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.
Millar and the IOC
- Thread starter Alun
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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'
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?
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 BOAis 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' ?
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 !
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
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 !
Yes.Have you read the article ?
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
Guest
Ah. Sorry - I misunderstood.
Sorry, the page you were looking for could not be found.
