Abstract
In the Spring 2003 issue of Entertainment Law Ken Foster 1 wrote of the distinction between ‘international sports law’ and ‘global sports law’, with the latter connoting immunity from national law that ‘international sports law’ does not purport to possess. In his introduction to that article, Foster wrote briefly of the litigation between the International Amateur Athletic Federation (hereafter IAAF) and Harry (‘Butch’) Reynolds, the American track athlete who failed an IAAF doping test in the early 1990s and was banned as a consequence. Foster used that case as an example of governing bodies’ response to the possibility of the ‘ordinary’ courts intervening in their disciplinary processes, citing the words of IAAF luminary Arne Ljundqvist. In the course of the litigation Ljundqvist famously stated that ‘the Courts create a lot of problems for our anti-doping work, but we don’t care in the least what they say. We have our rules and they are supreme.
Highlights
In the Spring 2003 issue of Entertainment Law Ken Foster[1] wrote of the distinction between ‘international sports law’ and ‘global sports law’, with the latter connoting immunity from national law that ‘international sports law’ does not purport to possess
Rule 59 of the IAAF Rules[3] afforded Reynolds the right to a review hearing concerning his positive test, and under the rules as drafted at that time his suspension should have been stayed once he announced his intention to appeal and pending the outcome of that hearing
In addition to asserting a violation of rule 59, Reynolds claimed the defendants had ‘failed to produce certain information vital for him to properly prepare for the hearing and that the decision with respect to eligibility had been predetermined and the hearing was a sham’.5. He alleged they had violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by suspending him before the hearing took place; that the IAAF and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had breached their contract with him regarding his participation in amateur athletics; that by improperly suspending him they had tortiously interfered with his business relationships; and that they intentionally and maliciously disclosed to the media that he had tested positive for nandrolone.[6]
Summary
In the Spring 2003 issue of Entertainment Law Ken Foster[1] wrote of the distinction between ‘international sports law’ and ‘global sports law’, with the latter connoting immunity from national law that ‘international sports law’ does not purport to possess. In his introduction to that article, Foster wrote briefly of the litigation between the International Amateur Athletic Federation (hereafter IAAF) and Harry (‘Butch’) Reynolds, the American track athlete who failed an IAAF doping test in the early 1990s and was banned as a consequence. Entertainment Law, Vol.[2], No., Summer 2003, pp.[90–97] PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
