Eligibility disputes at the Olympic Games are ultimately resolved by the Ad Hoc Division ("AHD") of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This paper critically examines the AHD both from within and without. The first part of this thesis describes eligibility disputes at Games time, and how they are resolved. The paper begins with a brief look at the history of athlete participation in the Olympic Games. It then deals with the concept of eligibility, and sets out the rules which govern same for the Olympics. These rules are set by a number of separate but related entities, namely the International Olympic Committee, the International Federations, the National Olympic Committees, and, finally, the World Anti-Doping Agency. The roles of each of these bodies are examined in order to provide the context in which disputes are resolved. This paper then surveys the parameters in which the AHD operates which have been set over the years by domestic courts with an Anglo-American tradition. The performance of the AHD is then critically examined with a view to making recommendations for its improvement. The second part of this thesis surveys the ways eligibility disputes are resolved in the major north American professional sports leagues and the NCAA, with a view to suggesting improvements in the AHD process. This thesis concludes by offering recommendations to the AHD process in two areas: operational and structural. Several operational improvements are suggested, the main ones of which are that all parties affected by a dispute be offered an opportunity to participate in before the AHD, and parties be given the opportunity to appoint the Panel. The structural change suggested is that athletes be given formal input into the administration of the Games, with the Athletes' Commission being the obvious body which could form the basis for a bargaining unit. It is suggested that questions surrounding the legitimacy of AHD will remain while ever athletes have no formal say in its composition or operation.

Eligibility disputes at the Olympic Games are ultimately resolved by the Ad Hoc Division ("AHD") of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This paper critically examines the AHD both from within and without. The first part of this thesis describes eligibility disputes at Games time, and how they are resolved. The paper begins with a brief look at the history of athlete participation in the Olympic Games. It then deals with the concept of eligibility, and sets out the rules which govern same for the Olympics. These rules are set by a number of separate but related entities, namely the International Olympic Committee, the International Federations, the National Olympic Committees, and, finally, the World Anti-Doping Agency. The roles of each of these bodies are examined in order to provide the context in which disputes are resolved. This paper then surveys the parameters in which the AHD operates which have been set over the years by domestic courts with an Anglo-American tradition. The performance of the AHD is then critically examined with a view to making recommendations for its improvement. The second part of this thesis surveys the ways eligibility disputes are resolved in the major north American professional sports leagues and the NCAA, with a view to suggesting improvements in the AHD process. This thesis concludes by offering recommendations to the AHD process in two areas: operational and structural. Several operational improvements are suggested, the main ones of which are that all parties affected by a dispute be offered an opportunity to participate in before the AHD, and parties be given the opportunity to appoint the Panel. The structural change suggested is that athletes be given formal input into the administration of the Games, with the Athletes' Commission being the obvious body which could form the basis for a bargaining unit. It is suggested that questions surrounding the legitimacy of AHD will remain while ever athletes have no formal say in its composition or operation. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

published_or_final_version / Environmental Management / Master / Master of Science in Environmental Management

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Boston University / Special Olympics athletes may experience unique learning needs not seen among many mainstream athletes. Consequently, research-based coaching practices recommended for coaches of mainstream teams may not be appropriate for Special Olympics coaches. With this in mind, the importance of establishing a research-based knowledge bank of coaching practices to use with athletes who have intellectual disabilities comes to light. Identified coaching practices can benefit coaches of Special Olympics teams, as well as coaches of mainstream teams who may work with athletes who have intellectual disabilities. This first-of-its-kind empirical research study sought to identify instructional practices demonstrated by Massachusetts Special Olympics Hall of Fame coaches (n = 8). Specifically, this study aimed to discover what instructional practices were most commonly used among the participant group; what these instructional practices looked like; and what instructional practices may have contributed to supporting a positive learning climate. A framework for instructional practices set by the National Council for Accreditation of Coach Education (NCACE) was used to assist with the identification of instructional behaviors employed by study participants. A second purpose of this study was to use the NCACE (2006) Domain Five Observation Instrument (DFOI), a competency-based observation tool developed for this study, to collect data on study participants' instructional practices. Each study participant was observed coaching a practice three times during their sport season. Using the DFOI, observed instructional behaviors were quantified via event recording procedures and described by recording descriptive field notes. To triangulate data collected on the DFOI, coaches were audio-recorded with a wireless lapel microphone during practice observations. Following each coach's third practice observation, audio-recorded interviews were conducted to gain further insight into demonstrated instructional practices. Participants were observed performing 2,157 instructional behaviors during 1,080 minutes of observation, averaging 1.99 behaviors per minute and 89.87 behaviors per practice. Based on data analysis, encouragement, positive correction, and tactical and technical cues were the three instructional practices most commonly employed by study participants, accounting for 68.33% of all recorded behaviors. Data also show that participants engaged athletes in sport-specific activities during 63.15% of the total observation time, and spent only 5.95% of the total observation time delivering instruction to their teams. While speculative, data suggest that participants' emphasis of initiative, choice, excellence, and interpersonal relationships may have contributed to the support of positive learning environments. Additionally, the DFOI proved to be a useful observation tool for collecting competency-based quantitative and qualitative data, and is recommended for use during future replications of the current study, as well as future assessments of sport coaches' instructional practices. Based on data collected in this study, 14 recommendations are presented for Special Olympics, community-based, and school-based coach education programs. These recommendations include: promoting the importance of weaving encouragement into coaching practices, using a feedback model to facilitate delivery of positive corrections, and prioritizing use of instructional tools using a "tools in hand, tools in the tool belt, and tools in the toolbox" model.

By observing each unique Olympic Game, it is evident that some games were more successful than others at creating an event that is based solely around the concept of a unified sporting culture. Looking at some of the most controversial Olympics in history, it is interesting to see how the host city selection, government, political atmosphere of the time, and the games themselves defined the overall nature of the event. The Berlin Olympics of 1936, the Mexico City Olympics of 1968, the Munich Olympics of 1972, and the Beijing Olympics of 2008 are each very different and occurred at very different times. However, they all ultimately have one thing in common; politics found a way to be the defining factor in each situation. Regardless of how hard a host city attempts to honor the Olympic Charter's goal of creating an atmosphere of unity and peace, politics is omnipresent. "In the words of former International Olympic Committee president Avery Brundage, politics is a 'savage monster' always ready to ravage the Olympic movement" (Cha, 5).

Thesis (B.A.)--Bryn Mawr College, Growth and Structure of Cities Program, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references.

Critics of the Olympic Games argue that rather than promoting the cherished values of Olympism, the Games have primarily been used as a means to leverage public funds to satisfy the economic interests of the elite, while typically returning to the community overdebtness of hosting the event, unusable post event facilities and negative impacts to accommodations and its resident’s standard of living (Andranovich, Burbank & Heying, 2001; Haxton, 1999; Hall, 2006; Hiller, 1990, Horne & Manzenreiter, 2006; Lenskyj 2003; Macintosh and Whitson, 1993). For Vancouver, host city of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, to overcome such criticisms the organizing committee must work with its stakeholders, those with a stake rather than stock in the Games, to ensure that social development benefits are maximized and negative impacts are mitigated. The city’s downtown eastside (DTES) has been singled out as the first area of focus by both the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC) and the Vancouver Agreement (VA), a public collaboration aimed at addressing the social issues that plague the area including business decline, unemployment, poverty, crime, and drug use (Ference & Weicker, 2002; Pivot, 2006; Vancouver Agreement, 2006). The 2010 Winter Games Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement (ICICS), adopted by VANOC and the VA, outlines the goal for an inclusive and socio–economic responsible Games. Understanding how each organization aims to use these Olympic Games to address the social development issues in the DTES was the primary focus of this study. Using stakeholder theory, the specific research questions included: 1) How do the focal organization (VA) and the stakeholders (VANOC) define the social development issue(s) underpinning their involvement in the ICICS? 2) How does VANOC see its role/interests in the VA and how does this compare with the VA’s view of VANOC’s role? 3) What factors are facilitating or constraining the sustainability of the relationship between the VA and VANOC? 4) What outcomes do the VA and VANOC hope to accomplish and how will these be assessed? This case study from September 2005 to February 2006, used multiple qualitative research methods including document analysis of organizational reports, policies and media releases and purposive sampling to conduct 8 ‘elite’ face to face interviews with administrators from VANOC, the 2010 Legacies Now Society, a non-profit society that works with community partners to develop social and economic opportunities surrounding the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, and those involved at the VA. The study revealed the primary goal between these three organizations is to use determine how to effectively use these Olympic Games as a catalyst to address the social issues affecting the DTES. While acknowledging that these social issues will by no means be fully addressed by the time the Games are hosted, they continue to focus on building their relationships and within the community in order to accelerate this social agenda. Factors found to facilitating their own relationship and with the community include: inter organizational dynamics, the Olympic Games sectoral tables, and VANOC’s Board of Directors. While administrators also identified factors constraining the relationship to include: managing working relationships with the community, government politics, and inter organizational challenges.

Critics of the Olympic Games argue that rather than promoting the cherished values of Olympism, the Games have primarily been used as a means to leverage public funds to satisfy the economic interests of the elite, while typically returning to the community overdebtness of hosting the event, unusable post event facilities and negative impacts to accommodations and its resident’s standard of living (Andranovich, Burbank & Heying, 2001; Haxton, 1999; Hall, 2006; Hiller, 1990, Horne & Manzenreiter, 2006; Lenskyj 2003; Macintosh and Whitson, 1993). For Vancouver, host city of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, to overcome such criticisms the organizing committee must work with its stakeholders, those with a stake rather than stock in the Games, to ensure that social development benefits are maximized and negative impacts are mitigated. The city’s downtown eastside (DTES) has been singled out as the first area of focus by both the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC) and the Vancouver Agreement (VA), a public collaboration aimed at addressing the social issues that plague the area including business decline, unemployment, poverty, crime, and drug use (Ference & Weicker, 2002; Pivot, 2006; Vancouver Agreement, 2006). The 2010 Winter Games Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement (ICICS), adopted by VANOC and the VA, outlines the goal for an inclusive and socio–economic responsible Games. Understanding how each organization aims to use these Olympic Games to address the social development issues in the DTES was the primary focus of this study. Using stakeholder theory, the specific research questions included: 1) How do the focal organization (VA) and the stakeholders (VANOC) define the social development issue(s) underpinning their involvement in the ICICS? 2) How does VANOC see its role/interests in the VA and how does this compare with the VA’s view of VANOC’s role? 3) What factors are facilitating or constraining the sustainability of the relationship between the VA and VANOC? 4) What outcomes do the VA and VANOC hope to accomplish and how will these be assessed? This case study from September 2005 to February 2006, used multiple qualitative research methods including document analysis of organizational reports, policies and media releases and purposive sampling to conduct 8 ‘elite’ face to face interviews with administrators from VANOC, the 2010 Legacies Now Society, a non-profit society that works with community partners to develop social and economic opportunities surrounding the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, and those involved at the VA. The study revealed the primary goal between these three organizations is to use determine how to effectively use these Olympic Games as a catalyst to address the social issues affecting the DTES. While acknowledging that these social issues will by no means be fully addressed by the time the Games are hosted, they continue to focus on building their relationships and within the community in order to accelerate this social agenda. Factors found to facilitating their own relationship and with the community include: inter organizational dynamics, the Olympic Games sectoral tables, and VANOC’s Board of Directors. While administrators also identified factors constraining the relationship to include: managing working relationships with the community, government politics, and inter organizational challenges.

Thesis (M.Sc.)--Iowa State University, 2007. / Adviser: Lulu Rodriguez. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 1993. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 172-176). Also available online.