Was Dwain Chambers a victim of double standards by the British Olympic Association?: Solicitors Journal, 5 August 2008
05 August 2008
Richard Williams, solicitor at Denton WiIde Sapte, says the British Olympic Association is right to reconsider its rules.
The recent decision by the High Court to reject Dwain Chambers' bid to have his Olympic ban imposed by the BOA overturned has been widely welcomed within UK athletics and the sporting world in general. The ban stems from the BOA's by-law which prevents anyone found guilty of a doping offence from representing Great Britain in any Olympic Games.
If the decision had favoured Chambers, it was argued that in addition to sending out the wrong message to "would be" drug cheats, it would undermine the BOA, tarnish the name of Team GB and could even have adversely impacted the staging of the London Olympics. However, the decision has not been wholeheartedly approved in the legal world. The arguments ran by Chambers' lawyers were that the by-law was unfair, an unreasonable restraint of trade, and contrary to competition law.
You can certainly see the argument that it was unfair – a life-long penalty for someone who has admitted their guilt, already served an international two-year ban and if born in any other country apart from the UK and a couple of others could have competed on meeting the qualifying time. While the legal test for this argument to succeed is tough - Chambers needed to show the BOA's decision was "outside the reasonable range of responses of a body in its position" - the fact the by-law has been successfully challenged 27 times shows there is evidence of double standards by the BOA and an example being made of Chambers.
While the impact of the decision on the sports law world would have undoubtedly been greater had the rule been overturned, there are signs within UK athletics that this could lead to change. The BOA has already indicated that in light of the decision it will be reviewing its doping rules and there is a belief that these could now be brought in line with the International Olympic Committee's new rule that a serious doping offence will lead to the offending athlete only missing the first games after his or her suspension ends.
The impact on other sports in the legal context is perhaps smaller. Policy and moral reasoning are clearly recognised as important issues by the courts. The courts remain reluctant to interfere with decisions made by the relevant governing bodies and it is still widely accepted that they are best placed to regulate their respective sports.
Lord Justice McKay's comments may however provide a glimmer of hope that in the future such arbitrary rules can be overturned.
This article was published in Solicitors Journal on 5 August 2008
Author/Editor