BOA Chief Moynihan has run out of cards to play, regarding Chambers

You have the Kennedy's and no doubt numerous other long standing political families, what's the difference? Don't like it, don't live in the uk.

Moynihan is 110% right.

Yes, but the US does not officially sanction hereditary peerage.

And although full of faults, the US system isn't at issue here.

About what exactly do you think Moynihan is "right"?

Bank of America's (BOA) CEO is Moynihan, so this is very confusing.

Hey, I thought this was a running board!

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Yes, but the US does not officially sanction hereditary peerage.

And although full of faults, the US system isn't at issue here.

About what exactly do you think Moynihan is "right"?

Moynihan is right in that the BOA has the right to select the athletes competing for the UK. If they stipulate that one of the criteria for selection is that an athlete must not have been found guilty of using PEDs, then they should be allowed to enforce that criteria.

I applaud the BOA for taking this stance. I feel sorry for Chambers on the grounds that he hasn't been treated the same as other positive athletes by the entire athletic community in Europe, with regards to being able to run in a variety of meets. However, I was generally pi**ed off watching coverage of the World Indoor Championships at the weekend and being informed of how many medallists have actually served suspensions for drug use in the past. In the women's 1500 there were 2 who have comeback and are now winning medals, depriving others who have trained just as hard, but have kept within the rules, from success. What sort of message does that send out to other young athletes on the verge of elite national status!?

The IAAF and IOC should enforce a minimum of 4 years ban for the first offence and then there wouldn't be this grey are concerning the Olympics. The current WADA ruling is ridiculous. With World Champs every 2 years now, a 2 year suspension is no deterrent at all for drug offenders.

And btw, Moynihan is a life peer not a hereditary one. When he dies his title will NOT pass on to his children. That is the case for many who sit in the House of Lords; many are life peers appointed for services to their country in their respective fields.

Unless I am mistaken, Moynihan first sat in 1997 as a hereditary peer, 2 years prior to the reforms under the House of Lords Act, after which his status was changed to that of a life peer.

Like it or not, Moynihan's current status as a life peer is predicated entirely on his prior, and intrinsic, status as a hereditary peer. His change of status does nothing to change his basis for sitting in the house--he was not appointed for "service to his country in his field".

Getting to the substance of your post, though, even if that was Moynihan's exact contention as you state, it is incomplete and selective in its perspective. The "right to choose athletes" is not an unqualified right, and is subject to agreed-upon conditions imposed by governing bodies, incorporated into domestic law by treaty.

You suggest that the Brits "should be able to enforce that criterion", but you assume what you should instead prove. The point of the CAS proceeding is to determine that very issue, on conditions to which the Brits agreed, and by which the BOA is bound.

The only thing about which Moynihan is "right" is about expressing the sentiments of some people with a view on the issue, which people include athletes. British athletes do not all have the same view on this issue, however, and therefore Moynihan is wrong when he purports to represent the interests of "athletes" in general: "“I’ll be disappointed if we didn’t win because we fought hard to represent the interests of the athletes,”

Chambers is himself one of those "athletes" whose interests Moynihan purports to represent.

I agree with you about the difficulty of letting convicted dopers compete again, but at some point, one must acquiesce to the decisions of a larger society and get on with life, while maybe working to change the landscape.

And who knows? The CAS might ultimately decide in favour of BOA. Don't jump out the window just yet.

deanouk, you seem to be a thinking kind of guy.

What are your thoughts about the Divine Right of Kings?

[quote]Sprintgeezer wrote:

deanouk, you seem to be a thinking kind of guy.

What are your thoughts about the Divine Right of Kings?[/quote

That's a deep question? LOL. It's a bit late in the evening here in England, to comment now. Do you mean in an historical context or as an abstract theological idea?

asdfdaf wrote:

Bank of America's (BOA) CEO is Moynihan, so this is very confusing.

I thought the same thing and thought it amazing that BOA had not only bought Countrywide, but had somehow sponsored Dwain Chambers. It seemed to fit the company being the worst possible at picking talent.

The British feudal and class system was just based on money which is pretty much the same the world over. At the moment it seems like the lords are less corrupt than the politicians

As for Moyniham he represented our country at sport and the Olympics without bringing shame on his country like that cheating twat Chambers

If Chambers had any thought for his sport or country he would just drop it.

'The IAAF and IOC should enforce a minimum of 4 years ban for the first offence and then there wouldn't be this grey are concerning the Olympics. The current WADA ruling is ridiculous. With World Champs every 2 years now, a 2 year suspension is no deterrent at all for drug offenders'

Agree 100%

Philosophically, what do you think of the aristocracy's belief in their god-given right to govern?

Deanouk wrote:

The IAAF and IOC should enforce a minimum of 4 years ban for the first offence and then there wouldn't be this grey are concerning the Olympics. The current WADA ruling is ridiculous. With World Champs every 2 years now, a 2 year suspension is no deterrent at all for drug offenders.

Are you aware the European courts have overruled 4-year bans as being excessive and against the law? You are not completely free to legislate any rules you want when employment aspects are involved.

26mi235 wrote:

Are you aware the European courts have overruled 4-year bans as being excessive and against the law? You are not completely free to legislate any rules you want when employment aspects are involved.

Have they? Do you have a link to that? Personally I was unaware that four year bans have ever been tried.

It always used to be 4 year bans.

Not only is Moynihan an idiot, the CAS has just ruled in favor of Chambers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9234798/London-2012-Olympics-Dwain-Chambers-lifetime-ban-lifted-after-British-Olympic-Association-bylaw-is-overturned.html

ukathleticscoach, I feel for you, in that your system does not reflect your individual views, and in that your unelected representative Moynihan is a moron.

Genuinely sorry.

Will you protest Chambers participation?

Just thought I would weigh in on this topic. While the BOA may be "right" for some people, as Sprintgeezer alluded to, the BOA is a National Olympic Committee that is recognized by the IOC. Both the BOA and the IOC are signatories to the WADA Code. The BOA's regulation was in opposition to the provisions in the WADA Code. The BOA's regulation was essentially struck down for the same reasons as why LaShawn Merritt can now compete in the Olympics. Essentially, both the BOA and the IOC signed a contract when signing the WADA Code to completely abide by the WADA Code.

Also, the IOC has the power to promulgate the rules for the Olympic Games. If the BOA wants its athletes to compete, it must abide by the rules set forth by the IOC.

Ultimately, the BOA and the IOC need to lobby for more stringent bans for drug users. As it stood right now, the BOA and the IOC (in the LaShawn Merritt case) were simply not in compliance with the WADA Code, which they signed.

Essentially correct.

And Hereditary Peer Moynihan is STILL an idiot.

deanouk, are you there? ukathleticscoach?

Any reaction to this?

ukathleticscoach: "As for Moyniham he represented our country at sport and the Olympics without bringing shame on his country like that cheating twat Chambers

If Chambers had any thought for his sport or country he would just drop it."

I personally consider Moynihan's expressed ignorance of the law, combined with his poor judgment, as shameful. Also shameful is the entire concept of hereditary peerage, by which he was granted his office.

Moynihan is just as much of a twat as is Chambers, but for somewhat different reasons.

This situation is perhaps best summed-up by the schoolyard saying that two wrongs don't make a right. As loathsome as were Chambers' actions, Moynihan's were equally offensive IN MY PERSONAL OPINION. YMMV

At least Chambers has repented and expressed contrition. I hope Moynihan has at least the class to do the same type of thing--to express regret concerning his poor judgment, and perhaps offer an apology to Chambers for having put him through the wringer needlessly.

Legally, this was not a close call. Moynihan was using a ham-fisted approach in arrogantly wielding the authority of the institution and bringing it to bear upon Chambers, all in the name of "doing what was morally correct", without undertaking any sort of a rigorous and honest determination of just exactly what that meant in this particular situation.

Like I said, it wasn't even close. This should never have made it to the CAS. It was a waste of taxpayer money and time, and was a loser from the outset.