Sports Law & Practice

The production of evidence by USADA, against Lance Armstrong last week, saw the sport of cycling fall into further disrepute. Such evidence became available to the public, although its evaluation and probity would still need to be analysed and examined, before properly constituted forums. It is not the first time that an athlete is judged via the Media platform and certainly not the last where an athlete is presumed guilty. Lance Armstrong

Court of Arbitration for Sport We have received several comments from our readers and requests for clarification in relation to our previous post, regarding the decision by USADA to apply sanctions on Lance Armstrong. Some readers misinterpreted our position, mainly because of its emotive stance. You must appreciate that this blog does not take sides, but seeks to establish the truth and to offer a pragmatic view and opinion on all sports law developments. Similarly, our previous post did not have as an aim to examine whether Lance Armstrong committed the alleged offences or not. Instead, it had as an aim to establish whether the anti-doping organisation in question has the power and jurisdiction to apply sanctions on the athlete.

The latest developments in the Lance Armstrong case demonstrate, once again, the perennial battle between the rights of the individual athlete and those of the sport. Although the argument has been fully analysed already elsewhere in this blog, the question remains as to whether self-regulation has now exceeded its boundaries and limitations at the expense of another sporting icon: Lance Armstrong. 

We could all agree that the increasing commercialisation of sport gives rise to a number of opportunities for a quick profit. Football is not different and its commodification and enormous commercial value have created the basis upon which quick deals could be established and millions of pounds could be exchanged between different parties. The  purposeful and efficient application of the regulatory framework could ensure the elimination of illegal and immoral activities such as 'tapping up'. But is such application always an appropriate deterrent?

The FA's decision to commence disciplinary proceedings against John Terry demonstrates, once again, the perennial battle between self-regulation and external regulation. Despite the national court's decision to clear Mr Terry from all charges, the sporting governing body declared its intention to commence separate disciplinary proceedings on the same matter.  John Terry

The University of Buckingham hosted a very interesting public debate last Thursday [19 July 2012] on the issue of performance enhancing substances and methods in sport. I had the honour of chairing this debate and be part of the panel which comprised of my two esteemed colleagues, Professor Geoffrey Alderman and Professor bob Watt [who prefers to use a small 'b' for his first name!]. My two colleagues fully analysed the moral and ethical issues in favour and against the use of performance enhancing substances and answered questions from the public. 

We are now approaching, perhaps, the stage where announcements could be made regarding the re-structuring of Scottish football. We have explained, to a great extent, in our previous posts how this situation could be fully resolved, without any major complaints from any interested clubs. We have also suggested specific recommendations and we forwarded such recommendations to the Scottish Football Association.