Activities of the CAS Divisions at the Olympic Games Rio 2016

Press Release

29 August 2016 - The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) opened two temporary divisions to resolve legal disputes and doping cases on the site of the Olympic Games Rio 2016, from 26 July 2016 until the closing of the Games on Sunday 21 August 2016. The Presidents and arbitrators for each division were selected by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS). The arbitrators retained for the CAS Divisions were all either lawyers, judges or professors specialized in sports law and/or arbitration and independent of the parties who appeared before the CAS. The secretariat in Rio was headed by the CAS Secretary General, Mr Matthieu Reeb, and staffed by CAS employees. In agreement with the Rio de Janeiro Bar Association, pro bono lawyers based in Rio were available to assist Games participants before the CAS Divisions.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) at the Olympic Games Rio 2016 was headed by Mr Michael Lenard (USA), President, and Justice Ellen Gracie Northfleet (Brazil), Co-President. It has registered 28 procedures since its opening, setting a new record of cases for an edition of the Olympic Games. However, such exceptional record must take into account the fact that 16 of these 28 procedures were related to the status/eligibility of Russian athletes, following the IOC Executive Board decision of 24 July 2016 in relation to the eligibility of Russian athletes for the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

For the first time in the history of the Olympic Games, the CAS was in charge of doping-related matters arising on the occasion of the Games as a first-instance authority. This new structure, called the CAS Anti-doping Division, handled doping cases referred to it in accordance with the IOC Anti-doping Rules. It had the power to impose provisional suspensions pending the conclusion of the procedure and its final decisions could be appealed before the CAS ad hoc Division in Rio (which did not arise) or before the CAS in Lausanne after the end of the Olympic Games. The Anti-doping Division of CAS, was presided over by Ms Carole Malinvaud (France) and Judge Ivo Eusebio (Switzerland) and registered 8 procedures.

Here is a summary of all cases registered by both CAS Divisions in Rio de Janeiro:

CAS ad hoc Division:

1. TAS JO 16/01 Ilnur Zakarin v. Comité International Olympique (CIO), Comité Olympique Russe (ROC) & Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI): eligibility case; the application was withdrawn and an order on termination was issued. Duration of the procedure: 52h40.

2. CAS OG 16/02 & 03 Vladimir Morozov and Nikita Lobintsev v. International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA): eligibility case; the application was withdrawn; a hearing took place on 31 July 2016 and was adjourned; the IOC eventually determined that these two athletes were eligible to participate in the Rio Games after consultation with FINA and following a favourable recommendation of the neutral CAS expert. Duration of the procedure: 127h10.

3. CAS OG 16/04 Yulia Efimova v. Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), IOC and FINA: eligibility case; the athlete was disqualified from the entry list of the ROC for the Olympic Games; two hearings took place on 1 and 4 August 2016; the application was partially upheld on the limited ground that Point 3 of the IOC EB's decision was unenforceable; all other prayers for relief were rejected. Duration of the procedure: 130h45.

4. CAS OG 16/05 & 07 Mangar Makur Chuot Chep & South Sudan Athletics Federation (SSAF) v. South Sudan National Olympic Committee (SSNOC): eligibility case; the athlete challenged his non-selection for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games; a hearing took place on 3 August 2016; the Panel found that the athlete had not attained qualifying time for the Games in his event and that the SSNOC had acted in accordance with the IAAF Qualification System by choosing another male athlete to represent the country; the application was dismissed. Duration of the procedure: 83h30.

5. CAS OG 16/06 Viktor Lebedev v. Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), International Olympic Committee (IOC) & United World Wrestling (UWW): eligibility case; the athlete was disqualified from the entry list of the ROC for the Olympic Games; before a hearing took place, the IOC eventually determined that, as a result of the decision in CAS OG 16/04, the athlete was eligible to enter the Olympic Games; the application was withdrawn and an order on termination was issued. Duration of the procedure: 150h00.

6. CAS OG 16/08 Jason Morgan v. Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association (JAAA): eligibility case; the athlete challenged his non-selection for the Olympic Games; no hearing was held; the Panel found that the athlete was informed more than 10 days prior to the Opening Ceremony that he had not been selected; the dispute had therefore arisen before the timeframe stipulated in Art. 1 of the CAS ad hoc Rules; the application was found to be inadmissible. Duration of the procedure: 104h15.

7. CAS OG 16/09 Russian Weightlifting Federation (RWF) v. International Weightlifting Federation (IWF): disciplinary case; the RWF appealed against its ban by the IWF from participating in the Olympic Games; a hearing was held on 3 August 2016; the Panel dismissed the application, considering that the IWF could validly sanction a national federation which “by reason of conduct connected with or associated with doping or anti-doping rule violations, brings the sport of weightlifting into disrepute”. Duration of the procedure: 51h45.

8. CAS OG 16/10 Andrey Kraytor v. IOC & International Canoe Federation (ICF): eligibility case; the athlete was disqualified from the entry list of the ROC for the Olympic Games; a hearing was held on 3 August 2016, during which the IOC informed the Panel that the athlete was admitted to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games following a decision of its Review Panel; the application was withdrawn and an order on termination was issued. Duration of the procedure: 79h45.

9. CAS OG 16/11 Daniil Andrienko and 16 other rowers v. World Rowing Federation (FISA) & IOC: eligibility case; the athletes challenged the decision of the FINA Executive Committee to declare them ineligible for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games; a hearing took place on 2 August 2016; the Panel decided to dismiss the application considering that the FISA decision was in accordance with the IOC decision of 24 July 2016 setting forth the criteria for the admission of the Russian athletes. Duration of the procedure: 25h45.

10. CAS OG 16/12 Ivan Balandin v. FISA & IOC: eligibility case; the athlete challenged the decision of the FINA Executive Committee not to include him in the list of rowers declared eligible to compete at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games; a hearing took place on 3 August 2016; the Panel found that the information sought by and provided to FISA with regard to the athlete was sufficient to show that the athlete was “implicated” in the Russian State-controlled doping scheme; the application was dismissed. Duration of the procedure: 50h30.

Tuesday, 30 August 2016