The Big Question: Should Dwain Chambers be allowed to run for Britain at the Olympics?

Why are we asking this now?

Leading British athlete Dwain Chambers goes to the High Court today to try to overturn the British Olympic Association's ban on his participation in the Beijing Games next month. Under a strict BOA ruling from 1992, anyone found guilty of taking illegal performance-enhancing substances is automatically barred from Olympic competition for life. Chambers tested positive to the banned anabolic steroid tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) in 2003 and later admitted using a range of other banned substances to boost his performance on the track.

If he is a drug cheat why was he allowed to take part in the Olympic trials?

The rules governing British athletes outside Olympic competition are set by UK Athletics and the IAAF. Under our domestic disciplinary system athletes found guilty of drugs cheating are given only two-year bans and so Chambers was allowed to return to competition in 2005.

There is no doubt that Chambers' emphatic victory in the 100 metres on Saturday has given added significance to today's hearing, but some athletes and members of the sports ruling elite believe Chambers shouldn't have even been allowed to be on the starting line-up. They want UK Athletics to adopt the much harsher bans for all those found guilty of using drugs to boost performance. Others argue that a two-year ban gives athletes a chance to rehabilitate themselves.

Why is this case so important?

At stake is not just the career of one British sprinter but the future of British athletics as a whole. Chambers has admitted to some of the most serious doping offences in the history of athletics. To grant him a reprieve in would send a message to the world that drugs rules can be subverted if the athlete in question is talented enough.

Britain has led the rest of world in tackling doping; for a convicted drugs cheat to compete in Beijing wearing a British vest would be regarded as a major blow to the image of the sport. It would also make it harder to press other countries to follow our lead.

Who thinks Chambers deserves a second chance?

Chambers' victory in Birmingham drew a mostly hostile response from the normally placid fans of track and field athletics sitting in the stadium on Saturday. The truth is that apart from his family and close friends very few people have publicly spoken in his support. One lone voice among the international athletics community prepared to rally to his cause is America's double US Olympic champion Ed Moses. He said Chambers' Olympics ban is "almost like a death sentence". Moses, who won the 400m hurdles at the 1976 and 1984 Games, added: "You have to be fair to the athletes and there will be other athletes in China who have tested positive in the past. I don't like the fact that Dwain has had a positive test, but from an athletes' rights point of view you have to stand up for him."

And who is against him?

Lining up are a host of household names including the Steve Backley, Britain's double Olympic silver medallist in the javelin, who has accused Chambers of undermining the fight against doping. Others who support the ban include Allan Wells, who won gold for Britain in the 100 metres at the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. Of more concern will be the views of London Olympics chief Sebastian Coe: "My views are clear: he should not be challenging and he should not be there [Beijing]."

Lord Coe, the vice-chairman of the International Association of Athletics Federations, said he also supported harsher penalties for serious doping offences. "We have to get from two years to four in serious circumstances and we want that written down," he said. "It will take us a while to get there."

Is an example being made of Chambers?

The sprinter, now 30, has shown a great deal remorse in the last few years and has become a strong advocate opposing the use of any drugs in sport. But his perceived arrogance, a quality often applauded in world-class sprinters, and his uncomfortable admission that he believes the doping problem is rife among fellow athletes, has antagonised the sports' leaders. Others argue that in sports such as football, players like Jaap Stam, once of Manchester United, and Edgar Davids, a former Spurs player, have returned from drug bans to win major trophies so why should Chambers be prevented from competing at the Olympics? Linford Christie, the former Olympic 100 metres champion, has criticised the inconsistencies in the global approach to doping. Christie, who served a two-year doping ban while semi-retired but has always maintained his innocence, recently said: "The whole world is laughing at us." He also questioned why BOA had a bylaw while other countries did not.

Has Chambers got a strong legal case?

Legal opinion is divided as to whether his lawyers will be able to persuade Lord Justice Mackay of the merits of lifting the ban. But there are useful precedents which Chambers may be able to rely on to support his case.

Since 1992 there have been 27 successful appeals against the rule, the most recent involving Christine Ohuruogu, the 400m world champion who was suspended for missing three drugs tests. While Ohuruogu maintained her innocence, Chambers admits he took banned drugs to help him run faster.

Whether such candour counts for or against him we will have to wait and see. But the one major factor in his favour is that the full legal arguments, which centre on the principles of restraint of trade, can be left to a substantive hearing next year. It is within the court's discretion to lift the ban temporarily on the basis that he would suffer real harm if he's stopped from competing in what would probably be his last Olympics.

If selected for the Games, could he win a medal?

His time of 10.00 seconds over the weekend might get him into the final but it is unlikely to bring a podium position. He still needs to break 9 seconds to be in contention with the likes of world leaders Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell. Chambers has a much better chance of a medal in the 100 metres team relay which Britain won four years ago in the Athens Olympics.

If he did anchor home the British team to victory it would be a kind of poetic justice. Britain took silver behind the USA in the 2003 World Championships but were later stripped of their medals because of Chambers's failed drugs test.

So would it be right to give Chambers a second chance?

Yes...

* Chambers has already served one sentence, and so he shouldn't have to serve another

* He has shown great remorse for what he did and deserves a second chance

* Britain has very few genuine medal contenders in Beijing, and Chambers could make the difference in the 100m relay

No...

* If you do the crime you do the time. In this case life means life, and Chambers knows it

* The only way to beat drugs cheats is to have tough, consistent rules that leave athletes in no doubt what will happen if they transgress

* This is a test case, and the credibility of UK athletics is at stake. A Chambers victory would undermine the British Olympic Association

Interesting? Click here to explore further