|
A right to try to
clear one’s name
By Liao Wei-min 廖緯民
Eight months after taekwondo athlete Yang Shu-chun (楊淑君) was disqualified at the
Asian Games in Guangzhou, China, because of allegations she put extra sensors on
her electronic socks to score more points — and before the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) was scheduled to hold a hearing on the matter — Yang announced
that she was withdrawing the appeal filed with the CAS. The decision has caused
a lot of heated debate.
Let’s examine this move from the perspective of the rule of law.
The arbitration case involves Yang and the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF). The
two sides vary greatly in their explanation of the event in question and, at
this point, only the CAS is capable of clarifying the matter and putting an end
to the dispute in a way that is in line with international practice.
For Yang, the sudden withdrawal of her appeal not only means that the WTF’s
accusations will stand unchallenged, it also means that the truth about her
disqualification will never be known. Yang and her coach will have to live with
an unclear record for the rest of their lives, both in Taiwan and abroad. Yang
should think very carefully about what she stands to gain and lose.
In addition, the more than NT$3 million (US$104,000) in public funds that the
Sports Affairs Council (SAC) spent on the appeal will be wasted, which makes one
wonder who should be held responsible.
As this issue developed, former SAC deputy minister Chen Hsien-chung (陳顯宗) said
Yang should just “swallow” the incident, and the new president of the Chinese
Taipei Taekwondo Association (CTTA) Angus Hsu (許安進) expressed a hope that
withdrawing the appeal would help her win friends. The SAC has now adopted the
attitude that it respects any decision Yang makes. Others have said it is a wise
decision because sometimes people are simply not strong enough to overcome a
difficult situation.
However, such comments have no bearing on how modern civilizations should be run
according to the law. Suggestions that Yang could win an Olympic gold medal to
wipe out the shame she was subjected to and prove her innocence are also totally
irrelevant. The main point is not even whether Yang would have won the
arbitration case.
As far as CAS procedure goes, it places no importance on Taiwan’s national
strength. To do so would not be in line with the judicial spirit of protecting
the weak. However, a look at the history of arbitration cases on the CAS Web
site shows that athletes and sports groups from many small nations have utilized
this mechanism to solve disputes and many of them won their cases. By its
unwillingness to cooperate in international sport arbitration, the WTF is merely
showing that it is not qualified to be an international athletic body. For this,
it should be made to bear the consequences.
The most meaningful part of this entire incident is that the WTF will be
investigated to determine whether it is qualified and able to act as a sports
organization at the international and Olympic level and whether it holds the
power that an international sports association needs to be able to make and
execute international sports regulations and help its athletes when required.
These should be the main points of a lawsuit.
In response to Yang’s decision to withdraw her appeal, WTF Secretary-General
Yang Jin-suk openly expressed gratitude and encouraged the move, saying it
replaced conflict with harmony. However, such comments only make one question
his ideas about the importance of the law.
In sports, a wrong decision might not only result in an athlete — who has
already had a lot of money invested in her — becoming very upset, it also often
offends their entire nation and harms friendships between nations. Referees
accused of making a mistake, or their representative organization, should be
proactive, or at least supportive, in taking the issue to international sports
arbitration to clear up any doubts. Not doing so — and instead trying to solve
the issue in private and off the record or by encouraging a settlement — will
only make people wonder if the process involved coercion or other illegal
measures.
The attitude of the WTF only puts its distorted system on an international
stage, allowing the East Asian culture of face saving to win over the rule of
law and making things difficult for the International Olympic Committee and the
international community. Through its actions, Taiwan is helping this happen.
Objectivity and tolerance, which have developed thanks to the modern culture of
rule of law, are manifestations of self-confidence and forgiveness. Even if Yang
were to lose the CAS appeal in the end, taking the issue to court would still
embody the sporting spirit and the spirit of the rule of law. Withdrawing the
appeal will only end in an unsettled legal case, which amounts to legal
hypocrisy, which is as unacceptable as political populism. As Taiwan is ruled by
law, perhaps the SAC should be held responsible for the NT$3 million it wasted
on the appeals process.
Liao Wei-min is assistant professor of law in the Department of Law at
National Chung Hsing University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
|
