Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/2628
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcArdle, David-
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-29T22:38:28Z-
dc.date.issued2009-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/2628-
dc.description.abstractThis paper considers the Supreme Court judgment in PGA Tour v Casey Martin and the ruling of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Oscar Pistorius v International Association of Athletics Federations. It explores the implications of those decisions for elite athletes with disabilities who wish to participate in ‘mainstream’, non-disabled sport. The paper considers those rulings in the context of Article 30.5 of the Disabilities Convention and concludes that, while both decisions clearly represented successful outcomes for the individual athletes, they are of limited relevance to elite disabled athletes more generally. The language of Article 30.5 does not commit ratifying states to anything more radical than an ‘individualised assessment’ of the kind that should have occurred in PGA Tour, while Oscar Pistorius reveals far more about procedural incompetence on the part of the IAAF than it does about disability discrimination. That said, the Convention’s provisions on compliance monitoring are potentially very significant for all athletes with disabilities, and for that reason the implications of those two judgments have much to offer disability lobbyists and compliance monitoring groups who wish to explore what Article 30.5 may have to offer.en_UK
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherDepartment of Law, University College of Wales-
dc.relationMcArdle D (2009) Elite Athletes and Disability Discrimination, Cambrian Law Review, 40, pp. 49-62.-
dc.rightsThe publisher has not responded to our queries therefore this work cannot be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author; you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.-
dc.subjectdisability discriminationen_UK
dc.subjectarbitrationen_UK
dc.subjectUnited Statesen_UK
dc.subjectsporten_UK
dc.subject.lcshDiscrimination in sports Law and legislation-
dc.subject.lcshAthletes with disabilities-
dc.subject.lcshCourt of Arbitration for Sports-
dc.titleElite Athletes and Disability Discriminationen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2999-12-31T00:00:00Z-
dc.rights.embargoreasonThe publisher has not responded to our queries. This work cannot be made publicly available in this Repository therefore there is an embargo on the full text of the work.-
dc.citation.jtitleCambrian Law Review-
dc.citation.issn0084-8328-
dc.citation.volume40-
dc.citation.spage49-
dc.citation.epage62-
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublished-
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereed-
dc.type.statusPost-print (author final draft post-refereeing)-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.aber.ac.uk/en/law-criminology/research/clr/-
dc.author.emaild.a.mcardle@stir.ac.uk-
dc.contributor.affiliationLaw-
dc.rights.embargoterms2999-12-31-
dc.rights.embargoliftdate2999-12-31-
Appears in Collections:Law and Philosophy Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
McArdle.pdf328.43 kBAdobe PDFUnder Permanent Embargo    Request a copy


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.