Yes or No?

The Death Penalty may, for some people, seem very humane and advantageous for the states, but for me, there are two main problems: The first being that that it portrays the belief that in some cases, killing is acceptable, but secondly – and more relevant to my point – the person gets no chance of redemption. It is important to believe that humans, if given the chance, can improve and rescue themselves. It is this I use to make the somewhat tedious link the recent drug issues in Athletics, especially British. A few months ago now, some of you may have remembered the story of Christine Ohuruogu. This British 400 metre runner was given a one year ban for missing three drugs tests – not found taking drugs – who then can back to win a Gold medal at the World Championships, only weeks after the end of the ban. Sounds like a fairy tale right? Unforunatly not, as it turned out that her one year suspension also included a ban from competing in any future Olympic games. This was, to every British men anguish, imposed by the British Olympic Association, rather than the International Olympic Committee. This started a heated debate within the country, which was never really solved, though recently she won the right to compete in the Olympics. Things have now moved on now to another level. Dwain Chambers, the British 100 and 60 metre runner, has recently returned from his ban too. His is slightly different though, as he was banned from testing positive for THG, an performance-enhancing drug. He has come back a new man, with a point to prove, and succeeded, wiping the floor in the recent London trials. This has meant he has been reinstated into the British Olympic team and will represent Britain at the Indoor World Championships in Valencia. The has reopened the debate and so, it erupts again. Many people have been highly critical of his inclusion, including Dame Kelly Homes and Lord Sebastian Coe, believing that it is people such as him that are tarnishing and ruining the “true spirit” of the sport. Even the selectors claimed the picked him under duress, though if you really thought that they wanted to make an example out of him, he would not of been picked. Furthermore, let’s not forget this is a sport lead by the ever-so corrupt, IOC. Also, many disagree, and I am one of them. Interestingly enough, the people who agree with Dwain are in fact current Athletes, aware of how the sport is operating at this time, and perhaps where is it headed, such as Kim Collins and Asafa Powell. The reason I disagree is I feel he should be given a second chance – shouldn’t we all? He served the ban with no trouble, acknoledged he made a mistake and the error of his ways, and now that it is expired, why shouldn’t he run? It’s perfectly allowed, and unless they plan to change to rules, than it is perfectly fair. Moreover, the rules are there to be seen in black and white, plain and simple, but people are still complaing even though they are following. All I am saying is that we are all human and all make mistakes – its part of being who we are, and thus we should give him the chance to redeem himself. One thing that is essentially important is that he is not made a example of, as it is undemocractic to keep punishing him personally. And so, the Hullabaloo is all about nothing. Dwain and Christine should both be allowed to run (if they qualify of course) this summer, at this year’s Beijing Olympics, for they served their bans- end of story. Plus, they are pretty much one of the best hopes for any medals returning Britain’s way. What does Britain want – renewed athletes making us proud, bringing back medals, or an embarrassingly bad medal-free Olympics? It’s your choice. Just remember: To err is human; forgive, divine.

Grammy Shock

On December 6th, the date the Grammy nominations were announced, I was astounded by one act: Amy Winehouse, nominated for 6 awards. I had never realized that whilst she had been creating a stir within the UK and the rest of Europe, she had successfully broken into the U.S. market as well. This is quite an achievement nowadays for any British artist. However, Amy Winehouse is not your average artist in any sort of context.
The link between drugs and music is an old one, and, to be honest, as a teenager, I don’t have too much trouble if the artist keeps it private and discreet, though I personally don’t think taking drugs is appropriate at any time. Just by looking at the process, as well as the location, on where most cocaine comes from is enough to turn my conscience upside down, but that’s a whole different story. As it happens, discretion is clearly not a word in Winehouse’s dictionary. Her drink and drug problem has become infamous, due to it being blasted around by the tabloid newspapers for the last 10 months, ever since the release of her acclaimed album, Back in Black. The public have eaten it up, not surprisingly in a world where tabloids massively outsell broadsheets and where most of us rather read about Britney’s Spears mental breakdown rather than the political instability in Kenya. She, herself, seems to be past caring, and her whole attitude is summed up in her song Rehab “They tried to make me go to rehab, but I said no, no, no”. This shows that she has no desire to change her situation. Merely 3 weeks before the Grammy’s took place, a video of her was posted by The Sun showing her and her drug habit. And so, the story continues.. Winehouse, managed to win 4 Grammy at this year’s awards, for Best New Artist, Record of the Year, Song of the Year (What’s the difference anyway?), and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, the latter three for the song, as it happens, Rehab.
Now, as a music fan, fair enough. I don’t particular like the song, and I feel she has better, but it the whole morality of the issue. She should never have won the award because of her behaviour, or it should have at least been held back until there was some improvement. By winning the Grammies, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences is merely accepting her attitude, with no response towards it. I’m not saying her music didn’t deserve the prize, but like actors and sport stars, musicians should be punished for using illegal substances too. No exceptions. Winehouse should be too, and I personally don’t feel it’s the right message to be sending the next generation of potential drug users – that it’s okay to take drugs if you’re rich, famous and talented, plus there is a chance you might get lots of airtime from the press, as well as some critically commended awards. The moral implications of this are enormous, as if governments are serious about stopping drugs and therefore, drug-related crime, than they shouldn’t allow drugs to be portrayed as such a rich and glamorous thing, but condemn them, regardless of the circumstances. Furthermore, the singer is effectively destroying herself in the process, with her own father-in-law asking for a boycott of her music, whilst The Times recently said they felt the government should force her into rehab. A hold back of the prize may have been heavily criticised, but if it saved Winehouse’s welfare, and showed the world that drugs were wrong, than it would only be for the better. However, no one has helped, as the press continue as before, promoting the drug use, and their readers do not seem to showing their disgust in her behaviour, but more jealously, wishing they could be the ones leading her life of luxury. It’s okay showing the story sometimes, especially if she was in rehab, improving, but it nowadays a singer’s drug addiction receives more time on the news than the nearing civil war inside a country. It would seem the idea that bad press is always good press is no more fitting than here. This is just the world we live in.
All I’m saying is that we all have are own personal heroes and role models, especially when we are younger. If your child’s is Winehouse, I don’t envy you. The point is drug and drink addictions should be denounced in any case – it’s what’s known as equality.