Email of the day: Why in the hell does a Swiss court have jurisdiction over the IAAF which isn't based in Switzerland?

Dump the Olympics wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

The CAS is a court of arbitration; its jurisdiction is because the IAAF agreed to it, and that's because the olympics agreed to it.

The IAAF will never accept the decision, so hopefully it will demand that the olympics withdraw from the arbitration agreement or, better yet, dump the olympics. The olympics is the centerpiece of failure and corruption that prevents track from being popular.

Bingo! Bad Wigins hit the nail on the head!

Short term pain, long term gain.

I also agree with Bad Wigins on this one.

noter of procedural antics wrote:

Regarding the procedure, it seems that Semenya has about 2-3 months to compete until a ruling:

The appeal is served on the opposing party and the CAS for their comments within 20 days. The period for filing a reply can be extended. There are no other prescribed written submissions. The Swiss Federal Tribunal usually pronounces its judgment without hearing the parties any further. Often the parties are initially only notified of the actual decision; the reasons are then delivered subsequently within a further period of 6 to 8 weeks. On average, the Swiss Federal Tribunal

requires approximately 4 months until the reasoned decision is delivered.

It's still a bit unclear why SFT stayed the CAS decision in the interim in the first place, probably because that seemed less burdensome overall (and not a commentary on likelihood of prospects).

Just enough time for her to take more money and medals from deserving women athletes.

On a different note, I'm a bit confused, if her testosterone levels are above the legal limit, why isn't she banned via normal drug tests? Claiming "my body naturally produces testosterone at higher levels" shouldn't allow you to break the rules.

its all rojo wrote:

manage your time wrote:

you have time to make these posts

but not time to delete posts advocating the elimination of a race from our country? a post that was reported yesterday?

and time to delete posts complaining about that post?

care to explain?

rojo is amused by racism. You should e-mail him with examples. He will act all indignant if you say that he tolerates racism and then claim that he doesn't have time to actually look at the message board.

In rojo's defense, I've been banned twice for racist comments. One of which wasn't even bad at all. Just stating crime statistics and making conjectures about criminals. The other was worthy of a ban. I knew I'd be banned the second I hit "submit post."

dirty, dirty, dirty wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

The CAS is a court of arbitration; its jurisdiction is because the IAAF agreed to it, and that's because the olympics agreed to it.

The IAAF will never accept the decision, so hopefully it will demand that the olympics withdraw from the arbitration agreement or, better yet, dump the olympics. The olympics is the centerpiece of failure and corruption that prevents track from being popular.

The IAAF is so corrupt that the IOC won't even allow Coe on its executive committee:

I didn't say the IAAF wasn't also corrupt, or even perhaps more corrupt. But the failed competition model is still centered on the meet controlled by the IOC. If this provokes an existential crisis in the sport, the IAAF may be forced to change things just to survive.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

On a different note, I'm a bit confused, if her testosterone levels are above the legal limit, why isn't she banned via normal drug tests? Claiming "my body naturally produces testosterone at higher levels" shouldn't allow you to break the rules.

Except for the disputed regulations which are the subject of this appeal, there is no legal limut on testosterone. Exogenous testosterone is banned.

Arbitration is a private dispute resolution mechanism governed primarily by the agreement of the parties. Although the law governing these agreements varies by jurisdiction, the common thread throughout the world is that it is exceedingly difficult to get an arbitration decision overturned in a court. It's not like appealing a decision in a trial court, where the court of appeals will decide for itself whether the trial court was correct. Ignoring the Swiss court isn't a realistic option because most jurisdictions respect the terms of foreign arbitration agreements. If the IAAF tried to ban Semenya from competing outside of Switzerland, a court in the country hosting the meet would almost certainly grant her an injunction.

CAS decisions can only be overturned on the following grounds: (i) the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted, (ii) the arbitral tribunal wrongly accepted or declined jurisdiction, (iii) the arbitral tribunal ruled beyond the claims submitted to it, or failed to decide one or more of the claims submitted to it, (iv) the parties’ fundamental procedural rights were breached, or (v) the award is incompatible with public policy.

All of these categories have been fleshed out through many, many court decisions, so they aren't nearly as vague as they sound. For instance, the public policy ground sounds like the court has broad permission to reverse any decision that's unfair, but it's actually an extraordinarily high bar. Basically, a decision violates public policy only if it clearly violates widely accepted legal norms. Frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how such grounds could be demonstrated in this case. If there's one thing that everyone who has talked about this case seems to agree on, it's that "this is a very difficult issue." That's exactly the kind of situation where a court should not be second guessing the merits of the arbitral panel's decision.

If the Swiss court vacates the CAS decision, then the CAS gets another bite at the apple. The court will not actually make a binding decision on the parties. Though, as a practical matter, the court's decision vacating an award may leave the CAS with very few options on remand.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

its all rojo wrote:

rojo is amused by racism. You should e-mail him with examples. He will act all indignant if you say that he tolerates racism and then claim that he doesn't have time to actually look at the message board.

In rojo's defense, I've been banned twice for racist comments. One of which wasn't even bad at all. Just stating crime statistics and making conjectures about criminals. The other was worthy of a ban. I knew I'd be banned the second I hit "submit post."

out of curiosity, why post racist posts?

if it's bad enough to get you unquestionably banned from LRC, then it wasn't exactly grey area material...

why bother wrote:

out of curiosity, why post racist posts?

if it's bad enough to get you unquestionably banned from LRC, then it wasn't exactly grey area material...

Because he is a racist. He posts here to find fellowship with other racists.

Wrong. That's the list of reasons why a decision may be appealed to SFT in the first place. Whether or not the decision can be overturned (e.g. versus remanded) is a different matter.

But there's is a sixth (vi) possibility. Cf. the CAS commentary.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Could the IAAF just ignore the ruling and say, "You don't have jurisdiction over us.?"

Clearly if a Russian court just reinstated all of the Russian dopers, the IAAF would ignore it and not send events there. Can the IAAF due that here?

Yes, of course the IAAF can ignore it.

This issue is up to the IAAF to decide, period, not a court in some random country.

This is nothing new.

He's always been able to run and compete as a Y chromosome male without lowering his testosterone.

However, thanks to the IAAF finally coming to it's senses, he is no longer allowed to compete in women's events.

It is not a random court. It is the court iaaf has agreed has authority. It is either a system like this or one in which any country in which IAAF has any interests will subhect it to their own courts. So they could face Semenya in a South African court. And American courts for issues with American athletes. Etc.

don't bother sending email wrote:

Umm, basics here.

IAAF by its Constitution allows appeals to the CAS.

CAS by its Constitution allows appeals to the Swiss Federal Court.

What's not to understand?

We are talking about Letsrun here...easier to throw bombs than to actually learn something or take a few minutes to Google.

dunes runner wrote:

This is nothing new.

She's always been able to run and compete as a Y chromosome female without lowering her testosterone.

However, thanks to the IAAF finally coming to its senses, she is no longer allowed to compete in women's events.

*She.

You are not cute nor funny. Have some respect for this woman who is simply trying to compete. What any of us would be doing.

What Dwightarm really meant to say wrote:

*He.

You are exactly correct. I have respect for men who are simply trying to compete.

But I don't respect a Y chromosome man who's cheating by competing in women's events

I wouldn't really consider 396 an avenue of appeal. It's a relief from judgment tool, comparable to FRCP 60.

When LRC has spent months holding itself out as an expert source on the issue and yet misses the basics.

This sort of understanding of jurisdiction is a 15min discussion in a second-year university course,* and your missing it should be a huge red flag to your followers.

*sit in some time; you might learn something.

The Frankfurt School wrote:

When LRC has spent months holding itself out as an expert source on the issue and yet misses the basics.

This sort of understanding of jurisdiction is a 15min discussion in a second-year university course,* and your missing it should be a huge red flag to your followers.

*sit in some time; you might learn something.

Exactly. Letsrun likes to pretend they are sports journalists but it reality they are lazy writers. They mostly rewrite press release, watch events on tv and write them up or chase wild conspiracy theory stories.

But the fact is they can’t even do basic research and rely on the boards Heck even Gault is so inexperienced it’s laughable

tartarm wrote:

The Frankfurt School wrote:

When LRC has spent months holding itself out as an expert source on the issue and yet misses the basics.

This sort of understanding of jurisdiction is a 15min discussion in a second-year university course,* and your missing it should be a huge red flag to your followers.

*sit in some time; you might learn something.

Exactly. Letsrun likes to pretend they are sports journalists but it reality they are lazy writers. They mostly rewrite press release, watch events on tv and write them up or chase wild conspiracy theory stories.

But the fact is they can’t even do basic research and rely on the boards Heck even Gault is so inexperienced it’s laughable

Whoa now. Did you folks not hear that rojo’s Semenya article went ViRaL WoRlDwIdE?! Therefore, he is obvously above reproach on this issue.