Sport exceptionalism and the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Abstract

Purpose The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), created by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1983, resolves disputes between athletes and national or international sports governing bodies. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the history and functions of CAS, with a particular focus on the ways in which athletes’ rights are threatened by the IOC’s Code of Sports-Related Arbitration. Design/methodology/approach The author reviews relevant law literature and media sources. Findings The concept of lex sportiva (global sport law), general arbitration practices and controversies concerning CAS’s impartiality are investigated, and the “strict liability” principle that CAS applies to doping allegations is assessed. This analysis points to a long record of inconsistencies and contradictions in the history and function of CAS. The findings lead to questions of arbitration or litigation; confidential or public proceedings; specialist or generalist arbitrators; lex sportiva or international legal principles; precedential or non-precedential awards; and civil or criminal burden of proof. Originality/value These unresolved issues demonstrate how the IOC struggles to maintain supremacy over world sport by promoting sport exceptionalism, and provide possible grounds for athletes’ future challenges to CAS.

Risk and enabling environments in sport: Systematic doping as harm reduction

“…Decisions regarding doping violations are made by sport governing bodies and appealed through the Court of Arbitration for Sport rather than through civil court systems. While this keeps athletes out of civil justice system, there is an automatic presumption of guilt if an athlete tests positive for a prohibited substance ( Lenskyj, 2018 ). Athletes who unknowingly or accidentally ingest a prohibited substance are held to the same standard as those who intentionally use doping substances and must demonstrate a lack of intent.…”

Procedural Fairness in the International Tennis Federation’s Disciplinary Regime

“…Second, there are intimate links between sports administrators and the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) and the latter has control over the appointment (and potential removal) of CAS arbitrators (Vaitiekunas 2014). Third, increasing concern is being expressed about the operational secrecy of the CAS (Duval 2017, Lenskyj 2018. The protracted litigation arising out of a doping ban imposed on German speed skater Claudia Pechstein was recently the subject of a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that highlighted this issue.…”

“…Confidentiality clauses are not unusual in the domain of arbitration and can comprise one of the benefits of arbitration over the use of legal avenues, but confidentiality may have a deleterious effect when it comes to procedural fairness; the power differential between participants and governing bodies means that transparency will generally be in the long-term interests of participants (Lenskyj 2018). The consequences of a lack of transparency are potentially significant for participants, the wider public and even the ITF itself.…”

Organizational and legal conditions for the creation of sports arbitration in Ukraine

“…Практика діяльності різного роду третейських судів, а також спортивних арбітражів в інших країнах [10,11] свідчить, що до складу спортивного арбітражу повинні бути включені фахівці-професіонали як сфери фізичної культури та спорту, так і сфери права.…”

“…Нами підтверджено дані дослідників Helen Jefferson Lenskyj [10], Matthew Buckle [11], що відмінною рисою практично всіх спортивних арбітражних центрів є їх особливе місце у системі третейських судів. Адже конфлікти, що виникають у сфері фізичної культури та спорту, підлягають вирішенню не тільки відповідно до чинного законодавства, але й за нормами міжнародних і національних спортивних організацій.…”