David Millar won't fight British Olympic Association Ban Decision

David Millar says he will not fight against a decision by the British Olympic Association, which excludes athletes who have served doping bans to compete in the Olympics.

Millar was banned from cycling for two years in 2004 to admit doping. According to the current BOA rules, this qualifies him for a lifetime ban from Olympic competition. Since then, he rebuilt his career and reputation after returning from suspension. Millar is one of three British athletes affected by the ban, along with sprinter Dwain Chambers and discus thrower and shot putter Carl Myerscough.

BOA's position was declared "non-conforming" by the World Anti-Doping Agency, because the prohibition of games is seen as a "sanction", something agrees with Millar.

The Scot told the BBC: "In all honesty, I had written out of the Olympics for a long time.

"I just felt that the ban was in place and life was not something I wanted to challenge," he added.

"There are some fights I do not want to fight and that was one of them.

"I just do not like to be vilified more. It's been a tough couple of years."

Millar also believes that the ban life leaves no room for rehabilitation of the athlete and that each case must be considered on its own merits.

"Imagine you have a 16-year-old who has been given something by your coach and will receive a positive and permanent ban, which does not seem fair," he suggested.

"But maybe if you have a 34-year-old multi-millionaire who lives in Monte Carlo, with a team of medical staff, who goes positive, maybe they should have a lifetime ban for a first offense.

"But these two cases are so different that can not be judged the same."

In October this year, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that an International Olympic Committee rule that prohibits athletes previously suspended was "invalid and unenforceable."

In June 2008, the IOC executive board adopted the so-called 'Osaka Rule', a regulation "that prohibits athletes who were suspended for more than six months for a violation of the anti-doping rule to participate in the Olympic Games after the expiration the suspension. "

The CAS panel "concluded that the 'Osaka Rule' was more properly characterized as a disciplinary sanction, rather than a pure condition of eligibility to compete in the Olympics." This sanction is not in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code, the panel ruled, "because it adds following the ineligibility sanction anti-doping sanctions after the WADC has been met."