Right To Boo

I think it would have been more tasteful to remain silent. There is something disturbing about a crowd of 60,000 people booing one person. Frankly, the whole issue of doping in sport sometimes depends on where you are looking from. Was Dwain Chambers booed when he returned from his ban?

I am an avid follower of the Tour de France and it seems as if everyone who has been anyone has been doped there, but then we decide who we think is the plucky underdog and who is the villain. A lot of asthmatics seem to have taken up professional cycling as a sport.

We were there too for the heats and the final- I am not sure it spoilt anything for anyone else as it was over quickly and every other athlete was celebrated. I personally chose to stay silent rather than booing, but I think when athletics as a sport is trying to eradicate doping on a huge scale, I'm not surprised that he got that reaction.

Sport is pointless.

Someone was passing an image around Twitter the other day, of the top 100 fastest 100m times, with all the people who had been caught doping crossed out in red.
Bolt was the only one left.

It does make you wonder.

Only if everyone is doping with the same drugs. Sometimes I think it would be better to legalise and regulate it, but I guess it would be as difficult to enforce everyone doping with the same stuff as it is to enforce no-one doping at all. The problem is there's so little difference between competitors - I bet the guy who wasn't doping was a matter of a few tenths of a second slower than all the guys who were. There comes a point where you wonder if we've reached the limit of how fast it is possible to run 100m with no artificial aids.

The athletics authorities need to realise how much they are out of step with general opinion in being too lenient (yes, US athletics that means you). As such there should be more booing of returned drug cheats so that global audiences add to the pressure on the authorities until they start being more of one uncompromising voice. First thing I would suggest is that all athletes introduced to the crowd have any drug bans referred to, along with any extenuating circumstances, so that the crowds can react accordingly. 

Here, the most obvious error was in cutting in half an eight year ban (in itself the harshest you could get without it being an instant lifetime ban). This was reduced tio four because Gatlin grassed up his compatriots. For that he desrved a pat on the back, not the chance to cheat an upcoming sprinter out of a result which would have seen him take over the mantle of the top sprinter. Think of the message that sent to him.

I am an athletics fan (did I mention I was in the crowd at Super Saturday?!) and know the details, so know that Gatlin is in a class apart from current sprinters (similar to Tyson Gay who was also treated too leniently for 'co-operating'). Asafa Powell's ban resulted from a supplement that that the makers had adapted without notifying of the change and Yohan Blake was banned for something not on the banned list but served a ban anyway. Same with Fraser Pryce who was tested positive for a non performance enhancing drug but who also served a six month ban anyway. The Jamaican authorities are much more onto this than the US who, frankly, are closer to Russia in their compicity (not so ironically, given their current leader's political position). There are issues with East Africa that also require a more concerted campaign of harsher bans and greater oversight. That graph of sprint times is, therefore, not what it seems.

In the end, Gatlin for testosterone is of a different order and he should not be competing. In fact, I hope that this medal and previous ones are stripped from him in the future. Otherwise the message sent to young athletes is that you can get away with it. 

At Wicked I've heard people boo when Madame Morrible and The Wizard take a bow at curtain call. I know they're booing the character but I feel awfully bad for the performer. Then again you'd get exactly the same at any good panto.

Edit: I probably should have read the whole thread before posting, then I would have realised that my comment was totally irrelevant to what was being spoken about Screw all of them, except Usain, and screw him too when it comes out 5 years from now that he was doping too.

Christie was dropped by the BBC and has had no media profile since, Chambers cannot appear on the screen without commentators reminding people of his drug ban (rightly so). Wiggins is under some suspicion until matters have been fully inspected, which you cannot say hasn't been reflected in people's response. There, Sky appear to have pushed what is allowed to the limit, which people will find annoying but there is that line for a reason. Look into cycling a little further and Sky are successful in le tour because they have highly paid super domestiques shielding their General Classification contender. They are less successful in the Vuelta or Giro and the one day classics because they gear everything in that one direction. That's the real and valid complaint against Sky but also a matter of culture and 'unfairness' generally. They also enjoy winding the cycling fraternity up with supposed magic shirts, chains and such which puts people's backs up (they get them passed and they make no difference apart psychologically).

When you see the Americans such as Johnson try and downplay his own country's much greater problem, then the harsher critiques of Cram, Foster, Radcliffe, Campbell etc. make us look like comparative saints.

I am not follower of Athletics or Tour De France, but for once have been following both this year, which is a first.

Gatlin was lucky not to get a lifetime ban because the first one, was successfully argued against, however being caught a second time in my eyes validated the first doping bust, the bloke is an out an out cheat and a shame to his sport, that is why the crowd booed him, he deserved nothing less, he made the decision to cheat and deserves what he got. At 36 it is too old to win 100m sprint, I have witnessed in other sports (football) at this age you lose your speed, so likely this win is down to his physician, lets face it, he has absolutely nothing to lose!!!

The Americans have a strong track record to argue against anti-doping, despite they seem to be the country that are most involved in it. Lance Armstrong just proofs that you can evade doping tests for a whole career.

Just out of interest look at he Olympic medal tables for the 1980's and see how well East Germany did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_medal_table
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

I was watching the Tour de France properly for the first time this year & so looked up the various commentators to find out who they were. I was decidedly surprised to find Channel 4 employing people who are known to have done doping while competing. I agree it does not affect their ability to commentate but I'm not sure it sends out the right message to the audience. (Also, why had Philipa York changed her surname? Usually when someone has a sex change they just change their first name.)

It was ITV4 actually, so maybe that made a difference. The word "usually" doesn't apply to Millar. There was a very good book written about him after he had disappeared "In Search of Robert Millar". To say that sport needs extraordinary dedication is an understatement, it is a life sentence, their bodies are so altered by the training and racing - their hearts particularly - that they have to keep exercising for the rest of their lives. At the top of the sport they are all unusual people.