Proven drugs cheats Dwain Chambers and David Millar are free to compete for Great Britain at London 2012. The Court of Arbitration in Sport has found against the British Olympic Association, who wanted to bar them from the Olympic Games for life.
Good. I’m delighted by the verdict. It’s the only fair, legal and above all moral decision the court could possibly have made. And it’s simply self-righteous nonsense to argue that the ban against the two men should have been allowed to stand.
Consider the facts. Consider, above all, the BOA’s opponents in court. For this wasn’t a case of a sporting body waging a brave fight against unscrupulous sportsmen or their greedy agents. No, the BOA were taking on the World Anti-Doping Agency, the body whose sole mission is to rid sport of illegal, performance-enhancing drugs.
More... British Olympic Association loses battle to ban drug cheats from Games clearing way for Dwain Chambers to competeThe argument went as follows. WADA have an Anti-Doping Code, which sets out a global protocol for prohibited substances, testing, discipline and punishment. This code has been imposed on global sport despite huge pressure against it from sportspeople, professional teams, national sporting administrations and even governments who all want to be able to get away with doping. There’s massive money in winning. That means there’s a huge incentive to cheat. Many, many people would rather there was no code at all.
Reformed: Cyclist David Millar now campaigns against doping in cyclingAgainst this backdrop, WADA have done sterling work in fighting cheats and those who supply and support them. But their code doesn’t include life bans for first offences. That’s the global rule and the BOA are breaking it, just as much as an organisation that turns a blind eye to cheating. In WADA’s view, that hurts the overall anti-drugs effort and brings the Anti-Doping Code into disrepute.
The BOA might claim that they’re acting to a higher moral standard than WADA, but that’s not an attitude that wins them many friends. On the contrary, it just makes the rest of the world think that we’re being typically arrogant, self-righteous, superior Brits.
Other countries take a different view. The American Olympic Committee, backed by the US anti-doping agency supported the once-banned sprinter LaShawn Merritt against the International Olympic Committee in his efforts to compete in the Olympics because they took the view that people should be given the chance to redeem themselves.
And that, to me, is the key. In any other crime, a guilty person pays the penalty as laid down by the court and then, in an ideal world learns their lesson, turns their life around and goes back to the straight and narrow. They get a second chance. So why is doping any different?
The cyclist David Millar has publicly admitted that he did wrong, seen the error of his ways and, like the proverbial poacher turned gamekeeper become a major figure in the fight to rid cycling of drugs. Who are the stuffed shirts and blazers of the British Olympic Committee – or any of us, come to that - to tell Millar that he does not deserve the chance to compete?
Redeemed: LaShawn Merritt Campaigner: Ed MosesThe former 400m hurdler Ed Moses – one of the greatest athletes the USA has ever produced and a campaigner for drugs testing whose anti-dope credentials go back 30 years – recently stated that he was in favour of allowing convicted drugs offenders back after their bans, because they’d done their time and should be allowed a second chance. He added, ‘If you go out and drive drunk, you’ll get your license back eventually. That’s much more critical.’
Drunk drivers get a second chance. Thieves get a second chance. Most murderers are released from prison without serving anything like a full life sentence. Why should athletes be an exception?
