## Facts

- Oscar Pistorius, a double-amputee sprinter, competed using carbon-fiber “Cheetah/Flex-Foot” prosthetic legs.
- The IAAF adopted Competition Rule 144.2(e), barring use of a “technical device” that provides the user an advantage over athletes not using such a device.
- The IAAF commissioned biomechanical testing (the “Cologne Report”) and concluded the prostheses reduced certain energy costs and vertical movement compared with able-bodied running at maximum speed.
- Relying on those tests, the IAAF Council issued Decision No. 2008/01 declaring Pistorius ineligible to compete in IAAF-sanctioned events against able-bodied athletes.
- Pistorius appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), submitting additional expert evidence asserting no metabolic advantage and identifying disadvantages in phases of racing, including the start.

## Issues

1. Whether Pistorius’s prosthetic legs fell within Rule 144.2(e) as a “technical device” that provides an advantage over athletes not using it.
2. What standard of proof governs a non-disciplinary eligibility appeal and which party bears the burden.
3. Whether the IAAF’s testing and decision-making process met basic requirements of fairness and scientific reliability.
4. Whether Rule 144.2(e) or its application unlawfully discriminated against Pistorius as a disabled athlete.

## Decision

- CAS upheld the appeal and annulled IAAF Decision No. 2008/01.
- CAS accepted the prostheses could be treated as a “technical device,” but held the IAAF did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the device provided Pistorius an overall net competitive advantage.
- CAS restored Pistorius’s eligibility to compete in IAAF-sanctioned competitions, subject to ordinary qualification standards.
- CAS did not base its ruling on unlawful discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- In non-disciplinary eligibility cases, the applicable standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, not “beyond reasonable doubt” or intermediate criminal-law standards.
- The burden rests on the federation invoking a technology-assistance rule to restrict eligibility; the federation must present convincing scientific proof supporting exclusion.
- A rule prohibiting devices that “provide an advantage” requires assessment of overall net advantage across the race, not selective advantages measured in isolated phases or metrics.
- Technology-based ineligibility determinations must be supported by reliable, competition-relevant testing and procedurally fair decision-making; methodological limits and indications of prejudgment can defeat the federation’s proof.

## Conclusion

CAS set aside the IAAF’s ineligibility ruling because the IAAF failed to establish that Pistorius’s prosthetic legs conferred an overall net competitive advantage under Rule 144.2(e) on the balance of probabilities, and the evidentiary foundation for exclusion was not sufficiently reliable or comprehensive.


Pistorius v. Int’l Ass’n of Athletics Federations (IAAF), CAS 2008/A/1480 (Ct. Arb. Sport 2008)