Abstract

London Summer Olympic Games, besides postulated ideals of unity, peace, tolerance and equality, also exposed the black side of sports: a variety of deceptive ways by which athletes attempt to improve their personal performance and overtake opponents or, conversely, intentionally try to underperform for the material or other benefits. The methods of the article are the systematical analysis of scientific (legal, criminological and sociological) literature, legal acts and jurisprudence. The object of the article is the relation and margin between fair and unfair play in Olympic Games. Aim of the article was to clarify the line (margin) between honorable and dishonorable ways of competing in the context of Olympic Games. In order to achieve the aim the following tasks were defined: 1) to analyze the recent London Olympic Games and identify what aspects are actual for Lithuania; 2) to find out how social theories might explain some disputable examples; 3) to analyze how legal regulation helps or hinders to clarify sport. Lithuanian examples in London Summer Olympic Games also show global problems. Women hepthatlonist’s case reveals that the discriminatory aspect of the doping testing system has occurred at least practically (if not legally). If it is decided that similar procedures are unlawful, anti-doping control might lose its authority, as it might disproportionally and unreasonably influence the course or results of the competition. Boxer’s E. Petrauskas case calls for more transparent and more standardized refereeing system in boxing. In said case it can be difficult to prove corruption, but it must be possible to establish more predictable refereeing. The metaphor of light and shadows lets us to look at sport from various perspectives. Step by step it is understood that white does not exist without black and vice versa: the relation between fair and unfair play is not as trivial as it might seem from the first sight. Doping might be subjectively tolerated in professional sports and it also raises potential legal questions. Whereabouts as well as testing systems lack some legitimacy, for instance, “random” testing might condition not random failures at the playfield. The system of refereeing in boxing calls for more standardized and more predictable one. The margin between the tactics of the competition (when the main aim is to get into the next round, not to show the best efforts) and abuse of the competition (match-fixing) is not clear, it might be the question of the referee’s discretion. Also, the commercialization of sports usually speaks not only about appropriate infrastructure and material basis, but also about not necessarily fair commercial interests. Verf.-Referat