THE appeals panel which lifted Christine Ohuruogu's lifetime Olympic ban has warned athletes their excuses for missing out-of-competition drugs tests may not wash in future and such offences could bar them from ever competing in the Olympic Games.
World 400 metres champion Christine Ohuruogu was successful in her appeal against the British Olympic Association's lifetime Games ban last month after serving a 12-month suspension for missing three no-advance-notice tests.
The panel, which heard
Ohuruogu's case, yesterday released further reasoning behind its decision to lift the ban.
It argued that, in the past, athletes were provided with "insufficient training and instruction" regarding their responsibilities in relation to drug tests and this was a mitigating circumstance. However, the panel insisted athletes were now well aware of the consequences of missing a test, and that future appeals similar to Ohuruogu's could well fail.
A statement issued by the BOA read: "The panel observed that it becomes increasingly difficult for athletes to rely upon teething problems within the (testing] system and lack of education in the same way that Ohuruogu and other successful appellants have done.
"In future, athletes might well need to brace themselves for the serious possibility of rejection of their appeals and lifetime ineligibility for the Olympic Games."
Ohuruogu made a stunning return after her ban ended in August, claiming gold at that month's World Championships in Osaka.
Last month's decision means she is now eligible to compete at next year's Beijing Olympics and in the 2012 Games in her native east London.
The statement issued on behalf of the panel continued: "The panel was unanimous in its view that the doping offence could not be regarded as minor. However, they did allow the appeal on the grounds of significant mitigating circumstances.
"The panel accepted the UK Athletics Disciplinary Committee's finding that Ohuruogu had no intent to take any prohibited substance and that she had never attempted or had the intent of avoiding the rules.
"While the panel regarded this as a very important factor in their decision, it would not have been enough on its own to support Ohuruogu's appeal.
"A further matter contributing to the 'significant mitigating circumstances' judgment, surrounded the apparent insufficient training and instruction to athletes at the time.
"The panel felt that more could have been done at that time to impress upon athletes the vital role of no-advance-notice out-of-competition drug tests in the fight against doping in sport.
"While the panel took into account that this was Ohuruogu's first offence, this would not have been reason enough on its own for the outcome to have been successful.
"
The full article contains 450 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
