Should he go?

Dwayne Chambers will not go the Beijing Olympics. Today he failed to secure an injunction against the British Olympic Association by-law banning him from life for taking performance-enhancing drugs. Is this the right decision? Should Chambers, who is still the fastest man in Britain, be allowed to go to the Olympics? To prove that he is just as good drug-free? Or, also as important, to revive his dead career? Duncan Mackay seems to think so, and he was the one who exposed Chambers in 2003. He makes some good points, not least that Chambers has done his time. There are also good arguments against, such as the message it would send to youngsters, and the fact that he is tainted. There are more deserving athletes out there. However, I think that this case raises a broader question, which is relevant to society as a whole. Is the BOA by-law fair?

There a some basic principles that make our justice system fair and hence underpin democracy. Principles such as the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus, right to proper representation, etc. I believe that an equally-important principle is that the punishment should fit the crime. Society seems to agree; certainly there is outcry in cases where a criminal is perceived to get off lightly. Hence there have recently been protests at the fact that a "Life" sentence can be as little as a few years. In a recent case involving a cyclist who caused a fatal accident, the victim's family were rightly outraged that he got off with a fine.

There is less concern when punishments are too harsh - the opinion seems to follow that old cliche of not doing the crime... And we all know the laws before we break them (ignorance is no excuse). So nobody seems that bothered that in this country my license can be taken away if I drive at 35 in a 30 zone four times in a five-year period. You hardly hear news articles about the criminal who got too severe a punishment. America is happy to let Susan Atkins die in jail. The fact that Chambers new about the by-law and agreed to be bound by it is an oft-quoted argument in this case. But then, no athlete who values their career will argue against such a rule.

There is also room for varying opinions on what constitutes proper punishment. The family of a victim will have quite different views than the family of the convicted. There are no doubt many people who believe that a lifetime ban is a reasonable sentence for a drugs cheat. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) disagrees and allows athletes found guilty of taking drugs to return to competition once they have served their ban. ALL competition. And on this point, I agree. He was allowed to return to the athletics circuit in 2006 by UK Athletics, and that should include the Olympics.

The basis of my opinion in this case is unrelated to doping. Make no mistake that I am in full agreement with WADA's regulations (though I fail to see how pot is "performance enhancing"!). Drugs cheats should be punished to the full extent of the law. Society has a duty to ensure that criminals are punished for their offences. We also have a duty, in order to instill confidence and respect in our justice system, to ensure that the law is fair and humane.

As for the argument that there are more deserving athletes in Britain, well this is a meritocracy: the best man wins and No.2 goes home. Period.