• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


The Rules of the CAS Anti-Doping Division and the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Olympic Games

0
by Beth Graham

Monday, Aug 08, 2016


Tweet

Despina Mavromati, Managing Counsel and Head of Research & Mediation at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, has written a timely paper entitled, “The Rules of the CAS Anti-Doping Division and the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Olympic Games.”  In her working paper, Ms. Mavromati discusses the CAS’s role in the Rio Games.

Here is the abstract:

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been adjudicating on a variety of disputes arising on the occasion of the Olympic Games (OG) through its CAS Ad Hoc Divisions since 1996. Over the years, it has dealt with qualification matters, doping and other disciplinary issues, primarily as a last instance body. The main particularity of the CAS Ad Hoc Divisions is that it provides athletes and federations with free access to justice within very short deadlines (generally, within 24 hours from lodging the claim or in accordance with the competition schedule). The Rio Games constitute a landmark in the history of CAS where the international sports tribunal is in charge of doping-related matters (arising out of the OG) as a first- instance authority, through its newly established CAS (ad hoc) Anti-Doping Division. The paper analyses the newly established procedural rules of the CAS Anti-Doping Division and compares them to “general” CAS Ad Hoc Division rules, the CAS Procedural Rules of the (permanent) CAS in Lausanne (the CAS Code) and the IOC Anti-Doping Rules for Rio 2016, with a view to better understanding some procedural issues related to jurisdiction, applicable law and provisional measures at the CAS ad hoc divisions.

In recent weeks, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) upheld an International Association of Athletics Federations decision banning all Russian track and field athletes from the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio due to doping concerns.  CAS also dismissed an appeal that was brought by eight Russian weight lifters who were banned from competing over performance enhancing drug concerns.  The athletes were reportedly barred from competing after Russia failed to sufficiently overhaul its testing procedures in order to prove athletes were clean following recent state-sponsored doping allegations.

Despite doping concerns, the International Olympic Committee has chosen to allow each individual Olympic sports’ governing body to determine whether Russian competitors should be allowed to participate in the Rio games.  Additionally, banned Russian athletes who wish to compete may also petition to do so as neutrals so long as the athlete demonstrates that he or she was repeatedly tested for performance enhancing drugs outside of the nation.

Photo credit: akiwitz via Foter.com / CC BY-SA

Related Posts

  • Court of Arbitration for Sport Overturns Lifetime Olympics Ban for 28 Russian Athletes Accused of DopingCourt of Arbitration for Sport Overturns Lifetime Olympics Ban for 28 Russian Athletes Accused of Doping
  • The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s ruling in 2008 allowed Oscar Pistorius to achieve his dream in 2012The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s ruling in 2008 allowed Oscar Pistorius to achieve his dream in 2012
  • Comparing NCAA and Olympic Athlete Eligibility Dispute Resolution Systems in Light of Procedural Fairness and Substantive JusticeComparing NCAA and Olympic Athlete Eligibility Dispute Resolution Systems in Light of Procedural Fairness and Substantive Justice
  • San Antonio COA Holds Firefighter is Collaterally Estopped From Challenging Arbitration in Health Benefits DisputeSan Antonio COA Holds Firefighter is Collaterally Estopped From Challenging Arbitration in Health Benefits Dispute
  • Crowd Arbitration: Crowdsourced Dispute Resolution Part VCrowd Arbitration: Crowdsourced Dispute Resolution Part V
  • Top 10 Disputing Posts of 2012Top 10 Disputing Posts of 2012

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy