With the athletes of Team GB having returned triumphant from the Beijing Olympic Games with their collection of medals being the best since London staged the Olympics in 1908 it should not go unnoticed that the English legal system played an important role in clinching one of the gold medals – and could have been a serious contender for another.
Christine Ohuruogu won gold in the women’s 400 metres final in Beijing. Dwain Chambers was not in Beijing to compete in the men’s 100 metres. Are their stories really that different?
Having been found guilty of taking the anabolic steroid THG, Dwain Chambers received a two-year international ban from athletics in February 2004 and an automatic lifetime ban from the Olympic Games under a British Olympic Association bylaw barring anyone with a doping conviction from representing Britain. Chambers made a fleeting return to competitive athletics in the summer of 2006 before trying out American Football. In early 2008 Chambers returned to competitive athletics with a view to competing in Beijing and made a winning start before he launched a High Court challenge to his Olympic ban. Chambers claimed that his Olympic ban was unfair, an unreasonable restraint of trade and contrary to competition law.
Chambers was unsuccessful in his High Court challenge as he was unable to establish that the BOA’s decision to uphold his lifetime ban was “outside the reasonable range of responses of a body in its position”. It would certainly appear to be unfair on Chambers as he had already served his two-year international ban and, had he been representing any other country than the UK (and one or two others), he would have been able to compete in Beijing.
By contrast, Christine Ohuruogu received a one-year international ban from athletics from the International Association of Athletics Federations (athletics’ governing body) having missed three out-of-competition drug tests between October 2005 and July 2006. She took her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but it upheld the ban while stating that there had been “no suggestion that she is guilty of taking drugs” and that “this case can be viewed in all the circumstances as a busy young athlete being forgetful”.
Ohuruogu, like Chambers, was also banned for life from the Olympics by the BOA. Ohuruogu appealed against the lifetime ban to the independent Sports Dispute Resolutions Panel (now known as Sport Resolutions (UK)) who agreed to overturn the ban on the basis that there had been significant mitigating circumstances.
Some commentators argue that Chambers was unlucky in his High Court challenge as the BOA bylaw had been successfully challenged over 25 times. The difference is that Chambers was guilty of using an illegal substance to enhance his performance whereas Ohuruogu had never been tested as positive for using an illegal substance – she was just busy and forgetful!
These two cases show that sporting governing bodies should not be afraid of imposing their rules on sports athletes provided they can justify that their decision is within “the reasonable range of responses of a body in its position”. The High Court clearly showed that they are reluctant to interfere with decisions made by the relevant governing bodies as they are best placed to regulate their respective sports.
This article was first published in NewsBrief, Autumn 2008
For more information or advice on sports law, please contact Stuart Cutting.
