Dwain Chambers: Hollow Victory

I am one of those people who distrust those who question the value of sport or scorn any passing fixture in the sporting calendar. There is something illogical of people who give equivocal answers to their dislike and refuse to admire any form of athletic achievement. Doubting Thomas’s will certainly have to agree the power sport can possess in uniting countries, cultures and societies after years of civil unrest, war or hardship. Sport is an omnipresent good-will vehicle and forceful in breaking down barriers. After years of civil war in Cote D’Ivoire, it was the voice of their superstar striker Didier Drogba who called for an end to arms and a future of peace. How foreign diplomats would love that power. There are countless other examples.

Sport sells a dream and despite the commercialism and universal professionalism over the past half century, no one can deny the vivid aspirations of youngsters and that realisation when they fulfil those dreams; I bet everyone wishes they could hear their national anthem at an Olympic Games.

Watching the European Championships earlier tonight, there is one thing I cannot do and that is cheer on a cheat. The British sprinter Dwain Chambers is no doubt a real talent; however, whatever he does in the next few years his athletics' epitaph will be tarnished by his drug use. The competition in single-competitor sports is fierce and success is laden with financial and heroic plaudits, think of the Team GB’s cycling team in the last Olympics. In his autobiography Chambers claims that being placed outside the world’s top three would mean a substantial drop in pay from his paymaster’s Adidas. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of pressure at the top of sport and certainly in events where history is dictated in less than 10 seconds, a lifetime of practice can be extinguished or rewarded by the starter gun. Why then should someone morally corrupt their career and selfishly cheat those around him in the pursuit of success. Michael Johnson, the superb athlete and equally good pundit, explains that it took him four years to wipe less than a second of his 400m lap time and perfect his running style. That is an answer from an honest athlete, not someone looking for narcissistic admiration and hollow success. Chambers may be a reformed character and one of Britain’s finest athletes but ultimately his testimony of victimhood and desire to steal success is the nadir of sporting competition.

Foreign relations: placing Britain on the map.

Looking at Britain's place in the world, it is easy to think pie in the sky amidst International Relations theory and group our interests as an integral part of Europe, mixed with a 'Special Relationship' with America, not to mention the lasting historical and cultural ties with the Commonwealth. Britain is a nuclear power (albeit under the US's defensive wing), it is the seventh richest country in the world and its soft power is vast in terms of language, law and culture.

Since the Coalition Government came to power there is a renewed sense of soul-searching in terms of the British footprint across the world, through its Foreign Policy and Armed Forces. In times of economic hardship it is becomes apparent that a hefty defence budget is an easy target to slice, particularly when the public are more concerned about health, education and the economy. What can Britain effectively do when it is fighting an isolated and expensive war in Afghanistan and expect major cuts at the MOD?

Britain has Trident, a weapons system that is more appropriate to the Cold War than the modern mobile insurgency that we see today. Yet, if the country were to dispose of this costly yet 'necessary' weapon (figures range between 20 to 130 billion sterling) would we lose our top seat at the UN? Certainly, you could take Tony Blair and New Labour’s opinion that they are needed in an ‘uncertain world’ or the opposite gambit that the money could be spent on more effective defensive equipment like cruise missiles, helicopters or investment in special forces. Ballistic missiles and particularly submarinal warfare is only likely to take place against a superpower, but how likely is that? Would Britain’s voice still continue to be heard if it is willing to send thousands of its troops abroad, even if it doesn’t have tactical nuclear weapons.

The fact the coalition government has decided to ring fence Trident suggests that it is to maintain Britain’s continuing defensive force. This seems utterly stupid when it will have to mothball two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, retain and probably store needless amounts of Typhoon Jets that are too expensive to operate and maintain a combat force of 10 000 fighting a thankless war in Afghanistan. If Trident is necessary then have a debate in Parliament, the Government will win if its case is overriding of any moral or budgetary opposition. The politics of defence procurement is that military contracts and defence budgets can show real muscle flexing but ultimately they are expensive and can be out-dated once contracts are fulfilled. The British tanks in Iraq seem superfluous to today's combat missions.

Defensive reviews and cuts of all natures lead to the same thing: hurting people on the frontline, something very costly to all those men dug-in in Afghanistan. One telling statistic this week was that the U.S. spends £75 billion a year on military intelligence, that’s more than the entire UK defence budget. Spending reviews give no long term answers and only an decision by the government can ultimately decide Britain's future. The Foreign Secretary William Hague is fully aware of the great statesman of the nineteenth century and their policies, maybe it is time for some Disraeli-style pragmatism.

Muttiah Muralithiran

When Muttiah Muralithiran took his 800th test wicket this morning, with his final ever test ball, it was obvious what would be said. Something like this: a savage wicket-taker with a controversial action that split many cricket fans, players and administrators. As someone who calls himself a spin bowler I think the past 15 years of test cricket have been incredible, this benign, intrepid but utterly destructable Sri Lankan has turned the ball unimaginably and taken more wickets than anyone can fathom. All with a smile on his face.

I remember reading Nasser Hussain's response to facing Murali, he said that after facing a few overs he wouldn't even bother looking at his wrist or the spin on the ball because he still would have had no idea how much the ball would turn once it had pitched. It may explain why we have seen him destroy England a few too many times. Murali is a true great of the game, a native Tamil, he won the hearts of Sri Lankans, Lancastrians and ultimately the global audience.

It was truly a pleasure to see a master at work and see such a wonderful art in the hand of its most creative protagonists.

The Unknown Soldier of the Great War.

Today in France, after 94 years, soldiers of Great Britain and Australia were finally laid to rest in Fromelles. I guess many people will wonder why that after so many years would so much effort and perspective be made to such an insignificant part of history. I found that previous sentence extremely difficult to phrase because I believe, even coming up to a century, these men are worth remembering and it would be a blotch on our own history to deny them that right.

World War One is etched in everyone's memory as bloody, attritional and inevitably wasteful. It was a war in Europe that Marshall Foch predicted would eventually settle nothing; it saw specks of hope in the Christmas Day truce; but ultimately the canvas would paint the grey, vivid and ugly slaughter at Verdun, the Somme, Ypres. It was the first time Britain and the Commonwealth conscripted on mass and it was first time that every family Britain was affected with some form of loss.

Yet, despite the suffering and the huge gap in history denied to these men, the reburials and the identification of some of the remains give new gloss to the Great War. The ineffable legacy of the Unknown Soldier and his worthy sacrifice is being replaced by the reinstallation of dignity, of his soul, of his being, even his name. Millions suffered for the rest of their lives; but we can now respect them as people, not purely as statistics.

The Battle of Britain: The Few

I have so much admiration for any man or woman who decides to fight for their country. It is particularly relevant with the seventieth anniversary of The Battle of Britain. If one ignores the limits of Hitler's Blitzkreig tactics and the might of the Royal Navy, Britain was on its own against a well-oiled fighting machine that had flattened Europe in months. 'The Few' as they have become, with an average age of 22, were fighting not only for their lives but for the future of freedom in Europe.

The one legacy that is less forgettable I think is the procurement to the RAF in the seventy years since. Many expensive and generally superfluous contracts have been given for fighter jets, most notably the Tornado and Eurofighter jets, all on the historical premise that we may one day engage in a 'Battle of Britain II'. A regrettable waste of money when one thinks of a lack of logistical support in Afghanistan.

On September 15th, Battle of Britain day, I think it will be pertinent to look up into the skies and think back to what those men did and what it means for us today.

Racism in America: What would Atticus say?

It is 50 years this week since the publication of Harper Lee’s ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’. Set in 1930s Alabama, it tells the story of a white family, Jem and Scout Finch and their lawyer father Atticus. In a deeply racist society, Atticus defends a young black man called Tom Robinson, who is accused of raping a white girl. Despite the lack of evidence and the cross-examination the all-white jury finds Tom Robinson guilty; to the despair of the onlooking Jem and Scout. The book, which sold tens of millions across the world, highlighted the inequality and injustice that existed in the supposed free world of America.

Yet, the American dream was essentially a white man’s ideal. The founding fathers believed that eventually Negroes would be repatriated back to their own homelands in Africa. As history demonstrates a bitter civil war between the North and South broke out in the 1860s, primarily over the issue of slavery. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who pushed through the equality laws that finally ended the inequalities between white and black Americans.

Fast forward fifty years, there is now a black President in Barack Obama and for many white Americans the scary fact that in 2050 they will a minority in their original settlement. So much has changed since Mockingbird’s initial publication but to what extent do black Americans still see themselves within Thomas Jefferson’s notion of a separate nation within a nation, that is: after being treated for so long as second class citizens there is a difference between being black and being American.

We have seen the rise of Barack Obama; and before him Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell. Not to mention many in popular culture such as Sammy Davis Jr., Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan. However; the fact is there is still a huge divide socially. Fewer black Americans identify the all-American optimism unlike the many white and Latinos who do. Seventy percent of black children are born into families without fathers, a trend Bill Cosby identified to continue. And white people, even back in 2008 the lacrosse team at Duke University (very much a white institution) was accused of raping a black girl and one of the alleged had apparently said, ‘You’re daddy picked the cotton from my shirt’. It appears that despite the time and change since the civil rights movement, there will always be an underlying thought that this was accepted as the norm for generations.

It was interesting listening to an interview from a reverend in Monroeville, Alabama, the town where Harper Lee lives and based her book on. He, a white man that lived through and supported the civil rights movement, believes it will be another generation before any underlying cultural and racial divide finally dissipates. I think it’s a testament that today Tom Robinson would have been cleared, though for many Americans they will always have to relive that guilt and injustice, like Atticus did.

Drugs again.

There have been plenty of examples of ugliness in sport this summer. The defensive, ugly formations on show in South Africa; though many would say 'parking the bus' is purely pragmatic against some opponents.

The real ugliness is drugs in sports. Recently, the Jamaican sprinter and the world's fastest woman, Shelley-Ann Fraser's tested positive in a drug test, however she claims it stemmed from a toothache relief supplement. In a sport where people are hung out to dry when doping is mentioned, we will have to wait and see what the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have to say about recent events. It certainly dampened the British Athletics event in Gateshead yesterday.

This year's Tour de France, a competition plagued by drug scandals, has an air of militancy among the riders, fed up of the constant drug tests required by officials. It is for the benefit of those watching and taking part to know what they are seeing is through human achievement, nothing else. Let's hope rage is the only thing in their blood.

Mad men? - The tyrants

A recent article in Foreign Policy magazine called ‘The Worst of the Worse’ compiled a list of the least desirable places to live on the globe. In today’s world we are aware of the hardships and disasters facing many of the world's poorest, much of it inflicted by their own leaders. The countries are listed as following (you may know who the tyrants are):

North Korea (population: 24 million), Zimbabwe (12.5), Burma (49.5), Sudan (41.5) Turkmenistan (5), Eritrea (5), Uzbekistan (27.5), Iran (72), Ethiopia (81), China (1.325bn), Libya (6.3), Syria (20.6), Chad (11), Equatorial Guinea (0.6), Egypt (81.5), Gambia (1.6) Venezuela (28), Burkino Faso (15), Uganda (31.5), Rwanda (9.7), Cuba (11.2), Belarus (9.7), Cameroon (19).

Many will be happy to argue the merits of the list and argue that economic advancement will increase the accountability of government in many places like China and Rwanda. In his excellent book ‘The Bottom Billion’ Paul Collier identifies the four main issues for why countries and people in the bottom billion suffer endlessly from the wrath of economic stagnation: geography, minerals, bad governance and  war. All the countries above could definitively be bracketed into one of these categories, some are affected by all.

For many countries the incentives of economic development and foreign investment will mean reform in their practices of government and greater accountability of their law-making bodies. The concern is that instability nowadays doesn’t just breed regional; but global insecurity. War damages economies and ultimately it is the people that suffer. Of the billion plus living in these countries, think of the millions more who have been displaced or migrated to flee trouble in their homeland. Autocrats have always existed and certainly many would consider themselves friends of Western governments, we as citizens have to be aware morally that we cannot live blindly to other people suffering and worst of all what these people are capable of doing.

The Politics of Independence.

Today is July 4th - American Independence Day. I have been to many of these celebrations over the years and enjoy the camaraderie and the meaning of the event. The ultimate hangover from being the colonial master is that ultimately you don't get the bank holidays that accomodate these celebrations. We don't celebrate St George's Day because it could be inferred as racist or triumphalist. Yet, if these people got off their high-horses, we could get a few bank holidays out of it. India have 27, we deserve a few more!

Federer- The Great Man will rise again.

I am aware that Tennis can be seen as a young person's game; but to write off Federer's career after a lacklustre Wimbledon seems to be extremely premature. Just remember despite his age, this man has won more grand slams than any other man in the game. His elegance and accuracy has meant a high voltage game has never been necessary. Write him off at your peril...

Goodbye to England; welcome to change?

No surprise then? We expected to lose at some point, possibly in penalties, there was some injustice though. If we ignore the absurdity of Frank Lampard’s “none goal” and the shabby performance by the Uruguayan officials then what can England fans say about the game, the tournament, the style of football as a whole?


Those who know English fans and even the stupid ones, will know that there is an obsession and a myopia that England deserve to win the World Cup or the European Championships every two years. Looking back over the past decade it has been completely inconsistent: Keegan in Euro 2000 was appalling, World Cup 2002 was a strange tournament in general and perhaps England did better than people expected, Euro 2004 will be remembered for the remarkable performances of Greece; but many will wonder what would have happened if Rooney hadn’t limped off in the quarter-finals, WC 2006 was dreadful and saw Sven’s men lose to Portugal on penalties again, a no show at the last Euros and then fast forward to South Africa.

An extremely confident qualifying performance against some fairly mediocre teams, but remember this was an England who had missed out on the previous tournament. Lampard and Gerrard clicked, Rooney was the leading scorer in the qualifiers and we played a form of football that destroyed an extremely competent Croatia team. What went wrong then?

I think it is extremely unfair to blame Mr Capello, though some of his decision making was questionable, going into the tournament he was hit by some immediate blows: no Beckham, no Rio and what looks like now a half-fit Barry and half-fit Rooney. Questions of burn-out? I would beg to differ, look at Tevez, Mascherano, Kuyt, de Jong, they didn't appear to be tired. This almost seems to rule out that the Premiership is too quick as well. Most of England’s players are competing against the world’s best every week in the Champions League, so these players and styles are hardly alien to them. What I think does matter is that many of the teams know what to expect of England and can therefore shackle their style and target individuals. Think Ozil against Terry, Klose was happy to run at Upson. I don’t think you can criticise the team for trying but they seemed clueless and lacking intelligence. They didn’t know what move to make, this shouldn’t necessarily fall on the manager, though the personnel he was bringing on didn’t help. Where was Carrick, J. Cole, I even think despite Capello’s frustration, Walcott threat of pace disorientates other teams. England just didn’t know what to do next. Tactically naive some would say.

Defensive football isn’t new and ‘parking the bus’ isn’t either but straight lined football and limited movement does not help you find the gaps. We can be frustrated by Lampard’s none goal and wonder what could have happened; but we could have also wondered if England’s players had done what their foreign colleagues do for them in the Champions League every week.