The debate over whether or not Dwain Chambers should be allowed to compete at the Beijing Olympics has raged for some time and now the courts are involved - something many expected to happen.

Chambers filed papers this week against the British Olympic Association (BOA) over their bylaw which bans athletes who have failed drug tests from competing in the Games.

The BOA have plenty of former athletes among their support and are confident that Chambers will not compete in Beijing as a representative of Great Britain, while Chambers’ legal team have to determine that the bylaw is unlawful and unreasonable.

Chambers has already run the quickest 100m time by a British athlete this year, clocking 10.05 in Sofia this week. It is a time which would normally qualify him for the Olympics - and I believe Team GB SHOULD allow Chambers to compete in Beijing if he does the same in the time trials.

I can understand why the BOA have their bylaw, but a life ban for failing a drug test is exceptionally harsh. How many other sports dish out lifetime bans for failing drug tests? Other Olympic associations have allowed athletes to compete after they have served their bans. Surely that means Chambers is being penalised for nothing other than being British.

Does the bylaw go further than is reasonably necessary for protecting the interests of the BOA and the public? I’m not a lawyer, but I think it does. I believe I am a member of the public, but I fail to see how Chambers not competing protects my interests.

The man has served his punishment and should be allowed to compete if he qualifies to be there. He should be eligible for inclusion in Team GB if the BOA want to reasonably compete for a medal in the men’s 100m, because Chambers is one of their best hopes.

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) says athletes found guilty of drugs offences can return to all competitions once they have served their bans - which Chambers has. If he had been handed a lifetime ban outright, then I’d agree he should not be able to participate, but he wasn't. He was handed a two-year ban, which is more than over.

The BOA seem to be hanging on the idea that Chambers being found guilty of taking drugs will hinder the chances of current athletes and aspiring future Olympic representatives, but we can now assume he is free of drugs and is working hard to be the best he can be.

He has a tarnished reputation and will have to go through the rest of his life with that hanging over him, but is prepared to but it behind him. I agree it was embarrassing for himself and the BOA at the time, but that was in the past. It would seem to me that the BOA are living in the past more than working to the future as they claim.

They may have the support from a large number of athletes supporting the bylaw, but how many of those were pressured by their clubs and associations to do this, so the BOA can try to spin a line that banning former drugs cheats is justifiable?

The big sticking point for Chambers is the time frame to have an appeal heard in time to allow him to earn a qualifying time before the team is announced on July 20.

It doesn’t allow much time for a case to be heard and a verdict to be handed down and, even then, there is a possibility of an appeal from the BOA should they lose. Ultimately, though, Chambers has served his time and should be allowed to compete in Beijing - end of story.