Messi scores on the rebound.
Founder of ESAS - Edgar Schiferli, the best associate bowler
A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
Member of JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS
Originally Posted by Adolf Grünbaum
After the ex-drugs cheat & sometime Castleford Tigers trialist won our 100m Olympic trial yesterday (From the BBC) he's put himself in the frame for selection if his appeal in the High Court over his lifetime ban from representing GB at the Olympics.
Just wondered what people thought about this? Should he be given another go or are we right to uphold a zero-tolerance approach?
Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
- Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change
why not could help the relay team defend the gold since he has no chance to medal in the 100 m given his time.
I'd actually prefer to see him excluded from the relay team even if his appeal is successful, as his inclusion is going to be very divisive as (from what I've gathered) he's not exactly Mr Popular amongst his fellow sprinters.
Giant-sized "meh" to the Olympics from me. Would help if a few more of the sports included were actually sports.
Last edited by Barney Rubble; 13-07-2008 at 10:40 AM.
Undecided on Chambers atm. I believe drugs cheats should be banned for life, and after the things Chambers said after the ban you couldn't blame the BOA for completely washing their hands of him. However, he's sort of won me over a bit. From all accounts, he genuinely gave Rugby League a proper go, despite having approximately 0% chance of nailing down the technical aspects of the game in a month, and combined with how hard he's tried to have his ban overturned, it gives the impression that this is a guy who actually cares about sport.
Either way, I sincerely doubt he'll run under 10 again, so it doesn't really matter.
On the issue. I personally believe in 2nd chances and I thought that after serving his ban that he should be allowed to compete. However, I wasnt actually aware of this by-law.
Now I know about it, it makes good sense. He can earn a living and compete in all other events and meetings but isnt allowed to represent GB in the olympics. That sounds fair enough.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
Pretty much agree with Goughy, though we are the only country with this by-law. And also Christine Ohuruogu is being allowed to compete.
"It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Is he in the 200 category i has a fair shout in that field with Gay not competing with Bolt & Powell favourites i reckon he is on par with all the Americans for a possible medal given he has good 100m finishing speed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)