Chambers ran the fastest time in Britain this year to win the 60m trial

Chambers, who served a two-year drugs ban, should be guaranteed a place in the squad after winning the 60m trial.

But UKA may invoke an "exceptional circumstances" rule to omit him from the team, named at 1500 GMT on Tuesday.

However, Frank Dick feels that would be a legal breach of UKA's constitution, and said: "If Chambers is left out, we'll be playing with the rules."

Dick is also concerned the UKA could breach International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) and World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) regulations.

"What we're seeing here is a dog-in-the-manger attitude and opening up a can of worms by making the rules up as we go along," he said.

"Are you not surprised the athlete is fighting back by taking legal action?

606: DEBATE If Chambers wanted to press home his claims to represent Britain again then such an emphatic victory was surely the best way of doing it BBC's Sarah Holt

"What UKA should be doing is trying to change the rules to ensure what they do in the future is legally correct.

"They themselves can propose amendments to both the IAAF and WADA constitutions or even get someone like me, who is on the IAAF coaches commission, to do it for them.

"There's a due process available and UKA must not be seen to be going against British culture and the democracy of athletes' rights.

"Chambers has met the selection criteria and will be a force to be reckoned with in Valencia. He should be chosen."

Chambers, 29, is serving a lifetime Olympics ban imposed by the British Olympic Association (BOA) for testing positive for THG in 2003.

UKA could argue that because he is not eligible to compete in the Olympics then it is not in its interest to select him for any competition in an Olympic year.

I'm not going to do anything unfairly against any individual or do anything that puts my sport on the wrong side of the law UKA chief executive Niels de Vos

UKA chief executive Niels de Vos did not want Chambers to run in the trials because the sprinter has not been in its drugs-testing programme since 2006.

He also voiced concerns over Chambers being selected on Tuesday in the first wave of selections, although he is not on the selection panel.

"My point has always been two-fold," said De Vos. "Firstly, an established athlete coming back from a ban should have a minimum 12 months' testing, and I stand by that.

"My second point is any governing body of any sport must have the ability to select who is best for their sport from a performance point of view and a reputation point of view.

"There are guidelines and our experienced selectors will look at every single case in exactly the same way as every other case.

"I feel very open and honest about that, but I'm not going to do anything unfairly against any individual or do anything that puts my sport on the wrong side of the law, because that will also be damaging to the sport."