Your contacts
In our previous blog of MLL’s Sports Law Blog Series, we explored the essentials of sports arbitration and why Switzerland plays a key role in sports dispute resolution.
In this blog, following the Paris Olympic Games and the media attention surrounding the case of US gymnast Jordan Chiles, we delve into the unique aspects of dispute resolution during the Olympic Games and highlight some notable high–profile cases.
Who decides?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the well-known arbitral institution based in Lausanne, Switzerland specialised in sports-related disputes, also has the mandate to administer disputes arising on the occasion of, or in connection with the Olympic Games (as per Rule 61 (2) of the Olympic Charter).
To fulfil this mandate, the CAS establishes an Ad Hoc Division specifically for each Olympic Games (both summer and winter), composed of a special list of arbitrators, a President, Co-president(s) and a Court office. This mechanism, in place since 1996, allows for decisions in urgent matters to be rendered within 24 hours.
For example, during the Paris Olympic Games the CAS opened two temporary offices in Paris: the CAS Ad Hoc Division, handling legal disputes arising during the Games, and the CAS Anti-Doping Division, handling any anti-doping-related matters. Renowned arbitrators, including experienced lawyers, judges and professors specialised in sports law, anti-doping regulations and/or arbitration, were selected from around the world and were either present physically in Paris or available remotely (the list of arbitrators is available here).
The Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games
A distinct set of arbitration rules has been established for disputes arising during the Olympic Games, given the need for swift resolutions. These rules, known as the Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS ad hoc division for the Olympic Games, are specifically designed to handle disputes that occur either during the Olympic Games or in the 10 days leading up to the Opening Ceremony.
This specific set of arbitration rules is applicable upon filing a request for arbitration against a decision issued by either the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a National Olympic Committee (NOC), an International Federation or an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. The rules are applicable provided that all internal and available remedies have been exhausted, or when the time required to exhaust such internal remedies would render the appeal ineffective.
The proceedings can be conducted in English, French or Spanish. Even though the Olympic Games take place in different countries and the Ad Hoc Division operates at the site of the Olympic Games, the official seat of the Ad Hoc Division remains in Lausanne, Switzerland. This entails that the arbitration is governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) and any potential setting-aside proceedings of the arbitral award can only be submitted before the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
The law applicable to such proceedings are the Olympic Charter, any applicable regulations (the sports federation’s regulation, for example), general principles of law and the rules of law. The Arbitration Rules also provide that the panel must render a decision within 24 hours of the lodging of the application and such time limit can only be extended in exceptional cases (see Art. 18 of the Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games).
Finally, the proceedings are free of charge, but parties will have to cover their costs for legal fees, experts, witnesses and interpreters.
A few high-profile cases: from Jordan Chiles to Narsing Yadav
Since 1996, a number of arbitration cases have made the headlines in the media and selected cases are highlighted below.
Paris Olympic Games 2024: the case of US gymnast Jordan Chiles
On 5 August 2024, Romanian gymnasts Ms Barbosu and Ms Maneca-Voinea along with US gymnast Ms Chiles participated in the women’s artistic gymnastics floor exercise final. Ms Chiles was awarded the bronze medal after submitting an appeal (a verbal inquiry), which moved her from fifth to third place.
On 6 August 2024, Ms Barbosu and Ms Maneca-Voinea filed an application to the CAS Ad Hoc Division to the effect that the verbal inquiry was filed after the conclusion of the 1-minute deadline as per the International Gymnastics Federation’s (Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG)) regulations and therefore requesting the final ranking to be adjusted.
In its arbitral award with grounds rendered on 14 August 2024 (available here) (the operative part was rendered on 10 August 2024), the CAS Panel held that Ms. Jordan Chiles’ inquiry was raised after the conclusion of the 1-minute deadline and therefore was of no effect. The CAS Panel then invited the FIG to determine the ranking and assign the medal(s) accordingly. Soon after, the FIG then modified the final floor exercise results to rank Ms Barbosu third, re-allocating her the bronze medal.
It is of public knowledge that this arbitral award is currently subject to setting-aside proceedings before the Swiss Federal Tribunal. Chiles’ Swiss lawyers are submitting: (1) that new evidence has emerged proving that Chiles coach’s inquiry was filed with the one-minute timeframe, (2) the CAS failed to provide timely and proper notifications preventing Chiles’ team from adequately preparing for the hearing, and (3) that the CAS panel chair, Dr. Hamid Gharavi, should have been disqualified from serving as arbitrator due to his ongoing legal relationship with the Romanian government.
It remains to be seen how the Swiss Federal Tribunal will decide on the matter. Rest assured: MLL’s Sports Law team will keep you updated on the proceedings separately from this blog series!
Beijing Olympic Winter Games 2022: the case of Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva
This case involved the participation and performance of 15-year-old – at the time – Russian figure skater, Mrs Kamila Valieva, during the Beijing Olympic Winter Games in 2022 (4 February 2022 to 20 February 2022).
On 25 December 2021, Mrs Valieva was subject to an anti-doping test. On 7 February 2022, Mrs Valieva competed in the team event – women’s single skating – at the Olympic Games as a member of the Russian team which placed first. On the same day, the result of the anti-doping test was issued revealing the presence of a forbidden substance. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) then provisionally suspended Mrs Valieva with immediate effect, entailing her prohibition in all competitions, including the Beijing Olympic Winter Games. The following day, on 9 February 2022, and upon appeal from Mrs Valieva, RUSADA lifted her provisional suspension allowing therefore her continued participation in said Olympic Games.
Such a decision was appealed on 11 and 12 February 2022 by the IOC, WADA and the ISU before the CAS Ad Hoc Division. On 13 February 2022, the CAS Panel held a videoconference hearing following various exchanges between the parties. The issue at stake was whether the provisional suspension should be reinstated, and not whether Mrs Valieva had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
In its arbitral award with grounds rendered on 17 February 2022 (available here) (the operative part was rendered on 14 February 2022), the CAS Panel determined that Ms. Valieva was entitled to be subject to an optional provisional suspension as a protected person – considering her status as a minor – and that, under the facts and circumstances in the present matter, the option not to impose a provisional suspension should have been exercised so that she would not be prevented from competing in the Olympic Games. Mrs Valieva was then able to compete in the individual Women’s Skating event on 17 February 2022 (earning fourth place).
Rio Olympic Games 2016: the case of Indian wrestler Narsing Yadav
Mr Narsingh Yadav, an Indian wrestler, was part of the Indian delegation that had travelled to Brazil to compete in the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (5 August to 21 August 2016).
He had previously been subject to two out-of-competition doping control tests (on 25 June and 5 July 2016), which revealed the presence of a forbidden substance. On 1 August 2016, India’s National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) determined that Mr Yadav was the victim of sabotage and that there was no violation of NADA’s Anti-Doping Rules. Mr Yadav was then admitted to participate in the Rio Olympic Games.
On 13 August 2016, the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) filed an application before the CAS Ad Hoc Division, requesting that NADA’s decision be set aside and that Mr Yadav be sanctioned with a 4-year ineligibility period.
Following numerous exchanges of submissions between the parties and a hearing held on 18 August 2016, the CAS Panel upheld WADA’s application, concluding that there was no evidence that Mr Yadav had been the victim of sabotage. Consequently, Mr Yadav – who was set to compete on 19 August 2016 – was sanctioned with a 4-year ineligibility period, and all competitive results obtained since 25 June 2016, including medals, points and prizes, were annulled. The operative part of the arbitral award was published on 18 August 2021 and the full award with the grounds on 21 August 2021 (available here). Yadav had therefore no choice but to leave Rio and travel back to India.
Such cases demonstrate how the CAS Ad Hoc Division can render decisions within days, even hours, and showcasing how swiftness and efficiency is key in such a particular setting like the Olympic Games.