The CAS AD Hoc Division at the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin / Andreas K. Zagklis. – (International Sports Law Journal (2006) 3-4 : p. 47-57)
Content:
Introduction
1.) Summary of cases
1.1. CAS OG 06/001 [WADA v/ USADA, USBSF & Lund]
1.2. CAS OG 06/002 [Schuler v/ Swiss Olympic Association]
1.3. CAS JO 06/003 [Azzimani v/ Comité National Olympique Marocain]
1.4. CAS OG 06/004 [Deutscher Skiverband & Sachenbacher-Stehle v/ FIS]
1.5. CAS OG 06/005 & 06/007 [Abernathy v/ FIL]
1.6. CAS OG 06/006 [Canadian Olympic Committee v/ ISU]
1.7. CAS OG 06/008 [Dal Balcon v/ CONI & Federazione Italiana Sport Invernali]
1.8. CAS OG 06/009 [B. v/ IOC]
1.9. CAS OG 06/010 [Australian Olympic Committee v/ FIBT]
2.) Analysis
2.1.) Procedure
2.1.a.) Application
2.1.b.) Sole Arbitrator
2.1.c.) Hearing
2.1.d.) Award
2.2.) Legal Issues
2.2.1.) Jurisdiction
2.2.2.) Doping
2.2.3.) Selection and Qualification
Conclusion
The experience of three Summer Olympics and another three Winter Olympics of the CAS AHD has rewarded the Court with priceless know-how. In addition, the average of almost nine cases per Olympiad shows that the CAS AHD is now a conditio sine qua non for the successful organisation of the major sporting event in the world. Every two years the CAS attempts to succeed in its own
“triathlon” (fair - fast - free), which, above all, requires a unique balance between the speed of the procedures (24h) and the quality of the justice served (fairness in sport). The CAS AHD in Turin was another example of flexible procedures, always at the disposal of the Olympic Movement, and consistent jurisprudence. The road to Beijing is now open for legal debates on how the role of the CAS AHD can evolve in its second decade of life. In the author’s opinion, given the high stakes that the participation in the Olympics entails, the selection / qualification disputes will be the nucleus of the CAS AHD jurisprudence in the near future.
