ILNews

IU McKinney dean emeritus taking legal skills to the Olympics

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After receiving the unexpected invitation to help at the 2014 Olympic Winter Games, Gary Roberts said he did not think about it for more than a second before accepting.

The dean emeritus of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law will be part of the Court of Arbitration for Sport ad hoc Division which will settle all legal disputes that arise during the games.

Roberts will be one of nine arbitrators who are either lawyers, judges or professors with a specialization in sports law and arbitration.

An expert in the field of sports law, Roberts has 30 years of experience in the niche. He is currently a certified commercial and sports arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association and is a founding member of the board of directors for the International Association of Sports Professionals and Executives.

“There is nothing I can do to cram for the assignment,” Roberts said. “I will bring all of that knowledge and experience to bear, but there isn’t much I could do now to prepare.”

The panel will primarily handle two types of disputes: those concerning an athlete’s eligibility and those about fairness. Eligibility questions may arise from a positive drug test, challenges to an athlete’s country of residence or accusations about an athlete having an unfair competitive advantage. Fairness disputes can crop up from arguments that the rules were not followed, claims the equipment did not function properly or assertions the referees were biased.

Roberts explained many of the cases that come before CAS Ad Hoc Division are very, very important to people who are involved. The decisions could mean the difference between an athlete who has trained for years not being allowed to compete or not receiving a medal.

The rulings of the council will have consequences and could be controversial, Roberts said.

The Olympic Games will start Feb. 7 and conclude Feb. 23.

During the games, Roberts, along with his colleagues, will be on call. When a legal dispute erupts, he explained, he will have two hours to change into his suit and get to the hearing room.

However, when he is not helping to settle cases, Roberts will be allowed to take in any event he wants.

“I’m always joking I’m getting very excited about the curling,” he quipped.
 



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT