Category Archives: Arbitration

IAAF SUBMITS RESPONSE TO SWISS FEDERAL TRIBUNAL

The IAAF today submitted its response on provisional measures to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), explaining why its DSD regulations should remain in force during an appeal by a single athlete (the appellant) following a “superprovisional order” issued by the SFT and received by the IAAF on 4 June 2019.

The IAAF has specifically requested:

Reversal of the order to the IAAF to super-provisionally suspend the implementation of the DSD Regulations in respect of the appellant.

Dismissal of the appellant’s application to suspend the implementation of the DSD Regulations in respect of the appellant pending the outcome of the appeal.

The IAAF fully respects each individual’s personal dignity and supports the social movement to have people accepted in society based on their chosen legal sex and/or gender identity. However, it is also committed to female athletes having the same opportunities as male athletes to benefit from athletics, be that as elite female athletes participating in fair and meaningful competition, as young girls developing life and sport skills, or as administrators or officials.

© IAAF

This requires a protected category for females where eligibility is based on biology and not on gender identity. This crucial point was accepted and emphasised by the CAS in its 30 April 2019 decision to uphold the DSD Regulations. To define the category based on something other than biology would be category defeating and would deter many girls around the world from choosing competitive and elite sport after puberty.

The IAAF will continue to defend its DSD Regulations and the CAS Award in the appeal proceedings before the SFT, because it continues to believe in equal rights and opportunities for all women and girls in our sport today and in the future.

IAAF

IAAF RESPONSE TO SWISS FEDERAL TRIBUNAL ORDER REGARDING DSD REGULATIONS

The IAAF received today (15:00 CET) from the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) a “superprovisional order” instructing the IAAF to suspend the application of its DSD Regulations as they apply to the appellant. No other athlete is covered by the order. As of this date, the order is scheduled to remain in force only until 25 June 2019, the time the SFT has given the IAAF to respond to the appellant’s case.

The SFT ‘s decision was “ex parte” meaning that it was requested and issued without the IAAF’s knowledge. The IAAF did not receive appellant’s filings or the order until today so has not had the chance to explain why the DSD Regulations should remain in force and applicable to all affected athletes while the appeal is pending.

The IAAF will continue to fight for equal rights and opportunities for all women and girls in our sport today and in the future.

The IAAF is committed to the full participation of women in the sport of athletics, be that as elite female athletes in fair and meaningful competition, as young girls developing life and sport skills, or as administrators or officials. Regrettably, it was not so long ago that women were not permitted to compete in sport at all. There is a lot of work to be done, but we are at the forefront of that work, including being one of the only international sports federations to pay women and men equal prize money.

The IAAF fully respects each individual’s personal dignity and supports the social movement to have people accepted in society based on their chosen legal sex and/or gender identity.

However, the IAAF is convinced there are some contexts, sport being one of them, where biology has to trump identity.

© iaaf.org

The IAAF also believes the right to participate in sport does not translate to a right to self-identify into a competition category or an event, or to insist on inclusion in a preferred event, or to win in a particular event, without regard to the legitimate rules of the sport or the criteria for entry. It is legitimate for all sport in general, and for the IAAF in particular, to create a protected category for females and to base eligibility for this category on biology and not on gender identity. This crucial point was accepted and emphasized by the CAS in its 30 April 2019 decision to uphold the DSD Regulations. To define the category based on something other than biology would be category defeating and would deter many girls around the world from choosing competitive and elite sport after puberty.

The IAAF considers that the DSD Regulations are a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of protecting fair and meaningful competition in elite female athletics, and the CAS agreed.

The IAAF will seek a swift reversion of the superprovisional order moving forwards so that the DSD Regulations apply to all affected athletes in order (among other things) to avoid serious confusion amongst athletes and event organisers and to protect the integrity of the sport. In due course, the IAAF will defend its DSD Regulations and the CAS Award in the appeal proceedings before the SFT.

IAAF

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) UPHOLDS THE APPEAL FILED BY PARIS SAINT-GERMAIN

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued its decision in the appeal arbitration procedure between the French football club Paris Saint-Germain Football SASP (Paris Saint-Germain) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).

The appeal filed at the CAS on 3 October 2018 by Paris Saint-Germain against the decision issued on 19 September 2018 by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) (the Challenged
Decision) is upheld and the Challenged decision is set aside.

The decision issued on 13 June 2018 by the Investigatory Chamber of the UEFA CFCB in which the
investigation into Paris Saint-Germain’s compliance with the UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations
was closed is thus final and binding.

On 22 Junend 2018, the Chairman of the UEFA CFCB, on the basis of Article 16 (1) of the UEFA CFCB
Procedural Rules (the Applicable Rules), ordered that the Adjudicatory Chamber review the decision
taken by the Investigatory Chamber on 13 June 2018.

The Adjudicatory Chamber ruled on 19 September 2018 that the case should be referred back to the Investigatory Chamber for further investigation. On 3 October 2018, Paris Saint-Germain filed an appeal at the CAS seeking to have such decision annulled on the basis that Article 16 (1) provided for a 10-day review period during which any review should be instigated and completed and that the Challenged Decision was manifestly late.

The CAS Panel in charge of the matter issued its decision on the basis of the parties’ written submissions. The CAS Panel concurred that the 10-day time limit which starts to run from the date of communication of the decision of the Chief Investigator to the CFCB Chairman, as set out in Article 16 (1) of the Applicable Rules, did indeed mean that the review conducted by the Adjudicatory Chamber should have taken place within ten days and that since the Challenged Decision was issued beyond the 10-day time limit, the Challenged Decision was untimely and must be annulled.

IRFAN ANSARI BANNED FROM ALL CRICKET FOR 10 YEARS

Irfan Ansari has been banned from all cricket for 10 years after the ICC Anti-Corruption Tribunal found him guilty of breaching three counts of the ICC Anti-Corruption Code.

During the hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence that Mr Ansari approached Pakistan captain Sarfaraz Ahmed during the Pakistan series with Sri Lanka in the UAE in October 2017 with a view to engaging him in corrupt conduct by soliciting information from him. Mr Ahmed reported the approach immediately and an ICC ACU investigation ensued which resulted in these charges and decision.

Mr Ansari is bound by the code as a result of his affiliation to the Pakistan cricket team and also as a result of being a coach to two teams that participate in domestic matches in the UAE.

Irfan Ansari

He was found guilty of the following three offences under the Code:

Article 2.3.3 – directly soliciting, inducing, enticing or encouraging a participant to breach the Code Article 2.3.2 by disclosing inside information.

Article 2.4.6 – failure or refusal to cooperate with the ACU’s investigation by failing to provide accurately and completely the information and / or documentation requested by the ACU in October 2017. This included a request by the ICC ACU to take possession of and/or copy or download information from his mobile devices.

Article 2.4.6 – failure or refusal to cooperate with the ACU’s investigation by failing to provide accurately and completely the information and / or documentation requested by the ACU in February 2018. Again this included a request by the ICC ACU to take possession of and/or copy or download information from his mobile devices.

Alex Marshall, ICC General Manager – ACU said: “I’d like to place on record my thanks to Sarfaraz Ahmed who showed true leadership and professionalism from the moment he reported this approach. He recognised it for what it was, rejected it and reported it. He then supported our investigation and subsequent tribunal.

“This is the first time we have prosecuted for failure to cooperate with an investigation since the new rules enabling us to demand the participants hand over their phone for examination and the sanction reflects the seriousness of the offence. It is an important tool to aid our investigations and continue in our efforts to rid the sport of these corrupters.

CAS DISMISSES IBRAHIM APPEAL

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed Karim Ibrahim’s appeal against the IAAF decision last year to remove him from the IAAF Council.

In a decision last August, the IAAF Vetting Panel found Ibrahim was not eligible (within the meaning of the IAAF Constitution and IAAF Vetting Rules) to hold office as a Council Member.

In dismissing Ibrahim’s appeal, the CAS Sole Arbitrator Murray Rosen QC found that: “The Vetting Panel was fully entitled to find that Mr Ibrahim was not Eligible and there was nothing unfair about the process and result of its investigation to that effect.”

He further determined: “The Appellant failed to satisfy the Integrity Check and also failed to meet his disclosure obligations”.

The CAS ruled that Ibrahim should pay the costs of the appeal process and further ordered him to pay CHF 4000 (four thousand Swiss Francs) to the IAAF as a contribution toward its legal and other costs incurred in connection with the case. The full CAS decision can be found here.

Vetting Panel update
New Zealander Don Mackinnon was appointed as chairman of the Vetting Panel at the IAAF Council in December, after serving as acting chairman from November 2018.

Mackinnon is managing partner of a boutique law practice in New Zealand and has extensive experience working in the governance of different sports, including rugby union, rugby league, cricket and netball. He currently chairs a number of appointment panels in sport and was recently appointed Chair of the professional rugby union club, The Blues.

Namibia’s Esi Schimming-Chase has recently been appointed to the panel, joining original members Mackinnon and Professor Mark Pieth, founder and Chair of the Basel Institute on Governance.

Schimming-Chase is a Senior Counsel of the High Court of Namibia who specialises in constitutional litigation, arbitration and mediation. The first female Advocate in her country to be appointed as Acting Judge of the High Court, Schimming-Chase is the Chair of the Council of the Namibian University of Science and Technology and has been a Council Member of the Law Society of Namibia since 2005.

Founded in 2017, the Vetting Panel is an independent group of experts appointed to oversee and assess the eligibility of new and existing officials being put forward for IAAF roles.

The Vetting Panel’s next order of business will be the review of candidates nominated to serve on the Nominations Panel.

IAAF

SRI LANKA COACH CHARGED UNDER ICC ANTI-CORRUPTION CODE

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has charged Sri Lankan bowling coach Nuwan Zoysa with three counts of breaching the ICC Anti-Corruption Code. Mr Zoysa has been provisionally suspended with immediate effect. The charges are as follows:

1. Article 2.1.1 – being party to an effort to fix or contrive or to otherwise influence improperly the result, progress, conduct or other aspect of an International match.

2. Article 2.1.4 – directly soliciting, inducing, enticing or encouraging a player to breach Code Article 2.1.1.

3. Article 2.4.4 – failing to disclose to the ICC’s Anti-Corruption Unit full details of any approaches or invitations he received to engage in corrupt conduct under the Code.

Mr Zoysa has 14 days from 1 November 2018 to respond to the charges. The ICC will not make any further comment in respect of these charges at this stage.

Lagos SWAN Suspends Three Members Indefinitely

The Executive Committee of the Lagos State Sports Writers Association (Lagos SWAN) has suspended three members for bringing the association’s name to disrepute.

The suspended members are; Mr Ayo Ojedokun, Mr. Ifeanyi Eduzor and Mr. Francis Ajumona.

The suspension is in line with the findings of the disciplinary committee report on Anti Association’ Activities leveled against the trio by the Congress of Lagos SWAN at its last meeting.

According to allegations against the trio who tagged themselves as “Concerned Members of Lagos SWAN”, they have continuously painted Lagos SWAN as a disunited body and brought the office of its Chairman to disrepute.

The committee headed by seasoned sports journalist, Mr. Femi Solaja was set up by Lagos SWAN Congress on Friday 31st August, 2018 to investigate the allegations and make recommendations.

After review of available evidence and cross examination of the accused persons, the trio were found guilty of Anti Association activities.

The committee recommended that they should tender a public apology to the office of the Chairman, Lagos SWAN for defamation of character.

They were also mandated to apologize to the Lagos SWAN Body (Congress) for dragging internal matters to the public domain without recourse to the elders of the Association especially former Chairmen of the chapters like Comrades Tony Ubani, Niyi Oyeleke and Fred Edoreh.

The committee said failure to comply with their recommendations will be taken as a direct assault on the Congress which is the highest law making body of the chapter.

In view of their failure to comply, the Lagos SWAN exco deemed it expedient to suspend them indefinitely to serve as a deterrent to others.

Here are the committee’s findings:

A) The trio, during interrogation expressed remorse for some of their actions towards the State Chapter despite the fact that all their actions painted Lagos SWAN as a disunited body with their ‘Concerned Members of Lagos SWAN’ tag.

B) It was also established that the trio’s petitions may have been the handy work of a ‘Third Party’ working against the Lagos Chapter as presently constituted. Although they denied this posture.

C) It was also established that their latest memo to the National body painted Comrade Osundun with uncomplimentary remarks as an unproductive leader.

VERDICT

I) The trio are to officially apologize to the Chairman Lagos SWAN for defamation of character as stated in the memos sent on digital media.

II) The trio are to apologize to the Lagos SWAN Body (Congress) for dragging internal matters to the public domain without bringing it first to the notice of the elders especially former Chairmen of the chapters like Comrades Tony Ubani, Niyi Oyeleke and Fred Edoreh.