Dick urges Chambers to drop case

RENOWNED British coach Frank Dick has urged Dwain Chambers to drop his bid to run in next month's Olympic Games in Beijing.

Dick believes Chambers could do irreparable damage to the United Kingdom's anti-doping policy if he wins his appeal against a lifetime ban from the Games in the High Court today.

The sprinter is seeking an injunction against a British Olympic Association (BOA) bylaw which prevents him from competing due to his past suspension for a doping offence.

If successful, having won the 100-metres trial at the UK Championships in Birmingham last weekend, he would almost certainly be named in the Great Britain team when final additions are made on Saturday.

Yet Dick believes Chambers' presence in Beijing would send out the wrong message to the next generation of athletes.

Dick had the task of advising British team members on how to combat the drug-fuelled performances of Communist athletes, particularly from East Germany, in the 1970s and 1980s.

He does not object to Chambers, who served a two-year suspension after failing a test for the designer steroid THG in 2003, continuing his career but does not want him at the Olympics.

In an open letter to Chambers, Dick said: "Congratulations on your performance to date this season. I hope you will read and reflect on this letter.

"It is written to you; for the sport I believe you love and for the people in the sport whom you respect and who respect you.

"In life, being a champion or hero is not always about hitting the line first or beating an opponent. It can be doing the right thing and living the values of a greater cause even when it brings you pain. Some would say, especially when it brings you pain.

"You will recall I spoke out in defence of your right to compete for the UK at the IAAF World Indoors. That argument was won.

"The UK rejoiced in your medal and I hope we will see you continue to wear UK colours and to achieve the results and economics you deserve.

"UK Athletics have a responsibility to ensure that you can exercise your right to do so, within the laws that pertained when you were disqualified for taking proscribed substances."

Dick emphasised: "By the same token, because the BOA position was part of these 'laws' and you knew that, you have a responsibility to accept that punishment and BOA a right to exact it.

"I do not believe it is your wish to damage the sport, so it makes little sense to pursue a course of action which would do so. Such action gives the press and media headline-grabbing material that lowers the sport in to the mud of drugs and your association with them.

"Rather, the headlines should be those athletes who have perhaps one chance only in their life to enjoy the limelight of being selected for the Olympics and of the Olympic experience itself. Surely you would not wish to deny them that."

Although Chambers could be cleared for Olympic selection, his legal team is not planning to challenge the BOA bylaw until a full hearing, expected to take place in March next year.

Dick added: "Of course, the fight to overturn the BOA position and their lead in the anti-doping war will take time and energy.

"By this I do not only mean your time and energy, which is ill preparation in any event, but that of those who need all they can have to ensure that Olympic athletes in all sports have the support and assistance they need to deliver in Beijing.

"Dwain, for you, for athletics and for sport, I do believe this is the time for you to be a different kind of champion and hero.

"It is now that you must use the courage and strength you have shown in abundance as an athlete, in a different way.

"Then, focus on all your other tough and challenging arenas through what I know you will make very successful future years as an international athlete."

Simeon Williamson, the runner-up in the British trial, was the only 100m sprinter named in the side on Monday, with the other two positions left open until the outcome of Chambers' hearing.

Craig Pickering and Tyrone Edgar, third and fourth in the trial race, will be waiting anxiously, as will former world junior champion Harry Aikines-Aryeetey who, although sixth, could be included at their expense and groomed for London 2012.

Landmark challenge hinges on 'unreasonable' restraint of trade

THE British Olympic Association by-law that is being challenged by Dwain Chambers today provides that athletes who have committed a doping offence such as testing positive for performance enhancing drugs will not be selected by the BOA for inclusion in the British team to compete in the Olympic Games.

The challenge at the English High Court is based on the legal concept of "restraint of trade" with Chambers – who failed a drugs test in 2003 – arguing that the by-law stops him from enjoying freedom in his career, limiting where and when he can practice his particular profession, limiting his potential earnings, punishes him twice for the same offence and so is an "unreasonable" restraint of trade and therefore unlawful.

The BOA accept that its by-law is a restraint, but say all athletes know of it and it is necessary in the fight against doping. Consequently, they argue, it is not "unreasonable" but reasonable and so lawful.

As the test to be applied and judged by the Court will focus on this question of "reasonableness", the Court will consider whether the by-law goes too far. Opinion amongst commentators has been split and a variety of steps have been taken by both parties to try to curry favour with the general public, including the signing of a petition from athletes and former athletes in support of the by-law and support expressed by the British Athletes Commission for the ban. The Court's focus will be on specific issues such as the reasons why the rule is said to be necessary – it has not always been in place – and how it has been applied. Comparisons with other sporting anti-doping regimes will also be considered.

Chambers will likely point to athletes, such as Christine Ohuruogu, who as a result of missing tests, ought to have been regarded as having committed a doping offence and so ought to have been declared ineligible for selection, but who have not. The World Anti-Doping Agency's (Wada) code, formed by the Olympics and government stakeholders to create a consistent approach to anti-doping regulation in world sport, does not mandate a lifetime ban for a first offence.

The British Olympic Association may contend that the Wada code only creates minimum standards to be applied and doesn't restrict more draconian regimes at the option of any particular sport or association. Chambers may counter by asking, if the Olympic Games do not refuse participation to first-time offenders, why should the BOA?

Chambers has everything to gain and nothing to lose from today's decision.

• Bruce Caldow is a partner with Harper Macleod LLP