Sports Law & Practice

European Athletics are proposing that all world records set before 2005 should now be rewritten and it wants IAAF to endorse such proposals. If the proposals are accepted by the IAAF, a world record would only be recognised if it meets all three of the following criteria:   1) It was achieved at a competition on a list of approved international events where the highest standards of officiating and technical equipment can be guaranteed;   2) The athlete had been subject to an agreed number of doping control tests in the months leading up to it; 3) The doping control sample taken after the record was stored and available for re-testing for 10 years.

I have appeared in the last few years before the National Anti-Doping Panel at Sport Resolutions in London and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, on behalf of professional athletes. Such hearings mostly concerned appeals regarding periods of ineligibility imposed against athletes as a result of positive anti-doping tests. The adverse analytical findings were the result of the use of 'contaminated' nutritional supplements, which, unbeknown to the athletes, contained prohibited substances.  

The IAAF published on 23 June 2016 a set of guidelines  for athletes seeking exceptional eligibility for international competition under Competition Rule 22.1A. The guidelines followed the IAAF's Council Meeting a week earlier, which decided that the Russian Athletics Federation had not met the verification criteria so it could be reinstated into international competitions.  

I am leaving sports law aside today to consider the latest developments at Manchester United. The developments are thick and fast and concern not only the sporting future of the club, but also the governance of it, which appears to be under intense scrutiny from one of the most important sections of such corporate mechanism: the fans. The developments, inevitably, would touch upon contractual, commercial and corporate relationships and as such, they may determine the sporting future of the club.

The recent outcome reached by the Higher Regional Court of Munich in the Claudia Pechstein matter, illustrates the procedural and jurisdictional problems associated with the issue of self-regulation in sport. It also serves as a clear indicator of the fine and delicate balance between external regulation and self-regulation in sport.

It is not often we see sporting governing bodies sanctioning football players for issues with regards to public speaking, although when such public speaking occurs in written form and on social media, the punishment is usually swift and severe.  Rio Ferdinand must have realised that this is certainly the case, when The FA, a few days ago, handed down, against him, a three-match ban and a £25,000 fine for the use of the word 'sket' in a tweet. It also ordered Rio Ferdinand to attend an education course.   For those who are unfamiliar with the definition of the word 'sket', it is submitted that the offending word makes reference to a woman or a girl that could be characterised as promiscuous. It is considered to be slang and by definition, it is derogatory. The offending tweet, which was in response to criticism against Rio Ferdinand was published as follows:  “@ManCunian56: @rioferdy5 @matiousmarston Maybe QPR will sign a good CB they need one” > get ya ...

I have just finished advising on a dispute between a professional football player and a premier league club in a major European league. The dispute was settled between the parties, a few days before commencement of legal proceedings. In many ways, this dispute highlighted the lengths the parties to the dispute are prepared to follow, in order for them to achieve a pre-mature termination of the contract of employment.