This rule has no place in a democratic society

13 April 2012

In my view support for the bye-law on the basis that there is an appeal process is inherently flawed. It has been repeated by the BOA, ministers and athletes that the bye‑law is fair and reasonable because there is a "comprehensive appeal process," built into the bye-law.

Superficially it is correct to say there is an appeal process. However, it is a qualified right of appeal with the grounds limited to those provided by the bye-law and a closer look reveals it is far from comprehensive and is the antithesis of fairness.

The bye-law provides that an athlete has a right of appeal and may be declared eligible for selection if it can be established on the balance of probabilities that (rule 2): "His or her offence was minor or committed without fault or negligence or that there were mitigating circumstances for it . . ."

The bye-law further provides (rule 5) that and athlete may only mount an appeal on the specified grounds and 5(iii) provides that: ". . . the appellant can show that, on the balance of probabilities, significant mitigating circumstances existed in relation to the doping offence."

It is plain from the wording that the only mitigating circumstances that could be considered are those that existed at the time of the offence. The universally accepted concepts of mitigating, such as acceptance of guilt, assistance to the authorities and working in the community/WADA, as David Millar and Dwain Chambers have and are doing, are irrelevant to an appeal within the bye-law.

Further, it is the practical effect and application of the bye-law that exposes how conceptually flaw it is and in my view renders it completely unsustainable. The BOA have pointed to the 29 successful appeals out of 31 to demonstrate a veneer of fairness. This again is superficially attractive and further consideration reveals the true position.

Essentially, if an athlete "keeps quiet" and maintains that a banned substance was in their system because of a horrible mistake, someone spiked a drink, an unknown cream was applied or a banned substance was buried in the small print of packaging then that athlete would have a right of appeal within the bye-law.

Conversely, if an athlete does what is universally viewed as "the right thing" and "comes clean" there is no appeal.

The underlying message within the bye-law is that if you do something wrong, cover it up, maintain an excuse then you will have a good chance of being okay but if you dare to accept your guilt, help the authorities and undertake redeeming work within society then you will be punished for the rest of your life. Is that the message that we as a society really want to deliver to young people?

It is in my view completely out of kilter with modern thinking, has no place in a democratic society and is certainly not the message that I want to give to my own children.

It is not without significance that those charged with the primary responsibility for the fight against drugs in sport also lead the opposition to the BOA and the bye-law. It is plain there is now a heavy reliance on intelligence gathering in order to capture drugs cheats. Accordingly measures, such as the BOA bye-law, that actively discourage the provision of a vital source of information are viewed, and perhaps ironically, as being counter productive in the fight against drugs in sport.

I am against drugs in sport. It is my view that the sanction for drug taking in sport should be increased to four years and that there should be a ban from participating in the next Olympics which ought to be embodied within the WADA code at the next world review in 2013. I am disappointed the BOA have failed to recognise the current opportunity to lobby for realistic, tough and fair sanctions, rather than defending a Draconian and unsustainable rule. The position taken by the BOA has served to marginalise British opinion on the world stage and in the last few days there have questions of the worth of Britain as a host nation for the Olympics.

This for all the reasons outlined in my view is politically and morally not a course of conduct that should be supported.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in