London 2012: Banned Chambers and Millar 'could compete'

Dwain Chambers and David Millar will be free to compete for Great
Britain at the London Olympics, according to a leading sports lawyer.
The pair are currently banned because of a British Olympic Association
(BOA) by-law which prevents drug cheats from competing at the Games.
However, lawyer Howard Jacobs predicts that the by-law will be ruled
invalid following a special hearing on Monday.
If that happened, sprinter Chambers and cyclist Millar would be
eligible to wear a Team GB vest this summer.
The BOA goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) to challenge
a ruling from the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) that its by-law is
not compliant with the Wada code and is therefore unenforceable.
The by-law was introduced more than 20 years ago and has kept a number
of British athletes, among them Chambers and Millar, out of past
Olympics.
The BOA says its rule is not a sanction but is part of its selection
policy. It also argues that it is entitled to decide who can and
cannot represent the nation.

However, Jacobs, who helped American 400m runner LaShawn Merritt
overturn his Olympic doping ban , believes the BOA will end up on the
"losing side".
He told BBC Sport: "When I heard the BOA's response to the Cas
decision, what they were saying sounded a lot like what the
International Olympic Committee were saying, trying to characterise
the rule as an eligibility rule as opposed to a sanction.
"It was exactly the same thing as the IOC did in our case, so it
strikes me that this type of characterisation is not likely to be
successful."
Jacobs was instrumental in helping Beijing gold medallist Merritt win
his case against the IOC whose Rule 45 barred any athlete who had
received a doping suspension of more than six months from competing in
the next Games.
The 25-year-old Merritt, who was given a two-year suspension later
reduced to 21 months for failing three tests for a banned steroid in
early 2010, argued it went beyond Wada sanctions of a maximum two-year
ban.
The case went to Cas, who judged that the IOC's rule did amount to an
additional sanction and therefore was not legitimate.
Jacobs believes it will be the same outcome when the BOA presents its
case on Monday.
"I think it's most likely that the rule will be found to be a
sanction," he said. "Then it will be a question, as it was in our
case, of whether the rule is invalid.

"Essentially, all the anti-doping rules are bound by the concept that
the penalty has to be proportionate to the offence.
"As you start adding additional penalties, you get closer and closer
to the point where perhaps penalties are disproportionate.
"One of the arguments made in our case was that if the IOC and others
want a rule like this, then the way was not to introduce it
unilaterally but to attempt to go through the Wada process and have a
debate among stakeholders.
"The legal minds could weigh in as to whether that type of rule would
be enforceable or not."
Monday will not be the first time the BOA has been before lawyers to
defend its position.
Chambers, 33, attempted to challenge the by-law through the High Court
before the Beijing Olympics in 2008, but his case failed.
The BOA has insisted from the start it believes it has a strong case
that it will defend vigorously.
However, Jacobs says excluded athletes like Chambers ought to feel
encouraged this time.
"Frankly, Dwain Chambers, his situation was nine years ago," said Jacobs.
"He's served his penalty, he's come back, he's allowed to participate
as a member of other British teams.
"To me, it doesn't make sense that you're going to keep him out of the
biggest competition for his sport and somehow say that's not an
additional sanction."

For more information on these matters please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"