Arbitration/スポーツ仲裁

2021/09/16Arbitration/スポーツ仲裁

A Summary of Decisions in the CAS Ad Hoc Division of the Tokyo Olympics

Disputes related to the Tokyo Olympic Games will, in principle, be settled by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. CAS is not a judicial body,but a private entity of alternative dispute resolution.

For disputes that arise from 10 days before the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games and during the Olympic Games, an ad hoc division will be established on the site of the Olympic Games for that period only. With reference to the Tokyo Olympics, the office of the ad hoc division was placed in Tokyo. However, the seat of ad hoc division of the CAS is in Lausanne, Switzerland, and is governed by Swiss Act on Private International law.

The ad hoc division has published the decisions on the CAS website, and I have epitomized each case.

The cases are categorized as follows:

• 5 cases of selection and eligibility
• 1 case of anti-doping
• 3 cases of field of play decision

The characteristic of the ad hoc division is that it needs to resolve disputes in a brief time, as the date of the competition in question is fast approaching. For this reason, a panel of the ad hoc division must, in principle, give a decision within 24 hours of the lodging of the application.

 

CAS OG 20/03Jennifer Harding-Marlin v. St. Kitts & Nevis Olympic Committee & Fédération Internationale de Natation; Eligibility

1.  Outline of the fact

Applicant: Swimmer (a citizen of St. Kitts and Nevis and a member of the St. Kitts and Nevis Swimming Federation)
Respondent 1: St. Kitts and Nevis National Olympic Committee (SKNOC)
Respondent 2: Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)

FINA has established a universality quota that allows athletes to participate in the Olympic Games even if they do not meet the OQT ”A” and OST ”B” and cannot be selected for the national team. The Applicant requested the SKNOC to enter the 100m backstroke race, claiming that she met the requirements for the universality quota (FINA also acknowledged that she met the eligibility requirements). Although the details are unclear, the Swimming Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis (SKSF) is a member of FINA, but not of SKNOC. Each national Olympic committee selects and sends the Olympic representatives (Olympic Charter 27.7.2). Apparently, there was a negotiation regarding joining a membership between SKNOC and SKSF, but it was not put into practice. On July 13, 2021, SKNOC informed the Applicant that they did not select her for the Tokyo Olympics. The Applicant appealed the SKNOC decision.

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

The Applicant filed the application at 11:55 am on July 18, 2021. FINA submitted the answer at 20:59 pm on the same day. A hearing was held by video conference at 9:00 am on 19 July. The Panel issued the Decision on July 19.

3. Conclusion and Reasons

The application was dismissed and the SKNOC’s decision (not to select her as a representative) was confirmed. 

In this case, there was no dispute that the Applicant had fulfilled the requirements for the universality quota. However, there was an issue that SKSF was not a member of SKNOC. As mentioned above, the Olympic representatives are selected and sent by each national Olympic committee (NOC). As a precondition for this, each national federation has to recommend athletes for the Olympic Games to the NOC (Olympic Charter 44.4). In order to make these recommendations, the national federations require to select athletes. The question in this case is whether the national federations must be members of the NOC. It is assumed that the Olympic Charter envisages that national federations will be members of their NOCs (Olympic Charter 29, etc.), but there is no clear provision on the recommendation of athletes by national federations.

The Panel points out that ,in general terms, ‘the requirement that a national federation to be a member of the local NOC in order to recommend athletes for entry into the Olympics could find justifiable bases, such as the necessity to verify the quality and diffusion of the specific sport at the local level, to guarantee the sound administration of sport, and to coordinate the efforts for the promotion of sport in the relevant country’. The Applicant claims that the SKNOC’s decision is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable, but all of these claims were rejected as she was unable to submit any sufficient admissible evidence.

 

CAS OG 20/04Maxim Agapitov v. International Olympic Committee; Eligibility

1. Outline of the fact

Applicant: Acting President of the European Weightlifting Federation and President of the Russian Weightlifting Federation (former athlete)
Respondent: IOC

In mid-June 2021, the Applicant received an Olympic Identity and Accreditation Card (OIAC) from the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF).　Subsequently, however, the IOC withdrew the issuance of the OIAC and demanded its return on the grounds that the Applicant did not meet the condition as an IWF official that he had “no personal history of anti-doping violations and/or sanctions”.　On July 18, 2021, the Applicant made a formal request to the IOC for a hearing by a competent body of the IOC, in accordance with the Olympic Charter. Moreover, the Applicant requested that if there is no decision by the IOC by 6:00 p.m. (Tokyo time) on Monday, July 19, 2021, an official IOC decision [has been taken] to withdraw his “pre-valid accreditation for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics”.　The Applicant appealed against the decision of the withdrawal of the OIAC by IOC.

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

The Applicant filed the application at 8:18 am on July 21, 2021. The Respondent submitted the answer at 20:59 pm on the same day. A hearing was held by video conference at 2:00 pm on July 22. The Panel issued the Decision on July 24.

3. Conclusion and Reasons

The Panel upheld the application and set aside the IOC’s decision (withdrawal of the OIAC).

At the time the IWF issued the OIAC to the Applicant, the requirement “no personal history of anti-doping violations and/or sanctions” was not established. On June 24, 2021, the International Testing Agency released a report which severely cited “mishandling and improper conduct on the part of certain IWF officials in connection with the IWF anti-doping program,” as well as the widespread doping scandals in weightlifting events in 2019 and 2020. The IOC had additionally set up the requirement in response to the report. According to the IOC, it suggested the Applicant had committed an anti-doping violation in 1994. The Applicant’s name was present in the IWF Independent Investigation Report by Professor Richard McLaren, and the Applicant’s official activities in Russian and European weightlifting federations as grounds for meeting the requirement. However, the Panel found that the language of the “no personal history of anti-doping violations and/or sanctions” requirement asserted by the IOC was vague and broad, with no reasonable limitation, and did not meet the requirements of clarity and predictability.

The Panel also found that the IOC’s automatic application of this requirement to the Applicant was inappropriate. The reasons for this were that the McLaren Report contained the Applicant’s name, which stated that the Applicant was a person of honesty and integrity, had a genuine interest in sport, and wanted to clean up the doping problems that had plagued him in the past. It also stated that although the past doping violations occurred 27 years ago, this issue had nothing to do with the cause of the IOC’s announcement of the additional requirements and the IWF’s governance problems, and that it would be inappropriate to withdraw the certification on this basis.

 

CAS OG 20/05Oksana Kalashinikova & Ekaterine Gorgodze v. International Tennis Federation, Georgian National Olympic Committee, Georgia Tennis Federation; Selection

1. Outline of the fact

Applicants: Two female doubles players from Georgia
Respondent 1: International Tennis Federation (ITF)
Respondent 2: Georgia National Olympic Committee (GNOC)
Respondent 3: Georgia Tennis Association (GTA)

On July 1, 2021, the ITF published the entry list for the Tokyo Olympics on its website.  The ITA based the entry list on the ATP and WTA rankings as of June 14, 2021, in accordance with the ITF’s selection criteria and omitted the Applicants’ name. 
On July 16, the ITF published a revised entry list. According to this list, the ITF deleted five teams (Belarus, Great Britain, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and the Russian Olympic Committee) and added five new teams (Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, Mexico and Serbia). There was no mention of the Applicants.
The Applicants complained that the ITF did not include them in the revised entry list, even though they had verbally confirmed with GTA officials that their team entries had been officially made.

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

The Applicant filed the application at 10:42 am on July 21, 2021. The Respondents should submit the answer by 6:00 pm on July 22. A hearing was held by video conference at 7:00 pm on 22 July. The Panel issued the Decision on July 23.

3. Conclusion and Reasons

The Panel dismissed the application.

The Applicants argued that the five teams on the revised entry list were lower than the Applicants in the rankings as of June 14, and that according to the ITF’s selection criteria, the Applicants should had been selected and were eligible to participate. The ITF admitted that the Applicants should have been eligible to take part in the Tokyo Olympics, but the GNOC, which has the exclusive right to select the national team, did not enter the Applicants by the entry deadline. It was not clear why the GNOC did not enter the Applicants as it did not submit its reply and did not engage in the hearing. Although the Panel bitterly complained about the GNOC’s attitude, it dismissed the application on the grounds that since the GNOC did not enter the Applicants in the ITF, the Applicants didn’t meet the requirements to partake in the Tokyo Olympics.

CAS OG 20/06 World Athletics v. Alex Wilson, Swiss Anti-Doping & Swiss Olympic
CAS OG 20/08 WADA v. Alex Wilson, Swiss Anti-Doping & Swiss Olympic; Anti-doping

1. Outline of the fact

Applicants : World Athletics (WA) & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
Respondent 1: Swiss track and field athlete (the “Athlete”)
Respondent 2: Swiss Anti-Doping Agency (SADA)
Respondent 3: Swiss Olympic Committee (SOC)

The Athlete qualified for the men’s 100m and 200m and was scheduled to compete in the 100m preliminary round on July 31, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Athlete was found to have Trenbolone (an anabolic steroid), a non-specified substance, in an out-of-competition test; Sample B also confirmed the presence of Trenbolone. On April 28, the Swiss Anti-Doping Agency notified the Athlete of the AAF (Adverse Analytical Findings) and imposed a mandatory provisional suspension. On May 7, the Athlete made a request to lift his provisional suspension, claiming that the positive test caused by a contaminated beef because he had eaten the contaminated beef (1 kg of cow tail and 6 patties) at “Vybz” in Las Vegas on March 11 and 12, 2021. On June 22, the disciplinary chamber of the SOC accepted the application and decided to lift his provisional suspension. WA and WADA appealed the SOC’s decision.

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

WA filed the application at 6:00 pm on July 22, 2021. WADA filed the application at 10:04 am on July 24. The Athlete submitted the answer at 6:00 pm on the same day. A hearing was held by video conference at 6:00 pm on 25 July. The Panel issued the Decision on July 27. 

3. Conclusion and Reasons

The Panel upheld the appeal of WA and WADA and set aside SOC’s decision, and imposed the provisional suspension on the Athlete.

According to WADA’s uniform rules, if they detect a prohibited substance in a sample, they will impose a mandatory provisional suspension. Should the Athlete lift the provisional suspension, he/she must prove that the violation is likely to have involved in a Contaminated Product. The specific provision in WADA code is as follows (emphasized by the author);

A mandatory Provisional Suspension may be eliminated if: (i) the Athlete demonstrates to the hearing Panel that the violation is likely to have involved a Contaminated Product.

The disciplinary chamber of the SOC found that the Athlete had sufficiently established that the violation could involved the consumption of contaminated beef. In contrast, the Panel noted that the disciplinary chamber had considered whether the positive test could have been caused by the contaminated beef but had not considered whether it was likely to be the case. The panel noted there is a big difference between them. Thus, the Panel concluded the SOC’s decision (to lift the provisional suspension) should be annulled.

The Panel considered the respective evidence submitted by the Applicants and the Athlete in order to impose the provisional suspension. The Applicants submitted the reports of two expert witnesses in the Lawson case (CAS 2019/A/6313), which concerned contaminated beef in the U.S. (e.g., Trenbolone was not used in U.S. livestock production, and that there were no cases of doping violations in the U.S. derived from Trenbolone in contaminated beef). In response, the Athlete has submitted that he did not intentionally use the prohibited substance, the specific circumstances under which he ate the beef, the affidavit of the owner of the restaurant, and CAS precedents (such as the Lawson case, etc.). As in the Lawson case, the results of the hair analysis of the Athlete by Professor Pascal Kintz (conducted on May 13, 2021) was also submitted. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Panel concluded that the Athlete has failed to establish that the Trenbolone detected in the Athlete was likely to have involved in the contaminated beef. Therefore, the Panel imposed the provisional suspension on the Athlete. 

CAS OG 20/10NOC Belgium v. World Athletics & USOPC & NOC Dominican RepublicCAS OG 20/11NOCNSF v. World Athletics & USOPC & NOC Dominican Republic; Field of play decision

1. Outline of the fact

Applicants: Belgian Olympic Committee (BOC) & Netherlands Olympic Committee (NOC)
Respondent 1: World Athletics (WA)
Respondent 2: United States Olympic Committee (USOC)
Respondent 3: Dominican Republic Olympic Committee (DROC)

On July 30, 2021, in the preliminary round of the mixed 4x400m relay, the U.S. team passed the baton outside the takeover zone, which would normally result in disqualification. Also, in the same race, the Dominican team changed lanes from outside to inside at the last moment, which would normally result in disqualification. However, on July 31, 2021, at 12:24 a.m., the WA Jury of Appeal annulled the disqualification of the Dominican team and reinstated them in the finals. Seeing that the Dominican Republic athlete correctly positioned herself in response to an incorrect original placement and there was no interference or negative impact on the other team. Moreover, at 12:54 a.m., the WA Jury of Appeal annulled the disqualification of the U.S. team and reinstated them in the finals. Seeing that the U.S. athlete was not properly placed in the correct position at the time the signal was given for the athlete to move to his place on the track. Regarding the participation of the German team, which had gotten third place due to the disqualification of the U.S. and Dominica, the WA Jury of Appeal allowed the German team the right to participate in the finals. The Applicants appealed against the revocation of the disqualification of the U.S. and Dominican teams.

It noted that Belgium and the Netherlands had been selected to advance to the finals regardless of whether the U.S. and Dominica were disqualified or not. As a result of the final, Dominica finished 2nd, USA 3rd, Netherlands 4th, and Belgium 5th. The Netherlands and Belgium would have been in a position to win medals if Dominica and USA were disqualified in the qualifying rounds.

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

BOC filed the application at 8:22 pm on July 31, 2021. The finals of the Mixed 4 x 400m relay were held. NOC filed the application at 11:49 on July 31. WA submitted the answer at 5:01 pm on August 1.A hearing wasn’t held. The Panel issued the Decision on August 2.  

3. Conclusion and reasons

Unlike sports arbitration in Japan, the CAS has the jurisdiction to make a decision on a field of play. However, according to the doctrine of the field of play jurisprudence established by the precedents in the CAS, to overturn a field of play decision, there must be direct evidence that establishes, to a ‘high hurdle’, bad faith or bias (CAS OG 00/103; CAS OG 16/028). The Panel concluded that it would not interfere with the field of play decision, since the Applicants did not allege that WA Jury of Appeal made the decision in bad faith or arbitrarily. Also, the Panel noted that the finals had already finished and they had already awarded the medals, therefore, the relief sought is moot or not appropriate.

 CAS OG 20/12 Nazar Kovalenko v. World Athletics & Athletics Integrity Unit; Eligibility

1. Outline of the fact

Applicant: Ukrainian Male 20km race walker
Respondent: World Athletics (WA) – Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU)

Under the anti-doping rules of WA, WA set a special requirement on the national federations of Category A (Belarus, Bahrain, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria and Ukraine) for those athletes in order to qualify for the World Championships in Athletics and Olympic Games. The said requirement is that athletes in Category A must undergo at least three no-notice doping tests (out-of-competition tests) at intervals of at least three weeks within the 10-month period leading up to said Games but for exceptional circumstances (“WA Rules”).  AIU declared that since the Applicant did not meet this requirement, so he was ineligible to participate in the Tokyo Olympics.  The Applicant appealed this decision and filed for arbitration.

The circumstances leading to the disqualification are the following.

• On March 9, 2017, WA provisionally suspended the Applicant for a doping violation. Subsequently, the AIU proposed to reduce the Applicant’s period of suspension to three years and disqualified him from all competition results obtained between May 11, 2012 and May 17, 2015, which the Applicant accepted on March 6, 2020. 
• The Applicant resumed his sporting activities on March 10, 2020 after suspension in said violation. Since then, the Applicant participated in the 20km race walk competitions on March 14, September 18, and October 18, 2020. Moreover, on March 20, June 6, and July 11, 2021, the Applicant participated in race walk competitions and underwent an in-competition doping test at each competition. 
• On June 14, 2021, WA announced on its website that the Applicant met the qualification criteria to join the Tokyo Olympics. 
• On June 22 and July 2, the AIU, however, asked the Ukrainian Athletics Federation (UAF) for the list of athletes qualified to take part in the Olympic Games and whether they had been tested in accordance with the WA rules, pointing out that many athletes did not meet the requirements of the WA rules.
• On July 6, the Applicant underwent an out-of-competition test.
• On July 7, the UAF recommended athletes for the Tokyo Olympics, including the Applicant, and the Ukrainian Olympic Committee approved them.
• On July 12, the AIU confirmed that three of the said athletes, including the Applicant, did not meet the requirements of the WA Rules and requested the Ukrainian Anti-Doping Agency and the UAF to explain why they could not implement the WA Rules.
• On July 13, the Ukrainian Anti-Doping Agency replied that they did not initially planned to include the Athlete in the national team and they only considered his selection after the WA announced on its website that the Applicant met the qualification criteria in June 2021.
• On July 23, the AIU informed the UAF again that some athletes including the Applicant had failed to meet the qualification criteria and the reason why the WA Rules could not implement did not fall under exceptional circumstances.
• On July 27, the Applicant passed the out-of-competition test.
• On July 28, the AIU announced that three Ukrainian track and field athletes (including the Applicant) were ineligible to partake in the Tokyo Olympics, without mentioning their names.
• On August 1, the Applicant underwent an out-of-competition test.

2.  Procedure (Tokyo time)

The Applicant filed the application at 6:05 pm on August 1, 2021. The Respondent submitted the answer at 8:14 am on August 3. A hearing was held by video conference at 2:00 pm on the same day. The Panel issued the Decision on August 3. 

3. Conclusion and reasons

The Panel dismissed the application.

There was no dispute between the parties that the Applicant did not meet the qualification criteria due to missing the OUT-OF-COMPETITION TESTS under the WA Rules.
The major arguments of the Applicant are as follows:

1. a. Whether the ineligibility of the Applicant decided by the AIU for the failure to comply with the WA Rules is an unenforceable sanction;
2. b. Whether the Applicant has, in practice, complied with the testing requirements and therefore his ineligibility would be a disproportionate, unfair and illegal measure taken against him;
3. c. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would allow an exemption to the strict application of the WA Rules.

• a. Whether the ineligibility of the Applicant decided by the AIU for the failure to comply with the WA rule is an unenforceable sanction;

The Panel found that the WA Rules are not a sanction but only qualification criterion, stating that the WA Rules apply to all athletes from Category A countries and it does not impose on the athletes’ behavior and that there is no intention to sanction.

• b. Whether the Applicant has, in practice, complied with the testing requirements and therefore his ineligibility would be a disproportionate, unfair and illegal measure taken against him;

The Applicant argued that he had undergone doping tests five times before the Tokyo Olympics, and that even if he did not meet the qualification criteria of the WA Rules, he could prove that he was clean.

The Panel, however, rejected the Applicant’s argument, finding that unpredictable out-of-competition tests cannot be substituted by predictable in-event testing at the Applicant’s discretion.

• c. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would allow an exemption to the strict application of the WA Rules.

The Applicant argued that he acknowledged his eligibility for the Tokyo Olympics in June 2021 and that he could not have undergone three out-of-competition tests within 10 months at that moment.

The Panel noted that since the WA Rules stipulate that they cover not only athletes who are eligible to participate, but also those who are likely to be selected, the UAF and the Ukrainian Anti-Doping Agency should have planned to test for those athletes. In addition, the Panel suggested that the Applicant continued to train during the suspension period and achieved excellent results after the suspension period, so it is unlikely that the Applicant was unaware of the WA rules.

CAS OG 20/13
Krystsina Tsimanouskaya v. National Olympic Committee of Belarus; Selection

1. Outline of the fact

Applicant: Belarusian athlete
Respondent: National Olympic Committee of Belarus (NOCB)

The Applicant was scheduled to participate in the Tokyo Olympics in the 100m and 200m events.  However, the NOCB entered her in the 4 x 100m relay without discussing it with the Applicant. The reason why the NOCB did so was that two of the four athletes in the 4 x 100m relay had not undergone sufficient doping tests (the WA Rules) and could not be entered, thus they entered her and one other athlete (a 100m hurdler). When the Applicant learned about this, she posted a video on her Instagram and sent out a message that the NOCB had entered her in a relay that she did not specialize in, without prior consultation, and that the NOCB had made a mistake in not counting the number of doping tests on original relay athletes. In response, the Belarusian national broadcaster aired that the Applicant got upset that she was selected for the women’s 4 x 400m relay instead of supporting the team in difficult circumstances, that the two relay athletes could not compete because of the too strict WA Rules, that the Applicant was not important for the victory, the success of the team or the spectators, etc.  As a result, the Applicant received negative and offensive comments from certain media outlets and malicious messages on social networking sites.

On August 1, 2021, the coaching staff of the Belarusian delegation withdrew the Applicant’s participation in the women’s 200 m scheduled for August 2, 2021 at 10:30 am. The reason, they said, was due to a doctor’s report on her mental and emotional condition. The Applicant rebutted this explanation on her Instagram that she had never met that doctor. The Applicant publicly stated that they would forcibly take her out of Japan and send her back to Belarus. She further stated that due to the current political situation in Belarus, many athletes in Belarus are being faced with physical and psychological violence, and that she does not know what will happen to her if she returns to Belarus, thus, she wishes to seek political asylum.

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

The Applicant filed the application at 8:30 am on August 2, 2021. The President of Ad Hoc division issued the decision at 10:00 am on August 2. The preliminary race of the women’s 200m. As the women’s 200m preliminary race was scheduled to be held at 10:30 a.m.,  the president of Ad Hoc Division made his decision based on Article 14 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, without forming a panel at its discretion. Article 14 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules provides as follows.

In case of extreme urgency, the Panel, where already formed, or otherwise the President of the ad hoc Division, may rule on an application for a stay of the effects of the challenged decision or for any other preliminary relief without hearing the respondent first. The decision granting such relief ceases to be effective when the Panel gives a decision within the meaning of article 20 of the present Rules. When deciding whether to award any preliminary relief, the President of the ad hoc Division or the Panel, as the case may be, shall consider whether the relief is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, and whether the interests of the applicant outweigh those of the Respondent or of other members of the Olympic Community.

 

3. Conclusion and Reasons

The President dismissed the application.

In deciding on preliminary relief under Article 14 of the Ad Hoc Rules, it is necessary that (i) to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, (ii) the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, and (iii) the interests of the Applicant outweigh the interests of the other party and other members of the Olympic Community (CAS 2003/O/ 486; CAS 2001/A/329; CAS 2001/A/324; CAS 2007/A/1317; CAS 2010/A/2071). 486; CAS 2001/A/329; CAS 2001/A/324; CAS 2007/A/1317; CAS 2010/A/2071). The President of the Ad Hoc Division points out that there is not enough evidence to prove these requirements, especially since the Applicant isolated herself by the “shelter granting” and is protected in an undisclosed location, and therefore cannot be heard in person. For this reason, he determined that the application did not meet the requirement of (ii) “likelihood of success” and therefore he dismissed the case.

For your information, the Applicant went into exile in Poland.

CAS OG 20/14Mourad Aliev & Fédération française de boxe & Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français c. IOC Boxing Task Force & Frazer Clarke & British Olympic Association; Field of play decision

1. Outline of the fact

Applicants: French boxer, French Boxing Association & French National Olympic Committee
Respondents: IOC, British Boxer & British Olympic Committee

On August 1, 2021, a French boxer and a British boxer met in the quarterfinals of the Tokyo Olympics boxing competition in the over 91 kg division. In the first round, three of the five judges gave the victory to the French boxer. In the second round, the referee stopped time with 10 seconds left because the British boxer had a cut above his eyebrow. Finally, the French boxer was judged to be disqualified. The Applicants appealed against this decision(disqualification) to the IOC’s Boxing Task Force (IOC/BTF) and the IOC/BTF upheld the referee’s decision. The Applicants appealed this decision and filed for arbitration. 

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

The Applicants filed the application at 9:56 am on August 2, 2021. The Respondents submitted the answer at 8:00 pm on August 2. A hearing was held by video conference at 10:00 pm on the same day. The Panel issued the Decision on August 3. 

3. Conclusions and Reasons

The Panel dismissed the application.

The Applicants claimed that the IOC/BTF should annul his disqualification or they should replay the game from the second round with a different referee and judges, etc. As mentioned by the case in CAS OG 20/10 & 20/11, the overturn of a field of play decision in the CAS is restricted to cases where the decision was made in bad faith, bias or arbitrary. The Applicants claimed that the decision was a technical error resulting from the referee’s inexperience, but did not suggest that the IOC/BTF made the decision in bad faith, arbitrary or otherwise. The Panel did not rule out the possibility of a technical error by the referee, but upheld the disqualification of the French boxer based on the fact that it was a field of play decision.

CAS OG 20/15Yuberjen Martínez & Colombian Olympic Committee & Colombian Boxing Federation v. IOC Boxing Task Force; Field of play decision

1. Outline of the fact

Applicants: Colombian Boxer, Colombian Olympic Committee & Colombian Boxing Association
Respondent: IOC

On August 3, 2021, in the men’s flyweight quarterfinals, a Colombian boxer faced a Japanese boxer, Ryoumei Tanaka. At the end of the match, the judges ruled that the Japanese boxer won the match 4-1. The Applicants appealed this decision and filed for arbitration.

2. Procedure (Tokyo time)

The Applicants filed the application at 4:10 pm on August 4, 2021. The Respondent submitted the answer at 8:58 pm on August 4. A hearing was held by video conference at 10:00 pm on the same day. The Panel issued the Decision on the same day.  

3. Conclusion and Reasons

The Panel dismissed the application.

The Applicants claimed that the Colombian boxer should win the match or rematch, etc. The Applicants were well aware that this case was a field of play decision, and they argued in detail that the IOC/BTF made the decision in bad faith. However, the Applicants could not provide any evidence to support their claim.  Thus, the Panel pointed out that merely stating opinions about the match was not sufficient admissible evidence.

NOTE: CAS OG 20/01 was withdrawn and CAS OG 20/02 was dismissed as the ad hoc division had no jurisdiction. CAS hasn’t disclosed any information about CAS OG 20/07 and CAS OG 20/09.

The Author  Takao Ohashi