Order in Chambers
The sprinter Dwain Chambers tested positive in 2003 for a banned steroid (tetrahydro-gestrinone, or THG). It was wrong of him to take the drug, but when caught he admitted the offence. He didn't suggest that it was nothing to do with him, or was a false reading, or that his drink had been spiked. It was the athletics equivalent of "It's a fair cop guv. ". The penalty was a two-year ban.
Having served his ban he tried American football but has now returned to sprinting. The rules allow him to be picked for international events but plainly comments from various officials show that they do not really want him back: indeed the selection committee stated that "The committee was unanimous in its desire not to select Dwain" . It is only the threat of legal action from his lawyer, Nick Collins, which has led to him being picked. He is now in the team for next month's World Indoor Championships in Valencia, Spain having won the national trials at 60 m.
This is likely to be depicted in the popular press as yet another instance of lawyers causing pandemonium with the natural order of things. Dwain Chambers has been exposed as a drug cheat and should not be picked to the detriment of athletes who have never done anything wrong.
There seems little point in having a rule which allows people to return once they have completed their ban if it means they will never be allowed back under any circumstances. He has served his penalty. He admitted his offence. There seems no reason in principle therefore why he should not receive another opportunity.
Although not a popular cause, it is possible to see Dwain Chambers as a victim of his own plain speaking. The drug that he obtained was thought to be undetectable, but he was caught out by new tests. However he honestly admitted to his wrongdoing and did not try and fudge it. Subsequently when interviewed he continued to be very honest. He accepted that he took a chance under the impression that he wouldn't get caught. He made plain his belief that an athlete taking drugs had a better chance of winning. When asked the (admittedly somewhat loaded) question whether a clean athlete could beat a doped athlete his answer indicated that this was unlikely in his view, specifying that this was his belief. This has had two consequences. Many have viewed this as an implied slur on successful athletes (because of his apparent assumption that winners are likely to be taking drugs). Secondly that it indicates, since that is what he believes, that if he is still wanting to win he will try and do something wrongful to achieve it.
Neither of these seems sufficient reason to exclude him. He plainly cannot know what other athletes are capable of achieving, still less whether any individual athlete has taken drugs. It was perhaps naive of him to answer questions in that way, but it cannot be treated as a deliberate slur on athletes in general, still less any athletes in particular. As to believing that the drugs would have given him an edge, what person taking drugs does not believe that? Why would they take them otherwise? Again it is doing no more than outlining his perception at the time, erroneous or not. Quite apart from the fact that if you take commission of one offence as indicative of a propensity to commit future offences and thereby punish the person you are in fact punishing them all over again for the offence for which they have already received punishment, the whole approach is logically flawed. There can be only two types of drug cheats (ignoring for the moment those who genuinely either had a drink spiked or were given a substance which they did not know contained the banned drug - such people could not properly be regarded as cheats in any event): those who did it to improve their performance and try and win and are honest about it, and those who did the same thing but are not honest about it. Every drug cheat must have been trying to improve their performance and to win. It seems absurd to think of taking a harder line against someone who is at least honest about what they were doing.
Indeed one might well think that someone who was honest about the past would be more likely to stay clean and be honest in the future. There has been some grumbling about the lack of testing of Dwain Chambers given that he has been inactive, but the extent or lack of it to which he has been tested is not his fault.
I would have no problems with an international rule which banned drug cheats for life. That is not the present rule, and is not the penalty which Dwain Chambers received. He will be competing in future knowing that he is likely to be tested with unusual zeal, and that one failing will be the end of him. Punishments should be administered in accordance with the system that sets them down. Rules should be set down and followed. So far from his threatened legal challenge being an abuse, it was purely an attempt to enforce the rules as they stood. Instead of being denigrated, it should be celebrated. Enforcement of rules and justice in potentially unpopular instances is what the law is all about.
Ironically the stance taken against Dwain Chambers being picked at all for international competition may have given a head of steam to a potential challenge to the British Olympic Association lifetime ban imposed in respect of any drugs offenders. That will be a very lively case if it is brought. Watch this space.