BOA By-law Ruled Illegal

[Geoff]

London 2012 Olympics: Dwain Chambers lifetime ban lifted after British Olympic Association bylaw is overturned
Dwain Chambers and David Millar will be cleared to compete for Great Britain in the 2012 Olympics tomorrow after the British Olympic Association’s life ban for doping offenders was ruled illegal.

Telegraph Sport can reveal that the Court for Arbitration in Sport has ruled that the BOA's life ban does not comply with the World Anti-Doping Association code and is therefore unenforceable. The judgment will be formally published at 3pm on Monday.

As a result the BOA will have no power to prevent Chambers, Millar and possibly shot-putter Carl Myerscough, who has also been banned for a doping offence, from competing in London this summer.

The CAS is understood to have ruled against the BOA on the grounds that its life-ban was effectively an additional sanction on top of the penalties that had been handed down to Millar and Chambers.

Both men received two-years bans for doping offences. Chambers was banned in 2003 after failing a drugs test, while Millar was excluded from cycling in 2004 after admitting using the blood-booster EPO following a French police investigation.

Under the terms of the WADA code doping penalties must be uniform around the world. As a national Olympic committee the BOA is a signatory to the code and is therefore bound to comply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... urned.html

No surprise at this verdict! It may, possibly, be interesting to read the full judgement of CAS and how they view this case being brought before them. Obviously, this still divides opinion with many still saying the BOA don't have to select them but, obviously, they can't do that. Chambers still has to qualify as does Myerscough.

Perhaps the BOA and WADA can now concentrate on strengthening sanctions and garnering support worldwide?

[Geoff]

We've known for a while that this would be the outcome but it could be only the start of a much more wide ranging debate! A couple of articles:

Chambers is cleared for London but why is British sprinting in the slow lane?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympi ... eared.html

London 2012 Olympics: BOA faces task of maintaining harmony after Dwain Chambers and David Millar get go-ahead
Confirmation that the British Olympic Association must ditch its life ban for former doping cheats will satisfy those of us who believe in a level playing field and second chances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... ahead.html

The two articles cover areas such as future sanctions, costs, coaching, funding. The Daily Mail is particularly hard hitting, as you would expect, on how much has been spent yet Chambers is still arguably our number one sprinter. Dai Greene gives his opinion, again, on sprinters having too much, too soon.

The debate will continue all year and could lead to much change. Not all the change will be drug related.

[Geoff]

What do you have in mind when you say;

"Not all the change will be drug related"

As raised in the articles and debated this morning on Radio 5 there is the question of why Chambers has been our number 1 sprinter despite lottery funding going into coaching, facilities, support staff and the athletes? At 34, why is he still our best sprinter and what does this say about how we develop sprinters in this country. UKA will have to account for that post Olympics. Of course, and we all hope it will be the case, some of our sprinters may raise their game and start running sub10 this summer plus Chambers may have lost his edge. A poor summer for our sprinters and more questions will be asked.

Michael Khmel who coaches out of Lougborough (assume he still does?) was interviewed and introduced as a coach to British Bobsleigh! He lost his relays role last year. Coaching, centralisation and funding will be a by-product of the Chambers case.

[Geoff]

And now to the costs incurred:

British Olympic Association loses appeal at Court of Arbitration for Sport...and has to foot the bill
The British Olympic Association (BOA) gave "voluminous and largely irrelevant submissions and evidence" during its unsuccessful appeal against the lifetime ban on drugs cheats at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the World Anti-Doping Agency has claimed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... -bill.html

Was it worth the cost even though the BOA claim the moral high ground and have possibly added pressure on WADA to adopt harsher sanctions? Could the same have been achieved in a different, less costly more diplomatic way?

[fangio]

Why is Chambers still our top sprinter, well becuase Chrisite (convicted drug cheat) and Gardener once in his whole career, are the only ones to have run under 10 seconds, and Chambers with 10.00 2008, 10.00 2009, 9.99 2010 and 10.01 would expect to be our top most years, except for Christie. Coaching cannot make another Christie (even if he was clean) the raw material has to be ther in the first place.

[Kermit]

I wonder if UKA will now ask euro meet promoters to lift their (gentleman's agreement) ban to afford DC the opportunity to race against quality opposition and allow him to pay off his debt to the IAAF.

[Exile]

Fangio - I don't subscribe to the view that GB should have world medallists in every event (although, given the level of funding, I do think an A standard or two should be the aim across all events, men and women - tough, I know, but aims should be). Nevertheless, your dismissal of Geoff's comments about Chambers being number 1 at 34 begs a couple of questions.

You obviously have a nice line in historical stats going that you bring out periodically to provide context to what people are asking of today's athletes. Fine. But in the case of Chambers, you readily admit that Chambers has achieved number 1 status with times of 10.0 or thereabouts. As you show, historically that is what one might expect. But the event has moved on. 10.0 used to be an excellent time but it is now mediocre by world standards. The fact that GB has historically struggled to produce sub 10 men doesn't mean that that is what we should expect of be satisfied with now.

Are you suggesting that while Americans and Caribbean athletes are taking the event forward, we in Britain should be happy to be standing still? Given the youngsters that have shown so much potential over the years, Geoff's questions are entirely appropriate. Pointing to historical trends is all well and good, but it means nothing when talking about the present in events such as the 100m (and marathon for that matter) in which the history books have been rewritten in recent years.

[fangio]

Exile,

Yes things have moved on and nowadays we have more sub 10.2 runners than we had in the 880's or 90's. we cna get people to a level which our atheltes found hard to achieve previously, what we don't have is a top world class athlete in the 100m. We have loads capable of running the A standard. Yes it has moved on, in a couple of countries, where 100m gets you more money comparative to the UK and in a country where there is little competition for outright speed from other sports (Jamaica) and the US where there is a long hisory of the NFL, shoe company and University money for fast sprinters. The liklihood of our best sprinters actually being in sprinting is much less than Jamaica, and it is unlikley that any but the absolute best will approach Chrisite's times.

[SteveK26]

This ruling will certainly increase the chances of GB medalling in the 4x100.
CVC will now surely include Chambers in his squad, and I assume he will get his first opportunity at the European Champs.....

[Kermit]

The first available opportunity is the the 4x100m in the Diamond League in Rome.

[Geoff]

Obviously WADA have continued to be very critical of the BOA and both sides continue to throw accusations at the other. For me, though, the statement made by Dwain Chambers' lawyer is the most interesting. I have written about how some people perceive the BOA, Moynihan and others. Perhaps a little of this comes out in the following statement:

Following the ruling, Chambers' lawyer Siza Agha said the BOA had been "crude and defiant" in its determination not to comply with Wada.

Agha said: "In my view, as hosts for the 2012 Olympics, this delicate and emotive issue required international diplomacy, foresight and responsibility.

"What we have received has been a crude and defiant display fuelled by misguided statements such as 'we have standards and the rest of the world doesn't'.

"It has, in my view, been an exposure of colonial arrogance that even the most extreme and blinkered should have realised could only serve to marginalise British opinion on the international stage."

[Geoff]

London 2012 Olympics: Dwain Chambers' Olympic bid given green light after CAS rules BOA ban unenforceable
Dwain Chambers will be fast-tracked into Great Britain’s athletics squad for the Rome Golden Gala after he was cleared to compete at the London Olympics by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

....In Chambers’s case that seems certain and with less than three months to go until the start of the Games, UK Athletics is wasting no time in reintegrating him into the GB relay team.

A UK Athletics insider said the Londoner would be attending his first practice session “within the next two weeks” and was due to compete for Britain in a 4x100m race in Rome’s Olympic Stadium on May 31.

The meeting is part of the Diamond League and will mark Chambers’s first ever appearance in the showpiece series, having previously been shunned by Europe’s top athletics promoters.

As revealed in Telegraph Sport last Wednesday, Chambers will also be invited to take part in the relay at the Aviva London Grand Prix in Crystal Palace in mid-July.

....The CAS ruling also opens the Olympic door to Myerscough, who served a two-year ban in 1999 after testing positive for two anabolic steroids.

Speaking exclusively to Telegraph Sport from his home in southern California, Myerscough – who has always denied knowingly taking performance-enhancing drugs, said: “I’m very happy. I feel a weight’s been lifted from my shoulders a little bit and the dream is alive again. It’s very exciting, really. I’ve got to qualify first but it’s about having the opportunity to do so.”

Myerscough, 32, who competed for Britain in the discus at last summer’s World Championships in Daegu, said he now wanted to make the most of his chance by becoming the first ever British thrower to compete in the Olympics in both the shot put and the discus.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... eable.html

[Geoff]

Wada's David Howman accuses BOA of 'wasting time and money'
• Wada hits back at comments made by Lord Moynihan
• His 'views hardly have any touch with the real facts'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ma ... time-money

The role of the BOA and the future of Moynihan will be an issue post London.

[bevone]

One aspect of this that I find insulting is being lectured by a lawyer about our and I supposed his country comparing the BOA's taking the moral high ground stance as arrogant colonialism. I get bored when i hear the race card being presented time and time again to justify bad or immoral bahaviour. Two wrongs do nto makea right - its not maths!I dont think we need to be lectured by a lawyer defending a cheat about morals or ethics.

The issue about Dwaine taking other peoples spot is relevent but noody has considered Carl Myerscough. He is ranked 2/3rd in the discus and he is just as likely to make the discus team in an event where we have suddenly got depth. One maybe two people are going to be left unhappy and miss the games if he makes the team. I wonder how many of the discus throwers will be welcoming him back then. I am being the devils advocate her as both dwain and carls ban were over 8 years ago and that is a career in itself and why I think they have served their time and not benefitting from anything they took back then!

[LiamRiley]

I think the "colonial arrogance" statement is one that refers more to imperialism, rather than race. Essentially, the BOA entered the courtroom on the grounds that they were "right" and the internationally agreed rules that they signed up to were "wrong".

While "colonial arrogance" was certainly a loaded statement, it was quite a relevant one. Putting the ethical dilemma of doping to one side for the moment, the BOA did not really have a legal argument - on that basis it is a waste of money to take the case this far. If they really felt that strongly about it then they could have threatened to declare independence from the IOC and make their own rules. Obviously, that sort of action was as unlikely to happen as a BOA court victory.

Lord Moynihan does not know when to pick his battles. The BOA would do well to dispose of him if they want to avoid financial bankruptcy.

[tootingmick]

Colonial arrogance !

We now have the race card to add to the drug card and we already have the gender card with Caster.What next missiles on flats !

Forgot the disabilty card with blade runner.

What a fun Olympics we are going to have .

Love it furlong

How about adding queuing at immigration. I think a couple of weeks
waiting in line at Heathrow should really sort the USA track and field
team out !
Not to mention Ethopean and Kenyan distance boys and girls and
Jamacian sprinters.
Come on Seb how about a word in 'posh boy' Dave's ear

[paul]

I think the "colonial arrogance" statement is one that refers more to imperialism, rather than race. Essentially, the BOA entered the courtroom on the grounds that they were "right" and the internationally agreed rules that they signed up to were "wrong".

While "colonial arrogance" was certainly a loaded statement, it was quite a relevant one. Putting the ethical dilemma of doping to one side for the moment, the BOA did not really have a legal argument - on that basis it is a waste of money to take the case this far. If they really felt that strongly about it then they could have threatened to declare independence from the IOC and make their own rules. Obviously, that sort of action was as unlikely to happen as a BOA court victory.

Lord Moynihan does not know when to pick his battles. The BOA would do well to dispose of him if they want to avoid financial bankruptcy.

Agree all this. ^^^

[Geoff]

Wada's David Howman accuses BOA of 'wasting time and money'
• Wada hits back at comments made by Lord Moynihan
• His 'views hardly have any touch with the real facts'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ma ... time-money

The role of the BOA and the future of Moynihan will be an issue post London.

As I have indicated before many believe the BOA has been badly run and Moynihan, in particular, seems to be at odds with all other sporting organisations. The BOA now have to go cap in hand to UK Sport for lottery money. The two have been at loggerheads for a while now as the BOA tried to duplicate UK sport's role so this must be particularly galling.

The BOA will need to change post London but UK Sport will be changing as well as, hopefully, a whole sport approach rather than just medals becomes the criteria for success.

London 2012 Olympics: UK Sport offers help to British Olympic Association
UK Sport will consider offering financial assistance to the British Olympic Association as it tries to meet the costs of sending the largest ever British team to the 2012 Olympics.

.....The relationship between the BOA and UK Sport has been notably poor in the build-up to London, with their respective chairmen Colin Moynihan and Sue Campbell notoriously strained.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... ation.html

Not exactly related to the bylaw but I maintain with better management the BOA could have handled this better and speedier and maybe raised more funding. I am not totally against using lottery money but it will mean the BOA lose some of their prized independence.

[Kermit]

I didn't know that the CAS ruling came with a caveat!

The National Olympic Committee, which is made up of all the summer and winter sports that compete in the Games, are due to hold a conference call to discuss the decision last month by the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) that declared the rule is illegal.

It means that to be compliant with the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), who brought the case to the CAS, and remain eligible to compete in the Olympics it must be dropped.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/ ... ping-bylaw

Imagine an Olympics without the host nation being represented!!!!

[Geoff]

BREAKING NEWS
The World Anti Doping Agency is to include a new 'Olympic ban' for serious drugs offenders as part of its revised code, the BBC has learned.

Just weeks after the British Olympic Association lost its legal battle to maintain its lifetime ban for drugs cheats, WADA has today published a new code which makes provision for sports to ban for one Olympic cycle athletes found guilty of serious doping offences.

The rule change is included in the latest draft of the WADA code which is due to be approved next Autumn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/18292747

[mump boy]

So the whole court case was just a waste of time

[Geoff]

So the whole court case was just a waste of time

If this had been in place a few months ago Chambers, Millar and Myerscough would have still been eligible to compete in London. The BOA went against the WADA code and the IOC bylaw even though they signed up to both. It does, though, make you think that it could have been changed after Chambers lost his court case in 2008.

[Kermit]

Either way the athletes would of been allowed to compete.

It will be interesting to see if any athletes who fail a drugs test this year will be banned from the next Olympics

[jamespreston577]

I guess one good thing to come out of this is that it will allow former takers another chance - and athletics should be about promoting fairness and competition for all for optimum results.

[Occasional Hope]

I'm not sure that the two parts of that sentence hang together.

[Geoff]

Wada wants to double length of bans for drugs cheats

The four-year bans would be handed out for serious doping offences such as use of anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, masking agents and trafficking.

However, there are no plans for a specific rule to ban offenders from the Olympics.

.....A former International Olympic Committee rule, introduced in 2008, prohibited athletes from competing at the next Games if they had been suspended for six months or longer.

However, that rule was judged to be non-compliant with the Wada Code in 2011 by sport's highest court, the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

That ruling in turn led to the British Olympic Association being forced to overturn its own Olympic ban on drug cheats, such as sprinter Dwain Chambers and cyclist David Millar.

"The rationale is if more four-year sanctions are delivered, then there won't be any need for [the IOC rule] because the athletes will be missing the next Olympics," added Wada spokesman Terence O'Rorke.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/20390311

Hopefully, four year bans will not be met with legal challenges as would have an additional sanction of an Olympic ban. I'm sure there is much fine detail to be agreed and still some opposition to the proposal but there is a strong move towards 4 years so hope it sticks.

[Kermit]

Wada wants to double length of bans for drugs cheats

The four-year bans would be handed out for serious doping offences such as use of anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, masking agents and trafficking.

However, there are no plans for a specific rule to ban offenders from the Olympics.

.....A former International Olympic Committee rule, introduced in 2008, prohibited athletes from competing at the next Games if they had been suspended for six months or longer.

However, that rule was judged to be non-compliant with the Wada Code in 2011 by sport's highest court, the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

That ruling in turn led to the British Olympic Association being forced to overturn its own Olympic ban on drug cheats, such as sprinter Dwain Chambers and cyclist David Millar.

"The rationale is if more four-year sanctions are delivered, then there won't be any need for [the IOC rule] because the athletes will be missing the next Olympics," added Wada spokesman Terence O'Rorke.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/20390311

Hopefully, four year bans will not be met with legal challenges as would have an additional sanction of an Olympic ban. I'm sure there is much fine detail to be agreed and still some opposition to the proposal but there is a strong move towards 4 years so hope it sticks.

BOA lobbied for this at a WADA conference before the ruling against the by-law was announced. I think WADA's court victories means that any proposal can, and probably will, stand up in the CAS otherwise it would not be on the next conference agenda.