Sport and the Law: Dwain Chambers and David Millar

There is an excellent quote from The Simpson’s in the episode when Springfield is chosen to host the Olympic Games. The Head of the IOC delivers a speech to the people declaring:

“People! People! Please. You are forgetting what the Olympics are all about. Giving out medals of beautiful gold, so-so silver and shameful bronze.”

In fact, the iconic British broadcaster David Coleman in his commentary of the 400m hurdle final in Mexico 1968 famously said: “Who cares who’s third?” unaware that Britain had picked up gold and bronze.

As the spotlight turns to London this summer, athletes will be looking to take home the medal that they have always dreamed to win. Years of practice can be rewarded or destroyed in a matter of seconds. The precedents set by the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Johnson only add to that desire. It is unfortunate that some athletes are willing to overstep the mark to achieve those dreams.

Chambers

Athletics is a sport that has been tarnished by drugs cheats down the years. No one forgets the industrial scale doping within East Germany and the stripping of Ben Johnson’s 100m gold medal in Seoul. Many have retold their story and tried to qualify their reasons for substance abuse, yet it still does not seem to restore their integrity.

The Court of Arbitration will soon be ruling whether the British Olympic Association’s (BOA) lifetime ban on athletes found guilty for drug use can be upheld. In late 2011, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) ruled that British sprinter Dwain Chambers, who has served a two –year ban for the banned substance THG, should be able to compete if he meets the necessary qualification time. They ruled that the BOA’s lifetime ban was ‘non-compliant’ with the WADA code. The ruling in Lausanne will see whether the BOA’s belief that the presence of athletes who deliberately cheat within Team GB would damage team morale, atmosphere and cohesion.

If the BOA loses, it may also see the cyclist David Millar able to compete.

The interesting debate between the two sides is the argument of whether it is in the legal interest or the sporting interest. If an athlete has served a ban for drug misuse then should they be able to compete on legal grounds or not compete for ethical purposes?

Millar

Both Millar and Chambers have competed in other events since their return to sport and both have done the media rounds and written books to exert their contrition. However, maybe it is only in the reactions of men or women who have competed against cheats that we should derive our judgement. The former British sprinter Darren Campbell was stripped of his 4 x 100m relay gold in the 2002 European Championships after Chambers’ positive drug test. Likewise, Michael Johnson was forced to hand back his 1999 World Championship and 2000 Olympic gold’s in the 4 x 400m relay after Antonio Pettigrew and Jerome Young were found guilty of substance abuse. These honest athletes were cheated out of medals themselves and forced to bear the indignity thereafter.

The CAS may overrule the BOA meaning both Millar and Chambers are legally eligible to compete. We shall see what reaction they receive from the fans; legally cleared, but morally never.