Chambers is left with nowhere to run by judgement

Asked on the steps of the High Court this morning if it was the end of his career, Chambers shrugged and mumbled: "Too early to say."

But the world of Celebrity Big Brother and the jungle reality showis more realistic as his next port of call. For reasons of notoriety rather than achievement, he is now one of the most recognisable sportsmen in the country.

Ironically, Chambers produced an incredible performance last week running 100m in 10.0 seconds - the fastest "clean" time for a Briton in seven years - as part of his ultmately futile bid for Olympic selection.

This was all the more commendable given the barrage of criticism and the absence of a coach. Imagine, experts asked, what he could have achieved had he not taken drugs? But that is hypothetical. Imagine how fast he would have run had he not been caught.

The decision of such a high-profile athlete to use performance-enhancing drugs makes him irreparably damaged goods in the eyes of many within British sport which is why a large number of former Olympians supported the campaign for his exclusion.

Javelin gold medallist Tessa Sanderson summed up the mood today, saying: "I think it is absolutely the right decision. It proves that if you go out and cheat you will not get away with it in the end."

There was also a backlash from fellow athletes within the British squad with Jo Pavey, Martin Rooney and Craig Pickering among those to have signed a petition opposing his legal action.

The controversial by-law banning Chambers was introduced in 1992 to stop drugs cheats from ever representing Britain and has been appealed successfully before, though never in court.

Rejecting claims from Chambers's lawyers that the ban was " unreasonable", David Pannick QC for the BOA, said the organisation were within their rights to operate a lifetime ban even it was only one of three Olympic nations, including China and Norway, to do so.

He added: "The BOA does not think it is appropriate to be represented at this Games by someone who would cheat, deceive, damage their health or bring shame on sport."

By not granting Chambers's request for an injunction, this argument clearly held sway with the judge.