大象传媒

How anyone can criticise such a talented athlete is beyond me. OK she was stupid to miss three drug tests but it is a genuine mistake, a mistake that she has had to pay hard for. Nobody condem's Rio Ferdinand anymore for he's forgetfulness as I heard nothing from the critics when he lifted the Champions Leaue trophy over his head!!

That race was a truely astonishing achievement that is up there with Chris Hoy's devastating triumphs at the velodrome.

Her wins will always be tainted for me.

2. At 4:44pm on 08 Dec 2008, EL_NANDO wrote:

"Her wins will always be tainted for me."

Why? What inside knowledge do you have that the tribunal that acquitted her didn't have? Or is it simply easier for you to level a criticism for which there is no evidence - as admitted by the tribunal - and for which all the evidence is to the contrary? You obviously have no idea why she was banned in the first place, which was for procedural errors and not for drug taking.
I'd say that having to put up with all the unwarranted criticism, in fact it is ignorant and sometimes abusive, makes Christine Ohuruogu's achievements all the more remarkable and admirable. Good on her.

I think there will always be a level of suspicion whenever an athelte suddenly rises out of relative obscurity to national prominence.
When that is accompanied by a previous ban for not showing up for the drug tests the suspicion is all the greater.


The sad fact is that we can never be sure.

Let's not forget that while Christine was serving her ban she continued to be subjected to drugs tests and has never failed one before or since. We in Britain rightly have a strong stance on athletes missing tests but that does not amount to a drugs cheat and this difference should be appreciated.

I also recall Michael Johnson marking Christine out as one to watch back at the AAA's in 2004 - her rise has not been one of "relative obscurity" - indeed it's been probably the most gratifying developments in the UK squad over the past four years.

Unfortunately for Oruruogu, she will have to put up with these detractors for the rest of her career but she should take heart there are so many members of the public defending her corner and willing her on to further success. GO ON CHRISSIE!!!

The point is that missing tests can be deliberate in order to allow you to do the following:



Further saying you've never failed a test is meaningless (taken from here:

SPIEGEL: Marion Jones, who was sent to prison for perjury in connection with the Balco scandal, was tested 160 times during her career and they never found anything.

Pound: The statement 鈥淚 have never tested positive鈥� doesn鈥檛 mean a thing. It鈥檚 more the case that it makes an athlete looks suspicious if he or she keeps repeating that claim incessantly.

In a sport with acknowledged doping problems, where missing tests is part of a deliberate strategy to dope, where passing dope controls is no longer proof that you are clean...in this environment you have to be squeaky clean, you have to understand the context in which you act and the implications of forgetting to do so.

It is fawning in the extreme to talk of 'a difficult year' or 'hardship' or 'courage' in relation to Ohuruogu.

Fozzy... I don't know, you don't know, and no-one (apart from Christine herself) can ever know for sure whether this was a genuine mistake.... it is well documented (see other postings) that deliberate avoidance/delaying of testing can enable an athlete to follow a drug regime whilst never testing positive - I'm not saying Christine did this, I'm just saying "I don't know" - and others who say her wins are "tainted" are presumably coming from the same place...

The constant declaration of "I've never tested positive", whether it comes from Christine, or Marion Jones, or Lance Armstrong means only what it says.... they've never tested positive; doesn't mean they've never taken anything... and Jones got "caught"; it might or might not happen to any number of athletes who proclaim this.... after all, those that do get caught don't usually get caught the first time they use! Ricardo Ricco was tested umpteen times in the Giro d'Italia (passed them all), but went on to fail a test in the Tour de France...

Sadly (& it is sad), it is clearly arguable that many top athletes, in many sports (not just cycling) regularly take performance enhancing drugs... to beat others who do the same...

"We can never be sure".

You can never be sure about anything. Not quite even who your parents are.
However there are surely those who will parrot the line in the knowledge that you can't "prove" without medical tests the non-taking of some performance enhancing drug. You can't prove that for anyone who has ever lived so all results for anything are tainted.
All one can do is look for the balance of probability and in Christine Ohuruogu's, with regard to the lifting of suspension, all the evidence is on her side and there was no justification to continue the suspension.
I think it's interesting that those who question Christine Ohuruogu's innocence are also questioning the integrity of the tribunal that exonerated her and the integrity of all witnesses (including the testers themselves) and all those other athletes who testified. Apparently having an opinion based on no knowledge whatsoever trumps a proper investigation by qualified people and a tribunal with qualified witnesses and all the participants involved in the case.
We are all entitled to our opinions and our own private imaginary worlds, but we aren't entitled to our own independent facts. And thankfully the law, even for those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the tribunal, doesn't permit trial and sentence by public opinion.

7. At 12:10pm on 09 Dec 2008, valvpiti wrote:

The point is that missing tests can be deliberate in order to allow you to do the following:

Since when did "can be deliberate" become "is deliberate"? Especially when the testers themselves admitted the system itself was at fault, and there are impeccable witnesses as to what happened.
If Christine Ohuruogu had never been suspended would the "doubters" be jumping up and down in self-righteous indignation? Almost certainly not. And they would rightly point to the recorded fact that her times haven't improved in huge leaps but in tiny increments, and her best time is still a second off the current World's fastest female 400 metre runner. Ohuruogu hasn't won with world record times, merely performed best on the day.
But I say the detractors are hypocrites because, given that drug tests can't detect use of all possible new drugs and formulations, all results are suspect and they should condemn them all - irrespective of procedural errors. The performances of Sanya Richards (whose best times are much better than Christine Ohuruogu) and Nicola Sanders (whose best times are similar to Ohuruogu) are equally as suspect because of the inherent testing flaws so why aren't they being criticised? It shows that Christine Ohuruogu's critics have no idea why she was suspended in the first place, nor how the tribunal came to the decision to exonerate her.

What do you think about the following two points (since you managed to pretty much ignore other posts and assert your own opinions):

1. Missing tests is an established pattern among cheating athletes in order to maximise their doping programmes. They know they can miss two without punishment so do so routinely.

2. It is terrible PR to miss 3 tests. It is an infringement of the rules and sets a bad example. It also shows a disdain for the rules and in the light of point 1 raises more questions than it answers.

Additionally continuing refusal to address questions about this doesn't help.

To miss one test is forgetfulness.
To miss two is stretching the bounds of patience.
To miss three is taking the ....

valvpiti , I'm not arguing with you that it CAN be an established routine of drug cheats, but it can also be a genuine mistake - foolish yes, but I know if I had to submit myself to the requirements of the testers I'd probably miss an appointment or two. However, the main point being made here is that all evidence points to the faxt the she is a clean athlete, working hard and putting in excellent races where it matters.

That is the sign of an excellent athlete and I consider it a real shame that she will have to continually put up with accusations such as this. I know the sport is tainted by cheats, but we all have to accept 'innocent until proven guilty' (PROVEN), otherwise what's the point in even caring. Until Christine Ohuruogu is a proven drug cheat, you should admit that she's clean and, if not applaud her achievements, at least respect them.

You SHOULD do this but I wonder if you will...

No one can be sure what happened in Ohuruogu case. But judging by her times, there has not been any drastic improvement to suspect any influnce or impact of performing enhancing drugs.
What suprises me the most debates on drug cheats is that no one ever mentions Carl Lewis despite the fact he failed drug test more than one time. Yet, he is been regarded as one of the greatest Olympians. I think its a case of doubble standard. More so, the Americans I think like covering up there athlets up not until the not too long ago BALCO case. No one has also mentioned the Maurice Greene drug controversy who I believe was accused by the open letter written by Ato Boldon as a drug cheat. I think any one cheating is only cheating his/her self as their CONCIENCE wiill tell them all!!!

Fozzy555

I am one of the people who ahs a problem with Christine, incidentally I also have a problem with Rio Ferdinand and his ridiculous ban and that he was even considered as England Captain

Fozzy555

I have a problem with Christine, she missed three THREE drugs tests. That is more than forgetful, dappy or silly there is ONE reason why an athlete misses THREE tests and it isn't because they are taking aspirin.

I have competed at World Level under WADA and UK Sport rules and have ALWAYS and WITHOUT FAIL been where I said would be to the testing agenices, even if I have had to delay training or on some occasiosn turn up at my training venue when we got a rare day off.

It is something that as an honest athlete you get right. You might (and mean MIGHT) miss one but two NO WAY and three well the conclusion is simple.

It is not hard to be where you said you would be when you said you would be there.

Incidentally I also object to Ferdinands light treatment and also the fact he was even mentioned for the England captains role.

I'm not sure I go along with the "innocent until proven guilty" in absolute terms.... yes, CO is innocent of failing any drug tests; she is guilty of missing three tests... she has, therefore, contravened the doping regulations, and, I think, forfeited the right to be above suspicion.... and, as I seem to recall, she was banned from competing because of this, rather than exonerated.

Sorry, but if she was competing against (for example) a Chinese athlete who had missed 3 tests, we'd probably all be suspicious of them! Don't think we can single out the ones who are "nice genuine people" and assume innocence...

So just so I'm clear, an athlete cannot ever recover from missing three tests and be accepted as 'clean' from then on. I cannot accept that. You're quite right that if a (for example) Chinese athlete did the same there would be suspicion, but that does not make it OK to prejudice all that goes on in their career thereafter if nothing apart from poor time-keeping is apparent.

I will keep on supporting. Perhaps the ones that don't wish to support her can do so but please try and refrain from dragging this issue on.

ThomThomTiger,

I couldn't care less who the athlete is or what their reasons are for missing tests. I do care about the principal. Limiting this discussion to Ohuruogu is to miss the point of why this is an issue at all. She's simply the catalyst for the discussion.

The wider context is clearly stated by Conte in his letter to UKA. It is reinforced by Marion Jones' case. It is given further weight by cyclings Operation Puerto scandal and longer ago Festina. Athletes of all sports have shown that they cannot be trusted to tell the truth and to compete clean. It has also beens shown that passing dope controls is no guarantee of there being no doping.

I suppose that a lifetime of following cycling has lead me to treat all utternances by athletes and their myriad of excuses with a pinch of salt. "What me? But I'm a devoted family man and I love my mother. Also I didn't do anything wrong. I cheated nobody" - followed by evidence that they did indeed cheat and lie. If athletes fail to acknowledge that this is an issue people like Ohuruogu will continue to be seen to have a question mark following them around the track, no matter how well educated, nice and British they are.

ThomThomTiger, the people dragging this issue on are the athletes through continual lying and cheating and giving everyone reason to doubt. It must be very frustrating if you are indeed clean.

valvpiti

I completely accept your position, I just find it frustrating that one athlete seems to have to carry the can for the whole issue.

My main argument started with the way the public perception of CO is skewed because of these missed tests. I appreciate doping the biggest problem with sport these days but I cannot accept those people saying that anything she achieves from now on is tainted.

TomTomIger and Tim fordyce...comments like;

'There's not been a huge leap in class'

or

'her rise has not been one of "relative obscurity" '

Are a bit wide of the mark...do your homework...take off your rose tinted specs and look beyond 'the last 4 years'



Between 2003- 2004. An improvement of nearly 4 seconds (roughly 30meters give or take)... i would call that a rise from obscurity...wouldn't you?

Previous points about Marion Jones should be noted. Also past stories of Carl Lewis and Linford Christie...how many clean tests did these guys produce despite being consumate drug users?

Not sure I agree that one athlete is "carrying the can" on this issue, BUT, if that's how it appears, then maybe it's a response to approach by CO & her supporters, complaing abut how unfair it all is when all she's done is miss three tests, and of course she couldn't possibly be doping.... and, of course, perpetuating this myth that she has been "exonerated". She hasn't... she was suspended & served her ban. The BOA decided to waive their ban on her competing in the Olympics - never been able to get my head around that one; but maybe applying the rules when it suits & not when it doesn't has nothing to do with medal chances.... ??

I think that if she had put her head down, served her ban & came back there would be less of a focus on her. And, as is documented many times already in this thread:
(a) Avoiding testing can be a strategy to manage a doping program
(b) nice guys dope too
(c) many dopers pass countless dope tests before getting caught

Funny how it's the supporters of CO who keep saying "let it drop", but they still want the last word... why not let it drop after this comment, rather than one of yours...? Bet you can't!!

she's my favourite track runner... I'm voting for her along with Andy murray.

Ha!

'Between 2003- 2004. An improvement of nearly 4 seconds (roughly 30meters give or take)... i would call that a rise from obscurity...wouldn't you?'

Correct me if I'm wrong but she would have been around 19-20 at that stage. And she started running relatively late in her teens - I remember reading her comments that her sister Vicky had started a lot younger than her (she is now 15/16). So actually that sort of improvement isn't in any way out of the realms of possibility in the 400m.

Of course there will be suspicions, fairly or unfairly, but there should not be assumptions of guilt (in terms of taking drugs) because there is no evidence for that.

Ventoux, I'd like to ammed your point to c). to :

(c) many dopers pass countless dope tests before getting caught IF EVER

Part of my issue with the Ohuruogu case is the unquestioning, revisonist, apologist, sycophantic media love-in.

Sol157 - Did you read any of the links posted previously about doping in professional sport? Did you read the previous posts even?

Oh dear DJHDJH.... "... because there is no evidence for that"

The whole notion of the testing process is based on the assumption that non compliance is (at the very least) grounds for suspicion.... that's why CO was suspended from competition.... it's recognised that in-competition testing cannot tackle the issue, and regular, unannounced, tests will catch (some of the) athletes who are engaged in on out-of-competition doping programme.

So, failure to comply with the programme carries with it a suspension from competition, on the basis that there are grounds for suspicion (at least)

But, as CO is painted as such a nice person, who made a simple mistake (she may or may not have done, I have no way of knowing, and nor do you...) we are asked to suspend our suspicion and "leave her alone". Try refusing to take a blood test after a motor accident & see whether the magistrates will buy the "...but I'm a nice person, I wouldn't dream of drink driving" defence!

Sorry DJHDJH, but there is evidence which gives reasonable grounds for suspicion... it's 3 missed tests....

valvpiti -

"Part of my issue with the Ohuruogu case is the unquestioning, revisonist, apologist, sycophantic media love-in."

By this I take it you're excluding the reams of anti-CO articles and commentaries I've read over the past couple of years, including the front page splash on this country's biggest selling national newspaper. The fact remains she was banned for missing tests and the authorities even pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence that any doping had been ongoing.

Yes, she missed her three tests over a long period but she has served her ban. She has never 'refused' a test nor failed one taken. I admit this is not 100% proof of innocence but going on what has been claimed on this blog, it doesn't sound like anyone can be trusted to be clean, even those who have never misssed or failed a test.

How would those who disagree with me propose to deal with this issue? A ban for life for missing three tests? It seems to me that this is the only solution that would satisfy you. After all, she's done the crime, served her ban, has not been found with drugs in her system - what else do you want? Or is it that athletes are allowed to return, but only if they're unsuccessful in future?

Simply, ThomThomTiger, she should have been handed the Olympic ban that comes with 3 missed tests. Then there would be no issue whatsoever.

As it is UKA and the BOA are seen to be 'soft' on certain offences for certain people under certain circumstances in certain years in certain sports given certain excuses.

The whole idea of a ban for missing 3 tests is that it is meant to deter those who would chance their arm in order to dope. If you can do your ban and come back and go the Olympics the risk is outweighed by reward and it sends the wrong message.

As to not trusting anyone to be clean - the athletes have brought this on themselves. They have a proven track record as a profession for cheating and lying. Let's not forget an Olympic or World title can lead to financial rewards from organisers, sponsors, media - all of the defrauded by cheats. That's pretty serious fraud. not to mention defrauding the public, possibly for years. In some cases their will to win is so one-eyed that the drugs they take to ensure victory might kill them.

As I said before it's not CO per se that is the issue here it is the abuse of the rule book and the message it sends about missing 3 tests. In actual fact missing 3 tests is as serious as it gets without failing a control. That is why it is such an issue - it can be easily construed as having something to hide and is probably covering a serious doping programme.

In CO's case maybe that wasn't the case - I don't know and unless you live with her, neither do you - but how do you differnitiate between one set of excuses for missing 3 tests and another? If it was a Greek or Spaniard or Italian, or Russian or Chinese athlete would you be so willing to take the same position. If it was 3 athletes with dodgy pasts who beat CO into fourth place would you be so forgiving?

I guess in the end I see a violated principle that sends entirely the wrong message to athletes and you see a ditzy girl who made 3 (potentially career ending) mistakes. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

Had she failed a drugs test, I agree a total Olympic ban would be fair. As she did not technically fail a test, a rethink by the BOA was acceptable in the circumstances. You're right in that if I see a previously convicted athlete (from the UK or abroad) doing well I may have my suspicions but that is not the case here, despite the POSSIBILITY of it being that. Inn ocent until proven guilty

I think we will agree to disagree on this matter, although I do appreciate your position and handling of the facts in general - maybe I just see things a little less black and white.

ThomThom, you're free to think the BOA rules are not right, BUT I don't think there was any misunderstanding as to what the rules were at the time CO missed her tests - it had certainly received plenty of coverage in relation to other athletes... it's not a question as to whether it is "fair" or not.. it's what the rule book states.

If the rules are "ignored" in relation to any particular athlete, the one is entitled to ask what is going on..... and wonder what message is being sent to there (and particularly younger) athletes...

sorry, last para above a bit mis-typed!

If the rules are "ignored" in relation to any particular athlete, then one is entiltled to ask what is going on.... and wonder what message is being sent to other (and particularly younger) athletes...

you are all saying bla, bla bla.... read post 14 on Carl Lewis and Maurice Greene and pass comments

blah, blah blah Carl Lewis, blah blah blah Maurice Greene, blah blah blah Linford Christie, blah blah blah Tyler Hamilton, blah blah blah Floyd Landis, blah blah blah Christine O.....

your point is...????

Let's hope Christine brings it home in 2012!

ventoux

My point is why is Carl Lewis regarded as a great despite having rested positive to drug and people seam to ignore the fact he faild drug test more than once. To make matters worse he's number 1 person that shouts no drug tolerance in athletics. What a hypocrate!!!
you get me now

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

... maybe not clear... the problem I have is not the BOA rules per se, BUT the willingness to ignore them when it suits...

OK, my post 37 has been removed.... not totally clear why, BUT essentially it was to share ilelolose's condemnation of Carl Lewis et al.... focusing on this particular thread, and the actions & treatment of CO, should not lead to the assumption that I do not condemn those who have (allegedly!) committed greater sins...

The rules (of the BOA) state a lifetime olympic ban for those who miss three tests... CO did that but was allowed to compete all the same... and that is the issue here for me...

True. But some rules that do exist perhaps shouldn't. Maybe common sense won out in the end. A retrospective amendment to the ban may not have been ideal but I believe it was the correct decision in the end.

so. you'd be happy if we knocked this rule on the head completely? I don't have a problem with that, if there's a rationale for it.... (like saying it's OK to set a bad example, for instance, or missing three tests cannot be interpreted as potentially "masking" a doping programme..) - or would you want to keep the rule and apply it selectively (as was done in this case...)

I still can't work out how you (think) know it was the correct decision...? Maybe a pragmatic decision.... but no-one except CO knows whether it was the correct one...

I think we need to take this opportunity not to criticize Christine but to push for a change in the rules with regards to doping.

First of all, I think it鈥檚 an absolute joke that someone who has doped does not get a lifetime ban from athletics. Doping athletes ruin the sport's reputation. They do not deserve to set foot on a running track ever again. I am an athlete myself and I know how hard so many people work to get somewhere in the sport and to think some people get there by cheating, its the equivalent of robbing a bank to be rich. It should be against the law.

The rules for missed drug tests aren't strict enough. I do think Christine was silly to miss 3 tests (sorry I don't know her official reasoning for missing them) but I have nothing against her and will always support her when I see her race. I think that if you miss 2 drug tests you should be banned for a year from any competition regardless, and with the third missed test, a lifetime ban from the Olympics and an extension to the ban on competing.

Like it has been said several times in these comments, missing one test can happen to anyone, but two is already taking it too far. I know that if I was ever good enough to be in a position to be randomly drug tested, if I missed one I would be extremely nervous about missing a second. I would delete all messages from my phone and cancel any appointments if they clash with any further testing. Why wouldn鈥檛 you?! Not taking drug testing seriously from the every first request is complete lunacy considering the seriousness of missing one and the mark you put against your name as a result. This list of comments simply prove that fact.

Change the rules so that innocent athletes that are forgetful have more reason to remember the test, and doping athletes have a much harder time using the rules to their advantage.

The problem here that so many commenters are missing, wilfully or otherwise, is that the testers themselves were responsible for missing at least one if not two of the tests. In other words, in at least one case they were informed of a change of venue because the original venue was no longer available, and they still went to that original venue - as they have admitted. It's on record. In this forum though recorded facts don't matter because ignorance and ill-informed chatter are much more interesting.
She has been tested probably more than any other UK athlete and not failed once - not even "technically", whatever that means. Not only that but her performances don't bear out any accusation of drug taking, if anyone cares to look at her track times. Furthermore, Christine Ohuruogu has the unqualified support of all (that is 100%) of her team mates and colleagues, which cannot be said of any UK athletes caught doping.
There will always be "doubters" just as there will always be people who insist the moon is made of cheese because some people believe that, in addition to their opinions, they are entitled to their own independent facts. That's the way the world is.

Fact 1: CO was found guilty of missing three tests
Fact 2: Many dopers pass any number of tests before getting caught (if they ever do)
Fact 3: The process of deliberate test avoidance to enable scheduling of doping is well documented
Fact 4: The BOA rules state that an athlete who has missed three tests is not eligible for selection for the olympics

I have frequently indicated that I have no opinion on CO's motivation for missing tests, as I don't have any evidence one way or the other - but it seems to be OK for "supporters" of CO to make the assumption that she is "innocent" - where are the facts to support that view?

Ventoux, the clue's in the name. As a supporter, that kind of goes hand in hand with 'giving support' - No, not turning a blind eye or wilfully ignoring the facts, but rather not allowing mistrust and suspicion to colour our enjoyment of following a successful athlete achieve all the goals we wish to see her achieve.

As I said, innocent until proven guilty. Just because she could have, doesn't mean she probably has. I do appreciate the facts but to love the sport you've got to show a bit of heart.

Fact 5: For bans less than 2 years BOA bans can be overturned on appeal and have been.

Fact 6: Tim Don had his BOA ban rescinded.

Fact 7: There are several athletes on two missed tests. Why is three so important.

Fact 8: The testing process is flawed and has been recognised as such.

Fact 9: Our legal system is based on presumption of innocence not guilt.

Fact 10: And most important fact for those who doubt CO's innocence. A panel who actually listened to the evidence and qualified to make a judgement exonerated her.

As damaging as drug taking is to athletics you can't let justice be overwhelmed by ignorance. So if something is wrong with the system and there is evidence for the missed tests unrelated to illegally taking them then these need to be taken into account. They were and she was found innocent just as happened with Tim Don and just as happened with the other athlete who had their bans overturned for three failed tests.

This solution may not meet the needs of those who see the world in black and white but then that's tough. Deal with it.

" "supporters" of CO to make the assumption that she is "innocent" "

Noone made the assumption she was innocent. She went to a court of arbitration where it was proved on the balance of evidence that she was innocent. Big difference. Massive difference.

Funny then that the Court of Arbitration website states the following:-

The IAAF has noted the outcome of the Christine Ohuruogu case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel held, as contended by the IAAF, that
i) the athlete had committed a doping violation of 3 missed tests; and
ii) that the IAAF鈥檚 1-year sanction for three missed test is proportional as a matter of law.
The athlete was provisionally suspended on 6 August 2006, the athlete is banned accordingly until 5 August 2007

No mention of "innocence" there...

Innocent of taking drugs in the arbitration panel's notes but not innocent of failing to adhere to the testing rules hence the ban. Two year bans are given to those athletes found guilty of taking banned substances. There is a difference and also importantly, seemingly ignored by you, two precedents.

Most of the people commenting probably haven't competed at any seriously high level in the UK (or anywhere else for that matter). One of the missed tests was when Christine turned up to her track to find a schools sports day in progress.

As an ex national level athlete, I can't understand why people would expect her to hang around for possible testers to turn up. I had several senior UK athletes in my training squad and we never saw any testers at any training session.

Yes, she may have been niave but this isn't the same as guilt re drugs taking.

As for the supposed "rise from obscurity", again the idiots putting this idea forward again have probably never done any serious athletics in their life. Sure, the Tour de France colours the public's perception in this, but I improved 40 secs over 3k in a summer when I was at school putting me from a non entity into county level standard.

Christine unfortunately, will never be taken to the public's heart because of her lack of a manager at the time. Someone should have been helping her over this to avoid mistakes. Obviously those criticising her have never made any mistake of any kind in their professional lives (I know I have!)

In this modern world who is to know what is legal and what isn't. Stuff that was legal a few years ago is now illegal, stuff that was illegal a few years ago is now legal. There are numerous supplements available that in the future will probably be declared illegal. How can we realistically compare Athletes throughout history, such as Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt?

The answer is so simple, let them take whatever they want! Be it Crack, Heroin or Coke, I don't give a damn! If they can run the 100 metres in 8 seconds coked off their heads, I'll definitely be watching! At the end of the day if a grown adult wants to put whatever substances in their body to make them perform better that is up to them, all I care about is who is the fastest, ultimately it is always the individual who is doing the performance, Jo Brand with Nandrolone is not going to win the 100 meters in 9.68 seconds!

The only way for a real fresh start so that we can compare all atheletes in the world throughout history is to BAN TESTING! Let everyone do and take whatever the hell they want! I'll then decide if I want to pay to watch.

The pureness argument and "what about the children?" argument is getting very tiresome, it's been going on for centuries. It's the same argument that Hitler used to convince Nazi's to fight, it's the same argument Bush and Blair used to convince US and Britain to wipeout Iraq, there is no truth to it, everything is all about opinion!

I just want to see the fastest runner running, I don't care whether they've had Bran Flakes in the morning or a bottle of Vodka and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks!