CAS is expected to rule that a British Olympic Association bylaw, under which Chambers and other former dopers including cyclist David Millar are banned for life from Team GB, is incompatible with global anti-doping rules.
If so both men will be cleared to compete in London and the BOA’s bylaw will be unenforceable.
The expectation that the BOA will lose follows a ruling by the same CAS panel that the International Olympic Committee’s 'Rule 45’, which imposed a one-Games ban in addition to two years imposed on cheats under the World Anti-Doping Agency code, was illegal.
In that case, brought by US sprinter LaShawn Merritt, the IOC argued that Rule 45 was an eligibility issue and therefore in their gift, rather than a doping sanction that had to comply with WADA’s rules.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) insist the by-law is 'non-compliant' with their global charter on anti-doping, which states an athlete found guilty of taking a prohibited substance should be given a two-year ban.
CAS heard arguments from both sides at a hearing in London last month and they confirmed in a statement this afternoon that a verdict will be announced at 3pm BST on Monday.
'In the arbitration between the British Olympic Association (BOA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the CAS will issue its decision on Monday, 30 April 2012 at 4.00pm (Swiss time),' the statement read.
'A media release and the arbitral award with the grounds will be published on the CAS website at such time.
'The BOA filed an appeal following WADA's determination that a BOA's bylaw providing that any British athlete 'who has been found guilty of a doping offence... shall not... thereafter be eligible for consideration as a member of a Team GB... in relation to any Olympic Games' was non-compliant with the world anti-doping code.'
Confident: Chambers set to be given reprieve
Although the BOA have had no indication from the court, senior officials have confirmed to the Press Association they are preparing for defeat. It means that sprinter Dwain Chambers and cyclist David Millar, who have both previously served bans for doping, now look set to be part of Team GB for the London 2012 Olympics.
The news that the BOA expect to lose their case has been met with disappointment by leading British figures in the Olympic movement, such as London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe and four-time gold medallist Sir Chris Hoy.
Coe last week reiterated his support for the BOA's bylaw.
'My position on this is well known,' he said. 'I think it is right for sporting organisations to have the autonomy to decide who they want to see in their teams.'
Hoy said it would be 'sad if we have to fall in line with the rest of the world'.
Former Olympic triple jump champion Jonathan Edwards - a member of the London 2012 board who won gold at the Sydney Games 12 years ago - does not agree with Coe and Hoy, claiming a lifetime ban is too harsh, although he does admit a two-year suspension is too lenient.
'Athletes should get a second chance. I wouldn't personally support a lifetime ban,' Edwards said.
'The reason the BOA brought their by-law in is because four-year bans for a serious drug offence turned into two. Two years is simply not enough. It's too lenient. It sends out the wrong kind of message.
If so both men will be cleared to compete in London and the BOA’s bylaw will be unenforceable.
The expectation that the BOA will lose follows a ruling by the same CAS panel that the International Olympic Committee’s 'Rule 45’, which imposed a one-Games ban in addition to two years imposed on cheats under the World Anti-Doping Agency code, was illegal.
In that case, brought by US sprinter LaShawn Merritt, the IOC argued that Rule 45 was an eligibility issue and therefore in their gift, rather than a doping sanction that had to comply with WADA’s rules.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) insist the by-law is 'non-compliant' with their global charter on anti-doping, which states an athlete found guilty of taking a prohibited substance should be given a two-year ban.
CAS heard arguments from both sides at a hearing in London last month and they confirmed in a statement this afternoon that a verdict will be announced at 3pm BST on Monday.
'In the arbitration between the British Olympic Association (BOA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the CAS will issue its decision on Monday, 30 April 2012 at 4.00pm (Swiss time),' the statement read.
'A media release and the arbitral award with the grounds will be published on the CAS website at such time.
'The BOA filed an appeal following WADA's determination that a BOA's bylaw providing that any British athlete 'who has been found guilty of a doping offence... shall not... thereafter be eligible for consideration as a member of a Team GB... in relation to any Olympic Games' was non-compliant with the world anti-doping code.'
Confident: Chambers set to be given reprieve
Although the BOA have had no indication from the court, senior officials have confirmed to the Press Association they are preparing for defeat. It means that sprinter Dwain Chambers and cyclist David Millar, who have both previously served bans for doping, now look set to be part of Team GB for the London 2012 Olympics.
The news that the BOA expect to lose their case has been met with disappointment by leading British figures in the Olympic movement, such as London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe and four-time gold medallist Sir Chris Hoy.
Coe last week reiterated his support for the BOA's bylaw.
'My position on this is well known,' he said. 'I think it is right for sporting organisations to have the autonomy to decide who they want to see in their teams.'
Hoy said it would be 'sad if we have to fall in line with the rest of the world'.
Former Olympic triple jump champion Jonathan Edwards - a member of the London 2012 board who won gold at the Sydney Games 12 years ago - does not agree with Coe and Hoy, claiming a lifetime ban is too harsh, although he does admit a two-year suspension is too lenient.
'Athletes should get a second chance. I wouldn't personally support a lifetime ban,' Edwards said.
'The reason the BOA brought their by-law in is because four-year bans for a serious drug offence turned into two. Two years is simply not enough. It's too lenient. It sends out the wrong kind of message.
No comments:
Post a Comment