Steve Cornelius

CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v IAAF

The appellant in this award is Oscar Pistorius, a professional athlete from South Africa competing internationally in 100, 200 and 400 m sprints. The respondent, the International Association of Athletics Federations (the “IAAF”), governs the sport of athletics throughout the world. Broadly, the dispute concerned the eligibility of an athlete with disabilities to compete in IAAF-sanctioned events alongside able-bodied athlete. More specifically, in this arbitration, Mr Pistorius appealed Decision No. 2008/01 of the IAAF Council dated 14 January 2008 which held that the “Cheetah” prosthetic legs worn by Pistorius, who has been a double amputee since he was eleven months old, constituted a technical device and provided him with an advantage over an able-bodied athlete in violation of IAAF Competition Rule 144.2(e). At the material time, IAAF Rule 144.2(e) stated that “For the purposes of this Rule, the following shall be considered assistance, and are therefore not allowed:…(e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels, or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device”. The appeal centred principally on whether there was sufficient evidence of any metabolic advantage in favour of a disabled athlete. The appellant argued successfully that (a) due to the fact that he used the same oxygen amounts as able-bodied runners at a sub-maximal running speed and (b) there was no evidence that the biomechanical effects of using his particular prosthetic device gave him an advantage over other athletes not using the device; he, as a disabled athlete, should not have been banned from competeing in international IAAF-sanctioned events alongside able-bodied athlete. The CAS Panel held that there were glaring due process flaws in the process that led to the decision by the IAAF Council to ban Pistorius from IAAF-sanctioned events alongside able-bodies athletes. It further held that when it related to the eligibility of an athlete to participate, convincing scientific proof was required to show that the athlete gained an unfair overall net competitive advantage over other athletes. A secondary element to the appeal was the CAS Panel’s holding that where an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport does not concern any disciplinary element, it is not the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard applicable in criminal cases which is applicable nor can it be any of the possible intermediate standards that are discussed from time to time in connection with the disciplinary processes, e.g. the “comfortable satisfaction” approach. In such a case, the applicable standard is the “balance of probability”.

Gambling and Sport in South Africa

This book looks at Law and the Policy on Betting and Sport in many countries around the world—sport is a global phenomenon—providing a very useful and valuable comparative survey on a subject that is so vital for safeguarding and preserving the integrity of those sports in which betting is legally allowed. The country reports show how sports-related betting is organized in the country concerned, also from a historical and policy perspective (national Lotteries Act; state run/state licensed lotteries and/or private operators; how the licensing system for public operators works; state supervisory mechanisms, etc.), and contain a treatment of the national case law.