Review Of Cases Of Ad Hoc Division For The Beijing Winter Olympic Games

The ad hoc division established by the Court of Arbitration for Sport were created to resolve the growing number of sports-related disputes.Its dispute resolution approach is professional and fast-acting,able to adapt to the special needs of the international sports community,and is specifically designed to serve the Olympic Games.The Olympic Games have developed to a point where the interests involved are no longer purely sporting,but range from the relationship between national politics,economics,society,National Olympic Committees and various international federations;to the complex interests of sponsors,broadcasters,commercial advertising and athletes.The more interests there are,the more related disputes occur and grow.2022 Beijing Winter Olympics is held in the context of the epidemic era,and besides the traditional issues of eligibility,doping and competition results,many elements have emerged for our consideration.For example,how to determine the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal when a player is disqualified from the Winter Olympic Games due to the cancellation of the World Cup Stages due to epidemic or vaccine;how the ambiguity of provisional suspensions for minors in anti-doping cases should be adjudicated;whether the award ceremony procedure belongs to the scope of review of procedural justice,how to balance the rights of athletes and the fairness of the competition,and other issues worth studying.Therefore,this paper will focus on two case types,eligibility and anti-doping.The first part is the introduction,which mainly describes the theoretical significance and practical significance of the article,the current situation of domestic and foreign research,the writing method and ideas,innovation and shortcomings.The purpose is to interpret the case through literature analysis and case analysis,and to seek a stable and pillar legal basis for the CAS decision by combining the current research of domestic and foreign scholars,and to provide ideas for the use of discretionary power in individual cases.The second part is overview of cases about the Beijing Winter Olympics,including eligibility cases and anti-doping cases.The facts of the cases,the opinions of the parties and the opinions of the tribunal are summarized according to the rulings published on the CAS website.The third part is evaluation of cases of the Beijing Winter Olympics,which is reviewed separately according to two types of cases.In the qualification cases,the arbitral tribunal clarifies its authority and respects the autonomy of international sports organizations,emphasizes the principle of exhaustion of internal remedies and the determination of jurisdiction,and further recognizes the right of third parties to participate in the arbitral proceedings.However,at the same time,there are cases where the relevant applicable rules of the arbitral tribunal are vague and precedents are not recognized.The article provides ideas for the vague rules on the determination of the "time of dispute" by sorting out the relevant cases in the past.In anti-doping cases,the World Anti-Doping Code has special provisions for "protected persons",which are treated more lightly in terms of burden of proof and standard of proof.In addition,the WADC is vague on the issue of Provisional Suspensions for Protected Persons,and the Code should clarify the relevant provisions and establish standards for the tribunal.The issue of award ceremony procedures arising from anti-doping cases reveals the absolute status of the IOC in Olympic sports events,and at the same time,does the award ceremony procedure fall under the review of procedural justice and do athletes enjoy the procedural rights of award ceremony? Therefore,the improvement of the regulations of the relevant statutes of the Olympic Games and the fair adjudication of the arbitral tribunal are particularly important in front of the athletes who are in a vulnerable position when facing the sports organizations,and need to be promoted from the legislative and judicial aspects together to better protect the athletes’ rights.Part four: reflections and insights from the Beijing Winter Olympic Games Cases,which first summarizes the characteristics of the arbitral tribunal’s decision,and also points out that the arbitral tribunal should clarify its functions and jurisdiction,strictly limit its discretionary power,and base its decision on fair and good governance,a review focused on procedural justice.The recommendations are then presented from the perspective of the parties involved,using the perspective of the sports organizations and athletes as an entry point.Since CAS has no right to interfere with the administrative functions of the NOC,and since sports organizations are not affiliated with each other,there is a certain supervisory vacuum in the exercise of administrative functions.Therefore,this paper proposes that the Olympic Committee should exercise some supervision over the administrative functions of sports organizations in order to ensure the maximum impartiality of sports organizations.And in order to better protect their rights,athletes should not only pay attention to the guiding role of precedents and the interpretation of rules,but also make efforts to run for positions in various sports organizations and institutions after retirement,or attend training and study to run for sports organization commissioners or arbitrators with their professionalism.In addition,the time of international testing agencies in anti-doping cases should be set as a mandatory standard to achieve a balance of responsibility between athletes and anti-doping agencies.This anti-doping case involves the issue of provisional suspension of minors,and the blank provision of the Anti-Doping Code poses a great challenge to the discretion of the tribunal.Therefore,how to make the protected person receive reasonable and fair treatment is also an issue that WADA needs to address.This article will discuss the reasonableness of the relevant provisions in terms of the proportionality of the burden of proof imposed on the protected person and the special treatment to which he or she is entitled.The fifth part is the concluding remark,this section summarizes and composes the possible problems in the case of this Winter Olympic Games,and makes corresponding recommendations.The whole text tries to identify the adjudication patterns embedded behind the application of the principles of the rules by the arbitral tribunal by exploring the boundaries of the tribunal’s functions and limited jurisdiction,within the limits of its discretion.It is analyzed whether such emerging factors as epidemics,vaccines and entry policies fall within the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals and how to remedy the rights of disqualified athletes.In addition,the tribunal should maintain a balance between the administration of international sports organizations and neutrality and impartiality,as athletes often request that the tribunal assign them a place in the competition.Having clarified the adjudicative characteristics of arbitral tribunals,the administrative functions of sports organizations should also be subject to a certain degree of supervision.With the IOC’s monopoly on Olympic events,athletes are in a vulnerable position,and arbitral tribunals should also seek fair and good governance and strict discipline.