SWISS COURT REJECTS IAAF REQUEST TO REIMPOSE TESTOSTERONE RULES AGAINST CASTER

Sport

Lawyers for South African track star Caster Semenya say Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court has rejected the IAAF’s urgent request to be allowed to immediately reimpose its eligibility regulations on her.

In an order issued on Wednesday, the Swiss supreme court upheld its prior order made on 31 May in favour of Semenya.

“The supreme court’s prior order requires the IAAF to immediately suspend the implementation of its eligibility regulations against Caster Semenya in light of the athlete’s pending appeal,” her lawyers said in a statement on Thursday.

The IAAF and Athletics South Africa have until 25 June to make submissions to the court on Semenya’s request that the IAAF regulations be suspended throughout the appeal proceedings.

“Until the supreme court decides on this request, the IAAF regulations remain suspended against Caster,” read the statement.

The court said the IAAF’s request failed to set out any reason or change in circumstance that would cause it to reconsider its decision.

Last month, the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected Semenya’s challenge against the new IAAF regulations.

However, she appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, which temporarily suspended the IAAF rules until Semenya’s appeal is heard.

The court’s decision comes two days after Semenya won the 2,000m event at a meeting in Montreuil, France.

This new development means Semenya can still compete without restriction in the female category.

Semenya said she had thought about not running the 800m but decided against it.

“No woman should be subjected to these rules. I thought hard about not running the 800m in solidarity unless all women can run free. But I will now run to show the IAAF that they cannot drug us,” she said in the statement.

The statement said Semenya also wanted clarity on why she had been prevented from competing in the 800m in the IAAF Diamond League Meeting in Rabat on 16 June in what her lawyers called an “apparent violation” of the court’s order.

EWN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *