Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #Semenya

Most recents (4)

My thread on the interim decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the @caster800m case.

Full decision in French at bger.ch/ext/eurospider…

It highlights key features of the #LexSportiva & the ‘complicity’ of Swiss law in sheltering it from review.

#Sportslaw #CAS
1. The #SFT reminds us that its control of #CAS awards is narrow. Hence, it orders interim measures only if it is ‘very likely’ that an appellant will prevail.

This is because Swiss law is traditionally favourable to international arbitration.

#Sportslaw #Arbitration #Semenya
2. This is extremely problematic because #CAS arbitration unlike international arbitration is in general not based in consent (see ECtHR in #Pechstein) and should not enjoy the same quasi-immunity from state control.

#Sportslaw #Arbitration #Semenya
Read 7 tweets
At the request of my new [South-African, obviously] colleague @MPlagis, I swallowed the 163 pages of the #Semenya award yesterday.

It wasn’t the most pleasant literary experience of my life, but at least I learned what a judicial ‘hot tub’ is.

Here is a book review:

#Sportslaw
1. In short, what is interesting in the award is actually also what the #CAS forgot to mentioned in its press release, the core of #IAAF’s winning case turns on the concepts of ‘biological males’ & ‘sports sex’.

#Semenya #Autonomy #Sportslaw
2. But let me start by regretting that the #CAS hearing was not public because @caster800m’s testimony (see paras 73-87) recalling what she went through since 2009 would have deserved a global audience.

#Sportslaw #Semenya
Read 16 tweets
Here is the full (redacted) #semenya decision. All 632 points: tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user… In my mind, building up to the case, I had “framed” it as an issue of biological principle vs actual evidence for advantage. A vs B. The decision is framed a similar way in many respects (1/…)
As you go through it, you’ll see one side (IAAF) arguing heavily for biological principles of testosterone & performance, theory for men vs women, protection of women’s sport. It’s difficult to reject these. They are solid, and bring the debate to a men vs women platform.
But you also see the other side (Semenya/ASA) arguing that the issue should be framed as “Women with DSD vs women without”. This in turn invites questions of “Where is the evidence? Can the advantage be quantified? How large is it?”. This was the mandate set by CAS in 2015 (3/)
Read 16 tweets
To clarify (since there is confusion): Semenya is at the appeals process in Swiss Federal court. Today’s ruling is that the IAAF DSD Regs requiring her to lower T must be suspended until a final decision on her appeal. The IAAF have until 25 June to argue against this “delay”
What does this mean? Final decision by this court is expected to take 6 months. So one scenario is that the IAAF can’t convince the court to overrun the “delay”, so all DSD athletes can continue to run, unmedicated, until December. Then the final decision will decide the future
Another is that the IAAF does win their “mini appeal” against the stay, and then the policy would go into effect from June 25. Then the actual appeal continues in the background for 6 months. This is the “on, off, on, off, on” scenario, pending a final decision by the Swiss court
Read 5 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!