The Curious Case of Dwain Chambers

-
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. 

Dwain Chambers
The discussion inevitably focused on the ability of sporting governing bodies to regulate sport and the surrounding issues were explicitly illustrated with the complicated and controversial use of the example of  sprinter Dwain Chambers. Both colleagues analysed their case in the most eloquent and persuasive way. Professor Alderman's submissions centred around the notion of individual liberty and one's ability to make choices, without any form of extreme paternalistic interference, whereas Professor Watt fully explained that the intentional cheating in sport must be punished with the utmost harshness the regulations of the relevant sporting governing body allow.

It is this last point of Professor Watt's analysis that offers me the opportunity to expand further on this discussion. In the Dwain Chambers case, the regulations did not offer the opportunity to BOA to preclude the athlete from a further participation in the Olympics. Their relevant Bye-Law may have incorporated such preclusion, but, at the same time, BOA had ratified the WADA Code and they were, therefore, bound by it. Under the circumstances, where a conflict exists between the national regulation [BOA Bye-Law] and the international regulation [WADA Code], the international regulation prevails. The acceptance of the WADA Code and its ratification by the BOA, had created a contractual relationship and a binding agreement that the BOA had to follow. CAS simply interpreted this binding agreement and explained that rules may be interpreted purposefully and not pedantically.

Court of Arbitration for Sport

The above argument also serves as a catalyst for the submission that self-regulation does not always offer  sporting bodies immunisation from judicial intervention. As CAS suggested, this is not a moral question as to whether an athlete should be allowed to return to competition, upon completion of their ban. This is a question of a purposeful and equal application of the regulatory framework. CAS certainly made the case that if sporting bodies wish to preclude previously banned athletes from the Olympics, they should create appropriate rules that clearly describe their aim and sanctions.

Finally, I noted with immense interest the point made by Professor Watt in his closing speech. This point suggested that Dwain Chambers intentionally cheated his way through to victory, precluded other athletes from an opportunity to taste such victory and as such he must be banned forever. It is not my intention to disagree or agree with Professor Watt. But I would like my readers to examine the situation where Dwain Chambers may have only cheated other cheaters on his way to glory...

Think about it...

Dr Gregory Ioannidis

21 July 2012

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Preliminary (Provisional) & Conservatory Measures before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS): Procedure & Practice.

-
Image
  An important aspect of procedure and practice before the CAS, relates to the ability of applicants to seek urgent protective measures, in the form of an application for a Stay of execution of the appealed decision. The legal basis for such application can be identified in Article 183 of Swiss Private International Law and R37 of the CAS Code. The latter, provides that the CAS may, upon request of a party, order preliminary or protective measures. According to CAS practice and jurisprudence (See  CAS 2003/O/486; CAS 2013/A/3324; CAS 2013/A/3199; CAS 2010/A/2071. CAS 2001/A/329; CAS 2001/A/324 ), there is a three-stage test that needs to be satisfied for a successful application on such protective measures (provided that the issue of jurisdiction has been settled): The requested measures must be necessary to protect the Applicant from irreparable harm; There must be a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim; The interests of the Applicant in the ...
Read more

An Insight into the World of Football Transfers

-
Image
This is an interesting, unique and controversial area of modern sport that deserves further examination. Football transfers are, of course, not a new phenomenon. A series of important developments, however, such as the modern and increased commercialisation of sport, as well as the implications and consequences of the decision in the Bosman case, have created a complex framework of individuals, regulations and financial opportunities that determine the present situation. 
Read more

A Civil Action: Recipe for Disaster?

-
The developments in Scottish football, this year, have been astonishing and rather controversial. For the sports lawyer, this is a remarkable opportunity to examine and critically analyse further the perennial battle between state regulation and self-regulation. Rangers have certainly given us this opportunity with their decision to challenge the transfer embargo imposed on them, by submitting an application to a civil court in Scotland. Irrespective of the Scottish court's decision, the question remains whether the football authorities in Scotland would impose further sanctions on Rangers as a result of this development.
Read more