Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 We have the football thread, which is extremely active, but I have noticed that not many other sports are mentioned on here, apart from the occasional F1 thread or rugby which pops up every so often and other random events. Therefore, I have created this general sports thread for any sport that isn't football! Cricket, Rugby, Tennis, Lawn Bowls, whatever interests you, post it in here! To start off, has anyone been watching the athletics? Us Brits didn't do too bad in it. What do you think about Christine Ohorugu's situation (missed 3 drugs tests so is banned from the olympics). Personally, I feel she should be allowed, as her mistake was through pure stupidity, not avoiding tests because she was actually on drugs.
Daft Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Unless she has an amazingly good reason for missing all three drugs test , I highly doubt it, then I think her ban is just.
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 Unless she has an amazingly good reason for missing all three drugs test , I highly doubt it, then I think her ban is just. I get why you think that, but it isn't an olympic ban that she really has, it is the British who don't allow athletes who have failed a drugs test compete for them in the olympics. Surely, missing tests isn't as serious as actually taking performance enhancing drugs?
Slaggis Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 She's been banned for a year, and served that ban. I think she should beable to run in the olympics, seeing as she could win us a gold too.
Charlie Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 To start off, has anyone been watching the athletics? Us Brits didn't do too bad in it. What do you think about Christine Ohorugu's situation (missed 3 drugs tests so is banned from the olympics). Personally, I feel she should be allowed, as her mistake was through pure stupidity, not avoiding tests because she was actually on drugs. If she's stupid enough to miss 3 drug tests then she's too stupid to be allowed in our squad. Missing one test is bad enough, 2 is unacceptable, and 3? I don't want her in our team.
Ginger_Chris Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 There is a huge difference between missing three drugs tests and testing positive. Especially when the three drugs tests weren't consecutive ones, and she tested negative on all adjacent tests in between. It would have been very very difficult and extremely unlikely for to have been able to take drugs and not be caught. She doesn't deserve a lifetime olympic ban, she's done her time already.
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 She's been banned for a year, and served that ban. I think she should beable to run in the olympics, seeing as she could win us a gold too. Yeah definitely. Even though we have the 2nd best 400m runner as well (Nicola Sanders), but it would be nicer to have the 2 top runners rather than just one!
conzer16 Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 For anyone who follows hurling (Takeo :p ): Kilkenny beat Limerick in the Guinness All Ireland Hurling Championship yesterday by 7 points.
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 If she's stupid enough to miss 3 drug tests then she's too stupid to be allowed in our squad. Missing one test is bad enough, 2 is unacceptable, and 3? I don't want her in our team. So you don't care that we could have a drug free person in our team who could win a medal banned, where teams like the Americans win medals with people who have previosuly tested positive for drugs? For anyone who follows hurling (Takeo :p ): Kilkenny beat Limerick in the Guinness All Ireland Hurling Championship yesterday by 7 points. How exactly does Hurling work Conzer? Any similarities to the games we have here in Britain?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 It depends on how far apart those missed tests were. If it was something 3 missed within the space of 6 months then no chance. Just because she could win us a gold its not fair on other athletes and she didn't even win her race by much. And by 2012 new hopefuls will step to the plate. On a side note whats up with Phillips Idowu's piercings? o_O
Jon Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Look, as far as I'm concerned she ain't no cheat. She was tested and no drugs were found even with blood tests. Shouldn't be banned for that. As for other sports. Basketball is my game, shame it ain't very big over here.
Daft Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 I get why you think that, but it isn't an olympic ban that she really has, it is the British who don't allow athletes who have failed a drugs test compete for them in the olympics. Surely, missing tests isn't as serious as actually taking performance enhancing drugs? Yea but you have to wonder why she missed three tests...Has she given a reason?
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 I think the 3 tests were over her whole career, not consecutive or within a specifictime period. And i'm talking about next years olympics for her winning a medal, not necessarily in 5 years time. Edit: @Daft: I'm not too sure, I'll have a look, but I think it may have been general forgetfulness.
Daft Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Edit: @Daft: I'm not too sure, I'll have a look, but I think it may have been general forgetfulness. Surley she would have known the consequences and severity of missing a single drugs test, let alone three, how seriously does she want to win?
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 Surley she would have known the consequences and severity of missing a single drugs test, let alone three, how seriously does she want to win? I admit she was very stupid, but she has now served her ban. I cant find a reason for missing a test, but found out that she has said she will compete in the olympics for another country if she isn't allowed to represent GB. Look, as far as I'm concerned she ain't no cheat. She was tested and no drugs were found even with blood tests. Shouldn't be banned for that. As for other sports. Basketball is my game, shame it ain't very big over here. I like Basketball, always good when it is on Sky Sports. Don't particularly follow a team though. Who do you follow/support?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 I admit she was very stupid, but she has now served her ban. I cant find a reason for missing a test, but found out that she has said she will compete in the olympics for another country if she isn't allowed to represent GB. I like Basketball, always good when it is on Sky Sports. Don't particularly follow a team though. Who do you follow/support? That would be Nigeria...Oh well. Though I'd probably do the same thing for revenge. >)
Daft Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Just for the record, I've changed my mind and I do think its really quite harsh, but, that said, things don't really add up. The people who banned her know a lot more about the situation so I'd have to assume that they have reason for the severity of the punishment...unless that is standard practice?
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 Just for the record, I've changed my mind and I do think its really quite harsh, but, that said, things don't really add up. The people who banned her know a lot more about the situation so I'd have to assume that they have reason for the severity of the punishment...unless that is standard practice? I think it is a standard ban for the rule she broke. I think you get 2 years for faling a test, 1 year for missing 3. It's become a big fuss as she's the first "big" athlete to experiece this rule, aswell as being one of our greatest medal prospects.
Daft Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 I think it is a standard ban for the rule she broke. I think you get 2 years for faling a test, 1 year for missing 3. It's become a big fuss as she's the first "big" athlete to experiece this rule, aswell as being one of our greatest medal prospects. What, I'm confused...Its meant to be a 1 year ban for missing 3 but she got banned for life from the Olympics? Or is she just missing the next Olymics? Either way, she knew she was going to get in trouble if she missed 3 its not like it suddenly caught her out the blue.
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 What, I'm confused...Its meant to be a 1 year ban for missing 3 but she got banned for life from the Olympics? Or is she just missing the next Olymics? Either way, she knew she was going to get in trouble if she missed 3 its not like it suddenly caught her out the blue. Sorry for being confusing, the 1 year ban was from all athletics, and she has served that, ended a month ago. The olympic ban is from the British Olympic Association, who won't let anyone who has served a drugs ban compete for the british team ever. She has appealed against this decision on the grounds that she never actually has failed a drugs test.
Daft Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Don't worry that was me being a muppet. All I can say is she new the consequences...She obviously has really bad timing! I'm loving this thread btw!
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 Don't worry that was me being a muppet. All I can say is she new the consequences...She obviously has really bad timing! I'm loving this thread btw! yay, my thread is loved! Yeah, very bad timing! Dunno how long this rule has been in place though. Her own fault though.
mariosmentor Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Well the reason they are being harsh is because they have to enforce the rule. If they gave leniency to her just because she's a good stupid athlete then the rule would be null and void for then all athletes would use her example to appeal these bans. Letting her go just because she's good would be unfair to weaker athletes who wouldn't get the same treatment, aka would have to serve the full ban just because they don't have gold medal potential. In all honesty I think she should just serve her ban and get it over with if its only for a year. She's stupid enough to miss the tests then she must still suffer the penalties. The decision for a lifetime ban from the Olympics however is absurd. I understand a temporary ban but lifetime? Britain needs to sort that out.
Mr-Paul Posted September 3, 2007 Author Posted September 3, 2007 Well the reason they are being harsh is because they have to enforce the rule. If they gave leniency to her just because she's a good stupid athlete then the rule would be null and void for then all athletes would use her example to appeal these bans. Letting her go just because she's good would be unfair to weaker athletes who wouldn't get the same treatment, aka would have to serve the full ban just because they don't have gold medal potential. In all honesty I think she should just serve her ban and get it over with if its only for a year. She's stupid enough to miss the tests then she must still suffer the penalties. She has already served the main ban, it is just the olympic ban, which only the british enforce, she is trying to get overturned. Also in athletics, does anyone find the relays the most exciting event to watch??? I always find they double my heartrate, they're so exciting! Tis slightly weird how we're rubbish at individual sprinting but 3rd to the US and Jamaica in the relays.
mariosmentor Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 She has already served the main ban, it is just the olympic ban, which only the british enforce, she is trying to get overturned. Yea, edited once I read you're post. She should have got a temp ban but a lifetime one is way too harsh. She's still stupid though.
Recommended Posts