Editor's note: This blog is part of a special blog series on the Russian doping scandal at the CAS. Last year I analysed the numerous decisions rendered by the CAS ad hoc Division in Rio and earlier this year I reviewed the CAS award in the IAAF case.

Unlike the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) was very much unaffected by the Russian doping scandal until the publication of the first McLaren report in July 2016. The report highlighted that Russia’s doping scheme was way more comprehensive than what was previously thought. It extended beyond athletics to other disciplines, including Paralympic sports. Furthermore, unlike the International Olympic Committee (IOC) the IPC had a bit more time to deal with the matter, as the Rio Paralympic Games were due to start “only” in September.

After the release of the McLaren Report, the IPC president Sir Philip Craven was “truly shocked, appalled and deeply saddened at the extent of the state sponsored doping programme implemented in Russia”. He immediately announced the IPC’s intention to review the report’s findings and to act strongly upon them. Shortly thereafter, on 22 July, the IPC decided to open suspension proceedings against the National Paralympic Committee of Russia (NPC Russia) in light of its apparent inability to fulfil its IPC membership responsibilities and obligations. In particular, due to “the prevailing doping culture endemic within Russian sport, at the very highest levels, NPC Russia appears unable or unwilling to ensure compliance with and the enforcement of the IPC’s Anti-Doping Code within its own national jurisdiction”. A few weeks later, on 7 August, the IPC Governing Board decided to suspend the Russian Paralympic Committee with immediate effect “due to its inability to fulfil its IPC membership responsibilities and obligations, in particular its obligation to comply with the IPC Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code (to which it is also a signatory)”. Indeed, these “obligations are a fundamental constitutional requirement for all National Paralympic Committees (NPCs), and are vital to the IPC’s ability to ensure fair competition and to provide a level playing field for all Para athletes around the world”. Consequently, the Russian Paralympic Committee lost all rights and privileges of IPC membership. Specifically, it was not entitled to enter athletes in competitions sanctioned by the IPC, and/or to participate in IPC activities. Thus, “the Russian Paralympic Committee will not be able to enter its athletes in the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games”.

This was an obvious blow to Russia’s Paralympic team and, as was to be expected, the RPC decided to challenge the decisions. Thanks to an agreement with the IPC, the case moved directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which decided in favour of the IPC on 23 August. Nonetheless, the legal battle did not end there as Russian athletes continued the fight in the German courts. In this blog I will first review the CAS award and then discuss the follow-on disputes in German courts.

I.              The IPC’s triumph before the CAS

At play in front of CAS was the use of clauses 9.2.2 and 9.3 of the IPC Constitution to suspend the RPC for failing to fulfil its obligations as a member. Indeed, the member’s obligation provided in clause 2 of the IPC constitution, includes the obligation “to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code”[1] and to “contribute to the creation of a drug-free sport environment for all Paralympic athletes in conjunction with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)”[2]. The RPC challenged the claim that it had failed to comply with these obligations. Furthermore, it considered that in any event the sanction applied was disproportionate.

A.    Did the RPC fail to comply with its membership obligations? 

The RPC contested in full the factual findings of the McLaren Report. Yet, the Panel held that the RPC failed to provide the necessary evidence to rebut McLaren’s factual claims. In particular, the RPC “decided not to cross-examine him although given the opportunity to do so”[3] and “did not call any athlete named by Professor McLaren as having been subject to the system he described”[4]. In other words, “Mc Laren’s evidence stands uncontradicted”[5]. However, in light of the lack of precise information, the Panel refused to conclude, like the IPC requested, that “the RPC and its Board Members were involved in, or complicit in, or knew of the existence of State sponsored doping of athletes and the methodologies as set out in the IP Report”.[6]

Nonetheless, the arbitrators also found that it is “undisputed that the RPC accepted the obligations imposed on it as a member of the IPC”, and amongst those obligations there is “the specific obligation under Article 20.1 of the WADA Code to adopt and implement anti-doping policies and rules for the Paralympic Games which conform with the WADA Code”.[7] Moreover, “the obligation vigorously to pursue all potential anti-doping rule violations within its jurisdiction and to investigate cases of doping (Article 20.4.10), are not passive”.[8] Thus, at a national level “the RPC is the responsible entity having the obligation to the IPC as well as to the IPCs’ members to ensure that no violations of the anti-doping system occur within Russia”.[9] Yet, the mere “existence of the system as described in the IP Report and in the McLaren affidavit means that the RPC breached its obligations and conditions of membership of the IPC”.[10]

Those are extremely important considerations to support the effectiveness of the world anti-doping system. In practice, the CAS is closing the door on national federations hiding behind the failure of other anti-doping bodies to deny their responsibility. If decided inversely, this would have led to a situation of organized irresponsibility, in which the bucket is simply passed over to a public institution (in Russia’s case RUSADA) that cannot be sanctioned under current anti-doping rules. Indeed, WADA declare RUSADA non compliant, but RUSADA is not a member of sporting associations, it does not enter athletes in international sporting competitions, thus SGBs would be hard pressed to find a way to impose any deterrent sanctions against it. If noncompliance is to be met with adequate sanctions, SGBs, which are tasked to supervise specific sports at national level, must bear the indirect responsibility for the systemic failure of the anti-doping system operating in their home country.

B.    Is the sanction imposed by the IPC proportionate?

As the Panel recognized from the outlet: “the more difficult question for consideration is whether the decision to suspend the RPC without reservation, or alleviation of the consequences to Russian Paralympic athletes, was proportionate”.[11] The RPC submited “that the IPC could have adopted a “softer measure” that still permitted clean Russian athletes to compete in the Paralympic Games in Rio”.[12] Furthermore, it argued, “that a blanket prohibition is not justified, as it has not been established that all para-athletes nominated by the RPC have ever been implicated in doping”.[13]

1.     Whose right are disproportionately affected?

The Panel considered first that as para-athletes are not parties to this appeal, “[q]uestions of athletes’ rights that may not derive from the RPC, but of which they themselves are the original holder, such as rights of natural justice, or personality rights, or the right to have the same opportunities to compete as those afforded to Russian Olympic athletes by the IOC in its decision of 24 July 2016 regarding the Olympic Games Rio 2016, are not for this Panel to consider”.[14] Instead, the “matter for review by this Panel is thus not the legitimacy of a “collective sanction” of athletes, but whether or not the IPC was entitled to suspend one of its (direct) members”.[15] Furthermore, “the collective member cannot hide behind those individuals that it represents” .[16]

Here the Panel adopts a relatively formalistic reasoning by denying the RPC the competence to invoke the potential rights of its athletes. This might contradict the idea that athletes bear a responsibility for the noncompliance of their national federation with the rules of an international federation as put forward by the Panel in the IAAF case. The RPC does, at least partly, represent the athletes, and there is a good case that can be made for it to be allowed to raise the potential infringements of the personality rights of its members in this procedure. It does not mean that the rights of the athletes were disproportionately affected, only that they should have been considered and not brushed aside as the Panel did in the present instance. 

2.     The (extraordinary) nature of the RPC’s regulatory failure

Unfortunately, the award’s analytical structure can lead to some confusion when dealing with the proportionality analysis of the IPC’s decision. There are two (implicit) steps that are key in the decision. First, an analysis of the depth (and consequences) of the RPC’s regulatory failure, and second an analysis of the proportionality of the sanction responding to this failure. The former will be dealt with in this section.

The Panel points out that the IPC “was faced with probative evidence of widespread systemic doping under the RPCs “watch””.[17] Moreover, as argued by the IPC, the RPC’s failure to act is even more acute in light of the IPC’s dependence on national members to implement its policies at national level. Thus, in particular, “the IPC relies on the RPC to ensure compliance in Russia with its zero tolerance anti-doping policy”.[18] More generally, “this federal system with complementary international and national obligations is the core back-bone of the fight against doping”.[19] In this context, the fact that the RPC claims that “it did not know what was happening and that it had no control over those involved in the system described by Professor McLaren does not relieve the RPC of its obligations but makes matters worse” [20]. Though it is unclear from the formulation used in this section of the award, the outcome of the case points undoubtedly to the fact that the Panel endorses the IPC’s understanding of the scope of responsibility of the RPC. Furthermore, the arbitrators insist that the “damage caused by the systemic, non-compliance is substantial” [21]. Finally, it finds again that the RPC “had a non-delegable responsibility with respect to implementing an anti-doping policy in conformity with the WADA Code in Russia”.[22] Thus, the RPC could not simply “delegate the consequences [of this responsibility] where other bodies within Russia acting as its agent implement a systemic system of doping and cover-up”.[23]

In this section of the award, the Panel recognizes, rightly in my view, that the effectiveness of the transnational regulation of international sports relies on the compliance of national federations and this is even more so in the case of the anti-doping fight.

3.     The proportionality of the sanction

The key question in the proportionality analysis was whether the sanction inflicted upon the RPC was adequate and necessary to attain its aim. The reasoning of the Panel is piecemeal and spread around a number of paragraphs of the award, which are regrettably not well connected together.

The first question is whether the IPC was pursuing a legitimate objective when imposing that sanction on the RPC. On the IPC’s own account, the sanction was considered “the only way to ensure that the system, and systematised doping, in Russia no longer continued”.[24] It adds “that it was a legitimate aim to send a message that made clear the lack of tolerance on the part of the IPC to such systemic failure in a country”.[25] The Panel recognizes that the “concern that clean athletes, inside and outside of Russia, have confidence in the ability to compete on a level playing field, and the integrity and credibility of the sporting contest, represent powerful countervailing factors to the collateral or reflexive effect on Russian athletes as a result of the suspension”[26], and constitutes “an overriding public interest that the IPC was entitled to take into account in coming to the Decision”.[27]

The second question linked to the proportionality of the sanction relates to its necessity. Was there a less restrictive alternative sanction available to attain the aim pursued? The IPC argued that the suspension of the RPC’s membership was necessary for three reasons:

• “to provoke behavioural change (for the future) within the sphere of responsibility of the RPC”
• “the suspension took into account that the failures in the past had resulted in a distorted playing field on an international level, because the IPC anti-doping policy was not being adequately enacted and enforced vis-à-vis para-athletes affiliated to RPC”
• “a strong message had to be issued to restore public confidence, since the Paralympic movement depends – much more than other sports – on the identification with moral values”[28]

The Panel held that the suspension was “a powerful message to restore public confidence”. It insisted also that there “was no submission to the Panel of an alternative measure that would, comparably and effectively, restore a level playing field for the present and the immediate future, affect future behavioral change and restore public trust”.[29]

Finally, the Panel concluded that “in light of the extent of the application of the system described by Professor McLaren and his findings of the system that prevailed in Russia, made beyond reasonable doubt, the Decision to suspend the national federation was not disproportionate”.[30] Moreover, it insisted that the consequences for the athletes were following logically from the suspension of the RPC and therefore proportionate, as it had decided in the IAAF case. The Panel also brushed aside the RPC’s attempt to portray the IPC’s decision as contrary to the IOC Decision dated 24 July 2016. On the one side, it found the IOC Decision to be irrelevant for the IPC and, on the other, it considered the IPC’s suspension to be in any event compatible with the IOC Decision.

II.            The Russian appeals in the German courts

The RPC’s appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal failed on 30 August because it could not demonstrate its ability to fulfil its obligations with regard to the anti-doping rules of the IPC and WADA, not unlike the one of the Russian athletes and RusAF in the IAAF case,. Nor could RusAF demonstrate that its interests would override those of IPC to fight effectively against doping and protect the integrity of sport. 

Yet, interestingly, new challenges against the RPC’s suspension were quickly lodged in German courts. Indeed, as the IPC is seated in Bonn, a number of Russian athletes tried to obtain provisory judgments from the Landgericht (LG) Bonn to participate in the Rio Paralympics. These cases were appealed to the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Düsseldorf, and even ended up in front of Germany’s constitutional court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG). It would have been ironical if the German courts had quashed the decision of the IPC, bearing in mind that it is the German public broadcaster (ARD) which brought the Russian doping scheme to the fore in the first place.

A.    The decisions of the LG Bonn

On 5 and 6 September the LG (first instance tribunal) Bonn rendered two judgments (available here and here) on the matter. Both rejected the claims of the Russian athletes.

The first judgment found that the athletes could not rely on any contractual claims, as no contract existed between them and the IPC. This is due to the fact that the RPC is supposed to nominate them to participate in the Paralympic Games, for the court there is no contract between the IPC and the athletes.[31] Even where the IPC foresees in its rules that it can directly nominate athletes to participate in the Paralympic Games, one cannot derive that it has a contractual duty to select the claimants. Instead, it enjoys certain discretion in doing so. However, the LG recognized that the Russian athletes’ interests are affected by the IPC’s Decision of 7 August 2016, but it also acknowledged that the IPC justified its decision by the existence of a state-run doping scheme in Russia.[32] Thus, the final decision to enter or not athletes in the Paralympic Games of Rio should be left to the IPC. The fact that the IOC applied a different regime to the Russian athletes willing to participate in the Rio Games is deemed not binding upon the IPC, as it is a separate legal entity.

The second judgment, rendered the day after, follows a very similar line of reasoning. The LG added a pointed rebuttal of the claim that the Russian athletes were discriminated against. It insisted that the other countries are not suspected of running state doping schemes.[33] The court recognized that athletes cannot easily change their nationality, but it insisted that the Olympic Games are more than any other sporting competition characterized by the fact that athletes participating are not primarily representing themselves but their home country.[34] In this context, athletes must accept to face restrictions for which they might not be personally responsible.[35] Furthermore, the ineligibility of the Russian athletes was not deemed a disproportionate restriction on the freedom to work or on the fundamental personality rights of the claimants. The LG considered that authorizing specific athletes to compete under a neutral flag would not have been a milder solution to fight against doping, as the Russian public would still have identified them as Russian.[36] Instead, as members of the RPC, the claimants must accept such a restriction to their individual rights.

The LG Bonn strongly supported the decision adopted by the IPC. The court has, as the CAS did, declined to consider the suspension of the RPC, and the ensuing ineligibility of Russian athletes for the Rio Paralympic Games, as discriminatory or disproportionate.

B.    The Appeal to the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

The appeal decision of the OLG Düsseldorf is probably the most interesting of the German decisions analysed here. In the first part of its judgment, the OLG criticized harshly the Russian athletes for failing to request earlier a provisory order from the German courts. Indeed, at the time of the decision, 13 September 2016, the Paralympic Games were almost one week underway (7 September). Consequently, many (if not all) of the appellants would be unable to compete at the Games anyway, even if the court were to grant the requested order.

Yet, the core of the OLG’s ruling, and its most important contribution to the world anti-doping system, is its assessment of the balance of interests between the Russian athletes and the IPC. In a nutshell, the OLG found that the IPC’s interest in declaring the Russian athletes ineligible prevails because there is a legitimate suspicion that those athletes have been involved in doping in the previous years.[37] To come to this conclusion, the court conducted a fairly comprehensive assessment of the opposing interests. On the one side, the Russian athletes have an interest in participating in the Paralympic Games to secure economic revenues deriving primarily from sponsoring. On the other side, stands the IPC’s “fundamental interest in the organization of a fair sporting competition excluding athletes who have used doping or against which there is a strong suspicion of doping”.[38] In this case, the OLG held that the interest of the IPC for “clean” Paralympic Games prevails and justifies the rejection of the complaint.[39] For the Düsseldorf court, the personal guilt of the athletes is irrelevant, as the fact that they had the possibility to exercise their sport with the support of doping without risking to be discovered justifies in itself a general suspicion of doping against all Russian athletes.[40] Thus, the IPC can, for the preservation of the fairness of its competitions, declare them ineligible for the Paraympic Games. Only the athletes for whom it can be confidently demonstrated that they have not doped can be exempted from this exclusion.

Hence, the OLG considered that the factual constellation of the case justifies that each and every Russian Paralympian can be legitimately suspected of having been involved in doping over the recent years. Furthermore, Paralympic athletes were, as corroborated by the McLaren Report and his affidavit, also a target of the Russian doping system.[41] This suspicion cannot be rebutted by the oath taken by 68 (out of 84) of the appellants that they have not tested positive for doping in the last two years. Indeed, it cannot be demonstrated that the athletes have been subjected to non-manipulated doping tests.[42] In the end, the OLG fully endorsed the IPC’s decision to prioritize its objective of providing “clean Games” to the detriment of the interests of Russian Paralympians in participating.

C.    Final Stop at the Bundesverfassungsgericht

The next, and final stop, for the claimants was the BVerfG in Karlsruhe. The court, which rendered its ruling on 15 September, was faced with the demands of Russian athletes for a provisory order allowing them to participate (at least) to the closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games due to take place on 18 September.

The court’s balancing exercise between the interests of the IPC and those of the Russian athletes is favourable to the former. Thus, the BVerfG found that if it would grant the provisory order and later reject a related constitutional complaint, this would have irreparable consequences for the pending Paralympic competitions and closing ceremony and would send a (negative) signal to sport in general.[43] Even if, to their credit, the individual athletes are not directly involved in the state-run doping scheme unearthed by the McLaren Report, the Court believed that the decision of the IPC and the CAS to declare the whole Russian team ineligible must be respected. The entering of athletes through the national courts would intrude substantially on the autonomy of the IPC and of the CAS[44] and the deterring signal send by the RPC’s exclusion, which aims at scaring off national federations from supporting or tolerating systematic doping schemes, would be substantially weakened.[45]

Furthermore, if instead the provisory order is rejected and the Russian athletes prevail in a later constitutional complaint, the interests of the athletes to participate in the closing ceremony is still of significantly less weight than the IPC’s interest to ensure that the use of doping in sport is fought against effectively.[46] In particular, one cannot ignore that, besides one of the appellants, all the others will in any event not be able to participate to competitions which have already taken place.[47] Even for the only athlete potentially able to participate there are legitimate doubts regarding her material ability to compete in the Rio Paralympic Games. Therefore, the BVerfG rejected the appellants’ plea and definitely put an end to their hope in participating to the Rio Paralympic Games.

Conclusion

At the time of writing, the RPC is still suspended by the IPC and the second McLaren Report has corroborated with more evidence the extensive nature of the Russian doping scheme. The IPC has developed, in collaboration with WADA, a set of tough reinstatement criteria to be met by the RPC in order to be reinstated. The compliance of the RPC with the criteria will be monitored by a special taskforce. Thus, the IPC demonstrated its willingness to tackle head-on the Russian doping scheme. In doing so, it followed a radically different approach than the IOC and declared all Russian Paralympians to be ineligible.  

The CAS and the German courts later fully endorsed this approach. In fact, it seems that the national courts were even going beyond the findings of the CAS by emphasizing that there was a legitimate presumption from the side of IPC that all the Russian Paralympic athletes were doped. The CAS and the German courts also insisted that a balancing exercised between the interests of the athletes to participate in the Paralympic Games and the interests of the IPC to defend clean and doping free competitions, would be decided to the benefit of the latter. Even so athletes might not be directly responsible for the state-run doping scheme, they share the responsibility (as in the IAAF case) for the governance failures of their sports governing bodies. In the eyes of the German courts, this responsibility is reinforced by the fact that they are representing their country at the Paralympic Games.

In the end, the CAS (and the German courts) had to choose between:

1. Burdening athletes for the systematic failure of the Russian sports governing bodies to comply with their anti-doping commitments and risk to sanction innocent athletes;
2. or let the athletes compete and risk to jeopardize the already weak effectiveness of the world anti-doping system.

In general, this is the big fork-in-the-road question raised by the Russian scandal. On the one side, we can double down on anti-doping, beef up compliance mechanisms, and endure collateral damages: some innocent athletes. Or, on the other side, we acknowledge the total failure of the world anti-doping system as it is and de facto (or de jure) condone the use of doping in international sporting competitions. The CAS and the German courts clearly decided to follow the regulatory route, but this is only the beginning of a very long anti-doping journey.

[1] Clause 2.1.1.

[2] Clause 2.27.

[3] CAS 2016/A/4745, Russian Paralympic Committee v. International Paralympic Committee, award of 23 August 2016, para.43.

[4] Para.44.

[5] Para.43.

[6] Para. 54 and 55.

[7] Para. 56.

[8] Para. 59.

[9] Para. 60.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Para. 73

[12] Para. 76.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Para.79.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Para. 81.

[18] para. 82.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Para. 86.

[22] Para. 86.

[23] Para. 86.

[24] Para.83.

[25] Para.84.

[26] Para.84.

[27] Para.84.

[28] Para. 88.

[29] Para.89.

[30] Para. 91.

[31] „Anders als die Antragsteller meinen, kommt allein durch die Ausrichtung der Paralympics zwischen den Parteien kein Vertragsverhältnis oder vertragliches Vorverhältnis i.S.v. § 311 Abs. 2 BGB zustande. Da die Nominierung zur Teilnahme an den Paralympics im Regelfall durch das S und nicht durch den Antragsgegner erfolgt, ist nicht ersichtlich, dass die Parteien potentielle Vertragspartner wären.“ Landgericht Bonn, 20 O 323/16, at II.

[32] „Das Gericht verkennt nicht, dass die russischen Para-Athleten durch die Entscheidung des Antragsgegners vom 07.08.2016 nachhaltig in ihren sportlichen und auch wirtschaftlichen Interessen betroffen werden. Jedoch hat der Antragsgegner seine Entscheidung nachvollziehbar mit dem Vorwurf des organisierten Staatsdopings in Russland begründet. Insoweit muss es dem Antragsgegner selbst überlassen bleiben, von seinem Recht zur Zulassung einzelner Athleten Gebrauch zu machen oder aber nicht.“ Ibid.

[33] „Soweit die Antragsteller auf eine Ungleichbehandlung im Vergleich zu den Para-Athleten aus anderen Ländern abstellen, ist dem entgegenzuhalten, dass diese anderen Länder nicht dem Verdacht des organisierten Staatsdopings unterliegen.“ Landgericht Bonn, 20 O 325/16,  at II.

[34] „Zwar haben die Antragsteller keine Möglichkeit, ihr Land oder ihren Verband zu wechseln. Jedoch werden die Olympischen Spiele sowie die Paralympics weit mehr als Weltmeisterschaften oder andere sportliche Wettkämpfe dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass die Athleten an ihnen nicht nur auf eigene Rechnung, sondern vor allem für ihr Land teilnehmen.“ Ibid.

[35] „Der Charakter und die Besonderheit der Spiele können so auch dazu führen, dass der einzelne Athlet von ihm selbst nicht verschuldete Einschränkungen hinnehmen muss. Insoweit ist auch kein Verstoß gegen das Diskriminierungsverbot der §§ 19, 20 und 33 GWB zu erkennen.“ Ibid.

[36] „Die Zulassung einzelner Sportler bei Beibehaltung der Suspendierung des S wäre – als die Antragsteller meinen – nicht als milderes Mittel gleichermaßen geeignet zum Kampf gegen das Doping. Zwar liefen die russischen Para-Athleten dann nicht mit ihrer Landesfahne auf und träten dabei nicht offiziell für ihr Land auf. Sie würden aber dennoch von den Zuschauern mit ihrem Land identifiziert.“ Ibid.

[37] „Die Abwägung der widerstreitenden Interessen führt zu dem Ergebnis, dass der Antragsgegner den Antragstellern eine Teilnahme an den Paralympischen Spielen 2016 in Rio de Janeiro verwehren darf, weil der begründete Verdacht gerechtfertigt ist, dass diese Sportler in den vergangenen Jahren Doping betrieben haben.“ Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, VI-W (Kart) 13/16, at B.2.a.

[38] „Auf der Seite des Antragsgegners, der die Paralympischen Spiele 2016 veranstaltet, steht demgegenüber das fundamentale Interesse, einen fairen und sportlichen Wettkampf zu gewährleisten und alle diejenigen Sportler von den Spielen fernzuhalten, die entweder des Dopings überführt sind oder gegen die der hinreichend begründete Verdacht des Dopings besteht.“ Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(2).

[39] „Im Streitfall führt das überragende Interesse des Antragsgegners an „sauberen“ Paralympischen Spielen zu dem Ergebnis, dass die streitbefangenen Zulassungsbegehren abzulehnen waren.“ Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(3).

[40] „Diese ein Doping begünstigenden Rahmenbedingungen rechtfertigen gegen alle Athleten, die unter dem System trainiert haben, einen Dopingverdacht.“ Ibid.

[41] Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(3) (3.1)..

[42] Ibid., at B.2.a.bb.(3) (3.3)..

[43] „Würde die beantragte einstweilige Anordnung ergehen, die noch zu erhebende Verfassungsbeschwerde aber später erfolglos bleiben, hätte dies erhebliche Auswirkungen für die noch ausstehenden Wettkämpfe und die Durchführung der Abschlussfeier der Paralympischen Spiele am 18. September 2016 in Rio de Janeiro und eine Signalwirkung nicht nur für paralympischen Sport, sondern für den Sport insgesamt.“BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats vom 15. September 2016, 1 BvQ 38/16, at II.3.a).

[44] „Eine Zulassung einzelner Athletinnen und Athleten durch die staatlichen Gerichte griffe erheblich in die Verbandsautonomie des IPC und der internationalen Sportgerichtsbarkeit ein.“ Ibid.

[45] „Die mit dem Ausschluss des RPC von den Paralympischen Spielen beabsichtigte Signalwirkung, die insbesondere nationale Sportverbände von der Duldung, Unterstützung oder Organisation systematischen Dopings abschrecken soll, würde erheblich beeinträchtigt.“ Ibid.

[46] „Zwar erscheint das Interesse der Antragstellerinnen und des Antragstellers auch dann durchaus gewichtig, wenn ihnen nur die Teilnahme an der Abschlusszeremonie am 18. September 2016 möglich sein sollte. Im Vergleich zu dem Interesse des IPC, den Einsatz von Dopingmitteln im Sport nachhaltig und effektiv zu bekämpfen, hat dies jedoch deutlich weniger Gewicht.“ Ibid., at II.3.b).

[47] „Zudem kann nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben, dass - abgesehen allenfalls von der Antragstellerin zu 5) - die übrigen Antragstellerinnen und der Antragsteller wegen des inzwischen weitgehend durchgeführten Gesamtprogramms der aktuellen Paralympischen Spiele nicht mehr an den sportlichen Wettkämpfen teilnehmen können und ihnen damit insoweit nur noch ein bloßer Zuschauerstatus zukommen könnte, den sie auch ohne Erlass der einstweiligen Anordnung wahrnehmen können.“ Ibid.

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the monitoring body of track and field athletics, regularly submitted South African middle distance runner and Olympic gold medalist Mokgadi Caster Semenya to sex verification tests when it began questioning her sexual characteristics and speculating whether her body belonged on the Disorder of Sex Development (DSD) spectrum. DSD Syndrome is often defined as an “intersex condition” which affects the clear development of either/or genitalia, gonads and chromosomes into one distinctive sex or another. The spectrum of the intersex condition is particularly wide, and the disorder can sometimes be minimal - some cases of female infertility can actually be explained by an intersex condition.

The IAAF deemed the controversial sex verification tests necessary on the grounds that it was required to prove Semenya did not have a “medical condition” which could give her an “unfair advantage”. It was eventually found that, because of an intersex trait, Semenya did have abnormally high levels of testosterone for a woman, which, in the IAAF’s opinion, justified a need for regulatory hormonal adjustments in order for her to keep competing in the women’s category. The IAAF also funded research to determine how ‘hyperandrogenism’ affects athletic performance. In 2018, it issued Eligibility Regulations on Female Classification (“Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development”) for events from 400m to the mile, including 400m, hurdles races, 800m and 1’500m. The IAAF rules indicated that in case of an existing high level of testosterone, suppression or regulation by chemotherapy, hormonal castration, and/or iatrogenic irradiation was mandatory in order to take part in these events.

Semenya and her lawyers challenged the IAAF Regulations in front of the CAS, who, in a very controversial decision, deemed the Regulations a necessary, reasonable and proportionate mean “of achieving the aim of what is described as the integrity of female athletics and for the upholding of the ‘protected class’ of female athletes in certain events” (§626).

The CAS Ruling

Semenya and her attorneys claimed that forcing her to get unwanted medication represented a violation of human rights. On the 1^st May 2019, the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) ruled in favor of the restrictions placed on female athletes with high levels of testosterone by the IAAF. The direct consequence of this decision for Semenya was the obligation for her to take testosterone suppressants in order to continue competing in her category of IAAF events.

In March 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued a resolution indicating the IAAF Regulations were “not compatible with international human rights norms and standards, including the rights of women with differences of sex development” and that there was “no clear relationship of proportionality between the aim of the regulations and the proposed measures and their impact.”

Because the Regulations established conditions and restrictions which were targeted at the female (or intersex) athlete population exclusively and did not impose any equivalent conditions or restrictions on male athletes, the CAS Panel considered that the Regulations were, prima facie discriminatory on grounds of legal sex. After reminding that “it is common ground that a rule that imposes differential treatment on the basis of a particular protected characteristic is valid and lawful if it is a necessary, reasonable and a proportionate means of attaining a legitimate objective” (§548), the Panel considered that its sole responsibility was to determine whether the DSD Regulations were necessary, reasonable and proportionate. As such, the Panel said it was “not required to (…) appraise the adequacy of the IAAF’s policy-making process”.

The Swiss Federal Tribunal and ordre public

A decision from the CAS can only be challenged at the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) on a limited number of grounds, enclosed in art. 190 al. 2 of the Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA), which include claiming that the principle of equal treatment of the parties or their right to be heard in an adversarial procedure has not been observed (lit. d) and that the award is incompatible with public policy (lit. e). At the beginning of June 2019, after an ex parte request, the SFT, Switzerland’s highest court, granted Semenya a temporary suspension of the IAAF rules on testosterone limits. She was able to compete over distances of 400 to 1’500m without medication, until the SFT issued a ruling.

Because it was considered that the discrimination was necessary, reasonable and proportionate in comparison with the vast majority of non-DSD women, the only outcome for Semenya’s lawyers was to argue on the violation of the principle of public order. The 30^th July 2019, the SFT reversed the ruling that temporarily lifted the application of the IAAF’s regulations, thus impeding her to defend her 800m title at the World Championships in Doha in September 2019. The SFT concluded that “neither the allegation of an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, nor the alleged violation of ordre public due to an infringement of their personality and human dignity appeared with high probability to be well founded”. Welcoming the decision, the IAAF stated that, in certain particular cases, “biology trumps identity”.

The elements of comparison

Body Policing

Admitting that “the imperfect alignment between nature, law and identity is what gives rise to the conundrum at the heart of this case” (§559), the CAS stated that:

“On true analysis, (…) the purpose of the male-female divide in competitive athletics is not to protect athletes with a female legal sex from having to compete against athletes with a male legal sex. Nor is it to protect athletes with a female gender identity from having to compete against athletes with a male gender identity. Rather, it is to protect individuals whose bodies have developed in a certain way following puberty from having to compete against individuals who, by virtue of their bodies having developed in a different way following puberty, possess certain physical traits that create such a significant performance advantage that fair competition between the two groups is not possible.”

The public opinion could not help but point the finger at the underlying hypocrisy of the decision, in comparison with similar cases, both inside and outside of the sports world. Firstly, the same type of policy and legal arguments are often held for controlling certain types of bodies exclusively, whilst leaving others out of the line of sight. In the sports world, it is certainly the case: think of the impressive decoration of Olympian swimmer Michael Phelps aligned with the god-like praises he received for his physical strength and capacity; for instance. On the contrary, leaving “abnormally” tall basket-ball players on the bench so as to give naturally shorter players a chance to win, or testing male athletes with poor athletic results in suspicion they might have low levels of testosterone seems absurd. In fact, the latter are only tested as to make sure they do not take anything effectively modifying their capacities in competing. Semenya and her lawyers did point to the fact that “it is illogical and unnecessary to regulate one genetic trait while celebrating all the others” (CAS decision, §53).

Out of the sports world, indications of “naturalness” in pro-life arguments or governments’ refusal to medically cover the suppression of hormones in transgender reassignment cases are also examples of body policing. The case therefore raises the central question of how stereotypes, especially gender ones, give a social meaning to a fact and how legal regulation can confirm it, thus perpetuating it.

The social  meaning of women and gender

Taking a step away from Semenya’s cause célèbre, it must be stressed that, for long, women were not accepted to compete in the Olympics and that their progressive integration was only made possible when a redefinition of the norms of femininity and masculinity, as they relate to sports and competition, occurred. This means that medical tests were carried out and, as a backlash to noticing the instability and fluidity of sex categories, those very categories were reinforced and redefined according to stereotypes. In other words, the sports world went very far to ensure there was a biological difference so that the natural and social order as it was could not be disrupted.

If we try to move away from the (in my opinion, sterile) debate on biological differences (remembering that the latter has also been explained by anthropologists as being a consequence of our gendered social order[1]), we should ask ourselves who has the power to define the norms of femininity and masculinity. “Woman” and “man” have very particular social meanings. Furthermore, commentators often qualify the sex verification tests as being racially flawed. In this sense, the discussion is also of epistemological importance: the bonus corpus is never the female body, and is always the white male one, with “naturally” good athletic abilities. True, scientific results are usually dependent on a certain political order[2], as are any other empirical social-situated findings. The CAS Panel said that an assessment of the likely impact of the DSD Regulations on wider society would require “an analysis of multifaceted sociological issues which are not amenable to judicial resolution by an arbitral tribunal (…)” (§518). And, as such, it is certainly not for an arbitration court to have the power to (re)define gender categories, which are intrinsically political and historical, and are not limited to the sports world.

Appealing to the ECtHR

If she does not prevail before the SFT, Semenya could still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging a breach of Article 14 and/or Article 8[3]. It may give the Strasbourg Court an interesting opportunity to comment on gender opposition and binarity, as well as on the social limitations put on gendered bodies. The gender stereotypes discussion is not a new one; regional and international courts have had the opportunity, on many occasions, to comment on the need to combat harmful gender stereotypes[4]. However, they usually do so in relation to human rights law and to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Even if, of course, not every unjustified discrimination is rooted in stereotypes[5], they seldom point at the wrong of gender stereotypes per se. Hopefully this may lead the ECtHR to further reflect on the harmfulness of gender stereotypes, beyond the well-established categories in need of protection against unjustified discrimination.

The CAS practically said that it was bound by biology. If anything, the results of the sex verification tests should have proven that Semenya’s body has incredible athletic abilities, with no requirements of medically modifying it whatsoever.

Conclusion

In a letter to the IAAF about their regulations, United Nations experts on health, torture, and women’s rights wrote:

“The assessment for ‘exclusion or treatment’ based on the IAAF regulations relies on suspicion and speculation, based on stereotypes about femininity. This effectively legitimizes widespread surveillance of all women athletes by requesting national federations as well as doctors, doping officials, and other official personnel to scrutinize women athletes’ perceived femininity, which can include appearance, gender expression, and sexuality. Women who are understood to be “suspicious” about their natural physical traits are tied to subjective and cultural expectations regarding which bodies and modes of gender expression are “appropriate,” or even valorised by adherence to traditional or normative aesthetics of femininity. Gender and sex-based stereotyping and stigma have a long history, not only of causing psychological harm to women and gender minorities, but also of increasing the possibility of violence against them.”

The social norms of gender act as a blur on reality, based on the stereotype that “a real woman” should not be that good of an athlete. It provides us with an overview of how public policy decisions are justified by scientific findings, operating in a gender-normative environment. The discrimination was considered “necessary, reasonable and proportionate” in comparison with the vast majority of non-DSD women, but it somehow appears to be a debate on the equality between women and men and on reaffirming the importance of the “fixed duality of sexual difference”[6]. The CAS Panel said that it was “faced with conflicting rights concerning the rights of female athletes who do, and do not, have DSD” (§554).

Interestingly enough, the more women are compared to each other, on the grounds of fairness, the stronger the female gender category is reinforced.

[1] Priscilla Touraille, Hommes grands, femmes petites : une évolution coûteuse. Les régimes de genre comme force sélective de l’évolution biologique, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme: Paris 2008.

[2] Thomas Laqueur, La Fabrique du Sexe: Essai sur le corps et le genre en Occident, Gallimard: Paris 1992.

[3] The ECtHR had considered an application brought following an unsuccessful appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the October 2018 decision ECtHR, Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland, applications no. 40575/10 and no. 67474/10, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1002JUD004057510, alleging breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[4] The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has broadly defined the notion of “harmful gender stereotypes”, as sexist beliefs, which include representing women in roles considered traditional; as mothers and household heads, as subordinates of men or as sexual objects. In 2013, the OHCHR prepared a report on sex and gender stereotypes, which outlines the practice of treaty bodies and their reference to gender stereotypes. The obligations of States with regard to stereotypes are those set out in Article 5 lit. a CEDAW, reinforced by Article 2 lit. f. which provides that States must “take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women”. At European level, judgments of the ECtHR have concerned stereotypes related in particular to sexuality (Kalucza v. Hungary), reproduction (A. B. C. v. Ireland; R. R. v. Poland) or domestic violence (Valiuliené v. Lithuania; Opuz v. Turkey). See also Konstantin Markin v. Russia; Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal; Khamtokhu and Aksenchick v. Russia.

[5] Sophia Moreau, ‘Equality Rights and Stereotypes’ in Dyzenhaus, D./ Thorburn, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press : Oxford 2019.

[6] Hilary Charlesworth, ‘Foreword’, in Harris Rimmer S./Ogg K., Feminist Engagement with International Law, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham 2019.