Professionals register now to create your own content and profile, and gain other potential financial, networking and marketing benefits.
Consumers (athletes, enthusiasts) use our quick registration to enhance your experience of the site
Dwain Chambers vs. the British Olympic Association
The British Olympic Association has confirmed that it will appear at the High Court tomorrow, for a Directions Hearing in respect of the case issued against the BOA by the sprinter Dwain Chambers.
Of course, most readers will know that Dwain Chambers served a ban for taking performance enhancing drugs, before returning to competition, and representing Great Britain at the European Championships in 2006 and the World Indoor Championships in 2008, before failing to secure a trial with rugby league side Castleford Tigers.
Chambers is now disputing the BOA's right to ban him for life from Olympic competition, as he has served his ban andhte BOA are the only National body that takes this position.
So what does this mean?
My understanding is that a 'directions hearing' is an informal court appearance to look at the direction that the matter is heading in the courts and to discuss with the parties their options to resolve the matter. The purpose is to discover the position of each party and whether there is any possibility of settling any of the issues. If the matter cannot be settled, it may be set down for mediation or for a trial.
It has been interesting to hear what athletes and other high-profile people in sport have said on the matter. They appear to focus on one point of principle, which is very much a moral one: Should a ban be for life? However, the principles upon which a decision will be made by the court are legal ones; such as whether the BOA can set its own rules and contradict the rule and conventions of international sport.
The case will be interesting. There is a lot less disagreement out there on whether a doping ban should be for life, than there is on the actual merits of Chambers case against the BOA. That is much less easy to call.
This article in the Times provides a good summary of the legal arguments but in my simple view of the world, it boils down to the authority of the WADA code and the need for fair and consistent sanctions versus the automous right of an individual Olympic committee to set out the standards it expects of its athletes in order to make the Olympic team. It is not, however, a question of what is an appropriate length of ban for drug cheats.
Of course, Lord Colin Moynihan, chairman of the BOA, has promised that “money will be no object” when it comes to defending his organisation's position, but I can't help wonder if the time, money and effort would be better spent lobbying WADA for the introduction of a lifetime ban...
Of course, most readers will know that Dwain Chambers served a ban for taking performance enhancing drugs, before returning to competition, and representing Great Britain at the European Championships in 2006 and the World Indoor Championships in 2008, before failing to secure a trial with rugby league side Castleford Tigers.
Chambers is now disputing the BOA's right to ban him for life from Olympic competition, as he has served his ban andhte BOA are the only National body that takes this position.
So what does this mean?
My understanding is that a 'directions hearing' is an informal court appearance to look at the direction that the matter is heading in the courts and to discuss with the parties their options to resolve the matter. The purpose is to discover the position of each party and whether there is any possibility of settling any of the issues. If the matter cannot be settled, it may be set down for mediation or for a trial.
It has been interesting to hear what athletes and other high-profile people in sport have said on the matter. They appear to focus on one point of principle, which is very much a moral one: Should a ban be for life? However, the principles upon which a decision will be made by the court are legal ones; such as whether the BOA can set its own rules and contradict the rule and conventions of international sport.
The case will be interesting. There is a lot less disagreement out there on whether a doping ban should be for life, than there is on the actual merits of Chambers case against the BOA. That is much less easy to call.
This article in the Times provides a good summary of the legal arguments but in my simple view of the world, it boils down to the authority of the WADA code and the need for fair and consistent sanctions versus the automous right of an individual Olympic committee to set out the standards it expects of its athletes in order to make the Olympic team. It is not, however, a question of what is an appropriate length of ban for drug cheats.
Of course, Lord Colin Moynihan, chairman of the BOA, has promised that “money will be no object” when it comes to defending his organisation's position, but I can't help wonder if the time, money and effort would be better spent lobbying WADA for the introduction of a lifetime ban...
Tags:
athletics,
boa,
british olympic association,
doping,
drug cheats,
dwain chambers,
high court,
legal case,
lifetime ban,
olympics,
sprinting,
track and field,
wada
Post A Comment
You need to be signed into istadia.com to post comments
If you are not a member yet, registering is quick and easy! Click here for Quick Registration and keep up to date with what is happening, engage in some networking and access to iStadia’s expert community.
However if you are a sport & exercise professional or business and would like to promote yourself by building a detailed, search-engine friendly profile and posting content to attract potential clients, customers or employers, we recommend Full Registration.
Comments
There are currently no comments for this post.