“This regulatory stupidity deserves a gold medal for injustice”

The jury Jean-Louis Dupontexpert in European Law and lawyer of the influential “Bosman case”, harshly criticized the disqualification of Elena Congost in the Paralympic Games marathon from Paris, where he won bronze, for letting go of the rope that joined him just a few meters from the finish line.

“This regulatory stupidity undoubtedly deserves a gold medal for injustice“, Dupont declared in a statement, considering that the decision of the International Olympic Committee violates the athlete’s right to the free provision of services guaranteed by Community law.

Congost came in third at the finish line, with her guide Mia Carol Bruguerawho crossed the finish line after suffering a cramp in the final meters and stopped the clock in 3:00.48, a personal record.

In those last meters, Congost released the rope in a second as a reflex to keep his guide from falling.which led to his disqualification, an incident the athlete considered “unfair and surreal.”

“I want everyone to know that I was not disqualified for cheating, but for being human and because of an instinct that comes out when someone falls, which is to help and hold on,” the runner stressed.

Also Dupont, the jurist who revolutionized the football labor market in the nineties with the ‘Bosman case’ and has recently been involved in the legal defense of the Super League, considered the decision untenable and maintains that “although – at first glance – the unjust decision against Elena Congost seems far from EU Law, this is not the case.”

“Under EU law, Ms. Congost is a transnational service provider and, therefore, You have the right to respect your freedom to provide services.” argued the lawyer.

Dupont expanded on that reasoning by noting that “an international federation or the IOC cannot interfere with its provision of services in an unreasonable or disproportionate manner.”

“Clearly, this is the case: Ms. Congost is being stripped of her medal (…) for the reason that she helped other people. This is absolute regulatory nonsense and, therefore, constitutes an unjustified obstacle (and, a fortiori, disproportionate) to their right to free provision of services,” he concluded.