Abstract
AbstractThe Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) jurisprudence on manipulation of sports competitions has vastly evolved from its initial award in RSC Anderlecht in 1998, to now Labuts in August 2020. Alongside, international and national regulations, as well as sporting regulations, including, most recently, the Council of Europe’s Macolin Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, have sought to effectively tackle the omnipresent, ever-growing phenomenon of competition manipulation. Against this backdrop, this article briefly outlines the existing legal landscape on manipulation, followed by a chronological detailing of each CAS issued award. The key aspects of defining such sanctionable behaviour, select issues of standard of proof and types of evidence which are admissible and relied on, as well as the manner and quantum of sanction are then analysed. Ultimately, noting empirical trends across these awards, questions on ne bis in idem, proportionality of sanctions and legal certainty across CAS jurisprudence are raised.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Barak E, Koolard D (2014) Aftermath of Pobeda. CAS Bull 1:5–24
2. Bergasel A (2012) Is there a Stare decisis doctrine in the court of arbitration for sport? An analysis of published awards for anti-doping disputes in track and field. Pepper Dispute Resolut Law J 12:189–213
3. Davis ML (1994) The value of truth and the optimal standard of proof in legal disputes. J Law Econ Organ 10(2):343–359
4. Davis C (2012) The comfortable satisfaction standard of proof: applied by the court of arbitration for sport in drug-related cases. Univ Notre Dame Aust Law Rev 14:1–23
5. Deakes N (2014) Match-fixing in football: the epistemology of the court of arbitration for sport jurisprudence. Aust N Z Sports Law J 9(1):57–93
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献