Dispute resolution, legal reasoning and good governance: learning lessons from appeals on selection in sport

Ryall, Emily S; Cooper, Jonathan; Ellis, Liz

doi:10.1080/16184742.2019.1636400

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The decision (or at least the executive summary of it), highlights that legal accountability of ISFs is limited both by the terms of reference to the CAS (i.e., what the CAS is asked to determine) and the reality that sport has a large degree of autonomy in which to shape its own legal norms (Ryall et al, 2019 [20]; Gardiner, 2012 [21]).…”

Section: Limits Of Legal Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Testosterone: ‘the Best Discriminating Factor’

Cooper

2019

Philosophies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011 the IAAF introduced the Hyperandrogenism Regulations in an attempt to deal with a difficult problem; that of ensuring ‘fair’ competition in female athletics as a result of athletes with differences in sexual development competing against women without such conditions. In 2015, following a challenge to those regulations by Indian athlete, Dutee Chand, The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) considered the merit of the regulations and determined that there was insufficient scientific evidence to justify their imposition. The regulations were suspended by the CAS, until more convincing evidence could be provided (CAS 2014/A/3759 Chand v AFI and IAAF). The IAAF duly commissioned further research (Bermon and Garnier, 2017) and introduced amended regulations (the Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification (the DSD Regulations)). Although not universal, the IAAF has faced significant criticism from several angles about its approach to the problem. In particular, there has been criticism of the value of the scientific research on which the regulations are based (Franklin et al., 2018; Karkazis et al., 2012; Koh et al., 2018; Sőnksen et al., 2018; Tucker, 2017, Pielke, Tucker & Boye 2019) and also from those in the ethical and human rights fields seeking to ensure that the rights of individual athletes are protected (Adair, 2011; Buzuvis, 2016; Koh et al., 2018). In light of such criticism, this paper considers the IAAF’s approach in dealing with the perceived problem and considers its conduct against an objective framework of ‘good sporting governance’ (Geeraert, 2013; Henry and Lee 2004). It is this paper’s contention that the IAAF’s approach to rule creation in this area demonstrates less than ideal governance practice and, in doing so, notes the role of historical, cultural and institutional barriers as well as an over-reliance on insufficiently conclusive scientific evidence to provide a seemingly objective solution to a fundamentally more complex problem.

show abstract

Section: Limits Of Legal Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Testosterone: ‘the Best Discriminating Factor’

Cooper

2019

Philosophies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Gaps in the protection of athletes gender rights in sport—a regulatory riddle

Patel

2021

Int Sports Law J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the regulatory gaps in the protection of athletes’ gender rights in sport. The regulation of human rights in sport is increasingly being scrutinised and at the same time, the societal parameters of sex and gender identity are shifting. Together, these current developments present a regulatory riddle when determining how to balance the interests of sport with the protection of non-conforming athletes’ rights, who may not strictly fit into the binary categories of sport. Despite a strong human rights framework protecting gender rights, the complex relationship between law and sport leaves athletes in a vulnerable position, with limited accountability of sports bodies and restricted access to a legal remedy. Drawing upon existing recommendations, this paper offers original insight for resolving the riddle, such as the establishment of an anti-discrimination in sport unit to enforce human rights in sport.

show abstract