CAS 2008_A_1545 Anderson, Colander Clark, Miles-Clark, Edwards, Gaines, Hennagan, Richardson vs IOC - Partial Award

CAS 2009/A/1545 Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, Passion Richardson v/ IOC - Partial Award

Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson are all track and field athletes from the United States of America. The Athletes participated in the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 as members
of the U.S. Olympic team sent by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

Following investigations the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) reported in 2003 that the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) was involved in a conspiracy for the purpose of the distribution and use of doping substances and techniques. These substances were either undetectable or difficult to detect in routine drug testing.

BALCO is alleged to have distributed several types of banned doping agents to professional athletes in track and field, baseball and football. Thereupon multiple athlete's were charged and convicted for the use of various performance-enhancing drugs.

Consequently on 10 April 2008 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to disqualify the USOC women relay teams and their results obtained at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games because of their use of prohibited substances provided by BALCO.

Hereafter in April 2008 the Athlete appealed the IOC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

This partial award concerned solely the IOC 3-year rule challenged by the Athletes. The Athletes asserted that this 3-year rule provided for in Rule 25.2.2.4 of the 2000 Olympic Charter prohibited the IOC from challenging their results at the
Sydney Olympics after 1 October 2003. Therefore, the Athletes request that the Appealed Decision be annulled.

The Panel assessed and addressed the following issues:

  • Which version of the Olympic Charter is applicable to the present case?
  • Does the three-year rule impose a limitation only to challenges brought by third parties or also to the power of the IOC to change its own decisions?
  • Does the three-year rule only apply to decisions taken by the IOC?
  • Under the relevant rules, was a decision reached in the context of the 2000 Olympic Games with regard to the distribution of medals to the Athletes?

The Panel determines that it is undisputed that on 30 September 2000 the Athletes received their relay medals from the IOC on the basis of and in compliance with the ranking provided by the lAAF and published by the SOCOG.

The Panel concludes that the IOC took no decision in the sense of Rule 25.2.2.4 of the 2000 Olympic Charter and Rule 6.4 of the 2008 Olympic Charter. As a consequence, the three-year rule did not preclude the IOC from taking the decision to withdraw from the Athletes the medals awarded for the
4x100 and 4x400 relay races of the Sydney Olympic Games of 2000.

The Panel thus deems that, as the Athletes' preliminary objection based on three-year rule has failed, the present case must proceed on the merits.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 December 2009:

1.) Rule 25.2.2.4 of the Olympic Charter in effect in 2000 did not preclude the IOC from taking a decision concerning the medals awarded for the women's 4x100 and 4x400 athletics relay races of the Sydney Olympic Gatnes of 2000.

2.) The exception submitted by Ms Andrea Anderson, Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Tori Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and
Ms Passion Richardson on the basis of Rule 25.2.2.4 of the Olympic Charter in effect in 2000 and of Rule 6.4 of the Olympic Charter in effect in 2008 is dismissed.

3.) The CAS retains jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits the appeal submitted by Ms LaTasha Colander Clark, Ms Jearl Miles-Clark, Ms Torri Edwards, Ms Chryste Gaines, Ms Monique Hennagan and Ms Passion Richardson against the decision of
the IOC Executive Board of 10 April 2008.

4.) All further decisions are reserved for the subsequent stages of the present appeal arbitration proceedings.

5.) The costs connected with the present partial award shall be determined in the final award.

Original document

Parameters

Legal Source
CAS Appeal Awards
Date
18 December 2009
Arbitrator
Coccia, Massimo
Fortier, Yves
Nater, Hans
Original Source
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Country
United States of America
Language
English
ADRV
Use / attempted use
Legal Terms
Admission
Consequences to athletes / teams
Interim / preliminary / partial award or decision
Rules & regulations IOC
Sports legislation
Sport/IFs
Athletics (WA) - World Athletics
Other organisations
International Olympic Committee (IOC)
United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
Various
Anti-Doping investigation
BALCO affair
Disqualified competition results
Lying / false statement
Document type
Pdf file
Date generated
17 August 2012
Date of last modification
30 October 2023
Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin