From Sagen to Henriques: Legal Challenges to Olympic Event Selection Decisions and the Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The interests of athletes are a fundamental aspect of the Olympic Movement. Yet, athletes face jurisdictional barriers when attempting to advance their interests and challenge the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s exercise of authority over the Olympic Movement, including the IOC’s decisions regarding which sport events are included in the Olympic Games. Previous attempts to challenge the IOC’s selection of sport events for the Olympic Games have been unsuccessful in national courts, as seen in the case of Sagen v. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (“Sagen”) involving women’s ski jumping. Following the outcome in Sagen, academics theorized that athletes might have better success challenging Olympic event selection decisions at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), as CAS has several jurisdictional advantages over national courts. A recent CAS decision in Henriques v. IOC (“Henriques”), involving the exclusion of women’s 50 km race walking from the 2020 Olympic Games, casts doubt on this approach as CAS dismissed the application due to the lack of an arbitration agreement between the appellants and the IOC. However, the outcome in Henriques should not deter athletes from using CAS to challenge the IOC’s Olympic event selection decisions in future cases. It is arguable that the CAS panel’s reasoning in Henriques did not properly consider how the arbitration clause in the Olympic Charter could form the basis of an arbitration agreement between the appellants and the IOC under Swiss law. Additionally, the CAS panel’s decision in Henriques can be used to inform legal strategies in subsequent disputes to ensure that CAS is able to hold the IOC accountable for Olympic event selection decisions that are discriminatory or otherwise unlawful.
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 | 0.057 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.040 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".