North Stand Shrimp wrote:Aal wrote:What a cruel treatment of Christine, a lovely girl who is one of our few athletes at the moment who is fit to lace the shoes of Coe and Ovett. Please don't cast aspertions, naive maybe but NEVER a cheat.
It was interesting to see the voting. Where was the source of this info?
And potentially liablous!
Richard, you never said she failed a drugs test but you did imply by the context of your use of the words 'drug cheat' that she was in some way guilty of a wrong doing and therefore did not deserve to be shortlisted/voted for!
She has never tested positive for drugs, innocent until proven guilty!
would you like to be judged to be guilty until being proven innocent? - No, so don'tdo it to others!
I got the voting info from the BBC website.
She was guilty of some wrong doing. Nowadays our elite athletes are given lottery funding to allow them to train full time but with this funding also comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to make themselves available for on the spot, out of competition drug tests. Ohuruogu failed to do this on 3 occasions and so received a 12 month ban,
The BOA rules at the time were that anyone who had served a drugs ban would be banned for life from competing for the UK at the Olympics. She appealed against the Olympic ban and that was overturned, but the fact is she had still been found guitly of a drugs offence for missing 3 drug tests.
In August 2007 only a couple of weeks after completing her 12 month ban she won the World Championship 400 metres title beating fellow Brit Nicola Sanders into 2nd place. At the time the British media glossed over the fact that she had only just completed her ban, typified by Steve Cram's comment on the BBC 'It's good to see Christine back after her problems over the last 12 months'
What do you think our medias reaction would have been if it had been an athlete from one of the former eastern bloc countries who served a 12 month drug ban then returned 2 weeks later to beat a British athlete into 2nd place