The Eric Lamaze case poses an interesting dilemma to the Canadian Olympic Committee. In a state of panic resulting from false information given to him about his removal from the Olympic Team, he began to suffer from intense depression resulting in intoxication and a lapse in judgment in using an illegal substance. While this illegal substance is not one that can be considered to help Mr. Lamaze gain an unfair advantage over the competition, there are rules that athletes have to follow and that the Canadian Olympic Committee must follow to preserve fairness and protect the integrity of the sport. By the very definition, athletes are subject to additional rules and policies affecting even one's personal life and there are standards which an athlete representing Canada in the Olympics must follow. However, in light of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Lamaze's illicit drug use, he should be allowed to compete on the Olympic Team in Sydney. Considering the ethical issues at stake and relevant moral theories, including Rawl's and Kant's ideas, it becomes clear that there is a time when the governing rules of our institution should be weighed in accordance with a greater perspective on the ethical impact. In this light, Mr. Lamaze's illicit drug use is not significant enough to warrant to extremely harsh punishment of not representing Canada in the Sydney Olympics.
             This does not mean there is no moral dilemma and wrongdoing in the Eric Lamaze case. It is without a doubt that Mr. Lamaze used cocaine while intoxicated, which shows a lack of judgment, poor decision making, and a clear violation of the rules governing Canadian national sports. Furthermore, athletes face increased scrutiny than do members of the general pubic, particularly those athletes that represent our nation at the highest level. It is standard practice to therefore have rules to encourage and enforce the right decisions to be made in a C...