For 16 years, the British Olympic Association (BOA) stood in glorious isolation alongside their bylaw which debars any Briton found guilty of a serious doping offence from taking part in any future Games.
In 2008, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), no less, stepped up alongside them with its own, smaller scale version of that sanction - in this case, debarring doping offenders from the upcoming Games following their offence.
Now that LaShawn Merritt, the United States Olympic 400 metres champion who returned from a two-year doping ban in July this year, has succeeded in convincing the Court of Arbitration (CAS) for Sport of the IOC rules demerits, earning the right to compete in the London 2012 Games in so doing, the BOA – not unnaturally – are feeling a little exposed.
Colin Moynihan, the BOA chairman, vowed today to do everything in his power to maintain the ruling. "In sport, there is nothing more important than to be clean," he said. "I think it is important that we send that message."
Despite recent criticism of the British position from the United States Olympic Committee, which supported Merritt in his CAS appeal, Moynihan insisted: "I don't believe our position is isolated."
He is clearly wrong in one sense. But in another, he is correct. Despite their disagreements last year over how surplus from London 2012 should be shared out, he has the unqualified support of Seb Coe, chairman of the London Games Organising Committee. He was also unequivocally backed today by the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Hugh Robertson.
Interestingly, Andy Parkinson, the UK Anti-Doping chief executive, has declared his full support for the latest CAS ruling. "If you want lifetime bans – and that could be the right thing to do to protect clean athletes – let's do it via the World Anti-Doping Agency so that it applies to every country."
Spoken like a true administrator. But what likelihood is there, I wonder, of every country, or even many countries, embracing life bans through the appropriate political channel?
If they were that keen, surely they would already have acted independently, as the British have. After all, nobody's stopping them – are they?
At heart, this is not an adminstrative or political decision. It is a moral decision. And it is a complex moral decision.
Ed Moses, the great Olympic 400m hurdles champion who is now chairman of the Laureus World Sports Academy, was instrumental in creating the sport's first random out-of-competition drug testing programme.
Yet when Britain's Dwain Chambers sought to challenge his ban through the BOA bylaw on the eve of the Beijing Games – a challenge that failed – Moses was one of the relative view voices speaking up for the sprinter. He described a lifetime ban from the Olympics as being "like a death sentence."
In a competitive sense, he is right. And considering the justice of the position means facing a fundamental question – when someone has done wrong, at what point do you offer them the means of making up for it?
On the other side of the argument from Moses, however, you will find many, many athletes. And this is the strong basis on which Moynihan, Robertson, Coe et al hold fast to the bylaw.
Sitting next to Moynihan today was Sarah Winckless, the retired Olympic rowing bronze medallist and double world champion, who as chair of the BOA Athletes' Commission insisted that the bylaw had the support of 90 per cent of British athletes.
British athletes have now been surveyed on the matter after the last four Olympics, and there has been no wavering in their approval of the byelaw.That is a massively important, and massively valid, mandate.
And remember that the BOA bylaw was initiated by competitors, not administrators. Bryn Vaile, who was one of those competitors, remembers it well.
As a member of the formative BOA Athletes Commission, Vaile – a gold medallist in the 1988 Olympic Star sailing class – was among those responsible for getting the bylaw on the statute books on March 25 1992. Along with Olympic swimming gold medallist Adrian Moorhouse, he argued its case successfully to the BOA Executive Committee – and he believes passionately that the bylaw should remain.
Moorhouse, Vaile and fellow members of the Athletes Commission felt that action needed to be taken to prevent doping offenders returning to represent their country in the Olympics, and had to overcome some opposition from within the BOA before they had their way.
"We looked into the legal position of restraint of trade," Vaile recalled. "But the way we saw it, this was not preventing people carrying on their careers – they could still compete in grand prix meetings or World Championships."
Vaile, however, would like to see conditions become even more difficult for doping cheats. "I still believe that if you take performance-enhancing drugs, you should be banned for life," he said. "There should be no compromise to it, because that is compromising our futures. Every time a drugs cheat comes back to competition, it doesn't just tarnish the sport, and the people watching. It tarnishes the next generation, and it belittles every other clean athlete."
There was no doubt in Vaile's mind that Dwain Chambers did not deserve to return to the Olympic arena. And he will not be changing that view for LaShawn Merritt.
The BOA are stressing that there are important differences between their bylaw and the IOC ruling which has just been successfully overturned. One of the primary differences is the presence of an appeal process in the BOA version – a process which athletes such as 400m runner Christine Ohuruogu and former world triathlon champion Tim Don have been able to re-set their Olympic ambitions. In both cases, the fact that sanctions were applied for failing to be present for tests, rather than testing positive, was clearly important.
The BOA position has always been that it is not preventing athletes from competing – they are free to resume competition once they have served their bans - but it is simply not inviting them to its own party.
-Mike Rowbottom
www.insidethegames.com