Majority Decision in Modahl v Baf on the Contractual Relationship - Essay Example

Sports law deals with legal issues concerning both amateur and professional sports (Wikipedia 2008) and serves as the basis of contracts in this field (University of Massachusetts 2005). It is a territory vastly covered by such scholars as Christopher Stoner (Serle Court n.d.) and Richard Parish. Should there then ever be a situation where a sportsperson’s right is mishandled—especially in the present-day attitude of self-assertiveness, such as that mentioned by Andre Smith and cited by blogger Abbott (2006)?

 In many cases, it would be agreed, this relationship is healthy enough—ethical conduct, anti-discriminatory laws, guides regarding competitions, and the formation of unions have grown better over the years, and with that more enthusiasm for sporting events—as witnessed in the recent Olympics in China (The Economist 2008) and England’s preparation to host the event in 2012 (The Economist 2008). One area remains rather in doubt though, and that is the area of doping or prohibited drug use for performance enhancement, which goes back many years in the history of sports (Wadler n.d.) and goes against the oneness of spirit in the same territory (Coleman et al.d.) as well as being the reason why many athletes are regarded as non-role models  (The Sports Law Professor 2007). This is such an important issue that it formed the topic for the 2007 “Sports and Law Conference” held in Berlin (ISLA 2007). 

In the Modahl case, many could easily argue that the BAF should introduce protocols of accreditation for laboratory tests (and laboratories themselves) carried out in foreign lands and that the IAAF should execute measures to see that this is reflected in all EU sports governing bodies. As stated in Rule 55.11 of the IAAF, the procedure of determining whether an athlete is culpable with regards to an illegal substance use does not matter unless it is "such as to cast real doubt on the reliability of such a finding." (IAAF cited by Parliament 1999)Yet the IAAF compensates for this by stating in paragraph eight (8.2) of the procedural guidelines that the test of Sample B, following that of Sample A, should be done in the presence of the athlete and/or a representative.

Also, paragraph 8.5 states that every athlete should have the right to a fair hearing before decisions are reached to avoid unjust suspension or discharge. In the Modahl versus BAF case there were loopholes, and open wounds for vampires, on both sides. The effect of it calls for action, not only at the domestic level but at the international level as well. Note the defense of the BAF: it was simply following the guidelines set out by the IAAF (which in turn probably did not foresee that kind of circumstance).

In summary, it is not the sports law and policy that is the enemy here, but the type of attention paid to it. Situations like this summon a need for more focus on positively detailed contractual rules and their application. As always, there is room for growth.