MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414737073 · doi:10.1007/s40318-025-00309-9

Using administrative and judicial remedies under data protection laws to challenge the processing of sensitive personal data by international sport governing bodies

2025· article· en· W4414737073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marcus Mazzucco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Sports Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData Protection Act 1998ArbitrationAthletesAgency (philosophy)European unionHuman rightsComplaintData Protection DirectiveInformation privacy law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasingly, international sport governing bodies (SGBs) are processing the sensitive personal data of athletes in order to regulate issues relating to ‘fair play’ in sport, including doping and the eligibility of intersex and transgender athletes. Athletes, human rights groups, scholars, and journalists have raised concerns that this data processing violates the rights of athletes under data protection laws—particularly, the European Union (EU)’s General Data Protection Regulation , which has broad application due to its territorial scope. Although some SGBs have taken steps to incorporate international human rights into their rules, it is unlikely this will provide athletes with a legal basis to challenge the data processing activities of these SGBs. As a result, it remains necessary for athletes to use EU and national data protection laws to challenge the practices of SGBs that violate their data protection rights. Yet, the pathway for athletes to use these laws to enforce their rights is somewhat unclear and untested due to mandatory arbitration clauses that presumptively require athletes to bring their disputes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), instead of national courts, and CAS choice of law rules that may prevent the application of EU and many national data protection laws in CAS proceedings. The purpose of this paper is to examine the administrative and judicial remedies available to athletes under EU and national data protection laws to challenge the practices of SGBs. With respect to administrative remedies, a recent privacy complaint filed in Canada against the World Anti-Doping Agency for its disclosure of doping control data to SGBs to administer sex-based eligibility regulations, will be discussed. With respect to judicial remedies, the ability of athletes to bring their privacy complaints to the national courts of EU member states, instead of CAS, will be discussed in light of the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU in International Skating Union v. Commission and the case of NADA Austria and Others that is before the Court of Justice of the EU.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Sports Law JournalSame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207