So the so-called "6 month" rule is going to CAS.

There had been rumours of developments in the offing and on Wednesday it emerged that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) had agreed to ask the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport for a "definitive ruling" on the matter.

The regulation in question, which went into force just before the Beijing 2008 Olympics, states that any athlete sanctioned with a suspension of more than six months for an anti-doping violation is banned from the next Olympics following expiry of the suspension.

The immediate impact of the move is likely to be to raise the hopes of high-profile athletes such as swimmer Jessica Hardy and sprinter LaShawn Merritt, the reigning Olympic men's 400 metres champion, that they will be able to compete - and boost the US medal count - at London 2012.

Hardy was suspended for a year and missed the Beijing Games after a positive test at the US trials.

Merritt received a 21-month suspension last year after testing positive for a banned substance found in a male enhancement product.

The initiative provides further evidence that the US is re-learning the art of working effectively in Olympic circles after the disaster of Chicago's failed 2016 Olympic bid.

From a UK perspective, it could also spell the beginning of the end for the British Olympic Association's hardline stance on the issue, whereby drugs cheats face a lifetime ban from the Games.

If CAS ruled against the IOC regulation on the grounds that it constituted an additional penalty for doping over and above what the World Anti-Doping Code provides, it would leave the BOA position looking vulnerable to challenge.

After all, how much more of an additional penalty is a lifetime ban?

It is therefore conceivable that this week's move might also open the door for the likes of British sprinter Dwain Chambers and cyclist David Millar (pictured) to compete at London 2012.


Of course, it is possible, equally, that CAS may reinforce the IOC's stance by backing the existing regulation.

I would argue that the interests of natural justice would best be served by modifying the rule, but not throwing it out altogether.

A tweak in the wording to state that suspended athletes would miss the next edition of the Games if they had not already missed one while serving their time would ensure that everyone was treated equally.

At present, the severity of the penalty might depend on what time in the Olympic cycle a positive test occurred.

For example, Hardy faces missing a second consecutive Summer Games over a one-year penalty, which appears to me disproportionate.

One might also ask whether the present situation could have been avoided by having the rule included in the World Anti-Doping Code the last time it was revised.

That could well be a point to consider for the future.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 World Cup. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938