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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT