I wonder why the appeal was made and was successful. Was it driven by a point of principal, or simply because Miss Ohuruogu has a good chance of a medal next year?
In other words, would UK Athletics and that bandwagon chaser Gordon Brown have been pushing so hard for the ban to be overturned if she has come, say, last in the world final? I suspect not. It's all about the medals.

Jack, Stevenage,

Shame on the lot of you.

Paul, Mespil,

This young lady is at worst a cheat or at best her medal is tainted by the missed tests........If an employee missed 3 drugs tests i am sure the company would sack them, however win a gold and you are instantly cleared.......then made a victim of the system - imagine if Ohuruogu had finished last in her semi.....same treatment, i think not.

Tony, London,

Is it not a bit crazy to allow each nation to decide if they will ban, or not ban, an athelete for drugs related issues?

Britain figures they will have a better chance of a medal, if she is included, so whats their incentive to ban her? It's all about the gold these days. Look how many football managers are sacked for not bringing home the trophies.

I think any un-banning should be held before the IOC, not just the british branch of it.

Arthur, Newcastle,

Unlike Rio Ferdinand Christine should accept the consequences of missing the tests. There is a message to be learned here, miss vital tests and you can get away with it. It sends out hope to the cheats. Those who know they will show up positive simply invent a reason to miss the test, no doubt get friends and other confidants to back up their story, and hey presto! we're back on the track.
The only way to make this work is to have the length of the ban for a positive test the same as the length of the ban for missing the same test. Anything else is cheating the paying public. As of tonight I am stopping buying lottery tickets. No more of my honest money is going to fund a dishonest sport.
The next thing we'll hear is that cycling is clear!!!! YEAH!!!!!

JH, Newcastle, UK

Being a nice person is admirable, very admirable, but no defence. How on earth are we the public expected to deal with this event if we are not told the facts? At no point in that article was the REASON for the overturn of the ban explained. Without that reason, how can we be anything other than cynical? For high-profile sports to survive, surely we have to expect that, without very good REASON, any athlete missing a drug test will be banned. Period.

Mike, Sydney, Australia

Ohuruogu said: “I am so, so happy. I can honestly say I am not a drugs cheat because I have been tested during the time of my ban and during the time of my competitions.

Does anyone else not find this a strange statement? If it were me, I would be saying " I can honestly say I am not a drugs cheat because I have never taken any performance enhancing drugs"

What a shame that another apparant drug cheat has managed to keep competing at the expense of a clean athelete

Rob, Hamilton, New Zealand

I know Christine personally, and the comments made by those around her reflect her true, and honest nature. There is no way this hard working, outstanding woman has ever cheated. More likely her single minded devoation to being the fastest that she can be meant that she lost focuse of the compliance rules of her trade......how many of us have had tax returns late or missed submission dates becasue we're so busy?

David Williams, Melbourne,

This case leaves me with a sense that there has been a white wash - a technical reason being found to excuse this professional athlete from conforming to the rules about doping.
Any athlete found to be a drug addict or a drug doper should be eliminated from sport all together.
The more often this verdict is made the sooner general drug taking will cease.
There will always be one or two who will cheat and I am afraid that even suspects should be questioned officially, perhaps in private as a warning, to prevent their possible total exclusion from sport.
Proof is never easy nowadays, with clever and bent scientists around to thwart the drug tests results.

Peter Senior, Saumur,

The BOA's decision is symptomatic of New Labour Britain - nobody is expected to take responsibility, release 10,000 criminals early from jail, don't bother to investigate crime, if perchance a criminal is caught don't send them to jail if it can be avoided. I do not want Britain to be represented by anyone with a dubious past, and I sincerely hope that this lady does not collect a medal.

TG, Newark,

What does it matter anymore - I will not be watching the Olympics. The drug cheating this next time will dwarf anything that has gone on before. Unless lifetime bans are imposed for first offences it will never stop.

Gwilym Ashworth, Pulborough, West Sussex

Significant mitigating circumstances?- i.e She forgot.

I forgot to tell my employer where I was going to be- I got the sack.

I take it we'll be seeing David Millar's case up for appeal?

MGB, Carmarthen, Wales