LaShawn Merritt's Olympic ban has been overturned by the court of arbitration for sport, clearing the way for the reigning Olympic 400m champion to defend his title at next year's London Games.
The move could also lead to renewed pressure on the British Olympic Association to drop a bylaw that bans drug cheats for life and provide the likes of cyclist David Millar and sprinter Dwain Chambers with a route to the 2012 Games.
CAS announced that it has invalidated an International Olympic Committee rule introduced before the Beijing Games that bars any athlete who has received a doping suspension of more than six months from competing in the next summer or winter Games.
The panel said the rule was "invalid and unenforceable" because it amounted to "double jeopardy" and did not comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency code.
Merritt, the American 400m gold medallist in Beijing, had been ineligible under the IOC rule to compete in London following his two-year ban in 2009, later reduced to 21 months, after testing positive for a substance found in a "male enhancement product".
The IOC ban was challenged by the US Olympic Committee because its own arbitration panel found that his ban should not extend to his selection for the American Olympic team.
"The IOC has a zero tolerance against doping and has shown and continues to show its determination to catch cheats. We are therefore naturally disappointed since the measure was originally adopted to support the values that underpin the Olympic Movement and to protect the huge majority of athletes who compete fairly," said the IOC on Thursday. But it said it would abide by the ruling.
The Merritt ruling will give hope to British athletes including Chambers and Millar who are currently banned for life under the BOA bylaw. There is now a possibility that they could use the basis of the Merritt case to mount a challenge to the bylaw.
But the BOA will attempt to robustly defend its position, arguing that its bylaw is based on eligibility rather than sanction and ask the IOC to confirm its right to define its own selection criteria.
It will also emphasise that its rule has a right of appeal, under which most athletes hit with doping bans – Christine Ohuruogu among them – have been able to successfully regain entry to the Olympics.
It is expected to point to letters from the World Anti-Doping Agency in 2009 confirming that its lifetime ban is compatible with its code. The CAS ruling gives the IOC a possible means to reintroduce the ban through the Wada code.
"The CAS panel also emphasised that if the IOC wanted to exclude athletes who have been sanctioned for doping from the Olympic Games, it could propose an amendment to the world doping code, which would allow other signatories to consider such an amendment and ne bis in idem issue (prohibition against double jeopardy) would be part of a single sanction," it said in a statement.
The IOC indicated on Thursday it was minded to go down that route but will probably not do so until the next code review in 2013, after the London Games.
"The rule was in our view an efficient means to advance the fight against doping, and we were somewhat surprised by the judgment since we had taken an advisory opinion from CAS on the rule and been given a positive response," said an IOC spokesman.
"When the moment comes for the revision of the world anti-doping code we will ensure that tougher sanctions, including such a rule, will be seriously considered."
For Millar, Chambers or the shot putter Carl Myerscough to challenge their lifetime bans they would first have to be put forward for selection by their sport. That would be blocked by the BOA, so they would then have to challenge that decision at CAS or the high court.
The BOA will strongly defend its right to decide on eligibility but would then be forced to take advice on its chances of success in what could be a lengthy and costly legal battle.
It is expected to challenge the IOC to back its ability to choose its own selection criteria. The IOC is likely to do so, but will stress that CAS must have the final say.
While the BOA has pointed to surveys of British athletes showing that more than 90% support the lifetime ban, the rule does not have universal support within the anti-doping community. Some believe it is too harsh and hinders the war on doping by discouraging whistle blowers.
Travis Tygart, the chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, has urged the BOA to drop its bylaw but admitted to the BBC this week it was a better piece of legislation than the IOC rule, as it allowed for "individualised review".
In response to the ruling, the UK Anti-Doping chief executive Andy Parkinson said: "UK Anti-Doping's position is well known on such matters. We believe it is appropriate that the decision from the Court of Arbitration for Sport strongly supports the authority of the World Anti-Doping Code, the internationally agreed set of rules.
"The global fight against doping in sport is a complex task and this ruling provides clarity for the sporting movement in the lead up to 2012."
Michele Verroken, the former director of ethics and anti-doping at UK Sport, believes the BOA bylaw should remain in place. "I'm really disappointed [with the CAS ruling] for other athletes and British athletes in particular," she told BBC Radio 5 Live.
"They have been surveyed after Olympic Games and have consistently said at about 99% that we think there should be this eligibility bylaw of the British Olympic Association and they don't want to line up against cheats.
"I do think a lot of athletes will be disappointed because it's sending a message that 'it's all right, you can come back in' and it will undermine the Olympic Games.
"There has to be a situation where you review whether an athlete should be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games again after having committed a doping offence.
Verroken added: "Sport doesn't seem to be in control of setting up a good standard for punishing drugs cheats.
"It does call into question whether the anti-doping rules are competent to deal with doping situations and I think there should be a big debate about whether or not we have got the rules right in the first instance."

-Owen Gibson

Source: www.guardian.co.uk