Park Tae-Hwan Case Revisited
1. Case summary
1) Mr. Park was sanctioned for positive from doping test by WADA for eighteen months
Park Tae-Hwan was sanctioned by WADA after testing positive for testosterone of doping test for eighteen months . After retroactive ban on participation in any FINA-sanctioning events starting from September 2014, Korean Sport and Olympic Committee (KSOC ) has a rule that ‘athlete who has served doping suspensions from representing the country for three years from the day their suspension ends ’. He tried to qualify one of national team member to go to Rio 2016 but after the ban on participation lifted in March 2016, he was not allowed to try. KSOC’s ban was supposed to be until 2019.
2) His record was qualified …show more content…
‘Commission for Fair Play in Sport’ is really ‘fair’ to protect athlete’s right?
1) Mediation or arbitration institution enacted in By-laws but no such resolution body
The decision to be submitted to CAS must be final from domestic organization. The final decision of the Commission for Fair Play in Sport whether to apply rules or to interpret the rules to athlete must be pre-arbitral step to settle. KSOC named this pre-arbitral procedure as “Commission of Fair Play in Sport” based on Art. 65 of its By-laws to facilitate “mediation or arbitration” of that Art. 65 in 21st of March, 2016 and current rule is lately amended in 19th July, 2016. The Commission’s decision is substantial in domestic sports disputes in two reasons:
First, only final decision from this Commission can be referred to CAS
Second, without CAS procedure, this is de facto dispute resolution system, although its operation has neither mediational nor arbitral characteristic.
Most of the decision from this Commission are related to disciplinary measures toward officials and athletes. From the perspective of athletes, sometimes the decision from this Commission is fatal, because the sanctioned athletes might finish their athletes’ …show more content…
Fifteen members including one Chairperson and Vice-Chair up to three are required as either, lawyer, legal scholar with at least five-year experience or a personnel with more than ten-year experiences in sport. There is no secure way for athlete in probe by the Commission to choose his ‘arbitrator’ or to be fully evaluated by member with athletic background . Athlete can appeal to the Commission but, the opposite side has more political influence to the Commission through either amending the concurrent rule or getting more vote against athlete. The only method for athlete’s side to question the neutrality of the member is to challenge
1. Case summary
1) Mr. Park was sanctioned for positive from doping test by WADA for eighteen months
Park Tae-Hwan was sanctioned by WADA after testing positive for testosterone of doping test for eighteen months . After retroactive ban on participation in any FINA-sanctioning events starting from September 2014, Korean Sport and Olympic Committee (KSOC ) has a rule that ‘athlete who has served doping suspensions from representing the country for three years from the day their suspension ends ’. He tried to qualify one of national team member to go to Rio 2016 but after the ban on participation lifted in March 2016, he was not allowed to try. KSOC’s ban was supposed to be until 2019.
2) His record was qualified …show more content…
‘Commission for Fair Play in Sport’ is really ‘fair’ to protect athlete’s right?
1) Mediation or arbitration institution enacted in By-laws but no such resolution body
The decision to be submitted to CAS must be final from domestic organization. The final decision of the Commission for Fair Play in Sport whether to apply rules or to interpret the rules to athlete must be pre-arbitral step to settle. KSOC named this pre-arbitral procedure as “Commission of Fair Play in Sport” based on Art. 65 of its By-laws to facilitate “mediation or arbitration” of that Art. 65 in 21st of March, 2016 and current rule is lately amended in 19th July, 2016. The Commission’s decision is substantial in domestic sports disputes in two reasons:
First, only final decision from this Commission can be referred to CAS
Second, without CAS procedure, this is de facto dispute resolution system, although its operation has neither mediational nor arbitral characteristic.
Most of the decision from this Commission are related to disciplinary measures toward officials and athletes. From the perspective of athletes, sometimes the decision from this Commission is fatal, because the sanctioned athletes might finish their athletes’ …show more content…
Fifteen members including one Chairperson and Vice-Chair up to three are required as either, lawyer, legal scholar with at least five-year experience or a personnel with more than ten-year experiences in sport. There is no secure way for athlete in probe by the Commission to choose his ‘arbitrator’ or to be fully evaluated by member with athletic background . Athlete can appeal to the Commission but, the opposite side has more political influence to the Commission through either amending the concurrent rule or getting more vote against athlete. The only method for athlete’s side to question the neutrality of the member is to challenge