Abstract
Dividing competitions into male and female categories is a hallmark of most sports. So is the near-unassailable autonomy of sports organizations to regulate participation in their sport. Spanning 161-pages, and still only described as an “interim award,” the Chand award illustrates the complexity of attempting to fit into a traditional legal framework the highly charged ideological and ethical issues raised when sports organizations exercise this autonomy to “police” the male versus female divide. This comment analyses track-and-field athlete Dutee Chand’s challenge to the validity of the IAAF’s Hyperandrogenism Regulations, which excluded women whose testosterone levels fell within the “normal” male range from competition. In particular, Ms Chand challenged their scientific validity, discriminatory effect and proportionality, in addition to alleging a similarity to a doping sanction. While primarily focused on the legal questions that arise from the CAS award, this comment also addresses the bigger picture, in particular the dilemmas of organized sport caught between its ambition to strive for the limits of human performance and the need to secure a level playing field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Hyperandrogenism Regulations, Article 6.5(i).
- 2.
Hyperandrogenism Regulations, Article 6.5(ii).
- 3.
According to the Regulations, the “full” examination will normally include the following tests: “physical, laboratory (including genetic testing), imaging and psychological assessment”. (Article 5.29).
- 4.
CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, Award of 24 July 2015, para 36.
- 5.
Ibid., paras 7 & 8. Dutee Chand, born in 1996, was a resident athlete at the National Institute of Sports in India, operated by the Sports Authority of India, a public body unaffiliated with the IAAF.
- 6.
Ibid., para 1. She won numerous junior athletic events both at the national level in India, and at the international level, taking the gold medal in two events at the Asian Junior Track and Field Championships in May 2014.
- 7.
Ibid., para 11.
- 8.
Ibid., para 11.
- 9.
Ibid., para 12.
- 10.
Ibid., para 12.
- 11.
Ibid., para 13.
- 12.
Ibid., para 13.
- 13.
Ibid., para 14.
- 14.
Ibid., para 373. According to the Athlete, this second exam included “blood tests, clinical tests by a gynaecologist, karyotyping, an MRI examination and a further ultrasound examination”. Ibid., para 15.
- 15.
Ibid., para 16.
- 16.
Ibid., para 374.
- 17.
Ibid., para 17.
- 18.
Ibid., para 18.
- 19.
Ibid., para 19.
- 20.
Ibid., para 374.
- 21.
Ibid., para 374.
- 22.
Ibid., para 23.
- 23.
Ibid., para 24.
- 24.
Ibid., para 25.
- 25.
Ibid., para 26.
- 26.
Ibid., para 26.
- 27.
Ibid., paras 27 & 28. As reported in the award, the text of the Decision Letter read in relevant part: “Based on your medical reports received from Sports Authority of India and a copy of the same has already been handed over to you by SAI in person, you are hereby provisionally stopped from participation in any Competition in athletics with immediate effect. To be eligible for participation, you are further advised to follow the annexed IAAF guidelines”. (para. 27). Ms. Chand stated that the letter incorrectly enclosed the IAAF Sex Reassignment Regulations rather than the Hyperandrogenism Regulations (para. 28).
- 28.
Ibid., para 29.
- 29.
Ibid., para 29.
- 30.
Ibid., para 77.
- 31.
Ibid., para 91.
- 32.
Ibid., para 82.
- 33.
Ibid., para 84.
- 34.
Ibid., para 85.
- 35.
Ibid., para 85.
- 36.
Ibid., para 102.
- 37.
Ibid., para 435.
- 38.
Ibid., para 430.
- 39.
Ibid., para 104.
- 40.
Ibid., para 105.
- 41.
Ibid., para 104.
- 42.
Ibid., para 36.
- 43.
See, e.g., Mavromati and Reeb 2015, pp. 603–604. In the US law context, it has been said that the “adversarial nature” of the dispute is diminished when parties lack “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues”. U.S. Supreme Court, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), at 204.
- 44.
According to the Chand award, the AFI issued a letter that permitted her to compete in national- and state level competitions in the short term, i.e. “pending the determination of her appeal by the CAS”. CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, para 86.
- 45.
Ibid., para 106.
- 46.
Ibid., para 106.
- 47.
Ibid., para 107.
- 48.
Ibid., para 107.
- 49.
Ibid., para 107.
- 50.
Ibid., para 442.
- 51.
Ibid., para 108.
- 52.
Ibid., para 109.
- 53.
Ibid., para 109.
- 54.
Ibid., para 110.
- 55.
Ibid., para 110.
- 56.
Ibid., para 111.
- 57.
Ibid., para 443. According to the CAS panel at para 441, “[t]he parties agreed that the Athlete bore the burden of proving that the Hyperandrogenism Regulations are invalid. The parties also agreed that, once a prima facie case of discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the party responsible for the discriminating measure to justify the discriminatory effect”.
- 58.
Ibid., para 443.
- 59.
Ibid., para 447.
- 60.
Ibid., para 446. The Chand panel mentioned the Pistorius matter, in which the panel found that the “standard of proof is clearly not ‘beyond a reasonable’ doubt”, rejecting that it could “in that Panel’s view, be any of the possible intermediate standards that are discussed from time to time in connection with, for example, the disciplinary processes of professional or regulatory bodies”. It also noted that the Pistorius panel applied the balance of probabilities standard, and also that the Veerpalu panel applied the comfortable satisfaction standard. See CAS 2008/A/1480, Pistorius v. IAAF, Award of 16 May 2008; See also CAS 2011/A/2566, Andrus Veerpalu v. International Ski Federation (FIS), Award of 25 March 2013.
- 61.
CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, para 447.
- 62.
Ibid., para 442.
- 63.
CAS 2011/A/2566, Andrus Veerpalu v. FIS. See also the authors discussion of the hGH trilogy in XR to Lallukka Article.
- 64.
CAS 2012/A/2857, Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Deutschland v. Sinkewitz, Award of 24 February 2014, CAS 2014/A/3488, WADA v. Lallukka, Award of 20 November 2014; See also Rigozzi et al. 2015b; see also Viret M, CAS as the guardian of the validity of anti-doping science? A review of hGH cases through the prism of the revised 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, 23 July 2015. http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/cas-as-the-guardian-of-the-validity-of-anti-doping-science. Accessed 1 May 2016.
- 65.
CAS 2008/A/1480, Pistorius v. IAAF.
- 66.
See section “A Presumption of Scientific Validity of Analytical Tools” in Viret M, CAS as the guardian of the validity of anti-doping science? A review of hGH cases through the prism of the revised 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, 23 July 2015.
- 67.
For more details, see Viret 2016, Sects. 3.1.2.3 and 7.3.3.2.2.2.
- 68.
As described above, the standard of proof is less straightforward. In the Pistorius matter, the CAS panel considered that the standard should be by a balance of probability outside disciplinary matters.
- 69.
The 2015 WADA Code enshrines a new provision (Article 3.2.1) that explicitly presumes the scientific validity of the analytical tools used to produce analytical findings in Doping Control.
- 70.
For example, when discussing the framework of its proportionality analysis, the panel implicitly rejected the IAAF’s argument that the Regulations should only be invalid should they be considered “evidently and grossly” disproportionate by finding that the principle of proportionality “applies notwithstanding the wide discretion given to a Federation to determine its affairs and regulations” Ibid., para 230.
- 71.
CAS 2009/A/1870, WADA v. Hardy, Award of 21 May 2010, para 125.
- 72.
CAS 2012/A/2804, Kutrovsky v. ITF, Award of 3 October 2012.
- 73.
Other recent examples include the CAS 2013/A/3437, International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) v. WADA, Award of 18 December 2014, where the panel found unconvincing the reasoning of WADA’s Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) panel regarding the performance-enhancing effect of a substance on an athlete’s body; and CAS 2014/A/3751, XX v. WADA, Award of 10 February 2015, where the CAS panel overturned a diagnosis made by a medical professional.
- 74.
CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, para 454.
- 75.
Ibid., para 454.
- 76.
Ibid., para 455.
- 77.
Ibid., para 460.
- 78.
Ibid., para 460.
- 79.
Ibid., para 462.
- 80.
Ibid., para 469.
- 81.
Ibid., para 464.
- 82.
Ibid., para 466.
- 83.
Ibid., para 472.
- 84.
Ibid., para 472.
- 85.
Ibid., para 474.
- 86.
Ibid., para 248(d).
- 87.
Ibid., para 488.
- 88.
Ibid., para 112.
- 89.
Ibid., para 113.
- 90.
Ibid., para 113.
- 91.
Ibid., para 448.
- 92.
Ibid., para 448.
- 93.
Ibid., para 449.
- 94.
Ibid., para 449.
- 95.
Ibid., para 450.
- 96.
Ibid., para 229.
- 97.
Ibid., para 230. Supporting its proposed framework, the CAS panel noted that “[t]his principle applies notwithstanding the wide discretion given to a Federation to determine its affairs and regulations. The Panel accepts the legitimate objective of the IAAF to organize competitive athletics to ensure fairness in athletic competition. It is legitimate and necessary to divide athletes into male and female categories. This is because male athletes have such an advantage over female athletes that competition between the sexes is not fair”.
- 98.
Ibid., para 501.
- 99.
Ibid., para 231.
- 100.
Ibid., para 231.
- 101.
Ibid., para 236.
- 102.
Ibid., para 240.
- 103.
Ibid., para 240.
- 104.
Ibid., para 242.
- 105.
Ibid., para 242.
- 106.
Ibid., para 244.
- 107.
Ibid., para 244.
- 108.
Ibid., para 244.
- 109.
Ibid., para 247.
- 110.
Ibid., para 247.
- 111.
Ibid., para 247.
- 112.
Ibid., para 248.
- 113.
Ibid., para 248(a).
- 114.
Ibid., para 248.
- 115.
Ibid., para 504.
- 116.
Ibid., para 505.
- 117.
Ibid., para 507.
- 118.
Ibid., para 507.
- 119.
Ibid., para 507.
- 120.
Ibid., para 507.
- 121.
Ibid., para 508.
- 122.
Ibid., para 510.
- 123.
Ibid., para 511.
- 124.
Ibid., para 508.
- 125.
Ibid., para 508.
- 126.
Ibid., para 513.
- 127.
Ibid., para 513.
- 128.
Ibid., para 513.
- 129.
Ibid., para 517.
- 130.
Ibid., para 517.
- 131.
Ibid., para 520.
- 132.
Ibid., paras 523–524.
- 133.
Ibid., para 530.
- 134.
Ibid., para 530.
- 135.
Ibid., para 531.
- 136.
Ibid., para 531.
- 137.
The “Factual Background” section of the award was subdivided into three parts: (i)“Background Facts”, (ii) “The Issues”, and (iii) “The relevant regulations”. The material in the “Background Facts” was true to its name, but the “Issues” section, while summarizing legal issues, also included “important facts about this particular case” that were not in dispute. Ibid., para 36. Background facts of the case were also presented under the section heading “[t]he circumstances of the Athlete’s suspension”, within the “Submissions of the Parties” section. This section, as mentioned above, also included findings made by the panel. As an additional example, the Chand panel made findings as to the legal framework it applied to the proportionality analysis in the award, para 230, which was also within the “Submissions of the Parties” section of the award.
- 138.
Ibid., paras 448–450. The CAS panel also addressed this issue in the “Submissions of the Parties” section, paras 117–118.
- 139.
Ibid., para 107.
- 140.
Ibid., para 117.
- 141.
See, e.g., our discussion on the distinction between facts and law in Rigozzi et al. 2015a, para 6.
- 142.
CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, para 449.
- 143.
Ibid., para 499.
- 144.
Ibid., para 499: Note that the CAS panel erroneously declared itself “satisfied, to the requisite standard of proof, that there is a scientific basis in the use of testosterone as a marker”. This is plainly in contradiction with the allocation of the burden of proof and the assessment that the CAS panel conducted: the assessment was whether the Athlete could establish that there is no such scientific basis.
- 145.
Ibid., para 517: In the words of the CAS panel: the “premise underpinning the Hyperandrogenism Regulations is therefore that some members of the female class have a competitive advantage over other members of the female class that is similar to the performance advantage enjoyed by male athletes”.
- 146.
Ibid., para 510.
- 147.
Ibid., para 514.
- 148.
Ibid., para 510.
- 149.
Ibid., para 509.
- 150.
For an overview and references, see Sánchez et al. 2013.
- 151.
IOC (2015) IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism November 2015. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2016.
- 152.
Ibid., para 358.
- 153.
Ibid., para 357.
- 154.
Ibid., para 358.
- 155.
Ibid., para 359.
- 156.
Ibid., para 362. In support of her position, she referenced two previous CAS cases that struck down (ostensibly eligibility) rules that impermissibly interfered with the substance of the WADA Code: CAS 2011/O/2422, USOC v. IOC, Award of 4 October 2011 and CAS 2011/A/2658, BOA v. WADA, Award of 30 April 2012.
- 157.
CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, para 362.
- 158.
Ibid., para 365.
- 159.
Ibid., para 365.
- 160.
Ibid., para 365.
- 161.
Ibid., para 365.
- 162.
Ibid., para 541.
- 163.
Ibid., para 540.
- 164.
Ibid., para 542.
- 165.
Ibid., para 542.
- 166.
Ibid., para 543.
- 167.
Ibid., para 544.
- 168.
Ibid., para 544.
- 169.
Ibid., para 544.
- 170.
Ibid., para 545.
- 171.
CAS 2011/O/2422, USOC v. IOC.
- 172.
CAS 2011/A/2658, BOA v. WADA.
- 173.
CAS 2011/O/2422, USOC v. IOC, para 8.19.
- 174.
In CAS 2011/A/2658, BOA v. WADA, the rule at issue was a BOA bye-law, declaring that athletes who committed an anti-doping rule violation would be ineligible for consideration as a member of the Great Britain Olympic Team. The BOA v. WADA CAS panel at para 8.39, found that the bye-law had the “effect of changing the sanctions and their effect”, thus the BOA (like the IOC), was also in breach of its duty to implement Article 10 without substantive change.
- 175.
There may exceptions in which the endogenous production is artificially altered through use of a Prohibited Method, i.e. as may occur through blood transfusion.
- 176.
This is currently achieved through a combination of analytical methods described in the WADA Technical Document on Endogenous Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (TD2014EAAS), with the key method if Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS), an analytical methods used to differentiate exogenous from endogenous origin of a substance (TD2014IRMS).
- 177.
Kaufmann-Kohler G, Rigozzi A and Malinverni G (2003) Legal opinion on the conformity of certain provisions of the draft World Anti-Doping Code with commonly accepted principles of international law, para 28. https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/kaufmann-kohler-full.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2016.
- 178.
CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, para 242.
- 179.
As way of examples, when Ms. Chand was prohibited from competing, the panel described it as “provisionally suspended” Ibid., para 27; and the AFI speaks of notifying the Athlete of her “disqualification” Ibid., para 24.
- 180.
Compare in CAS 2011/O/2422, USOC v. IOC, para 8.15: “[o]nce the [Regulation] is used to bar the participation of an athlete, the effect of the Regulation is disqualification … and would be undeniably disciplinary in nature”.
- 181.
Tour de France champion cyclist Chris Froome recently released biometric data relating to his aerobic capacity, i.e., VO2 max, that according to Phillip Bell, a scientist involved in the test, placed him “close to what we believe are the upper limits for VO2 peak in humans”. Austen I, Chris Froome releases test results but does little to silence his critics, 3 December 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/sports/cycling/chris-froome-releases-test-results-but-does-little-to-silence-his-critics.html?_r=0. Accessed 14 April 2016.
- 182.
Finnish cross-country skiing legend, Eero Mäntyranta, a 7-time Olympic medallist who placed in over 500 races, was reported to have a genetic mutation causing a hypersensitivity to EPO that led to a red blood cell count “measured up to 65 percent higher than that of an average man”. Epstein 2013, p. 284. It should also be noted that the UCI previously did enforce a “no-start rule” that prohibited a rider from competition for 15 days if certain blood parameters exceeded a set threshold. The rule was designed to reduce the health-risk from EPO use among cyclists and was repealed after a test for exogenously administered EPO and the athlete blood passport program was introduced. Marty D, Nicholson P and Haas U (2015) Cycling independent reform commission: report to the president of the Union Cycliste Internationale. http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/87/99/CIRCReport2015_Neutral.pdf. paras 102–103 & 117. Accessed 14 April 2016.
- 183.
Part of the success of Donald Thomas, a high jumper from the Bahamas, who advanced to the finals in the World Championships within eight months of starting his high-jumping career, has been attributed to his “uncharacteristically long” achilles tendons. Length (and stiffness) of achilles tendons are said to be important for jumping. Epstein 2013, p. 32.
- 184.
This is all the more true given that the case did not address the (almost inevitable) possibility that the relative significance of testosterone compared to other factors underlying exceptional ‘performance’ is likely to vary significantly across the many disciplines falling under the umbrella of athletics.
- 185.
CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. IAAF, para 536.
- 186.
Ibid., para 548.
- 187.
Ibid., para 548.
- 188.
Ibid., para 548.
- 189.
Ibid., para 548.
- 190.
Only an appeal for grounds of irregular composition of the tribunal or lack of jurisdiction could be filed, which would not be of relevance for the present matter.
- 191.
Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2015, paras 7.105–7.106.
- 192.
See, e.g., Branch J, Dutee Chand, Female sprinter with high testosterone level, wins right to compete, 27 July 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/sports/international/dutee-chand-female-sprinter-with-high-male-hormone-level-wins-right-to-compete.html. Accessed 14 April 2016; Grégoire M, Réhabilitation de Dutee Chand: “Une victoire pour toutes les femmes de l’athlétisme”, 28 juillet 2015. http://www.liberation.fr/sports/2015/07/28/rehabilitation-de-dutee-chand-une-victoire-pour-toutes-les-femmes-de-l-athletisme_1355262. Accessed 14 April 2016.
- 193.
Kidd B, Karkazis K and Mitra P, Open letter to Thomas Bach and Members of the IOC, 9 February 2016. http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/open-letter-ioc-12-feb-2016-1.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2016.
References
Epstein D (2013) The sports gene: inside the science of extraordinary athletic performance. Penguin, New York
Kaufmann-Kohler G, Rigozzi A (2015) International arbitration: law and practice in Switzerland. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: commentary, cases and materials. Kluwer Law International, Alpen aan den Rijn
Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E (2015a) Breaking down the process for determining a basic sanction under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. Int Sports Law J 15:3–48
Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E (2015b) Switzerland: anti-doping reports. Int Sports Law Rev (3) 54–56
Sánchez F, José Martínez-Patiño M, Vilain E (2013) The New Policy on Hyperandrogenism in Elite Female Athletes is not about “Sex Testing. J Sex Res 50:112–115
Viret M (2016) Evidence in anti-doping at the intersection of science & law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Viret, M., Wisnosky, E. (2016). CAS 2014/A/3759, Chand v. AFI & IAAF, Award of 24 July 2015. In: Duval, A., Rigozzi, A. (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-129-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-129-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-128-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-129-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
