The French have a saying – reculer pour mieux sauter (take a step back, the better to jump forwards). Such an action, when translated into actual terms, requires a leap of faith, and it is just that which the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is now requiring of the British Olympic Association (BOA). But faith is based on trust.

Like a resourceful householder, the BOA has constructed something which works as it is supposed to – a bylaw effectively preventing any Briton who has served a doping ban of more than six months from taking part in any future Olympics, and with the possibility of an appeal built in.

Like planning regulation officers, WADA – Jonny-come-latelys, given that the bylaw was introduced in 1992, seven years before they were – have now come along and objected. The BOA construction must come down; it doesn't conform to regulations.

It has already been pointed out that there is an inherent contradiction in a body posited on the idea of an anti-doping agency seeking to diminish an existing sanction against doping. But those in the WADA camp insist that it is all about harmonisation, without which an overall campaign against doping cannot be waged effectively.


There has been a line of enquiry this week questioning the BOA's claim that more than 90 per cent of athletes are in favour of the bylaw remaining. Siza Agha, the agent acting for Dwain Chambers (pictured) – who is one of three British competitors debarred from the Games along with shot putter Carl Myerscough and cyclist David Millar – has said of the "clear inference" of such claims is that the BOA has already surveyed athletes following the recent decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against a similar ruling operated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) whereby doping offenders were debarred from the next upcoming Games.

Why would anyone infer that? The BOA position stems from regularly held polls of its athletes through the Athletes' Commission after each of the last four Olympics. On each occasion, more than 90 per cent of those polled were in favour of retaining the bylaw. There is the mandate.

What has also happened in the last month is that several highly respected athletes or ex-athletes have been reported to be against the maintenance of the BOA bylaw. But are they really? Let's look again at what has been said.

Paula Radcliffe is not noticeably easygoing about doping abuse. She got herself into trouble at the 2001 World Championships in Edmonton by protesting about the presence of Russia's Olga Yegorova, who had escaped a positive test for EPO on a technicality. Radcliffe and colleagues stood during Yegorova's heat holding a poster with the words "EPO Cheats Out" written on it before track officials insisted it be removed.


What Radcliffe said to the Associated Press about the BOA bylaw was this: "I actually totally supported that rule that if you had a drugs ban you shouldn't be allowed to compete in the Olympics – it should be a life ban. But at the moment it's unfair because Dwain is the only one who is really being penalised for it. It has to be a rule that's fair across the board.

"He is one of the few who stuck his hands up and said 'I did that and I'm sorry', and admitted it. A lot of people have done their time and never admitted it and they are allowed to come back and compete, and that isn't fair.

"It has to be a proper rule. I would rather see every country take the BOA's rules on board. But if not, I think you have to have some sympathy for Dwain and the situation he's in."

That hardly classes as a savage indictment of the BOA bylaw.

What about Jessica Ennis? "It's difficult one. I do think it should be a standard rule and it should be the same for everyone. But it's out of our hands as athletes and it's for WADA and the BOA to come to some agreement." Same goes.


Christian Malcolm (pictured), the former 100 and 200-metre world junior champion and Olympic 200m finalist in 2008, referred back to the statements made by Radcliffe and Ennis and did clearly come out against the BOA position: "I believe everyone should have a second chance on this. That's my true belief on it."

Malcolm is one of those athletes about whom most writers on the sport would say "If he's doping, I quit", an admirable soul. As a loyal and longstanding friend of Chambers, he will have seen at close quarters the pain which exclusion from the Olympics can bring, and of course, one respects his point of view.

Yet Malcolm still believes it is fair for athletes who dope to miss at least the next upcoming Olympics, as the IOC ruling insisted until it was overturned by CAS.

What about Jonathan Edwards, whose triple jump world record still stands almost a decade after his retirement? He too makes a clear statement in one respect, maintaining: "I don't believe in lifetime bans."

So OK, Malcolm and Edwards believe the BOA ban is too draconian. But neither Radcliffe nor Ennis have actually gone so far as to say that – both would clearly prefer that, rather than the BOA levelling down, the rest of the world levelled up to them.

There is no shortage, either, of elite athletes making it very clear that they are indeed in favour of the BOA ruling. Rebecca Adlington's response to the suggestions that the BOA bylaw should be scrapped stands as a fair representation: "Can't actually believe this story. Whatever happened to drug-free sport?"

I was speaking to Darren Campbell today, and asked him what his views were. He was completely in favour of the BOA bylaw remaining in place. Why? "It's clarity, isn't it?" he responded. It certainly is a clear deterrent.


Edwards (pictured) offered a historical analysis of how the BOA bylaw came about. "The issue highlights that we need a constant standard across everybody," Edwards says. "I have always felt this issue could be solved in a stroke if they reintroduced four year bans.

"The BOA bylaw came into being because bans were reduced to two years. If it had stayed at four years we probably wouldn't be in this situation."

Edwards has got his chronology a bit skewed here – the IAAF did not reduce the standard doping ban from four to two years until their Congress on the eve of the 1997 World Championships in Athens.

The change in the rule, confirmed at the International Amateur Athletic Federation's Congress ahead of the World Championships, followed a series of costly legal battles in which athletes have invoked civil law to contest the length of their bans.

In countries such as Germany, Russia and Spain, restraint of trade legislation regards a ban of two years, rather than four, as an appropriate punishment. In March 1997, two German athletes – Martin Brehmer and Susan Tiedke-Greene – had successfully applied for reinstatement half-way through four-year suspensions.

Two years earlier, an emotional appeal by the British Athletic Federation's executive chairman, Peter Radford, had swayed the IAAF Congress from changing the four-year rule, which had been in place since 1991.

"The tail is being allowed to wag the dog," said Alan Warner, Britain's delegate at the 1997 Congress. "Only 10 or a dozen nations are affected and we have 200 IAAF members. It is a bad and a sad day for the sport."

Edwards has gone on record as saying that he doesn't believe a two-year doping ban is a sufficient sanction. He and no doubt many other athletes may wish for the four-year ban to be brought back – but realistically, how and when can this happen? Have the laws in Germany, Russia and Spain become more relaxed on the subject since 1997?

At the moment WADA has its hands full trying to get everyone singing from the same hymn sheet within the system currently operating. You hardly expect them to charge onwards towards a campaign to restore four year bans anytime soon.

It's a situation that is far from perfect. The BOA bylaw, rather like the unwritten British Constitution, has been created in response to a particular situation, but it is effective. And those who criticise if for having allowed the majority of athletes back into Olympic reckoning are barking up the wrong tree – that is not a weakness, but a strength. It is not an inflexible ruling.

If WADA, and CAS, eventually combine to tear this awkward British structure down, the landscape will remain levelled – harmonised – for many years to come. The step back will have been taken. But there will be no jumping forwards.

Mike Rowbottom, one of Britain's most talented sportswriters, has covered the past five Summer and four Winter Olympics for The Independent. Previously he has worked for the Daily Mail, The Times, The Observer, the Sunday Correspondent and The Guardian. He is now chief feature writer for insidethegames. Rowbottom's Twitter feed can be accessed here.