I have been following this story closely for the last few weeks, and as someone who was present at the inaugural congress to establish the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), I believe that their stance is wrong. I think that the justification for the selection policy comes from the fact that taking performance enhancing drugs or associated products is no less than cheating.

The British Olympic Association (BOA), I believe, feels that to select someone who has been found guilty of such an offence goes against what we believed WADA was set up to achieve i.e. to weed out cheats.

Having been present at that first congress I came away with the view that its purpose had been to set a new standard in the ethics of international sport. A public statement was made that the world of international sports administrators and their National Olympic Committees (NOCs) were all opposed to the taking of identified performance enhancing substances. Clearly there were and are still substances that have not yet been identified and the "war goes on".

The BOA is maintaining the higher standards, which is what WADA I thought stood for. The list of proscribed substances needs reviewing regularly and there does need to be a recognition of whether cold or flu remedies do enhance performance. That is a matter for specialists to determine.


I take note of the argument put forward by athletes like David Millar (pictured) that the bylaw punishes wrong-doers twice for the same offence, but respectfully disagree. I also appreciate that a universal ban would represent a saner, easier position.

Clearly it would be better if all countries took the same position as the UK. But, no, I don't feel the convicted cheats in this country are being punished twice. They are being punished for doing wrong and that means no Olympic team selection unless there is a successful appeal. It is a great pity that international federations do not all agree and some allow athletes back into competition. They fix their own rules and regulations and it can only be a lack of will that prevents them from operating a similar ban to our own.

The important thing is that our athletes, the majority, feel the same. Certainly the BOA Athletes' Commission back the stand taken by the BOA and I believe that most high performance athletes share that view. The alternative is to allow chemical games which make a farce of international sport. I firmly believe that no athlete on a performance programme can fail to be aware of the dangers and why they should not participate in performance enhancing substances. If they produce an adverse finding and it proves positive after the necessary safeguards they can have no argument about the punishment if found guilty, which is why out of competition testing is so effective.


This is about the integrity of sport but the whole issue has become tainted by the threat of legal action by some and particularly their lawyers. It may well be the case that in some countries the anti-doping machinery is not what it might be but the fact remains that it is up to the whole world to fight this pernicious aspect of international sport and to lend assistance to those countries where more help is needed. I had thought that was the acknowledged aim, among others, of WADA.

I don't think there is any doubt that a maximum two year ban would encourage potential drug cheats to play the system, serving their bans - if caught - between the Olympics and turning up every four years to tarnish the greatest sports event on earth.

Remember that if an athlete is not on an anti-doping programme because they are not competing then they could still benefit from the residual effects of performance enhancers if or when they do come into competition. Such an act is, to my mind, not only sad but a completely cynical way of abusing the system which was supposed to be put in place to protect the honest athlete.

Richard Callicott is President of the British Volleyball Federation (BVF) and a British Paralympic Board member, as well as being a former chief executive of UK Sport.