The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games – An Overview / Domenico Di Pietro. – (International Sports Law Journal (2005) 3-4 : p. 23-27)
Content:
1.) Introduction
2.) The Cases:
- CAS OG 04/001,
Russian Olympic Committee v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)
- CAS OG 04/003,
Torri Edwards v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and USA Track and Field (USATF)
- CAS OG 04/004,
David Munyasia v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)
- CAS OG 04/005,
David Calder and Christopher Jarvis v. Federation Internationale des Societes d’Aviron (FISA)
- CAS OG 04/006,
Australian Olympic Committee (“AOC”)) v. International Olympic Committee (“IOC”)and International Canoe Federation (“ICF”)
- CAS OG 04/007,
Comite’ National Olympique et Sportif Francais (CNOF), British Olympic Association (BOA) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) and National Olympic Committee for Germany
- CAS OG 04/008,
Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français (“CNOSF”) v. International Canoe Federation (“ICF”) and International Olympic Committee (“IOC”)
- CAS OG 04/009,
Hellenic Olympic Committee (“HOC”) and Nikolaos Kaklamanakis v. International Sailing Federation (“ISAF”)
- CAS OG 04/010,
Mr Yang Tae Young v International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) and United States Olympic Committee (USOC)
3.) Conclusions
The cases administered by the ad hoc division of CAS at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games showed an increase in the challenges to refereeing decisions which were either wrong or perceived to be unfair. Even though only a few complaints were eventually formalised into actual CAS proceedings many more were about to reach that stage.
A regrettable element of the Olympic Games was obviously the presence of doping violations. The stringent regulations aimed at eradicating this terrible plague as well as the diligent enforcement of such regulations by CAS are to be praised and supported. It has been observed in this respect that, perhaps, the fight against doping should differentiate between sanctions to be imposed on deliberate cheating and sanctions to be imposed where the violation is the result of mere and genuine negligence. The objective difficulty in ascertaining the nature of the offence that such differentiation would be likely to give rise to is however a problem that may stop any future policy in that direction at least as long as doping remains such a malicious and unfortunately widespread enemy of sport and health.
Despite the presence of such difficult issues that the Olympic Movement will have to tackle in the future, one of the many positive notes in Athens, together with the excellent organisation of the Games, was that - once again since the creation of the ad hoc division - the Court of Arbitration for Sport has not failed to provide the Olympic Games with highly professional and perfectly organised service for the fast and effective protection of the rule of law in sport disputes.
