RICKY HATTON

Like many people, I have a high regard for Ricky Hatton. A regard undiminished by recent sensationalised exposés of his cocaine abuse. If the former world champion has a drug problem he has my sympathy, but I cannot share the ‘disgust’ he was quoted as feeling.

  Over snorting cocaine? A snort of derision should greet the media-orchestrated process of apologetic self-abasement now expected from fallen role models.  

  Addressing the specifics, I wonder if even prolonged use of a class A drug is as dangerous to one’s mental health as a career enduring punches to the head.

  More broadly, when are the general public going to stop reacting with disappointment and surprise when individuals who famously excel at one thing prove fallible?

SEPARATE OLYMPICS EXCLUSIVELY FOR DRUG ABUSING ATHLETES, WHY NOT?

Arthur Bloke, former fruit and vegetable stallholder (Covent Garden), incites controversy as he plays devil’s advocate—here—with his first foray into journalism.

So, disgraced athlete Dwayne Chambers—who tested positive for illicit performance enhancing drugs—is hoping to be allowed to go to Beijing. Whether the (formerly) steroid-taking sprinter is permitted to compete in the next Olympics or not is not the subject for conjecture here. Frankly, I don’t care.
What interests me, on a purely dispassionate basis and partly as a result of the remarkable performance by Chambers as a drug-fuelled runner, is just how much human sporting potential could be achieved, in all fields, if drug taking was permissible. How much punishment could a heavyweight boxer soak up, never mind dish out, if they were souped up and numbed to pain on PCP (Angel dust) or cocaine? Could the world’s fastest man match the speed of athletes accelerated by amphetamines coursing through their bloodstreams? Of course, I recognise the injustice of clean-living, honest athletes unwittingly competing against less than sporting, sportsmen and women who deceitfully and furtively partake of illicit substances to create for them an unfair advantage. So, why not have a separate event for these latter sporting figures?
Just out of scientific curiosity, I’d like to see an Olympics exclusively for drug users and compare results with the ‘clean’ Olympics. The Paralympics afford disabled people to compete in a professional atmosphere without disadvantage. Why, then, not have an event tailored to the current taboo group? Few can disagree, surely, that the results would be extremely interesting. The current day UK is a society saturated in a fanatical devotion to a politically correct ethos riddled with double standards, reinforcing arguments supporting my appeal for alternative Olympics. For example, why are there no ‘Psychotic Olympics’ for the severely mentally ill? It can hardly be more dangerous than blind hammer and discus throwers, which reminds me I must go and look for my mail—my postman is blind!
Ta-ta!
Arthur.