Once a cheat, always a cheat?

An interesting addendum to the whole debate on Dwain Chambers right now is that many of the current objections to him representing Great Britain are based on the argument that he is a cheat. For example:


"It doesn't put us in a good light allowing a cheat, who has admitted he's a cheat, to represent us." (Dame Kelly Holmes)


That raises an interesting, and potentially important, debate. Is Dwain Chambers a cheat?


There's no doubt at all that he has cheated. He's admitted it.


But is he a cheat?


Any form of cheating is a behaviour. It is not a core element of personality. The behaviour itself, in Dwain's case, would appear to have been a response (albeit inappropriate) to his belief that he could not win a major championships if he didn't take performance enhancing drugs.

Now that he has been out of the sport for a while, if he no longer holds that belief, or if the medals are no longer the only thing that matter to him, then he might choose not to cheat.

Ergo, he is no longer a cheat. No behaviour, no label.

Let's be clear: I believe that a lifetime ban from competition is appropriate for using banned drugs.

However, that is a single punishment, handed out once and finally. There's no way back, but it doesn't give us a right to vilify that person for the rest of their lifetime. Indeed, for them to contribute positively, perhaps becoming a spokesperson against taking drugs (as Robert Miller, the cyclist, has done), they need to be shown compassion and empathy.

There must be a philosophical (or ethical) debate lurking behind all of this, but I think it is important that we look at the behaviour as the problem, and not the person. Dwain Chambers is not a necessarily a bad man because he did a bad thing. I think that to continue to label him a cheat is dangerous, and indeed if I were him I would consider whether it was libelous or slanderous.

Not being a lawyer, I don't know the answer to that....

Rob Robson

Sport and Business Psychologist, Warwickshire