Nike is a big company. Perhaps those with shoe contracts elsewhere were warned not to slander or say anything that is not marketing-friendly. I am only guessing. What appears to be happening is people off-loading the responsibility onto Let's Run, by remarking anonymously. Let's Run is liable if there was ever a legal case about slander or defamation. I'd be careful if my personal brand was wrapped up in social media connected to a sponsor and that was my primary income. I am guessing too that athletes who have not had a Nike contract, don't want to burn that bridge either.
You keep soiling your underwear, Fred. You cannot answer the question because there is no "law" of the kind that you claim.
Really !
Have you never heard of Human Rights Acts !
Surely you have , to deny is just a lie.
Such statutes are confined to the jurisdictions in which they originate, as the principle of sovereignty means no state has authority over any other. What you would require is a provision in international law, such as that exercised in the Hague. I don't see CAS or WADA being brought before the World Court any time soon.
Such statutes are confined to the jurisdictions in which they originate, as the principle of sovereignty means no state has authority over any other. What you would require is a provision in international law, such as that exercised in the Hague. I don't see CAS or WADA being brought before the World Court any time soon.
I never said anything about international law.
My point is that sports rules do not sit outside if the law.
You are mistaken about where the burden of proof lies. Shelby could have attempted an exhaustive audit of the food chain. But once an athlete tests positive for a banned substance, she alone has the unhappy burden of trying to prove that the result was flawed, or that it stemmed from an innocent mistake.
No one had the burden of proving the four points "casual" wants to rule out (and notably the CAS did not "rule out").
The only burden that matters was for Shelby to prove "not intentional". Athlete intent cannot be determined by the AIU or the CAS counting pigs.
Looking at the food chain, generally, as far back as 1992, does not help anyone know any better what was actually in one specific burrito in December 2020.
In a nation that consumes 121 million pigs a year, it is not a question of "if" but a question of "who" and "when". Even a 1 in 121 million chance is expected to happen once a year, with 100% probability.
All we have learned is that is not possible to "prove" a source of a substance with general population statistics. Such a "proof" requires something more specific, like testing the uneaten burrito, or another burrito from the same batch.
Or nandrolone in the pork supply that was in a beef burrito?
oh, I know, the cows are eating tainted pork burritos! Yeah, that's it.
The Caster Semenya case has zero to do with the Houlihan case, IMO. It is just one of countless court cases appealed to the Swiss Court where one side wins.
Your post gave one example of what could overturn a CAS ruling: “whether the CAS Award violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order.” Some may argue that if the Award violates priciples of public order, then it “violates Swiss Law.” I don’t think that debate is important. They can also appeal on procedural grounds such as bias or new evidence.
I believe that there was a significant problem with the CAS Award that “violates fundamental and widely recognized principles of public order” irrespective of whether Houlihan is “innocent” or “gulity.”
There is substantial legal opinion that as the athlete has no choice of the arbitration then the CAS process fails in law.
What do you mean “the athlete has no choice”?
Shelby Houlihan is who brought the case to CAS in the first place. It was the Athletics Integrity Unit’s preference to hold a disciplinary hearing where Houlihan’s lawyers could have presented evidence and appealed any adverse ruling.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport was only involved because Shelby Houlihan demanded they be involved.
There is substantial legal opinion that as the athlete has no choice of the arbitration then the CAS process fails in law.
What do you mean “the athlete has no choice”?
Shelby Houlihan is who brought the case to CAS in the first place. It was the Athletics Integrity Unit’s preference to hold a disciplinary hearing where Houlihan’s lawyers could have presented evidence and appealed any adverse ruling.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport was only involved because Shelby Houlihan demanded they be involved.
This did not relate to the SH case as I agree that they decided to amalgamate both the first hearing and the appeal.
But there is significant legal debate about athletes only being offered one form of arbitration. Thus it being forced on them as they have no choice.
One of the most controversial aspects within the evolving world of sports law involves players’ and athletes’ rights to a fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings brought by sports’ governing bodies. This area is particularly...