No. It is very complex. And it is a very gray area. You can consent to personal jurisdiction and to the consideration of prior conduct. It's really not as black and white as you wish. Here, Nikolaj basically signed a document agreeing to have his prior conduct considered. On appeal, the mediator decided not to enforce that because Nikolaj didn't want to sign it but signed it because he wouldn't be able to compete unless he did. This is very debateable and there was a lot of argument over what the law was. Lots of contracts similar to this are enforced, where someone signs an agreement they don't like because they won't be able to do something they want to do if they don't. (I personally have had to undergo background checks and agreed that my prior conduct could prevent me from getting the job even if I had not been convicted.)
Imagine the consequences of this ruling, especially in the context of safety. A person with a history of child molestation moves to a new country. He gets offered a new job. He really wants that job. But, he has to sign an agreement saying that he can be suspended if he has ever engaged in sexual misconduct, including misconduct he engaged in before he becomes a part of this new sports organization. He doesn't want to sign it because he knows he's a child molester, but he wants the job. So, he signs it. Then, prior victims worry about more child molestation and let the governing body in his new country know about this guy's prior child molestation. Now, he claims that they can't prevent him from coaching because he only signed the agreement because he had a coaching offer he wanted to accept.
You want to bury your head in the sand and claim that the most important thing in this is your bald and baseless assertion that this is black and white and the organization trying to protect athletes is biased and just willy nilly pursuing him, go ahead. But, it really is nonsense.
No. Courts and other adjudicatory bodies have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction. The due process comes with the right to argue against jurisdiction and to appeal, which is what happened here.
I think it is a profound point. You don't, which is sad.
Bull. I have never said anything remotely like that.
Last edited:
