is injured in training preventing her selection.


----------



## iLB (1 May 2012)

More to the point how have we not got someone better than Chambers yet, essentially a 34 y.od has been, cheat? It seems unlikely that he will even make the final.


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Have you read the article ?


 Yes.



> Richard Moore is pointing out the 'irony' of Cavendish not winning a medal, being beaten by athletes who have been banned for drugs offences but whose national federations/Olympic Associations allow them to compete; while David Millar, who captained Team BG at the Worlds, is not allowed to compete because the BOA is was the _only_ Olympic association to have a permanent ban.


So if everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you follow them?
The BOA's stance is supported by many inside the IOC.
http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2012/14490-ioc-will-back-boa-on-lifetime-doping-ban-promises-oswald


----------



## just jim (1 May 2012)

raindog said:


> Yes, but that's not what I meant.


Ah. Sorry - I misunderstood.


----------



## Alun (1 May 2012)

green1 said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> So if everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you follow them?
> ...


*Sorry, the page you were looking for could not be found.*


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/07/international-olympic-committee-boa-drugs


----------



## Alun (1 May 2012)

I don't know why the BOA signed up for the 2 year ban, when it already had a lifetime ban in place.
I don't accept the "Not a ban, it's an eligibility condition" they're just trying to mince words but they didn't fool CAS.
I don't care whether it's a 2 year, 4 year, or lifetime ban, as long as it applies to everyone.
I assume our athletes will compete over the same distances as everyone else, so why not have the same drug sanctions as everyone else?


----------



## Alun (1 May 2012)

green1 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/07/international-olympic-committee-boa-drugs


What happened to your original link? Has it been removed?


----------



## green1 (1 May 2012)

looks like it, but basically the same as the guardian article.


----------



## 400bhp (9 May 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> of course, but I had somehow imagined that the places on the team were absolutely in the gift of the selectors. Apparently not....


 
I seem to recall the way it works is that if an athlete wins the UK trials and hits the olympic qualifying time then they are selected. All other places are determined by the committee, irrespective of whether they have met the qualifying time.

However, that might have changed.


----------



## 400bhp (9 May 2012)

Edit-top 2.

See Steve Cram's comments here


----------



## Andy84 (13 Jun 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18413680

Millar has been named in the Team GB short list.

Five from:

Cavendish
Cummings
Froome
Hunt
Millar
Stannard
Swift
Wiggins

No Thomas?
Edit - Thomas seems to be concentrating on the Team Pursuit


----------

