The Battle over the Osaka Ruling / Daniel Gandert. – (International Sports Law Journal (2012) 1-2 : p. 111-122)
Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) Background Relating to the Osaka Rule
3.) The Need for Strict, Uniform Anti-Doping Rules
4.) The Prescribed Penalties for Doping Under the World Anti-Doping Code
5.) CAS and the Principle of Proportionality
5.1.) The History of Proportionality
5.2.) The Legal Requirement for Proportionality
6.) Cases under the Osaka Rule
6.1.) Jessica Hardy’s Case
6.2.) LaShawn Merritt’s Case
6.3.) CAS Reaches Decision Regarding the Osaka Rule
6.4.) The Effect of the CAS Decision on the Osaka Rule
7.) Conclusion
The IOC’s Osaka Rule prohibited any athlete with a doping suspension of greater than six months from competing in the next Olympic Games, even for cases where the athlete’s suspension has already been completed. In October of 2011, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) invalidated the Osaka Rule which prevented athletes who committed a doping offence inadvertently from receiving disproportionately harsh consequences relative to their violation.
The first part of this article will describe the background relating to the Osaka Rule. The second part article will describe the system in place to prevent doping. The third part will discuss the principle of proportionality.
First, the history of the principle in CAS jurisprudence will be discussed through a description of important cases. Second, the importance of proportionality will be explained. The fourth part will
describe the three cases dealing with the Osaka rule as well as the impact of these cases on the Olympic World.
