According to the Telegraph and their correspondent Simon Hart, BOA are to decide whether to stick with their ‘by-law’ and risk a more dangerous road through the courts against Dwain Chambers when they meet on Wendesday, the first time since US Olympic 400m Lashawn Merritt overturned the equivalent ‘Rule 45’ at the CAS to regain eligibility for the Olympics in London.

Last week, Chambers’s agent Siza Agha came out to call on Britain’s Olympic body to abandon the built-in rule, laid in force back in 1992, that prevents any athlete that has served time on serious doping offences from competing in the Olympics, implying that the sprinter is considering a renewed appeal against his ban. Therefore, BOA have to look deep into the situation and settle on a course to follow.

Chairman Lord Colin Moynihan has repeatedly vowed to do everything within his power to maintain the ‘by-law’ in place but no matter what he makes out he doesn’t pull the strings in the case anymore. Further, he has already shown to grope around for grounds to back up his assertions and was embarrassingly caught out to have interpreted a letter from WADA to his own purposes rather than the actual content thereof.

To all intents and purposes, BOA’s by-law is lying under heavy siege and cracks are appearing more and more in the walls of their stronghold as pressure is mounting from almost every direction, with hardly any hope of effective outside help.

Along these lines, the Danish Sports Federation have moved on to dismiss respective rules that banned doping offenders from representing the country in Olympics so that they tie in with the CAS latest ruling, meaning that whatever ‘ally’ list grows even thinner.

WADA have repeatedly asked for a review of the rule, USADA have urged BOA to scrap it and even UKADA have openly invited athletes concerned to challenge it last May. In fact, Chambers did lodge an original appeal prior to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing which mainly failed because it was made too late.

On top of that, mighty Paula Radcliffe and Brad Wiggins have come to separate their position and claim that the rule is unfair on the likes of Chambers and top road cyclist David Millar, also affected by the current legislation, while Michael Johnson has echoed their view.

The grounds are plain and clear since the BOA-imposed lifetime ban from the Olympic Games constitutes an additional sanction beyond the policies of WADA that rule a maximum ban of two years over a first time offence, which is the very platform that Merritt founded his own successful case against IOC’s rule 45. Which, in turn, formed the very undoing of that equivalent legislation that has already been withdrawn.

Chambers has expressed his wish for a “path of least resistance” so it comes up to the BOA to decide how or where this is going to wind up. So which way is it going to be? At the end of the day, reason has to prevail.