000			03159nam a2200433Ii 4500
001			9781787437531
003			UtOrBLW
005			20210303084915.0
006			m o d
007			cr un|||||||||
008			180917s2018 enk ob 001 0 eng d
020			_a9781787437531 (e-book)
040			_aUtOrBLW _beng _erda _cUtOrBLW
050		4	_aK3702 _b.L46 2018
072		7	_aLNTX _2bicssc
072		7	_aLAW084000 _2bisacsh
080			_a344
082	0	4	_a344.099 _223
100	1		_aLenskyj, Helen, _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aGender, athletes rights, and the court of arbitration for sport / _cHelen Jefferson Lenskyj (University of Toronto, Canada).
264		1	_bEmerald Publishing Limited,
300			_a1 online resource (xi, 222 pages) ; _ccm.
490	0		_aEmerald studies in sport and gender
500			_aIncludes index.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references.
520			_aDisputes 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 is a quasi-court that 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 self-regulating, with disputes settled by specialist arbitrators. These arguments 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 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 sportsmen and women, reflect numerous injustices. As well as the chronic problem of CAS's lack of independence, other issues examined here include confidential proceedings, lex sportiva, the non-precedential system, the closed list of specialist arbitrators, and, in doping cases, the burden of proof question.
588	0		_aPrint version record
610	2	0	_aCourt of Arbitration for Sport.
610	2	0	_aCourt of Arbitration for Sport. _bAd Hoc Division.
650		0	_aSports _xLaw and legislation.
650		7	_aLaw, Sports. _2bisacsh
650		7	_aLicensing, gaming & club law. _2bicssc
776			_z9781787542402
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/doi/10.1108/9781787437531
999			_c30027 _d30027