Thread by @RogerPielkeJr

🧵Thread
Initial reactions to Blake Leeper CAS ruling

Summary:
Leeper lost his appeal to run in Olympics but World Athletics (IAAF) lost the case & will completely reshape possibilities for athletes with prosthetics to run in elite competition

cc:
@Dr_Weyand
@Scienceofsport

https://twitter.com/Dr_Weyand/status/1321818436276641792

First, this case hinges on rules, processes and science
On the latter it is remarkable to see IAAF demanding access to data, when they refused (to this day) to release data in their research re: Semanya

Similarly, I had a good chuckle seeing IAAF emphasize peer review (Semenya research wasn't) & the necessity of data release for CAS to do its job
In this case the data was shared by Leeper's team, in Semenya case IAAF never shared its data

The IAAF argued preserving the integrity of sport means erring on side of exclusion of athletes who run on prosthetics, invoking the "precautionary principle"

This implies quite directly athletes like Leeper are akin to a pollutant

CAS (you'll see shortly) shot this down fast

Once again, as with Semenya, IAAF argues that it does not have to respect human rights provisions of the ECHR

This is in complete contradiction to what the president of CAS recent said about the importance of CAS consistency with the ECHR, see:

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1315269481531236353?s=20

IAAF invokes the Semenya case to justify discrimination
I'm not sure this looks the way they think it does

It is sad to see IAAF attack the integrity of researchers working pro bono for Leeper (note: Prof. Grabowski is a colleague of mine here at Colorado & a solid researcher)

Especially since every key IAAF expert in Semenya case was on the IAAF payroll

IAAF way out of line here

At the core of the dispute is a metaphysical question

How fast would someone born without intact lower legs run in an alternative universe where he was born with intact lower legs?

There is no unique, empirically verifiable answer to this question. Science can't solve this.

This is telling
IAAF has focused primarily on conditions for exclusion of athletes who run on prostheses, not on criteria for facilitating their inclusion

CAS is polite, but the IAAF rules (as we have documented in the past) are inconsistent, unclear and a mess

As you'll see shortly, that is why CAS has thrown the central provision of them out in this ruling

The whole "over-representation" argument that IAAF advanced in Semenya and here is really not well thought through because it is only selectively applied to support selective discrimination

We can all point to many biological characteristics of athletes that are overrepresented

CAS wants absolutely nothing to do with the "precautionary principle" as argued by IAAF, says it might apply in "horse doping" but not here

Finds a useful comparison in TUEs, also an application of technology to leveling a playing field

Yet, TUEs are treated differently

CAS spots the contradiction at the core of IAAF rules

Athletes are required to "prove a negative" which is an "onerous practical burden")

This is Russell's teapot (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%2…)

An irony of this case is that CAS identifies the ridiculous burden that IAAF rules place upon an athlete to organize and fund an international research program

Yet if Leeper didn't attempt this, he couldn't have even appeared before CAS (leading to CAS tossing the IAAF rules!)

While CAS doesn't conclude that IAAF is seeking to exclude athletes who run on prostheses -- the actions taken by IAF clearly have that outcome and are CAS concludes that the rules are differentially applied

This is clearly disciminatory

CAS finds the IAAF rules to be unclear, inaccessible and poorly structured and made up on the spot

In a few words (mine), arbitrary and penal

CAS spots the inexplicable differences between IAAF rules for shoe technology (like Nike Vaporflys) & those for prostheses

Both are things athletes attach to the bottom of their legs

Yet they are treated very differently by IAAF & "for no good reason" says CAS

THIS IS HUGE

CAS has thrown out the IAAF provision that the athlete bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that they do not derive an overall competitive advantage from the
use of the particular prosthetic aid

That burden now lies with IAAF to demonstrate such an advantage

This was the outcome of the Pistorius 2008 CAS judgment which allowed him to run in the Olympics

IAAF switched around the burden of proof after that decision to avoid future such outcomes

CAS has now reversed that - HUGE!
jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Docum…

In the end Leeper lost because the CAS panel did not believe his experts & believed IAAF re-interpretation of that analysis

But make no mistake IAAF lost this case

Previously shut tight, the Olympic door is now open to other athletes who run on prostheses

Watch this space!