The Dwain Chambers debate

The Dwain Chambers drug-taking debate has been one of the most controversial sports stories of the past week, dividing sports commentators and dividing athletics fans over whether Chambers should still be allowed to compete.

Dwain Chambers was banned from athletics in 2003 after taking performance-enhancing drugs and served his ban before going into American football in 2006. Because of this change in sports, he has been able to return to athletics, no longer monitored for drugs and therefore illegible to compete in the World Indoor Championships, having been selected.

But what should the stance be on this? LBC (London's Biggest Conversation) Radio presenter, James O'Brien, sums up the different sides of the argument. Should Dwain Chambers be stopped from competing in the World Indoor Championships and any athletics event altogether, or has he served his ban adequately and be allowed to carry on with a clean slate? O'Brien also discusses what the social consequences of the different courses of action available and whether throwing the book at a drugs offender has any positive effect in attempting to rehabilitate them.

O'Brien is quite right to investigate the social consequences of the action taken against Chambers because drug-taking is, first and foremost, a criminal offence. O'Brien's questions whether the full rehabilitation of an athlete like Chambers is the "holy grail of all matters to do with criminal offences in Britain at the moment", and I would say it is. First of all, it is hypocritical for anyone to criticise a person for drug-taking and not to give them credit for rehabilitating. What incentive to rehabilitate does this give to anybody. Secondly, Chambers' ban is comparable with a jail sentence. What I think jail sentences are for is to prepare somebody who is a danger of society to be released back into society without being a danger, so in my eyes, Chambers has the right attitude now and should have his slate wiped clean.

Tanni Grey-Thompson, the woman charged with UK Athletics’ anti-doping review, is certain of her view and believes the book should be well and truly thrown at Chambers. She told Setanta sports: "My view is that an athlete who takes a banned substance should be banned for life and not be able to run for their country again". But my question to her is, 'what about a reformed athlete who has shown remorse for their actions?'. Chambers certainly has done this.

And Chambers could be worse. Compare him with Floyd Landis, the American cyclist who claimed victory in the Tour De France only to test positive for unusually high levels of male testosterone later. Landis later denied cheating.

Perhaps some people do not trust that Chambers really is remorseful about his actions. Either way, it is fair to give him the chance to show that remorse further and would be foolish for the authorities not to keep their options open. Chambers knows he is walking a disciplinary tightrope in the future, so let's give him that chance to prove to himself and Great Britain that he can knuckle down and bring home a gold medal without the illegal substances.