London 2012 Olympics: Dwain Chambers deserves a second chance like Simon Vallily

Redemption: Dwain Chambers has expressed an interest in running at London 2012 (Photo: AFP)

A week ago, Commonwealth heavyweight boxing champion Simon Vallily missed his chance to book his place at London 2012 with a defeat in the last 16 at the World Championships in Azerbaijan, though the Middlesbrough fighter will have other opportunities to qualify for Team GB between now and next summer.

The same cannot be said of sprinter Dwain Chambers who, as things stand, is barred from competing in a British vest in London because of the British Olympic Association’s lifetime ban on ex-drug offenders.

The connection between the two men? Well, Vallily is an ex-drug offender himself who, fuelled by a cocktail of cocaine, ecstasy and vodka, plunged a six-inch kitchen knife into the shoulder of an innocent teenage victim in an unprovoked attack on the streets of Teesside six years ago. He was so stoned that afterwards he had no recollection of his crime.

His vicious assault earned him a four-year custodial sentence in a young offenders’ institution where, in a classic tale of redemption through sport, he worked hard in the gym and became so

adept at combat under Marquess of Queensberry rules that, after his early release, he was invited for a trial with the GB elite squad and has never looked back.

His case underlines the fundamental moral contradiction at the heart of the BOA’s hard-line stance on former drug cheats.

A man who was once a highly dangerous street robber and drug dealer and who pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm can apparently be forgiven and welcomed into the British Olympic team.

Meanwhile, an athlete who was tempted to use performance-enhancing drugs eight years ago and served the mandatory two-year ban can expect no mercy.

In the eyes of the BOA, Chambers’ transgression is beyond redemption. Drug cheats can never be forgiven.

Following the recent legal victory for American athlete LaShawn Merritt in overturning an International Olympic Committee rule that barred him from running at the London Games, the likelihood is that Chambers will mount his own legal challenge to the BOA’s position.

The battle is likely to centre on technical minutiae such as the BOA’s insistence that their own rule differs to that of the IOC because it includes an appeals procedure for athletes.

That is disputed by Chambers’ manager, barrister Siza Agha, who says appeals against the BOA ban must be on the grounds of mitigating circumstances. In Chambers’ case there were none, and so effectively there was no possibility of any appeal. Quite simply, the sprinter was banged to rights when he tested positive in 2003. Just as Vallily was when he was arrested.

But beyond the legal arguments, there is a wider philosophical issue here. British law is underpinned by the principle that, beyond the most heinous crimes, those who transgress have the chance to be redeemed and rehabilitated. Vallily is a shining example of that.

But redemption cannot be selective. Either you offer an athlete a second chance, or you don’t. The BOA can’t have it both ways.