Some tarnished reputations from those Russian CAS cases. Less than accurate evidence from WADA/IOC ( unbelievable advice that they only knew about the Russian actions following Rodchenkov’s tell all) ; conflicting evidence from Rodchenkov; McLaren not testing R’s evidence to him.
Maybe CAS chose the wrong arbitrator to chair the Russia panels - Professor Christopher Vedder who enjoys an international legal reputation across a wide range of policies and issues going far beyond sports law. While he has in the past acted as an IAAF arbitrator, he is not beholden to the sports industry for his appointments , can afford to offend the IOC and WADA and has a legal reputation to protect. Not like the Beloffs of this world .
For the future, it will be difficult for CAS arbitrators to depart from the benchmarks set by the Russian decisions. And ASADA should take note.
LOL, Koch wants a review of the AFL integrity unit following its handling of Pepper Powell. Now, if he had not supported the AFL in its handling of Essendon…
WHY is this thread alive? fk
In the Subkov case (CAS 2017/A/5422) the same CAS arbitrators took a slightly different approach to due process.
The arbitrators noted ( para 887) that , to the extent that alleged due process violations might have happened during the IOC processes, they were cured in the CAS proceedings.
As well as being an inferred hit on the IOC, that statement is important in registering that due process applies to CAS, also, importantly that CAS has a role in reviewing due process in bodies involved in imposing anti-doping violations. That would apply to the likes of ASADA, sporting bodies and their tribunals.
Why are you here?
It gets difficult questioning the motives of decision makers at CAS. Although they did not all agree on the penalty for the 34, weren’t the rest of the 3 QCs’ reasons unanimous? I do not see Spigelman as beholden to the sports industry, or devoid of legal reputation, but we still have the decision, which seems much easier to attack than the man. Happy to stand corrected.
By doing what CAS wanted him to do - and not supporting justice - Spiegelmann has hooked himself up to the CAS gravy train and can get many more similar gigs.
That is a nice little earner for turning a blind eye on truth and principles.
“Integrity” unit.
Agree that Spigelman is not on the sports law gravy train. I imagine he was proposed as a former Australian judge, versed in Australian law, but he did not show it in the CAS proceedings . For him to allow the AAT reference to go through, when he knew that the AAT standard of proof was limited to possibility, was bad and to sign off on a rubbish report without legal merit does him no credit. Maybe, his background in politics could also have influenced him.
Perhaps he was overwhelmed by the other two with their experience in sports law and CAS and deferred to them too much. The other two are definitely on the sports law/CAS gravy train and keep on being picked as CAS arbitrators to deliver the interlinked objectives of CAS/IOC/ WADA ( run and financed by much the same people).
There is a mantra that sports law is lex sportiva - a special branch of law with its own rules. However, with the more recent emphasis on athletes rights and human rights, the tide is turning to bring sport back into the mainstream of law. That was certainly the approach by the CAS arbitrators in the Russian cases and it may be hard for those on the sports law gravy train to wind that back, given the quality of the Russian judgments.
The cynic in me expects those with a niche in sports law at the academic and practising level will cast the rulings in the CAS Russian cases as deferring to the power of Russia.
Can anyone explain the statistics in WADA’s 2016 report on anti- doping violations which has just been released ?
In regard to non-analytical ADRV ( p 28 of report) Australian rules accounted for 30 in number. WADA attributes the source to decisions received by WADA.
Overall Australia just missed out on a bronze medal for ADRVP ( 75) coming in fourth behind Italy, France and USA.
Russians v IOC - reasoned judgments
WADA v E34 - unreasoned and unreasonable judgment
As a keen follower of sports science myself, I stumbled across this yesterday. So I guess WADA will now have to suspend anyone who smokes for two years - nicotine a proven performance enhancing drug.
From the European Journal of Applied Physiology, 16 Feb 2018: “Effect of nicotine on repeated bouts of anaerobic exercise in nicotine naïve individuals” (Johnson R., Crowe M. & Doma K)
Then we have the latest IAAF ruling on testosterone levels of females in some sports - effectively, performance disabling.
I think the real problem is they brought in sports for women a millenia ago so women didnt have to compete with men. However it was never articulated what constitiutes a woman.
They are going to continue to struggle with that definition for the next millenia.
The Essendon case got another run towards the end of the latest Ticket. Tracey has brought it into the international arena. In an interview with Paul Dimeo on his latest book on anti-doping he said that if you don’t have evidence against an individual athlete, there should not be an adverse finding. He was heavily critical of WADA on that score and called for greater independence.
If there can be criticism at the international level strange that institutions in Australia, from the government through to sporting bodies, continue to look the other way. Nothing to see here.
I think we’ve previously pretty well established that xADA have little interest in, or aptitude for, science.
What is worse is that we have a World Health Organisation, many highly reputable Health bodies at the national level which go through rigorous processes.
Yet bodies like WADA claim to be the experts on athletes health ( without revealing any conclusions or producing publicly available studies.) No idea whether any of the work is peer reviewed
Putin tells the International Federations to call off their dogs on non- analytical cases pending against Russian athletes. WADA responds that if so, it might take them to CAS.
Australian Government funds WADA to prosecute Australian athletes at CAS and supplies WADA the case files.
seems Russia are more interested in protecting the rights of their people than Australia is
Australia is to WADA what Essendon is to AFL.
A compliant lapdog wanting a pat on the head.