Excellent article which recognises the efforts being made by cycling in it's battle against dopers. I think athletics is where the tour was 10 years ago.

I think the future for cycling is a lot brighter than the bury it's head in the sand athletics sport.

james, plymouth, devon

This isn't a balanced comparison. Rasmussen miss 4 out of competition tests and has served no ban or had any penalty imposed by the UCI. Ohuruogu missed 3 tests, was banned for a year and has served her time. So to suggest Rasmussen is being hard done to is rubbish. He was sacked for lying to his Team about his whereabouts and therefore pulled from the Tour by his Team. He has yet to be sanctioned by cyclings governing body. Pat McQuaid is right about double standards. In this case the athlete cops it while the cyclist gets away with it.

Steve , Isle of Man,

In response to Mary Pearce. the cyclist did not miss atest in the middle of an event. He missed out of competition tests the same as Christine so why is he being vilified but Christine is being touted as an hero for us all.
If atheletes of whatever discipline at that world class level cannot get their act together along with their advisors and coaches when their livelihood is at risk then they deserve any sanction that is taken against them.
Also what were the reasons for the other 2 missed tests or were these also because the arranged place had been booked by some other school sports day?

Ian Richardson, Nottingham, England

Quite right too and what a shame after athletics has in the past been seen to be carrying the torch in the anti-drugs campaign.

chris, london,

I criticised Jeremy Whittle recently for what I considered a lack of proportionality on the drugs issue in cycling. I now withdraw that criticism on what I consider the best judgement on this issue.

It shows the sickening double standards of some of the press in the UK. If you're a cyclist you are automatically judged to be a drug taker whereas it seems if you win a gold medal winner for the UK then your previous misdemeanours are forgiven. Allowing Ohuruogu to compete in the Olympics sends out all the wrong messages.

k blackwell, Hull, UK

Not all nations ban athletes who miss drug tests from competing in the olympics after the ban imposed by their international federation has been served. Americans who serve their bans (usually two years for a first offence) can then compete in the olympics. The British stance is admirably stronger than that of other nations.

The BOA is right to impose mandatory life bans for athletes who test positive and discretionary life bans for missing 3 tests would be fine - just give athletes like Christine a chance to make their case. Christine's blood samples tested negative the week before and the week after her third missed test and that 2 independant investigations have acknowledged there is no evidence that she avoided tests or has ever taken drugs.

C, London, UK

It is well known that Christine missed her third test because a school sports day took over the place where she was going to train. She also tried to get to the testers but was just a little too late for their deadline. At the time, you could not phone them or email them to explain - it was just written down as a missed test. (That has now been changed as it was clearly a bad system). There is a huge difference between that and someone who has tested positive or who misses a test in the middle of an event. The people who banned her did not think that Christine actually took drugs - so please don't try to make clever articles comparing people that shouldn't be compared. Christine has already paid heavily for the mistake of missing 3 tests. This year she has tested clean all year with no missed tests. Why don't you just give her a chance to demonstrate what she can do ? She's a great girl, let's do as Gordon Brown has done and celebrate her wonderful achievement.

Mary Pearce, London, UK

If you Win, and you are British, that's fine. Miss a dope test 3 times, that's fine. These people are not capable of informing the testers where they are, because maybe the time is not just right to be tested. There chemists may be a little concerned that the tests may just be positive at that time of the month, or maybe they are too busy putting our money in their Banks to worry about testing. Who cares about them anyway. A,thletics meetings are never well attended, the paid visitors dont even know or care who is running for Britain, because most live and train in America.
So good luck to all Drug takers, whether they win gold or not. WHO CARES

Brown, Market Drayton, Shropshire

The BOA shouldn't even consider changing its Rule(s) regarding selection of "athletes" of any sport when they have BROKEN the "NO DOPING" Rule(s)? ZERO TOLERANCE, by all nations to doping (= cheating) should be the target, not lowering the standards and expectations!

Morally or otherwise the guilty "athletes" have broken the rules! There cannot be a mitigation argument that "other countries accept faiiled "athletes" because it is akin to "he had a knife so I carry one to defend myself etc etc" that evolves into the
"athletes" demanding to dope because others do!

We (YOU the BOA) should be the driving force and, by doing
this, will SUPPORT the "real athletes". Make the stand now to prevent all sports from descending into the abysmal situation where the "winners" will be the teams with the most skilful chemists/medical personnel!

I Farquharson , Letchworth, UK

Good article Jeremy,

nice to see a bit of level headed commentary about a very difficult and emotive subject. It seems clear that there is a hierarchy to the severeness of criticism dealt out and the ability to succumb to selective amnesia- why shouldn't Davids case be listened to if Christines will be. At the risk of increasing bureaucracy isn't it about time we had a GB ADA as done in Australia, so that the decision making is taken out of the hands of self interest parties such as BOA, Athletics and Cycling?

MGB, Carmarthen, Wales