Document Type

Article

Disciplines

International Law

Abstract

Harry "Butch" Reynolds, Jr. is a prominent American track and field athlete who currently holds the individual world record in the 400 meter dash.' Despite his accomplishments, Reynolds' more recent involvement in international amateur athletics has been in the courtrooms. In 1990, following a meet in Monaco, Monte Carlo, Reynolds was suspended by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), the world governing body for track and field, after his urine sample tested positive for steroids. What transpired over the next four years was a vicious legal battle between an athlete determined to clear his name and compete, and an international organization equally resolved to strictly enforce its rules, preserve its reputation, and maintain its independence from national legal regulation. In the end, the IAAF prevailed over Reynolds. Reynolds not only was banned from competing for more than two years during the peak years of his career, but his private causes of action against the IAAF also were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Despite his defeat in court, Reynolds may have gained a victory for all international amateur athletes. The Reynolds-IAAF conflict has openly demonstrated the need for an alternative method of dispute resolution in international amateur athletics. Not only did it expose the fundamental unfairness of the IAAF's internal rules, which prohibited Reynolds from presenting his case to an independent tribunal, but it also showed how international sports law-encompassed in the Olympic Charter-fails to adequately protect an athlete from the authoritarian tendencies of his governing international federation. In short, Reynolds was a victim of the structure (or lack thereof) of international sports law, which provided no viable alternative to litigation in the athlete's national courts.

Part One of this paper will outline the basic structure of international sports law. Within this part will be a discussion of the Olympic Charter and the broad authority it grants to the International Olympic Committee. Also included will be an analysis of the other institutional actors in the international sports law arena: the International Federations (IFs), the National Olympic Committees (NOCs), and the National Governing Bodies (NGBs). Part One will conclude with a brief summary of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, the legislative framework for amateur sports in the United States. In Part Two, the specific facts of the Reynolds dispute are set forth in detail, along with the findings of the district court and the Sixth Circuit. Part Three will discuss how the Reynolds case demonstrated the fundamental shortcomings of international sports law, and will endorse an alternative means of dispute resolution, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Included in this part will be a detailed analysis of the CAS Statute and a summary of its brief history. Part Four will conclude with a brief discussion of a recent development generated by the Reynolds case, the International Council of Arbitration for Sport and its accompanying Code of Sports-Related Arbitration.

Accessibility Requirements

1

Download

Share

COinS