w.lawinsport.com/topics/item/a-detailed-review-of-the-cas-panel-s-decision-in-wada-v-sun-yang-fina">here for a detailed
commentary). The decision does not reveal anything groundbreaking in terms of
its legal reasoning and in many ways the case will most likely be remembered for
its historical significance: the case that jumpstarted a new era of increased
public hearings at the CAS.
Perhaps of some interest
is the extent to which the panel took into account Sun Yang’s behavior during
the proceedings in order to support its assessment of the case. For example,
the panel describes how Sun Yang had ignored the procedural rules of the
hearing by inviting ‘an unknown and unannounced person from the public gallery
to join him at his table and act as an impromptu interpreter’. The Panel
interpreted this as Sun Yang attempting ‘to take matters into his own hands’
which it found resembled the athlete’s behavior in the case (see para 358). The
Panel also found it ‘striking’ that Sun Yang did not express any remorse
concerning his actions during the proceedings. Since the proceedings were held
publicly and have been recorded, it is possible to verify the Panel’s
assessment in this regard.
In the end, it is possible
that Sun Yang may seek to reduce the period of ineligibility once the 2021 WADA
Code comes into force (see para 368). For now, Sung Yang may also try to appeal
the award to the Swiss Federal Tribunal on procedural grounds, and has already indicated his wish to do so. More...
The International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ) invites submissions to a
special issue focusing on legal aspects of fantasy sports. For some
time, fantasy sports has been a major phenomena in North America and
this has been reflected in the sports law literature.
Fantasy sports have more recently grown in popularity in the rest of
world, raising a number of novel legal questions. The ISLJ wants to
support fruitful global discussions about these questions through a
special issue. We welcome contributions from different
jurisdictions analyzing fantasy sports from the perspective of various
areas of law including, but not limited to, intellectual property law,
gambling law, and competition law.
Please submit proposed papers through the ISLJ submission system (http://islj.edmgr.com/) no later than November 15, 2020. Submissions should have a reccomended length of 8,000–12,000
words and be prepared in accordance with the ISLJ's house style guidelines (https://www.springer.com/journal/40318/submission-guidelines). All
submissions will be subject to double-blind peer review.
Question about the special issue can be directed to the Editor–in-Chief, Johan Lindholm (email@example.com).
note: Thomas Terraz is a fourth year LL.B.
candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague
University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently
he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on
International and European Sports Law.
As we begin plunging into a new decade, it can be helpful to look
back and reflect on some of the most influential developments and trends from
2019 that may continue to shape international sports law in 2020 and beyond. Hence,
this piece will not attempt to recount every single sports law news item but
rather identify a few key sports law stories of 2019 that may have a continued
impact in the 2020s. The following sections are not in a particular order.More...
Editor's note: This report compiles the most relevant legal
news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on
the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser.
IOC Athlete Commission
releases its Rule 50 Guidelines for Tokyo 2020
The IOC Athlete Commission
presented its Rule 50 Guidelines for Tokyo 2020 at its annual joint meeting with the IOC Executive
Board. It comes as Thomas Bach had recently underlined the importance of political
neutrality for the IOC and the Olympic Games in his New Year’s message. Generally, rule 50 of
the Olympic Charter prohibits any political and religious expression by
athletes and their team during the Games, subject to certain exceptions. The
Guidelines clarify that this includes the ‘field of play’, anywhere inside the
Olympic Village, ‘during Olympic medal ceremonies’ and ‘during the Opening,
Closing and other official ceremonies’. On the other hand, athletes may express
their views ‘during press conferences and interview’, ‘at team meetings’ and
‘on digital or traditional media, or on other platforms. While rule 50 is
nothing new, the Guidelines have reignited a debate on whether it could be
considered as a justified restriction on one’s freedom of expression.
The IOC has made the case
that it is defending the neutrality of sport and that the Olympics is an
international forum that should help bring people together instead of focusing
on divisions. Specifically, Richard Pound has recently made the
argument that the Guidelines have been formulated by the athletes themselves and
are a justified restriction on free expression with its basis in ‘mutual
respect’. However, many commentators have expressed their skepticism to this
view (see here, here and here) citing that politics and
the Olympics are inherently mixed, that the IOC is heavily involved in politics,
and that the Olympics has often served as the grounds for some of history’s
most iconic political protests. All in all, the Guidelines have certainly been
a catalyst for a discussion on the extent to which the Olympics can be
considered neutral. It also further highlights a divide between athlete
committees from within the Olympic Movement structures and other independent
athlete representation groups (see Global Athlete and FIFPro’s statements on rule 50).
Doping and Corruption
Allegations in Weightlifting
Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has found itself embroiled in a doping and
corruption scandal after an ARD documentary was aired early in
January which raised a wide array of allegations, including against the
President of the IWF, Tamás Aján. The documentary also included hidden camera interviews
from a Thai Olympic medalist who admits having taken anabolic steroids before
having won a bronze medal at the 2012 London Olympic Games and from a team
doctor from the Moldovan national team who describes paying for clean doping
tests. The IWF’s initial reaction to the documentary was
hostile, describing the allegations as ‘insinuations, unfounded accusations and
distorted information’ and ‘categorically denies the unsubstantiated’
accusations. It further claims that it has ‘immediately acted’ concerning the
situation with the Thai athletes, and WADA has stated that it will follow up
with the concerned actors. However, as the matter gained further attention in
the main stream media and faced increasing criticism, the IWF moved to try to ‘restore’ its reputation. In practice, this means
that Tamás Aján has ‘delegated a range of operation responsibilities’ to Ursual
Papandrea, IWF Vice President, while ‘independent experts’ will conduct a
review of the allegations made in the ARD documentary. Richard McLaren has been
announced to lead the investigation
and ‘is empowered to take whatever measures he sees fit to ensure each and
every allegation is fully investigated and reported’. The IWF has also stated
that it will open a whistleblower line to help aid the investigation.More...