Winch is the Right Decision
Background:
This is mostly in response to the article, ‘Winch Slams UK Athletics over Chambers’. Dwain Chambers was perhaps the first big-time athlete to get busted for drugs. When it happened it was one of the biggest events the sport had ever seen. Well now his suspension is over and he wants to run again. The governing body of track and field, the UKA doesn’t want him to ever run again representing the United Kingdom. There were several events that have happened and after all is said and done, the UKA’s own rules allow him to compete, and they are not happy about it. Initially the UKA stated that under no circumstances would
he be allowed to return. Now after a string of events and legal proceedings, Dwain Chambers not only competed at the indoor national trials, but won the 60m. Last week, UKA Vice President Mike Winch stepped down from his position, citing this incident.
Read the full article here:
Analysis:
On this particular case I would have to side with Winch. Not only is the UKA submitting to what they are against but also they are going against the ethics of the sport of running. With Dwain Chambers jumping back into the mix, the UKA are going against their statement making them look as though they will submit to anything and everything to not cause (legal) problems. That can clearly be seen with them not speaking up of their decision of accepting Chambers in the Indoor Championships. The funny thing about that is that the UKA is creating a greater problem for themselves. With not speaking the UKA is creating a one sided opinion on their association. It makes it even worst that a person employed would come out and speak on the discrepancies inside the association.
With Chambers returning from a 2-year drug ban the UKA is promoting runners with bad reputations to take part. And they would rather allow it then fight for it. The UK itself would rather not have Chambers represent their country, but with the announcement of Chamber’s legal position in the race there is no real way to get out of this unless a public statement is made of the situation.
What I Would Have Done:
The announcement of Chambers winning would have been postponed so the situation could have been reviewed as well as a statement given to the public explaining the situation. That one person who is selected will be representing a whole country so this situation is touchy and needs review. When the decision is made. I would publicly announce the decision, making sure to state why.
So with that I say, Mike Winch, I do agree with you. It’s just too bad that it had to go down with this and you had to leave your job. Hopefully the UKA will be able to create and implement a rule of some kind after this to prevent admittance of banned athletes. In fact you should have stayed in that position to make that happen.
But there’s one thing I get from this, Morality and Ethics can’t always beat out the law of winning.
---
Running with B - A viewpoint from public relations
