Edwards v. (1) British Athletic Federation (2) International Amateur Athletic Federation; High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, 23 June 1997
![handle is hein.journals/eurlawreo1 and id is 721 raw text is: [1997] EuLR
A EDWARDS v (1) BRITISH ATHLETIC FEDERATION
(2) INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR
ATHLETIC FEDERATION
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
Lightman J
B 23 June 1997
Discrimination - Sport - Drug control - Anti-doping test conducted on athlete -
Athlete banned for four years - Bans in other countries within European Union
reduced - Athlete's application for reduction of ban refused - Whether refusal
unlawful - Whether EC Treaty applied to operation of drug control provisions -
International Amateur Athletics Federation Rules, r. 60 - EC Treaty, Art. 59
C
Facts
The plaintiff was an amateur athlete and was a member of the British Athletic
Federation (BAF) (the first defendant). He was banned by the International Amateur
Athletics Federation (IAFF) (the second defendant) from competitions for four years
D under BAF Rules, r. 24 and IAFF Rules, rr 60(1)(i) and 60(2)(a)(i) after he tested
positive for anabolic steroids. Subsequently, he applied under IAAF Rules, r. 60(8)
which provided that in exceptional circumstances an athlete may apply to the
Council of the IAAF for reinstatement before the period ban expired. However, the
application, which would have had the effect of reducing the ban by two years, was
refused. The plaintiff challenged the lawfulness of the refusal. It was common ground
that the Council had reinstated, under IAAF Rules, r. 60(8), other athletes from both
E within and without the EU countries whose four-year bans had not expired, and that
the exceptional circumstances were that the relevant domestic law of the country of
the applicant prevented a four-year ban. The plaintiff contended that the IAAF could
not lawfully distinguish between the plaintiff's application and applications from
athletes of other countries on the ground that the four-year ban was lawful under
English law. It was further contended that the refusal of the application constituted
F unlawful discrimination in breach of Arts 59 to 66 of the EC Treaty.
Held, dismissing the action
1. The drug control rules contained in the IAAF Rules regulated the sporting
G conduct of participants in athletics. They were designed to ban cheating by taking
drugs, and the imposition of penalties was essential if the Rules were to be
effective. Although there was an incidental and inevitable by-product that a ban
would have serious economic consequences for those who breached the Rules, the
Rules did not cease to be rules designed to regulate the sporting conduct of
participants. Therefore, the IAAF Rules were of sporting interest only and did not
constitute an economic activity; accordingly, Art. 59 of the EC Treaty did not
H apply. See post p. 726D-G.
2. In any event, there was no basis for any contention that the IAAF had unlaw-
fully discriminated against the plaintiff. The law was concerned to eliminate
D 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
CCC 1091-3297/97/060721-08](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/eurlawreo1&div=48&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most