Gender, athletes' rights, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport / by Helen Jefferson Lenskyj.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Online resource; title from PDF title page (EBSCO, viewed September 20, 2018).

Introduction. I.1. The Court of Arbitration for Sport -- I.2. Sports Law: Global Impacts -- I.3. Methodology -- Part I. Chapter 1. Sports Law and the Court of Arbitration for Sport -- 1.1. Sports, Law, Politics -- 1.2. Alternative Dispute Resolution -- 1.2.1. ADR: A Feminist Alternative? -- 1.3. International Disputes: (Forced) Arbitration or Litigation? -- 1.4. IOC and CAS: Governance Issues -- 1.5. CAS Jurisdiction: Why? How? -- 1.6. A New Leaf? 1994 CAS Reforms -- 1.7. Repeat Parties -- SGBs and Sports Lawyers -- 1.8. Conclusion -- Chapter 2. CAS and Sport Exceptionalism. 2.1. Alternative Dispute Resolution and Confidentiality -- 2.2. Contribution to the Development of Law -- 2.3. The Costs Issue -- 2.4. Olympic Charter vs National Courts -- 2.5. CAS's Closed List Problem -- 2.6. Sport Autonomy and Sport Specificity Challenged -- 2.6.1. Impartiality: SFT Appeals -- 2.6.2. Benfica and Matuzalem -- 2.7. Sport Exceptionalism and EU Law; -- 2.8. Conclusion -- Part II. Chapter 3. The War on Doping. 3.1. Nationalism -- 3.2. Global Anti-doping Efforts -- 3.3. Anti-doping Discourse -- 3.4. Legalized Doping? -- 3.5. Low Detection, High Surveillance -- 3.6. Strict Liability and the Criminalization of Doping -- 3.7. WADA Code: More Effective, More Intrusive -- 3.8. Second Chances or Life Bans? -- 3.9. Anti-doping Agencies and Governance Problems -- 3.10. Five Women, Five CAS Doping Decisions -- 3.11. Unresolved: Claudia Pechstein -- 3.12. The Russian Doping Controversy -- 3.12.1. IAAF vs Anna Pyatykh and RUSAF -- 3.12.2. CAS vs Oswald -- 3.13. Conclusion -- Chapter 4. Doping, Genes, and Gender. 4.1. Gender Policing -- 4.2. The T Word: Testosterone -- 4.3. Hyperandrogenism -- 4.3.1. A 'Retrospective Clinical Study' and Its Victims -- 4.3.2. Dutee Chand -- 4.4. Quantifying the Unquantifiable -- 4.5. Transgender Policies -- 4.5.1. Kristen Worley -- 4.6. 'Objective Science'? -- 4.7. T/E Tests and Racialized Men -- 4.8. Testosterone: Media Conspiracy Theories -- 4.9. 'Disrepute' Charges -- 4.9.1. Ross Rebagliati -- 4.10. Disrepute and Criminality: Some Australian Examples -- 4.11. Role Models, 'Race'/Ethnicity, and Gender -- 4.12. Conclusion -- Conclusion, 5.1. Reform or Revolution? -- 5.2. An End to Sport Exceptionalism.

This book presents an interdisciplinary approach to examining gender-related sports dispute resolution by the Court of Arbitration. Identifying complexities around gender, gender binaries, and the ways in which intersecting identities complicate resolutions, the author demonstrate how athletes' rights are threatened by a forced arbitration process.

"Disputes over gender, doping, and eligibility in Olympic sport are widely covered in sport studies and in the mainstream media. Less well known are the functions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and the threat it poses to athletes'rights by depriving them of access to their own countries'court systems. CAS loosely follows the model of international arbitration tribunals. As in forced arbitration outside of sport, employees - in this case, high performance athletes - sign contracts agreeing to arbitration rather than litigation as the sole means of dispute resolution. Promoting the concept of sport exceptionalism, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) justifies the power it exercises through CAS by claiming that sport must be autonomous and self-regulating, with disputes settled by specialist arbitrators. Arguments in support of this position point to lex sportiva (global sports law) as a valid legal principle in sport-related disputes, which, it is claimed, cannot be understood or resolved by non-specialists. Self-regulation works effectively to protect the Olympic industry brand by keeping disputes 'in the family'. This critical analysis of CAS's history and functions demonstrates how athletes'rights are threatened by the forced arbitration process at CAS. In particular, CAS decisions involving female and gender-variant athletes, and racialized men and women, reflect numerous injustices. As well as the chronic problem of CAS's lack of independence, other issues examined here include confidentiality, lex sportiva, non-precedential awards, the closed list of specialist arbitrators, and, in doping cases, questions concerning strict liability and burden of proof."--Provided by publisher

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide