Jonathan Edwards, the former Olympic triple jump champion, is happy the British Olympic Association's lifetime ban for drug cheats looks set to be overturned.
The BOA revealed last week they were resigned to defeat in their battle to keep a by-law which has allowed them to ban any drug cheats from competing at a future Olympics for life since 1992.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) insist the by-law is "non-compliant" with their global charter on anti-doping, which states an athlete found guilty of taking a prohibited substance should be given a two-year ban.
The news that the BOA expect to lose their case, which is being heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), was met with disappointment by leading British figures in the Olympic movement such as London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe and four-time gold medallist Sir Chris Hoy.
Edwards, a member of the London 2012 board and a gold medallist at the Sydney Olympics 12 years ago, does not agree, claiming he thinks a lifetime ban is too harsh, although he does admit a two-year suspension is too lenient.
"Athletes should get a second chance. I wouldn't personally support a lifetime ban," Edwards said. "The reason the BOA brought their by-law is that because four-year bans for a serious drug offence turned into two. Two years is simply not enough. It's too lenient. It sends out the wrong kind of message.
"An athlete should miss one Olympic cycle if they test positive for drugs. What the world needs to do is to unite and introduce four-year bans. Then we would be in a much stronger position."
CAS heard arguments from both sides at a hearing in London last month and they confirmed in a statement this afternoon they will publish their decision next week.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article