CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Salt Lake City) 02/001 Prusis & Latvian Olympic Committee (LOC) / International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Bobsleigh
Jurisdiction to rule on doping offences
Eligibility of an athlete for the OG
1. It is a matter for the relevant International Federation to decide how it deals with doping offences which come within its jurisdiction and what sanctions to impose. If it were otherwise, the International Federation’s autonomy would be illusory.
2. In the absence of a clear provision in the Olympic Charter and in the Rules of the relevant International Federation entitling the IOC to intervene in the disciplinary proceedings taken by that International Federation, an athlete has a legitimate expectation that, once he has completed the punishment imposed on him, he will be permitted to enter and participate in all competitions absent some new reason for refusing his entry. If it were otherwise, there would be a real risk of double jeopardy.
In November 2001 the International Bobsleigh and Tobogganing Federation (FIBT) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Latvian Athlete Sandis Prusis after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance nandrolone.
Analysis of the Athlete’s food supplement provided by the Athlete’s doctor showed it contained the prohibited substance.
Considering the circumstance the Executive Committee of the FIBT decided on 21 January 2002 to impose a 3 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection until 9 February 2002.
Because the Athlete was eligible to compete at the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympic Winter Games 6 days before the first bobsleigh event, the suspended athlete together with other Latvian athletes arrived in the Olympic Village in January 2002.
Previously the Latvian Olympic Committee (LOC) had received confirmation that the Athlete could be accredited and reside in the Olympic Village even before the end of the suspension period.
However on 1 February 2002 the IOC Executive Board notified the Athlete and the LOC that he was excluded from the Olympic Winter Games.
Hereafter on 3 February 2002 the Athlete and the LOC appealed the IOC decision of 1 February 2002 with the CAS ad hoc Division at the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
The Applicants requested the Panel to set aside the IOC Executive Board decision and to participate in the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
The IOC submited that it alone has the right to accept or reject entries into the Olympic Games, and that the decision as to whether to accept or reject an entry is a purely administrative decision. The IOC relied in support of its decision principally upon the provisions of Rule 49 of the Olympic Charter.
The IOC further submited that its right in relation to entries is fundamentally different to the right to take measures or impose sanctions for which provision is made in Rule 25 of the Olympic Charter. Thus, the IOC argued that there is no necessity under Rule 49 for it to inform the athlete of its intention to refuse entry or of its reasons for refusal, or to give the athlete an opportunity to make representations.
The Panel notes that neither in its written pleading nor in its oral submission did the IOC attempt to hide the fact that it found the decision of the FIBT in Mr. Prusis’ case unacceptable, and that decision formed the background to its decision to refuse Mr. Prusis’ entry to the Olympic Games. That fact and the IOC’s decision raise two important issues for this Panel to decide. The first issue concerns the relationship between the IOC and the International Federations, and the second issue concerns the legitimate expectations of an athlete who has been punished by the relevant International Federation, and who has served his punishment.
In the Panel’s opinion, it was not legitimate for the IOC to rely on Rule 49 of the Olympic Charter to justify its decision. The Panel already stated their view on the possibility of double jeopardy that may arise if the IOC seeks to impose a further sanction over and above that imposed by the International Federation.
The Panel notes that Mr. Prusis was extremely fortunate to be the beneficiary of the FIBT’s improper conduct and of the lacuna in the Olympic Charter which at present precludes the IOC from intervening and appealing the sanction imposed by an International Federation.
The Panel is of the opinion that the FIBT ignored a number of CAS Awards in which it has been made clear that the “nutritional supplement defence” cannot be seriously invoked by athletes in the light of the many warnings by the IOC, WADA and the scientific community, and of the many instances of positive testing after use of such supplements. However, under the current rules, this failure by the FIBT does not empower the IOC to review the FIBT’s decision. This is, in fact, the essence of what the IOC Executive Board attempted to do by excluding the Athlete from the Winter Olympic Games. However, it is not within the Panel’s remit to make any order other than in relation to the appealed decision.
Therefore the CAS Ad hoc Division decides on 5 February 2002:
1.) The application is allowed.
2.) The decision of the IOC Executive Board dated 1 February 2002 that it would not accept Mr. Sandis Prusis’ inscription for the XIX Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City is set aside.
3.) Mr. Sandis Prusis is eligible to participate in the XIX Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
