The case involved an athlete who ran away from an anti-doping test by refusing to meet the Doping Control Officer. His federation failed to sanction him and an appeal was made to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).
In order to be able to issue a decision before the Olympic Games in London and with the agreement of the parties, the CAS resorted to expedited proceedings. The CAS Panel held a hearing and issued its decision on 25 July 2012.
That decision contained only the operative part of the award, which upheld the appeal and banned the athlete for two years.
On 18 October 2012, the reasoned award was notified to the parties, and the operative part mentioned that credit should be given to the athlete for any period of suspension served prior to the notification of the award.
An appeal was made by the Athlete to the Swiss Federal Court and rejected on 29 April 2012.
The Swiss Federal Court’s opinion in this case:
1.) While there is no right to a reasoned award flowing directly from Art. 190(2)(d) PILA, there is a minimal duty for the arbitrators to review and handle the pertinent issues. This is a bit of a contradiction in terms because, by definition, if there are no reasons it will be quite difficult to determine whether or not the pertinent issues were addressed at all but this view has been consistently expressed by the Court.
2.) An argument not specifically addressed by the arbitrators does not necessarily create a violation of the right to be heard if it can be shown that the argument was rejected implicitly.
3.) Slightly amending the dispositive part of the award between its notification in expedited proceedings and the notification of a fully reasoned award does not violate public procedural policy, at least when the slight change made is in the Appellant’s favor.
