Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Global Athlete
Global Athlete

Episode 9 · 4 months ago

Court of Arbitration for Sport with Dr. Antoine Duval

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Dr. Antoine Duval sheds light on the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and how much restructuring is needed for athletes to have better representation in the world of international sport. 

In this episode, we talk about…

  • An overview of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and its general mission
  • How athletes competing at the international level provide a strongly influenced consent to arbitration 
  • The issues of transparency and independence at CAS and why it needs to be fundamentally reshaped 
  • How the appeals process works in CAS and examples of high profile cases
  • Case disputes between an Olympic host city and the International Olympic Committee  
  • The burden of proof athletes bear to get a favorable decision from CAS and reverse anti-doping bans 
  • What a better structure for CAS might look like in the future 

Memorable Quotes:

  • “...it became quite clear to sports governing bodies at the international level, that trying to insulate themselves as much as possible from national courts, and European courts, was a necessity to protect their regulatory monopoly…” 
  • "We have no idea how much money is coming in, how much money is coming out, where it’s going, we don't even know how many people are employed. We don't even know, on a yearly basis, how many cases are decided...we know very little about the institution.”
  • “I'm just saying that we should be sure that the people that are taking those decisions are dependent and have accountability towards those that are affected by the system...the process...needs to be transparent, needs to be visible to all it needs to lead to a global discussion about this issue.”

Guest Bio:

Antoine Duval coordinates the research strand on advancing public interests in international and European law. He is a Senior Researcher at the Asser Instituut since February 2014 and defended his PhD at the European University Institute in Florence in September 2015. His thesis dealt with the legal interaction between the Lex Sportiva (the private regulations governing international sports) and EU Law. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of the ASSER International Sports Law Blog, founder and editor of the Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration, and a member of the editorial board of the International Sports Law Journal and International Sports Law book Series of Asser Press. His research focuses on the role of private actors in transnational law, using the lex sportiva as his main case study.

Links to Resources:

Court of Arbitration for Sport: www.tas-cas.org 

Follow Antoine on Twitter @Ant1Duval and follow Global Athlete @GlobalAthleteHQ. Get in touch a t hello@globalathlete.org and join the movement at globalathlete.org

Welcome to the Global Athlete podcastconversations about power, accountability and Athlete Rights ininternational sport. I'm Noah Hoffman. This episode we are talking about theCourt of Arbitration for Sport, otherwise known as CAS. We are joinedby Antoine Duval, a senior researcher at Holland Asser Institute and anexpert in Sport Law. Antoin has written extensively about CAS, including arecent article in the UK's Daily Mail. Antoine Duval, welcome to the globalAthlete podcast. Well, welcome to us, thank you for inviting me. Wehave you on to talk about the Court of Arbitration for Sport, otherwise knownas CAS. You wrote a great piece on it in June and we and you're an expert onit in terms of studying institutional structure of sport and in other things as well. Butcan you start by giving an overview of the Court of Arbitration for Sport? When wasit formed? How was it formed and what is its general mission? Sure I mean thecourt dates back to the mid 80's Actually, it's quite old in its idea, and it wasan idea that was pitched back then by someone called Kiban Bai who was an IOCmember, but also a member of the International Court of Justice which isbased in the Hague and it was pitch to Hoantonio Samarang. Thethen IOC president, as a way basically to take disputes around internationalsports out of national courts. And at this time, especially out of Swiss courts, which are the naturalcourts of the associations that are located in Switzerland. So in particularthe IOC and also to some extent US courts whichwere hearing cases on or around the Olympic Games at the at the same time. So the idea ofthe original idea is to use arbitration to try to insulate the world ofinternational sports from a review from National Court. But actually inpractice, the CAS didn't really operate thatmuch until the mid end, nineties and and the psychological trigger, or whatactually raised the urgency to use CAS was in particular,under what is called the bossman case. The bossman decision of the thenEuropean Court of Justice, which made clear that even the big federations,like UEFA in this case, were not in immune from from review coming fromnational courts, but in that case, even European courts. And obviously the federation UEFA were was extremely disappointed by the results of the decision, whichwas quite negative for for the regulations in place and from there onit became and became, I think, quite clear to sports governing bodies atthe international level that trying to insulate themselves as muchas possible from national courts and European courts was a necessity toprotect their regulatory monopoly. like I mean kind of what is thejustification, the legal justification for not being subject to oversight bythe national courts. Well, that's where it gets really tricky, I mean...

...in theory, and if you are going into law school, that's what you will learn. Arbitrationis possible only if his consent by both parties to arbitrate a idea ofarbitration is that we have two grown ups that decide to forgo their right togo to national gods, because they think that a habitual code is more efficientand faster, cheaper, whatever you know, but they are grown ups and they decideto do that in some jurisdictions. You cannotarbitrate certain types of discrete in particular, you can never have betweencranon disputes, but you can arbitrate also Labor disperate. I saw I know thatin the US this is possible, for example, in Europe. It is not so in theory, the foundationalprinciple of arbitration, the core on the hurt is that it is possible only ifboth parties agree to feeling admit. Obviously, in sports there is a formalagreement in the sense that any party involved in international sportingcompetitions will sign something at one point to enter that competition. Itmight be a license, it might be just an entry form and in that form or in thatlicense, you may have a reference to an arbitration of cloth. So, formerly youas an AFEE, you must have signed dozens of those pans and each time formallyspeaking, you have consented to our betweein and that's how it has beeninterpreted, for example, by the Swiss cords and by the German courts as aform of valid consent, even if it was a very stormy influence consent. Why? Because,obviously, if you don't sign that form, you know get to participate. So in here it becomes tricking, and thelatest decision that we have is a very important ruling by the Eupen Court ofHuman Rights for action. He said. Well guys I mean whatever you say whateveryou sign, you sign under Jules in a way, and this can only be understood, is forStomich, and then it becomes a bit trickybecause first outat ion is really contrary to the ID and ideal of Tati and it can be justified and it has beenin a way justified by the eupen gooder human rights only on public interestrods. So here we are turning from arbitration, let's say to mandatoryJuistinian, because the fact that the cast has jurisdiction and monopoly ofjurisdiction over those disputes is scene of being in the public interestand what is often argued as that, and I think made some truth in it: a cunningof truth and that this is a way to preserve what what is called a levelplaying field to make sure that in pury in competitions, aaepe international, you have only one body. One quote thatyou timidly arbitrates adjudicates the interpretation of the MS andinsures, some type of consistency in that Agudat Ion and interpretation forall the participants in the practice of international sports. So that's how, atthis point I would say the best justification for the existence of catsis in its capacity to deliver to fulfill a public function inproviding global justice for in a Trans...

National Sector. Okay. So that's apretty good argument for cast, but in your Daily Mail piece in June, youargued the cast was not fit for purpose. So how has cast operated since Bosmanand yeah? Why it's cast failing if it has? If it has this place that you justdescribed, that could be a really valuable way to ensure a level playingfield. Well, I think I would distinguish twosense e, the justification for having achance and the type of cast that we have, and I think we should be so I'm in that piece, but also in other papers. I have written a personallystand on the same the reformist side. I believe that there are good reasons tohave something that looks like the case to have a global quart or sports, andit could be the case, but that, if it is to be that it needs to befundamentally reshape and that's what the piece was about. So I think this isthe next. Let's a step in the mismis after you recognize that you're notdealing with arbitration between consenting parties and you're, notreally dealing with arbitration that you're eeling with a dealing with afunctional equivalent of almost international justice and in between.If you want, then you also need to make sure that that call actuallyoperates in a way that is fitting its public purpose. And if you talk about public purpose,then you have to look at a number of issues which Ithink h at this pointing time extremely problematic, and that's what I tried tooutline in that article that touch upon. On the one hand, thetransparency of the CAST, so yea number of problem is the fact thatthis institution is extremely or pack and it's extremo back at vious, lemonsand the management level. We have no idea how much money is coming in how muchmoney is coming out. Where is it going? We don't even know how many people areemployment. We don't even know on a Yallas how many cases are decided by aso we know very little about the institution. This is not howa court that has a public function is supposed to offer institutionally at the management level,and then they are the issue new to the publicity of hearings. So at this point in time you can have a public hearing only in adisciplinin cases involving individual and if this individual requests ahearing, if not there is no public. Hang So, let's say: Let's Tak, who sator as Wade where there is a huge public interest. I mean this is exactly why wehave. We accept the chats. We accept men that do yentrance. It is becausethere's a huge public interest in making sure that you know fundamentalcrucial doping issue where we have a state based systematic system. I meansystem of of of systematic depine. This crucial hearing is held behind closedoor. That would never be the case in...

...an important case that is being played out beforeany other international court, so that that is as well extremelyproblema, and then there is a question of the provision of the decisions, soyou may be aware of the fact that so on the class website, you can find anumber of decisions. This is already more than you can find in a traditionalarbitral criminal, so traditionally in Abitation. But you have to rememberthose are two individual als that I signing people Tromtra, ING, they're grown ups and decide tobasically not pekehiah dispute from both sides and the decision is not published. But here we are again dealing with adifferent animal and if you compare it to national quotes or international cot,all their decisions are published in one way or another. Well, here it's not the case and infact they are very strange publication practices. So if you look at thewebsite of the cast, you can go into the database of the jurisprudents andthen you will see all the latest decisions we can. You can see thelatest decision released into the detales and in those latest decisionsyou merse decisions a day back ten years and it's very strange so why are theypublished now? There's no real, rational explanationfrom that. So there is a very strange practice also in terms of publicationsof the decision and finally, final aspect: In terms of publicity, the cans is controlled by a body calledI cast in the national consinor small Tametsi, and that council is extreme, your backas well. We have never seen any minutes. I mean compared to the cast. Water is asuper transparant. You can download all the minutes of the Executive Board of the formation and the foundation boards.I mean you have access to so much compared to to to what's happening with the catsand that's an extreme, a big issue, because the cast place of extremelyimportant war in the system of Lorma Gomen an so support it is at a corner. Stone in terms of itis a con of stone in terms of controlling what is happening insidethe international sports governing bodies. So that's really one aspect that I that Ireally point out in the paper in the on the piece about the transparency. Theother one is is really about independence and that's another bigissue. I mean, as you know, the independence of cod is always reallyhotly debated issue, in particular the United States, with a supreme cotmen,but it's a crucial question: how to secure that independence, how to makesure that the judges are not captured by one side or the other of the politics of a particular countryor the interest of a particular sector and at the cast it's really difficult.In my view, to Pargue- and this is a point on which I disagree- with thebest time- moved to decision of the European code of Human Rights, whichendorsed the independence of the case. But there is a descent under thedecision that, in my view, is much more powerful than the decision thatactually challenge and with which I...

Alian. They are tremendous issues withthe independence of the cast at different EELS. First of all, a dikes.The ICA is a body that is constituted first of all, of twelve members thatare nominated by the lytic movement. Who then nominate ain't members and those are the twenty members ofANCAs and the acas as to mendous powers. It controls the administration of theCAST, but it also controls who gets to be an arbitrator and DECAS and finalpoint. It nominates the president of what was called the appeal division of the CAST, basically, the division inthe cast that deals with all appeals against decisions of InternationalSports, common in bodies and those constitute at this point in time. Whenyou look the very limited statistic that we have for the past years,approximately ninety percent of the Casandia, the gas so and that precedent of the peeldivision W it's called- I sing the peal chambersince this year has the power over the nomination inindividual cases of either the president of the panel or of the singleare between him, and this means that obviously, thatperson plays a con in deciding where are the Baland. We fall in a particularkings, so here just through this mechanism,you can see that without being able to prove anytype of conspiracy, because it's obviously extremely difficult to prove that they are legitimate doubts. I think, in my mind,with regard to the independence of the cast from no lympic value, which it is actually meant to check so to make sure I have this correct, sothe IOC nominates twelve of the twenty members, those members nominated theremaining eight, those that board of Twenty then selects one person to be incharge of the appeals, division and the Appeals Division overseas. Any time there's a rule handed down bya sports governing body. That is being appealed and those sport governingbodies include the IOC among other sport governing bodies, and so itbasically is overseeing disputes between the people who oversee cast andeither athletes or host cities or others. Is that correct? I think so ina try of fashion, its simple that chamber no panels or the ones that arereviewing externally the decisions rendered by the FIFA ICS IA. If it's ateller of this world, every final decision by a disciplinarybody of these organizations can be appealed solely at the case and the gas appear panel, which againis controlled by the president of the Pule Multimania. Please, the president will have the final saying, becauseafter the cast, it's extremely difficult to challenge you caswells,you can go in theory. You can appeal the case to the Swiss federal children,but this wire pedal Trevino has a...

...practice of almost zero chances to actually prevail or aknow OCAS. I won't you have very few case words that are being in all andwhen they are being annot, it's usually on procedural grounds and they are sentback to the cast for you listen. So this week, send on to me leavesalmost no hope to anybody that is challenging your Castelon, and then youcan try to go through national cords or to a upin code of human right and theEuropean. Could you will not get the Enowe of the award, so if you have beensanctioned for adopting than you would have had to abide by that bar in any case,because the decision would come al so much later in the dime and the European Court of Human RightsMule, not, I know there were. It will just potentially sanction Switzerlandfor failing to do something about. If you go to national cords well, itwill be extremely difficult because of the case. We go up the ladder and youcan so you have an example right now. With this cloudier Paston case I meanshe has faced the decision. I think in two thousand was it two thousand andten or two thousand and eleven ten years after she is still fightingthe Kings in Germany at the constitutional quote, with no closure, and she got bankruptout of fighting that case, because it's also makes expensive. You have to paylawyer sense for so in a way. That's why focusing on cast is soimportant and the cast is the final. Stop is a final nutmace only realisticstump if you want to challenge a decision that negatively impacts you asan ad Lee club or whatsoever stemming from this spots coming in body. Solet's talk about some concrete examples of some recent high profile cases. Canyou explain what happened in the the CASTER Semenyacase? I'm sure that all of our listeners are familiar with castorCamena, but can you talk about her appeal to cast and what happened, but Iguess on some in a cases a bit of a specific case, because it is not anappeal: There was no decision at the level of the IA. They agreed beforehaving a dicision that they would present the case to the class and as Ias to basically decide whether the DST regulations of the if we are compatibleor not with in particular man wit. So this is not in a Pew case. It could have beenin a p case. I mean she could have waited for the. If to just sanction heror not sanction declare her ineligible and then challenge that decision, butshe decided to go a different way with her lawyers and one could think thatstrategically was not necessarily the best moving. But in any case that thatwas the choice taken at that point and then the cast was basically and thereyou can see how important it is had to decide something. That is a fundamental question for you, managing with a man and who is a woman in thecontext of Sports Co Competition, and I don't know if it doesn't think in thatmuch. But I mean I find it incredible- that a private body cast arbitration panel. Basically, whatit did is an overrode, a sovereign...

...state, India, South Africa, so it wasn't sil sous atif we can in saying this person this woman for the purpose of sportscompetition of IA and competition is not a woman, despite the fact that she had been awoman or qualified as such since her birth. Now we're not talking about someonethat transition. So this is a massive decision to take,and that's no I'm not talking about the substance of the decision. We it'sright or wrong. It's just this is a really important decision, for I think our global society in that King, a Bondarenko and that was rendered byby the cats. So he had. I think I, in the other examples thatsuggested to discuss, I mean be like like leaper, which is also a Bundardecision. What it is to be valued to run Anto have a particular advantagethat is acceptable or not. You know some people have Nike night choose itextremely find the efficient others don't, but they still have theright to run well with that prestigious you don't, and that is also a veryimportant Bundari judgment and and then questions about financial, fair play or questions about what type of consequences the Russian antidoting r organizationand then for the Russian Olympic comity should face for the systematic doping system thatwas in place. All those are fundamental questions forGlobal Sports. They have to be decided in a O or another. We will not escapethose decisions, so in a way, I'm not saying that the cast, for example, tookthe wrong or right decision, be it in the seminal and the lipans. I'm justsaying that we should be sure that the people that are taking those decisions I bend and have an accountability towards thosethat are affected by those sister. I think this is the most important. The process which would take thosedecisions need to be transparent, needs to be visible to all. It needs to lead to a global discussionabout the SISSON and the people that take thosedecisions need to be somehow accountable to the diversity of actorsthat are affected by them, and I think that's where there is right now comingfrom your problem with the way in which the cast is set up. I want to get to ina second kind of different structures for castthat might be more effective, but first can you talk about the specific case ofdisputes between an Olympic host city and the IOC, because I think that's areally. I mean first of all, they're very you know in the wake you know,Tokyo went off, and and but there was a lot of discussionbeforehand about whether Tokyo and the Japanese government wasgoing to decide that the Olympics were too riskyin the wake of the concone virus for the second year in a row and cancel thegames, but then they had to dispute the terms of that decision based on their host to the agreement.So could you explain a little bit the unique situation between host cities,the IOC and how cast is involved?...

Well, so you have a basically what it'scalled the whole city contract that is being signed between the Il Sing andthe local organization committee, an and in that contract you have aprovision again that is imposed boiler plate. So here again you could say: Can you actually consent to it? I mean,if you don't consent to it, you're out, you will never organize so you're forced to accept them as a wholecity. I mean as an organization, commiting and and based on that provision. Well, any disputes at arises around theOlympics has to be resolved at the cast and that, as far as I know, there hasnever been ocas, so it might have a very strongdetermined effect. I mean it's pretty creasing for Hossity that you will befacing a hostile environment. If you end up at the cast and your lear riskis quite high in terms of having to pay damages. If, for one reason or anotheryou I know or do not organize the games ordo not organize an in a way that is suitable for that. I guess, but I in a way this is a nuclear option.That is not meant to be used, and it would for I mean in it would bedifficult for the IC, for example, to enforce a monetary financial sanctionon Tom Local, organising a local organizingcommitting you will have to have the world recognize in that particularcontributed. It could be connected with sporting sanctions for the national limp Comites, and that mightbe the more scary part for the their country question in their localorganizers. It's not so much the risk of having to pay billions. It's morethat this is going could be connected to a band for your band on on a particular nation Licomi, but in any case it's one mechanism into which nets say. No, I will see rain forces its position.These are the other actors in around global spots,and here the organizing cometes and the local cities involved in hosting the Games by takingthose disputes out of national quotes, making sure that they are played out ontheir home turf and in a way the cast is the home of. So this is a risk and additional riskthat, as a local organizers, you would have to have in mind that you willprobably lose in front of the cast. It would be bad publicity, we don't knowwhat type of sanctions might might come you away, you might as well just takethe risk in hostilely pics, even during academic, and try to do as best as youcan to avoid any. You know, contact and limits any spread of Ovine, and that'swhat happened was talking yeah. That kind of incentive structurewas was really interesting to me. I want to talk about yeah. We talked of acouple a little bit about individual athletes in terms of castor, Camena andand DST athletes. We talked about Blake,...

...leaper and and an athlete withprosthetics running in an able body competition. But the vast pajot ofcases that I hear about cast come from doping, and I know that you're, not adoping expert, but I want to talk about the kind of the legal burden, that's onathletes and a little bit of the financial bird, and I know that thatthere's a financial cost to athletes for appearing in front of cast and thatthat is a really big deterrent for even appealing cases in the first place. Butcan you talk about if a if an athlete is sanctioned from sport due to an antidoping rule violation, and they want to appeal that decision to cast what is a?What do they have to do? What's their burden to be able to get a decisionback in their favor from cast? Well, I mean one thing is: Is Clear that Anti dopingis extremely important to the cast, because the second Masin why the cattook off is actually the adoption of the world and tid open code at thebeginning of the two thousands, so this constitute as well. One of the big haze,Lord of the gas, is Appeals Against Anti doping decisions taken at thelevels of sports commening bodies. So so it's clearly an importantdimension of the of the cast or Esperance. What for a nets? The problemis not so much the cost of arbitration, because in disciplining cases in theory, they are exempted from thecost of arbitration so paying the arbitrators it's free. The problem isthat, and this is more linked to the way of Anti doping moves are organized. They have the burden of pool so in typical criminal law. It's alwaysa state that has to prove that you have committed a crime to Mary basicprinciples, principle of criminal law. Well, here in that is a bit the trickof of our current antidoting system. We are relying in the World Anti DopingCourt on strict liability, meaning that you have to pull that. The fact that there is thatparticular product in your body is not link to you wanting to gain an advantage and can bejustified, and that makes it in term extremecostume, because, basically, you have to pay for the experts, because you areyourself specialized in whatever sport you're doing but you're, not you know,necessarily, maybe some more, but the scientists or biologist. They have anyidea of how to prove that. It is because you had t just that: a woman in a bar whohappened to have just in cocaine that that you have that trace of Cokaine inyour body. So the difficulty is that you need help and you need extremelyspecialized help and that's where it becomes expensive. If you don't have that DAP of extremely specialized expert level help you have almost zero Chins to overturn topinard. That means thatyou need to have a certain level of means to to get there, and then there is alsothe fact that you can have access to Promo or lawyers, but to bones I meanthey need to eat as well. I mean their priority is not your kin will never beour case, even if they are as dedicated...

...as you won't. They are not paid to defend your canes, so they might dothe basics, but the basics will not be enough in an open case. We have to goabove and beyond to actually have a chance, and you will have to find the rightexpert. You would have to spend a lot of time as a lawyer to build that casein a sordi manner. So that's where, basically, the cost of appealing thosecases at the cars is not necessarily linked to the cost of the cast posingsbecause they are not Costan and it's rather linked to the setter of the burden of proof and the factthat you as an attent have to prove have to explain where that damn product came from, andto do that, you will have. You will necessarily need a lot of meets ourmost recent guests on the podcast was Dr Grigri Rod Cheka, and he talkedabout the strict scrutiny and and the impossible burden to prove onathletes to prove that they took something accidentally or that it was acontaminated substance of some sword. So let's talk about where the castmight go in the future, what what a better structure might be- and Iunderstand that the strict scrutiny and the DOPESTER is probably a differentquestion than the accountability of cast and the transparency of cast. So,let's focus on the ladder in the transparency and accountability. Whatdo you think a better system might be for cast? Well I mean I, I actually think it'snot that difficult. It's often presented as extremelydifficult by the powers that be in international sports. We cannot doanything, I mean. How do you want to do it all the more, but I mean having a transparent cast, canbe done like that from one day to me on, theycan decide to produce milites. They can decide to produce any reports they candecide to integrate in intone the cast code, a provision that provides an allappealing. Words are systematically published as soon as they are an east. I mean it's in any case mandatoryAbitation, so you can mandate that, so I don't think there is anydifficulty in providing, for example, transplanting this is really just a question ofpolitical will, and in that case rather the will not to do it coming from both internally the cast, but also thepowers at control cast. The independence is a bit more tricky,but it's not that difficult either I mean you could I can think of twodifferent ways to make it better. One is a rather traditional way cast.Is a foundation well build it up like water, it's already much better than what wehave right now. If we have a fifty percent of state representatives and fiftypercent of Olympic family repent, so that would be an easy way to make it alittle bit better then than I think I would say that thatthere's a criticism that I would raise these adwords to say: Let's do it thetrip, trip or type one. I mean you timid me like water, cast it's a bitmore muddy, but at one at least it's clear. The primarily affected people bythis entire regulatory regime are the athletes and there the ones inside onethat don't have a say, and they don't...

...have to say as well inside the cast.Well, I think we could do for both instead of a do a system where I meanyou have on the one side of the state and on theother, the on impiety, we could do a treat baddage system were one the oneyou have basically one third of IB representative of people selected byLolita Feminine once people selected by the states who, in a way represent thegeneral public, was also an interest as a consumer. The Fan it on and then a sid sold would be composed ofrepresentatives of ades. Then there it becomes a little bit.Tricky need to figure out how to select those representatives, and I think here we w not, but I do believe that AntiInians and it representative in Sports, commenting bodies could come togetherin one way or another could be a congress that to do everyfour years or to select here again the one said of the representatives:that's it that are sitting in ICS on behalf of the athletes. So I think, andthe easy way would be just copy what we already have with water and in my view,that would already be a big step for one in the more complicated way. But Ithink it's not that complicated is to create a tripartite bon. That wouldrepresent the different interests I play insidethe cast and make sure that they they are checks in place inside the management of the gas. To avoid that a certain side, a certainset of interest are controlling the cast and then another recommendation that I made. I think inthat peace was just to instead of having a red tub on list of castarbitrators well, who are all having jobs on the side and are allpotentially conflicted, always more or less directly throughtheir low films of so they are advisory practice and so on. Instead of havingthem, let's have a permanent hostel of judges. Nine judges- they wouldn't costthat much more than almost or between nine judgeswho are doing only that and who would have a long term. It could be a ninerterm so that they are relatively protected and funerally independent intaking the distint, and then we could have a real debatearound. WHO ARE THOSE CHURCHES? And- and you knowyou have that every now and then in the US around the Supreme Court. But it could be the same, could have realdebates about who to know it. What should be the qualifications andso on, but at least we would have some people that have entirely focus on thatthat not only have then expertise, they have also economic independence andthey have peace of mind because they have a long mandate that doesn't an endevery four years like right now with a risk, the Damocles world that you wouldnot be renominated after four years, because for one reason or another Icast doesn't want to win a remit. So here I mean all those fixes are notthat complicate yeah. It makes me very...

...nervous, your first suggestion of justmaking it more like water, because what we spent a lot of time at globalathlete focused on the way that the structure of water has failed athletes,because the Olympic movement vote at the block andthe nations do not vote as a block, and so the Olympic Movement essentiallyends up with with complete control over the organization, and I would hate tosee us fight hard for restructuring a cast only to end up with a system thatis still controlled by the Olympic movement and the Olympic family. So Iwill take your second suggestion, more literally with with one thirdathletes. That would then give no single group kind of complete control. I think wecan leave it there. That was very helpful. Your expertise are really yeah, we're just very eye opening o forme, and I think they will be for our listeners as well, so an tone do enterde vall. Thank you so much for joining us in the Global Athlete podcast. Well, thank you no at for having me andit was me a pleasant discussion. I'll be back. Whenever you decide to read myname, it sings a lot for the the time. That'sit for this episode of the Global Athlete Podcast as always get in touchwith any questions or comments. You can reach us at hello@globalathlete.org or @globalathleteHQ on twitter and instagram. If you enjoythese conversations, please leave us a rating and review on Apple podcast orwherever you listen. It helps new listeners. Find us also tell yourfriends about us or share the podcast on social media. We want more people tojoin the conversation about power, accountability and Athlete Rights ininternational sport. Our Team includes Bree Schaaf, Rob Koehler and Julia Barton.I'm Noah Hoffman, see you next time .

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (16)