Dwain Chambers now knows the scale of the fight he has on his hands if he is to be accepted back into the fold by his peers. As the disgraced sprinter prepares to launch a landmark legal challenge to his British Olympic Association life ban, The Times can reveal that the likes of Sir Steve Redgrave, Dame Kelly Holmes and Chris Hoy have planted themselves firmly in the opposition camp. As the arguments rage and the debate heads for the High Court, Rick Broadbent explains the case for and against the sprinter.

He should go to Beijing because...

1 He has served his time. If you take drugs and fail a test then, in accordance with World Anti-Doping Agency guidelines, you get a two-year ban. Chambers completed his in 2005 and returned to the Great Britain team in 2006 to minimum fuss. At the time, Dame Kelly Holmes said “we probably need him back in the sport”. Why should there be an additional punishment specifically for the Olympics?

2 Other sports would have him. In 2001, Jacques Rogge, the IOC president, said that there were “unjustifiable discrepancies” between sports' approaches to doping, highlighting the cases of athletics and football. Pep Guardiola, the coach of Barcelona, Jaap Stam, once of Manchester United, and Edgar Davids, the former Tottenham Hotspur player, all got four months for taking steroids. Chambers has already served six times longer.

3 It is a witch-hunt. UK Athletics (UKA) begrudgingly picked Chambers for the World Indoor Championships in March because he met its selection criteria. It then issued a statement saying that the selectors were unanimously against his inclusion, but made no such remarks when picking Carl Myerscough, a shot putter who had also served a drugs ban. Linford Christie, banned when semi-retired, remains a UKA coach.

4 He is being punished for his words, not deeds. Many believe that Chambers's real problem came when he told the BBC that a clean athlete could beat a doped one in an Olympic final but “the person that's taken drugs has to be having a real bad day.” This offended a timeline of champions, but does the belief that a sport is corrupt (and the question implied it) exclude you from taking part? With three of the past five Olympic 100 metres champions and two of the past four world record-holders having been banned, Chambers had cause to be cynical.

5 He never retired. UKA's original argument for not picking him for the World Indoors was that he had retired; they had taken him off the out-of-competition doping register. The IAAF, the world governing body, confirmed that it had not received a notice of retirement.

He should go home because...

1 It is a moral issue. Niels De Vos, the UKA chief executive, should be applauded for taking a hard line on drugs. Chambers's lobbyists claim that everyone makes mistakes, but this was two years of systematic cheating designed to gain an unfair advantage. Athletics' reputation has never been lower and lily-livered leniency will not improve it.

2 He knew the rules. Chambers was fully aware that a life ban from the Olympics awaited him if he was caught. His team argue that he has served his time according to the rules, but they are trying to change a less palatable rule.

3 That register again. Chambers was informed by UKA that it was taking him off UK Sport's doping register, so why didn't he ask to be kept on it just in case he returned to athletics?

4 How long can an athlete benefit from taking drugs? It could be argued that Chambers is a stronger runner today because of the increased training he was able to do while taking “the full enchilada” of drugs. Who knows for sure?

5 The law is an ass. Chambers may well win his case against the BOA bylaw, but that does not make the bylaw wrong. Indeed, most right-minded people, including parents of Olympic wannabes, would advocate a life ban for cheats who try to defraud and demean their sport. Alas, the law is unlikely to agree and, hence, the best to be hoped for is that the two-year ban becomes four next year.

Firmly in the opposition camp:

I have no hesitation in giving my full support to the BOA bylaw and their continuing commitment to seek a lifetime Olympic ban for sports people convicted of taking performance-enhancing drugs. It is essential that we continue to give the clearest and strongest message to young people that using banned substances to enhance performance is totally unacceptable.
Dame Kelly Holmes

As a five-time Olympic gold medallist at consecutive Games, I applaud the BOA bylaw banning any British athlete from competing at the Olympic Games related to drug issues. Every athlete that competes for Great Britain knows the BOA's rules. If an athlete takes the risk of cheating they have to accept the penalties that go with this. I very strongly support the BOA's stance on this matter.
Sir Steve Redgrave, CBE, DL

I am writing to voice my support of the BOA's bylaw. To remove it would be a huge step backwards in the fight against doping in sport. I want to be part of a team that I am proud to say is clean and I want to be able to celebrate every medal that the team wins, without any question of their legitimacy.
Chris Hoy
Olympic gold medal-winner (cycling)

Taking drugs in sport is the worst crime that can be committed within the sporting world. It involves lying, cheating and robbing people who may have worked for more than a decade to achieve greatness. By banning cheats for life from the Olympics, the BOA retains credibility in sport where cheating is becoming more commonplace.
Craig Pickering, athletics

Sorry to be brief, I'm in full training. I support the bylaw for the following reasons: 1. GBR should be setting the standards in anti-doping in sport for other nations to follow; 2. I do not want to compete for a team with anyone who has knowingly taken performance-enhancing, banned substances (ever).
Pete Reed,
GB Rowing, world champion 2005 & 2006