Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), created by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1983, resolves disputes between athletes and national or international sports governing bodies. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the history and functions of CAS, with a particular focus on the ways in which athletes’ rights are threatened by the IOC’s Code of Sports-Related Arbitration. Design/methodology/approach The author reviews relevant law literature and media sources. Findings The concept of lex sportiva (global sport law), general arbitration practices and controversies concerning CAS’s impartiality are investigated, and the “strict liability” principle that CAS applies to doping allegations is assessed. This analysis points to a long record of inconsistencies and contradictions in the history and function of CAS. The findings lead to questions of arbitration or litigation; confidential or public proceedings; specialist or generalist arbitrators; lex sportiva or international legal principles; precedential or non-precedential awards; and civil or criminal burden of proof. Originality/value These unresolved issues demonstrate how the IOC struggles to maintain supremacy over world sport by promoting sport exceptionalism, and provide possible grounds for athletes’ future challenges to CAS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".