​CAS Ad-Hoc Division at Tokyo 2020 Re-Affirms Strict Position Against Overturning Field of Play Decisions

During the recently completed Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’) Ad-Hoc Division considered three cases where the applicants sought to overturn a Field of Play decision. This piece explains the position of CAS towards overturning Field of Play decisions. It also explores the recent cases brought before CAS at Tokyo 2020 in which the Tribunal continued to follow its firm stance of not overturning Field of Play decisions except in extreme cases, of which none of the three cases were deemed to be.

I ABOUT THE CAS AD-HOC DIVISION

The CAS Ad-Hoc Division operates at the Olympic Games and allows for the quick and timely resolution of any legal disputes that arise during the games in accordance with its standard Code of Sports-Related Arbitration.[1] At Tokyo 2020, a Panel of 10 arbitrators was appointed by CAS, which heard nine cases encompassing selection disputes, doping penalties and reviews of Field of Play decisions.[2]

II CAS AND FIELD OF PLAY DECISIONS

‘Field of Play decisions’ typically relate to the application and interpretation of rules by referees, umpires, judges and officials of the rules which govern sporting decisions.[3]

Whilst the CAS Ad-Hoc Division has the power to review and overturn such Field of Play decisions, its past judgments have established a very ‘high hurdle’ for doing so, with the applicants required to show direct evidence that an official’s decision is tainted by fraud, bad faith or bias.[4]

The rationale for this well accepted doctrine is that it preserves the finality and clarity of sporting decisions made by officials in line with the rules of the game.[5] This ensures the authority of the referee and match officials who are technical experts in their sports, unlike the arbitrators at CAS.[6] This policy also ensures that the court is not overwhelmed by sporting appeals and that results in sporting contests have a strong sense of finality without being constantly interrupted by appeals to CAS.[7]

III APPEALS AGAINST FIELD OF PLAY DECISIONS AT TOKYO 2020

A) The Boxing Cases: Martinez (Colombia) and Aliev (France)

Yuberjen Martinez of Columbia and Mourad Aliev of France sought to have the respective decisions which eliminated them from the Men’s Boxing competition at Tokyo 2020 overturned.

Martinez appealed against the decisions of judges who awarded the quarter-final of the Men’s Fly (48–52kg) to his opponent, Ryomei Tanaka, in a very close decision. Martinez submitted that the judges acted in bad faith in determining the result, and argued that according to the competition’s technical rules, he should have been judged to have won the bout.[8]

However, whilst the Panel was open to hearing how such a claim could be justified, Martinez was unable to provide any evidence of ‘bad faith’ on the part of the judges.[9] Further, the Tribunal held that a whilst other coaches who witnessed the bout and news outlets may have believed the result to be incorrect, this would be far from sufficient to establish bad faith from the judges, and, as such, the appeal was rejected.[10]

In the case of French Boxer Mourad Aliev, he was similarly unsuccessful in proving that disqualification from his Super Heavy quarter-final (for allegedly landing several head-butts on his opponent) should be annulled.

Interestingly, the CAS Panel did not rule out the possibility of a technical error by the referee.[11] Despite that, the Panel decided to confirm the boxing judge’s decision in line with the field of play doctrine and ‘constant CAS jurisprudence’.[12] Here, the Panel also held that given the absence of any allegation of bias on the part of the judge, it would not engage with the merit of the disqualification decision and the appeal would be rejected.[13]

B) The 4x400 Meters Relay: Belgium & Netherlands vs The USA & The Dominican Republic

The final Field of Play decision appealed to the Ad-Hoc Division concerned the decision of World Athletics to re-instate the Unites States and the Dominican Republic teams into the final of the 4x400m relay, having disqualified them both after the first heat: the former for exchanging their baton outside the designated zone, and the latter for switching lanes in the last moment.[14]

The Belgian and Netherlands Olympic Committees (both having qualified for the final from the second heat) sought to appeal the reviews conducted by World Athletics’ Jury of Appeal on the basis that the Jury had erroneously applied the provisions laid down in World Athletics’ technical rules.[15]

In its judgment, the Tribunal re-affirmed the principles for the Field of Play doctrine: CAS arbitrators are not like on-field judges; they are not selected for their expertise in a particular sport and they do not review on-field determinations concerning the rules of the game in ‘circumstances where there was no fundamental violation of the Respondent’s own rules.’[16]

Given the World Athletics Jury decision to re-instate the teams was based on the review of footage and discussion with officials, and the finding that the applicants did not assert any bad faith, malicious intent, or arbitrariness in their decision, the CAS Panel deemed the decision of the World Athletics Jury to be a Field of Play decision as to which the Panel would not intervene.[17]

IV CONCLUSION

CAS has continued to uphold the Field of Play doctrine and in doing so has protected the finality of the decisions of referees, officials and judges. The cases from the Tokyo 2020 Ad-Hoc Division show that the court is still prepared to entertain the possibility of using its power to overturn decisions, but that a high threshold remains with a need for applicants to specifically prove bad faith or bias from officials. Accordingly, at Tokyo 2020, none of the cases brought before the Tribunal were deemed to meet this criteria.

Links

A detailed analysis of all the decisions of the CAS Ad-Hoc Divisions at Tokyo 2020 can be found in this article by Mark Lebbon and Martin Ross which is found here: https://hallandwilcox.com.au/thinking/tokyo-2020-olympics-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-decisions/

And re-published at LawInSport here:https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/sports/item/a-summary-of-cas-decisions-at-the-tokyo-2020-olympic-games

Acknowledgements

[1] Court of Arbitration for Sport, Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games, Art 1; International Olympic Committee, Olympic Charter (in force as from 17 July 2020) r 62.

[2] Court of Arbitration for Sport, ‘The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) opens two temporary offices in Japan for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games’ (Media Release, 9 July 2021); Court of Arbitration for Sport, ‘Recent decisions’, Court of Arbitration for Sport (Web Page) < https://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html>.

[3] Martin Ross, Mark Lebbon, Ben McIver and Rachel Shaw, ‘Tokyo 2020 Olympics: Court of Arbitration for Sport decisions’, Hall & Wilcox (Blog Post, 11 August 2021) <https://hallandwilcox.com.au/thinking/tokyo-2020-olympics-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-decisions/>.

[4] NOC Belgium v World Athletics (Award, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Case No CAS OG 20/10, CAS OG 20/11, 2 August 2021) [45] citing Bernardo Segura v International Amateur Athletic Federation Athletics (Award, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Case No CAS OG 00/013, 30 September 2000)[23]; Behdad Salimi v International Weightlifting Federation Athletics (Award, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Case No CAS OG 16/028, 21 August 2016) [35].

[5] Ross, Lebbon, McIver and Shaw (n 3).

[6] Yuberjin Martinez v IOC Boxing Task Force (Award, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Case No CAS OG 20/15, 5 August 2021) [7.3] citing Horse Sport Ireland v Federation Equestre Internationale (Award, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Case No CAS 2015/A/4208, 15 July 2016) [47].

[7] Horse Sport Ireland (n 6) [47].

[8] Yuberjin Martinez (n 6) [4.3].

[9] Ibid [7.6].

[10] Ibid [7.9].

[11] Mourad Aliev v IOC Boxing Task Force (Award, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Case No CAS OG 20/14, 3 August 2021) [8.3.7].

[12] Ibid [8.3.6].

[13] See ibid.

[14] NOC Belgium v World Athletics (n 4) [8]-[9].

[15] Ibid [25].

[16] Ibid [46].

[17] Ibid [50]-[51].