Lifetime Olympic Bans: Are reformed cheats being cheated by the BOA?

The BOA is the last committee of its kind to oppose the World Anti-Doping Agency’s ruling that lifetime bans for drugs cheats goes against its global anti-doping code. Its refusal to comply with the world’s authority on anti-doping matters only serves to prevent fallen athletes from a full sense of rehabilitation and absolution – and makes Britain look intolerant in the process.

The issue has divided British athletes more than the BOA would like us to know; veterans like Matthew Pinsent and Denise Lewis support their stance, whilst current athletes Jess Ennis, Paula Radcliffe, Marlon Devonish and Christian Malcolm support the WADA, despite the latter two losing World Championship medals in the wake of Dwain Chambers’ steroid abuse. A few arguments centre on the need for uniformity, something that would be achieved by falling into line with the WADA. The chance of full rehabilitation of British performers, in terms of both their attitudes towards the sport and their status as an athlete, is just as important as consistency with other committees and sports.

The ban on participating in the Olympics for first-time offenders leaves little room for rehabilitation. The steroid-using, performance-enhancing athlete is, rightly, a prisoner of the sport. To extend the analogy, he or she serves a two year stint at HMP Ostracision. Even if the convicted party repents and wholeheartedly reforms his outlook and behaviour, he or she is still only allowed as far as the prison yard. An unconditional ban in any sport should, once completed, be followed by unconditional freedom thereafter. A footballer is not prevented from competing in the World Cup following a drugs ban suspension. The comparison might not be fair, as the illicit substances taken in prominent football cases of abuse are for recreational rather than performance-enhancing, but the same idea can be applied to other sports, where individuals may use steroids to boost performance. Would a boxer be prevented from fighting for a world championship belt on the basis of previous drug use? Or would a cyclist be prevented from competing in the Tour de France after the ban?

The last example is all the more pointed when considering the case of David Millar, the cyclist banned for two years in 2004 for EPO usage. Now one of Britain’s top road racing cyclists and an active anti-doping crusader in the sport, the reformed rider will not, under current rules, get the chance to perform at the Olympics. For a cyclist, the Tour de France perhaps takes ultimate prominence, but for athletes, the Olympic Games is obviously the greatest stage upon which to test themselves. To automatically deny them the chance to compete at the highest and most prestigious level may be seen as just desserts, but it discourages shamed athletes from rehabilitating themselves.

It also besmirches the reputation of other competitions by suggesting that shamed athletes are not good enough for the Olympics, but are deemed suitable for the European or World Championships. It distances one event from the rest of those bracketed within the same sport; something anti-doping bodies and athletics committees should be (and clearly are) keen to prevent. The only committee now standing in the way of complete uniformity on the matter is that of Great Britain. Despite what Denise Lewis thinks, a by-law should not be upheld in present times just because it’s been “there for ages”. Now, with more rigorous and advanced drug testing techniques available to anti-doping agencies, and an intense increase in how often such tests are performed, it is easier to determine the cleanliness of athletes.

If the drug-testing processes are as effective as athletes and committee members claim they are, there is surely little chance of previous drugs cheats qualifying for or performing at the Olympics with steroids in their system. The practical need for Olympic lifetime bans has diminished; it seems that the issue is more about the prestige of the participating host nation, rather than genuine concerns about the potential use of banned substances at the event. Some see the resistance of WADA’s principles as righteous and dignified. Alternatively, they come across as overly harsh, standing in the way of WADA’s directive: a level playing field for previously banned participants.

Should a cheat always be branded thus? This is how it should be according to the BOA’s ruling. In every other walk of life, or more specifically in every other sport, everyone deserves a second chance. If the chance is squandered, the lessons not learnt, then by all means impose lifetime bans. But first time offenders should be allowed time to rehabilitate. If the restriction is universal, absolution should not be partial. The WADA and the other Olympic committees that previously upheld a lifetime ban by-law – Denmark, Norway and Canada – seem to understand this. It is a great pity that the BOA, unrelenting and unsympathetic to the impact that pressure can have on a young athlete, does not.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.