So Dwain Chambers has qualified for the Olympics after winning the

British trials in 10.00 (the fastest clean run by a British sprinter in

9 years).

Of course, he's not yet selected, and a judge will decide on Wednesday whether he will be selected to run.

Most of the arguments that I've heard against him running have been

moral arguments, and I'm all for banning athletes for life that are

caught doping. However, the important arguments will be the legal ones.

Is his Olympic ban a restraint of trade? Is it unfair (only GB and

Norway have this rule)? Should the BOA have the autonomous right to

decide the standards that they expect from their athletes?

Dick Pound, the former head of the Word Anti Coping Agency (WADA) certainly thinks Chambers has a case.

I hope that once this is over, that the WADA will look again at

lifetime bans, or that the International Olympic Committee make the

rules consistent for all nations.

Until either of these happen, I've a lot of sympathy for Chambers. He's

served his ban, and until the rules change, should still be allowed to

run. But then, the BOA rule was in place when he took drugs. Oh, I

don't know. I'm so 'conflicted'.

Which way should the decision go?

Rob Robson

iStadia.com

Olympics news | Sports Jobs | Health, Fitness & Sports Community