This article summarises some of the key cases and the decisions that were made by the ad hoc division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in August 2024 that impacted the outcomes of athletes competing (or not competing) at the Games of the XXXIII Olympiad in Paris.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter provides that any disputes arising from or in connection with the Olympic Games shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of CAS.  The summaries below derive from the written judgments of the various CAS panel arbitrators, as published on the CAS website. 

CASE ONE

Federation Romanian Gymnastics (FRG), Ana Maria Barbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea v Donatella Sacchi, Federation Internationale de Gymnastique

Case No. CAS OG 24-15 & CAS OG 24-16

On 5 August 2024, the Women's Floor Exercise Final was held at the Bercy Arena, Paris.  Nine gymnasts participated in the final, including Ms Barbosu and Ms Maneca-Voina - both of whom represented the FRG.  

Ms Barbosu was the fifth gymnast to perform her routine.  She was awarded a total score of 13.7000, broken down as follows: difficulty score of 5.800, execution score of 8.000 and a penalty of 0.1. 

Ms Maneca-Voinea was the eighth gymnast to perform her routine.  She was awarded a total score of 13.700 broken as follows: difficulty score of 5.900, execution score of 7.900 and a penalty of 0.1 for stepping outside of the floor boundary. 

Ms Jordan Chiles of the United States gymnastics team was the ninth gymnast to perform her routine. Ms Chiles was awarded a total score of 13.666 broken as follows:  difficulty score of 5.800, execution score of 7.866.  Mr Chiles was awarded fifth place.  

Following the announcement of her score, a verbal inquiry was made by Ms Chiles' coach to the Federation Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG).  Ms Sacchi acted as president of the FIG Technical Committee.  Following consideration of the inquiry, Ms Sacchi on behalf of FIG increased Ms Chiles' difficulty score to 5.900.  As a result of the increased score, Ms Chiles was subsequently awarded third place in the competition.  Ms Barbosu was demoted to fourth place and Ms Maneca-Voinea fifth place. 

On 6 August 2024, the FRG, Ms Barbosu and Ms Maneca-Voinea applied to CAS.  They cited four grounds in support of their application, as follows:

1. The FRG alleged that the inquiry submitted for and on behalf of Ms Chiles was outside of the deadline specified in Article 8.5 of the 2024 FIG Technical Regulations which provide that any inquiry into a participant's score must be lodged within 1 minute of the announcement of the score.   It was submitted by the applicants that Ms Chiles' inquiry was made four seconds too late.
2. FIG's review into Ms Chiles' inquiry was undertaken in "manifest bad faith" towards the FRG, Ms Badosu and Ms Maneca-Voinea.  It was alleged that the FIG's technical committee made a decision to alter Ms Chiles' score without properly consulting video footage. 
3. It was alleged that the deduction of a 0.1 point to Ms Maneca-Voinea's score was unjustified on the basis that Ms Maneca-Voinea did not step outside of the boundary during her routine.
4. Finally, in the alternative to adjusting the ranking of all three gymnasts, it was submitted that all three should be placed in third place and that all three should be allocated medals accordingly.

Decision

Following a hearing before a three-person panel, and with the Romanian and United States Olympic committees, Ms Chiles, USA gymnastics and the International Olympic Committee (the IOC) all joined as 'Interested Parties' to the dispute, the CAS panel upheld the FRG's challenge on the basis that Ms Chiles failed to apply for an inquiry within one minute of her score appearing on the scoreboard. 

Consequently, CAS ordered that Ms Chiles' inquiry be dismissed and that her initial score of 13.666 be reinstated. 

The outcome of the proceedings was that Ms Barbosu was placed third and received a bronze medal. 

The panel otherwise rejected the applicants' other grounds of appeal.  It determined that the decision by the judges to apply a 0.1 point penalty to Ms Maneca-Voinea was a 'field of play' decision which did not permit them to substitute their own views for that of the referee.  The panel also dismissed the allegation that Ms Chiles' inquiry was dealt with in bad faith and that all three gymnasts should be awarded third place.

CASE TWO

 Benjamin Savsek & Olympic Committee of Slovenia Association of Sports Federartions (OCSASF)v International Canoe Federation   

Case No. Case OG 24/19

On 29 July 024, Mr Savsek, a Slovenian athlete competed in the Men's Canoe Slalom C1 Final. 

To ensure that a canoeist completes the course in accordance with the ICF Canoe Slalom Competition Rules 2023-2024 (the Slalom Competition Rules), several gate judges are placed near the gates, including a main gate judge and a video judge who reviews the decisions made by the gate judge.  The final tally of the time taken by the canoeist is declared by the chief judge following advice and input from the various gate and video judges.   In the case of any discrepancy between the gate and video judges, the chief judge's decision is final. 

During his run at the C1 final, Mr Savsek hit a post at gate number 5.  Two of the gate judges called a 50-second penalty while the other two judges called a 2-second penalty.    Pursuant to the Slalom Competition Rules, a person will receive a 2-second penalty if they touch one or both poles at a gate.  A person will receive a 50-second penalty if they intentionally push a gate.  

After considering matters, the chief judge decided that a 50-second penalty would apply. Consequently, Mr Savsek's final time was set at 144.93 seconds.   

In his report, the chief judge explained that he had made his decision to impose a 50-second penalty after reviewing video footage from four different angles following which he determined that Mr Savsek had intentionally opened gate number 5 with his paddle and that had he not done so, he would not have been able to make the gate. 

On 9 August 2024, Mr Savsek and the OCSASF filed an appeal to CAS of the decision of the chief judge seeking to:

1. set aside the decision of the chief judge to impose on Mr Sevsek a 50-second penalty; 
2. reinstate the initial 2-second penalty; and
3. correct the final standings of the C1 final. 

The Respondent filed submissions saying, inter alia, that:

1. the result of the competition was final and could not be reviewed; 
2. the 50-second penalty was not arbitrarily imposed on Mr Sevsek and Mr Sevsek had no right to obtain a better ranking through a court decision;
3. the 50-second penalty was imposed in full compliance with the applicable rules;
4. CAS cannot review the result in light of the 'field of play' doctrine; and
5. by claiming that the 50-second penalty must be annulled, the consequence would be that Mr Sevsek would be awarded a bronze medal and deprive another competitor, Mr Matej Benus of Slovakia, from a medal. Neither Mr Benus nor the Slovakian national Olympic committee were parties to the proceedings (albeit both were joined as 'Interested Parties').

Decision

 A sole arbitrator was appointed to determine the application. The application was considered on paper and without a hearing. 

It was determined that the appealed decision of the chief judge was a 'field of play' matter.  The sole arbitrator noted in his judgment that CAS jurisprudence has consistently reaffirmed that CAS arbitrators do not overturn the decisions of judges, referees, umpires or other officials unless there is some evidence that a rule was applied arbitrarily or in bad faith. 

The sole arbitrator determined that the applicants had failed to discharge their burden of proof to establish that the appealed decision was rendered in violation of the principle of fairness and non-arbitrariness.  Consequently, it was determined that the appealed decision fell outside the scope of review of CAS and the application was dismissed.

CASE THREE

Italian Swimming Federation v World Aquatics

Case No. CAS OG 24/18

On 7 August 2024, a men's water polo quarter final match was played between teams from Italy and Hungary. 

Italy won the match 12-10 following a penalty shootout. 

With 2 minutes and 22 seconds remaining in the second quarter of the game, Italian player, Francesco Condemi took a shot which ended up in the Hungarian goal but was disallowed following a VAR (Video Assisted Review) check.  The referees (who had initially awarded the goal) determined that Mr Condemi had committed a 'violent action' under Part Six, Article 9.14 of the World Aquatics Competition Rules (WA Rules) because as he took his shot at goal his throwing hand had struck one of the Hungarian players in the face. 

Following the end of the match, the Italian team lodged a protest with the game referees saying that Mr Condemi had not intended to strike the Hungarian player and the contact was an innocent part of Mr Condemi's follow-through from his shot on goal. The Italian team said that the decision of the referee changed the outcome of the game which, it was argued, should be replayed in its entirety or from the point at which Mr Condemi was excluded.    

The referees reviewed the protest but rejected it and upheld their original decision. 

The matter was then referred by the Italian swimming federation to a World Aquatics Jury of Appeal under article 13.2 of the WA Rules.  In a written decision dated 8 August 2024, the Jury of Appeal noted that the referees were entitled to a "significant degree of deference" and that the Jury of Appeal could not "substitute its view of the protest for that of the referee unless the Applicant presents clear evidence that the Referee's decision was made arbitrarily, irrationally, or in abuse of the discretion afforded to a Referee".   The Jury of Appeal also explained that "[t]he result of a match should not be invalidated because of […] wrong decisions(s) involving the VAR […]".

The Jury of Appeal concluded that in their view, the game referees had not acted irrationally, arbitrarily or in abuse of their discretion, even if the Jury of Appeal might have reached a different decision after reviewing video footage of the incident that was not available to the game referees during the game.

On 9 August 2024, the Italian swimming federation filed an application with the CAS ad hoc division saying that the referees decision was arbitrary, irrational and abusive.   

The Italian team sought the following relief:

1. cancellation of the sanctions against Mr Condemi;
2. cancellation of the final result of the game; and
3. a replay of the game starting from 2 minutes and 22 second remaining in the second quarter.

In response, World Aquatics submitted that:

1. the decision of the Jury of Appeal is not subject to appeal;
2. the WA Rules preclude the possibility of replaying a match due to an error involving VAR;
3. CAS jurisprudence consistently rejects reviews of similar 'field of play' decisions; 
4. it was logistically impossible to replay the game; and
5. deference must be given to the decisions of game referees. 

In addition, the IOC (as an interested party) provided submissions saying that the matter was a "text-book" field of play matter and was not subject to CAS review. Furthermore, the IOC also said that there was no evidence that the referees decision was made arbitrarily, in bad faith or as a result of fraud or corruption. 

Decision

A sole arbitrator was appointed to determine the application.  The application was considered on paper and without a hearing. 

In her decision, the arbitrator noted that there is a significant amount of CAS jurisprudence regarding the 'field of play' doctrine and that judgment calls made by game officials at ground level, in the field of play, can only be appealed in limited circumstances. 

The arbitrator went on to explain that:

1. a referees decision affecting the result of a race or game cannot be reviewed on appeal absent prof of bias, malice, bad faith, arbitrariness or legal error; and
2. the 'field of play' doctrine is part of the lex sportive compatible with Swiss law and is based on appellate self-restraint in order to protect the autonomy of officials, the completion of events without disruption and the certainty of outcomes.

The arbitrator found that the 'field of play' doctrine applied in the case.  There was no evidence presented to the arbitrator that any of the individuals involved in any of the decisions in the matter were tainted by bias, malice or bad faith against Mr Condemi or his team.  Even if the game referees' decision was in error, the CAS arbitrator explained in her judgment that mere error is not automatically arbitrary, irrational or made in an abuse of discretion.  Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

CASE FOUR

Danny Brand v World Athletics (WA)

Case No. CAS OG 24/13

Mr Brand is a Swiss athlete specialising in the men's 400 metre hurdles (the Event). 

On 2 July 2024, WA published the names of 37 athletes who had met the entry standard to take part in the Event.  As 40 places were available at the Event, the athletes who were ranked 38, 39 and 40 in the world were added to the Event. 

Mr Brand was ranked as number 41 in the world and so had not been included in the list of athletes by WA for the Event. 

On 6 July 2024, Swiss Athletics (SA) wrote to WA saying that they understood that two athletes, Mr Ludvy Vaillant and Mr Matheus Lima were unlikely to compete at the Event due to injury and that Mr Brand should be entered in case there was an unused place. 

On 7 July 2024, WA published the final list of all qualified athletes eligible to take part in the Event. Each national Olympic committee representing the 40 athletes subsequently confirmed each athlete's entry to the Event. 

By 8 July 2024, WA notified SA that it had been told by the French and Brazilian national Olympic committees that both Mr Vaillant and Mr Lima were ready to compete at the Event and that WA could do nothing more. 

It subsequently transpired that Mr Vaillant had been entered into the Event by the French national Olympic committee on the condition that he pass a "competitivity test" by 21 July 2024.  Mr Vaillant subsequently failed the test and on 22 July 2024 was withdrawn from the Event. 

On 27 July 2024, SA asked WA to ask the IOC Executive Board to request a review of Mr Brand's eligibility for the Event.  SA alleged that Mr Vaillant had not been adequately prepared for the Event and that Mr Brand should receive Mr Vaillant's place as the next eligible athlete. 

On 28 July 2024, WA notified SA that the Swiss national Olympic committee should contact the IOC if they had any concerns or queries regarding the decision of the French athletics federation and the French national Olympic committee in relation to Mr Vaillant's selection and subsequent non-selection for the Event. 

On 29 July 2024, the Swiss national Olympic committee contacted the IOC regarding SA's request of 27 July 2024.  Reminders were sent on 31 July 2024 and 1 August 2024.  The IOC did not respond to any correspondence from the Swiss national Olympic committee.

On 2 August 2024, Mr Brand filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc division appealing WA's decision of 28 July 2024.

By his application to CAS, Mr Brand sought an order that he be declared eligible to compete in the Event. His principal submissions were that:

1. as at the date he was entered into the Event by the French national Olympic committee, Mr Vaillant was not "adequately prepared for high level international competition" pursuant to Rule 44, paragraph 5 of the Olympic Charter; and
2. WA had failed to respond to SA's request that the IOC Executive Board review the decision of the French national Olympic committee concerning the circumstances of Mr Vaillant's entry into the Event.   

In response, WA submitted that:

1. there was nothing unreasonable about the French national Olympic committee's decision to enter Mr Vaillant into the Event and give him the opportunity to prove that he was adequately prepared to compete at the Event;
2.  WA did not forward SA's request of 27 July 2024 to the IOC Executive Board because matters about entry to events at the Olympics fall within the discretion of the national Olympic committees pursuant to Rule 44 of the Olympic Charter.  The IOC Executive Board cannot be troubled with every single complaint that any national federation may have in this regard otherwise the IOC Executive Board would be flooded with requests;
3. the IOC Executive Board has the sole discretion whether to act on any query submitted through WA.  The CAS panel cannot substitute itself in place of the IOC Executive Board; and 
4. athletes do not have a right to participate in the Olympic Games.  The right to enter an athlete (or not) lies with the various national Olympic committees.  Consequently, Mr Brand could not avail himself of a breach of a right in circumstances where he is not entitled to be entered into the Olympics.

Decision

 A sole arbitrator was appointed to determine the application. The application was considered on paper and without a hearing. 

The appeal was dismissed. The arbitrator found that the real purpose of the appeal concerned WA's omission to forward SA's request of 27 July 2024 to the IOC Executive Board for review.  However, based on the relief sought by Mr Brand in the proceedings, he was not seeking a decision on whether WA was correct in deciding not to forward SA's request to the IOC Executive Boad but rather he sought a decision by CAS to declare him eligible for the Event.  CAS was not in a position to grant Mr Brand the relief that he sought and could not put itself in the position of the IOC Executive Board.

Furthermore, the decision of the French national Olympic committee to admit Mr Vaillant into the Event was made between 6 to 8 July 2024 and therefore prior to ten days before the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics.    Article 1 of the CAS ad hoc rules provides that disputes referred to CAS under Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter must arise either during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Olympic opening ceremony.   

CASE 5

Vinesh Phogat v United World Wrestling and the IOC

Case No. CAS OG 24/17

Ms Phogat is a female Indian wrestler. 

On 7 August 2024, Ms Phogat was due to compete in the final of the Women's Freestyle 50 kg competition. Had she competed, she would have won either the gold or silver medals. 

Prior to the final, Ms Phogat had competed in three bouts on 6 August 2024, winning all three to reach the final.  At 7:30 on 6 August, Ms Phoget was officially weighed in at 49.9 kg. 

On the morning of 7 August 2024, Ms Phoget weighed in at 150 grams over the 50 kg weight limit.  A second weigh-in was carried out 15 minutes later and Ms Phoget's weight was recorded at 100 grams over the 50 kg limit. Consequently, Ms Phoget was disqualified for the final that was due to take place at 18:15 that day.

Ms Phoget did not dispute that she was above the applicable weight limit but filed an appeal at 16:45 on 7 August to CAS seeking the following relief:

1. that the decision to disqualify her from the final of the Women's Freestyle 50 kg be set aside; 
2. that she remain eligible and qualified to be awarded a silver medal;
3. that she be permitted to be re-weighed before the final; and
4. that she be eligible and qualified to participate in the final at 18:15 that day.

Given the time constraints, it was not possible for CAS to determine Ms Phoget's appeal prior to the final that took place on the evening of 7 August 2024.  The final took place substituting Ms Phoget with the athlete who Ms Phoget defeated in the semi final bout that took place on 6 August 2024. 

Ms Phoget's appeal therefore centred only on her application;

1. that the decision to disqualify her from the final of the Women's Freestyle 50 kg be set aside; and
2. that she remain eligible and qualified to be awarded a silver medal.

In response, United World Wrestling (UNW) sought to have the appeal dismissed.

The IOC sought for Ms Phoget's disqualification to be revoked and that she be awarded a silver medal. 

Decision

A sole arbitrator was appointed to determine the application.  The application was considered at a hearing on 9 August 2024.

The application was dismissed.

In her judgment, the CAS arbitrator explained that the applicable rules of the competition included that if an athlete fails to make the pre-designated weight category, then that athlete will be eliminated from the competition "and ranked last, without rank".  The arbitrator also referred to the fact that the rules provide that there can be "no tolerance" at the weigh-in. 

The UNW submitted that an athlete fails a weigh-in as soon as he or she is above the applicable weight limit.  Conversely, Ms Phoget and the IOC argued that the effect of a 100 gram excess should be disregarded despite the fact that the applicable rules allow for no such tolerance. This was on the basis that the excess was small and that it was unusual and unfair to apply such a small difference. 

Ms Phoget and the IOC also raised further mitigating factors including that Ms Phoget fought in three bouts on 6 August 2024 and needed time to eat and that there was a short period between the bouts which left her little time to lose weight before the early morning weigh in on 7 August 2024. 

Unfortunately for Ms Phoget, the CAS arbitrator noted in her judgment that there was no discretion provided for in the applicable rules to disregard the small increase in weight.  Furthermore, while the arbitrator recorded that she saw force in the submissions that the consequences of Ms Phoget's weigh-in on 7 August 2024 should be restricted to ineligibility for the event that followed that weigh-in (ie the final), the rules did not provide for that and that instead, based on the rules of the competition, the effect of a failed weigh-in meant that Ms Phoget would be disqualified from the entire event. 

While there was no suggestion of wrongdoing on Ms Phoget's part, the arbitrator noted that by failing the weigh-in on 7 August 2024, Ms Phoget was ineligible to compete in the final. Her appeal was therefore dismissed.