CAS 2002/O/401 IAAF vs USATF
CAS 2002/O/401 International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) / USA Track & Field (USATF)
- Athletics
- Interpretation of the IAAF rules
- Obligation for USATF to furnish the results of positive tests to the IAAF
- Validity of the USATF confidentiality regulation
1. The IAAF Rules are to be read as resolutions adopted by and binding upon all Members, including USATF. Where the rules and regulations of a Member do not conform with or are wider than those of the IAAF, it is the latter which prevail. The IAAF Rules during the relevant period did require that USATF provide the IAAF with the results of positive tests and copies of decisions of domestic panels exonerating athletes of doping offences, as well as related material.
2. The Panel finds that there are valid reasons why the information which the IAAF seeks in relation to the thirteen athletes concerned with this arbitration need not be disclosed to it by USATF. Although the meaning of the IAAF Rules remains relevant, the Panel‟s answer turns on the facts and circumstances. A very telling circumstance is the IAAF‟s persistent inability, or simple failure, or, indeed, refusal, throughout the period 1996 to 2000 to identify the particular IAAF Rules allegedly violated by USATF‟s confidentiality policy, to articulate clearly a position concerning the supposed illegitimacy of that confidentiality policy or to take some positive action against USATF to compel disclosure. It allowed the issue to drag on for years leading USATF to believe that it had discretion to make contractual promises of confidentiality to those athletes it tested domestically.
3. Support for USATF‟s position can be found in various CAS decisions, including the AEK Athens case, in which it is enunciated that “Where the conduct of one party has led to legitimate expectations on the part of a second party, the first party is estopped from changing its course of action to the detriment of the second party”. The concept of legitimate expectations – more particularly, the concept of protecting athletes‟ legitimate expectations – has repeatedly been recognized by the CAS, for example, in the USA Shooting, Watt and Prusis. Underlying all these decisions lies the notion of fairness.
4. The unique facts and circumstances of this case constitute a valid and compelling reason why USATF should not be required to disclose the information in question to the IAAF, notwithstanding the proper interpretation of the relevant IAAF Rules.
On 29 September 2000, further to allegations made during the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, that USATF "had concealed information about US athletes who may have tested positive for the use of performance enhancing drugs," USATF appointed an Independent Review Commission, chaired by Professor Richard McLaren (the "McLaren Commission") which issued its report on 11 July 2001.
The second circumstance to be noted concerns the transfer by USATF of all responsibility for doping control and related disciplinary proceedings to the independent United Sates Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA") in October 2000. Since that time, it is USADA, not USATF, which tests athletes both in and out-of-competition, analyses the results, notifies athletes of positive tests and adjudicates such disputes as may arise; and unlike the USATF regulation previously in force, USADA's Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing provides for disclosure of domestic drug tests to the IAAF during the adjudicative process.
(A) The IAAF are in dispute with USATF over the obligation of USATF under IAAF Rules to disclose to the IAAF the results of "positive tests" conducted by or on behalf of USATF; to disclose the determinations of Hearing Panels convened by USATF in cases where athletes have been exonerated of a Doping Offence; and to disclose the material underlying such positive results and/or determinations of
USATF Hearing Panels.
(B) The IAAF contends that it requires such information in order to decide whether or not to exercise its power under IAAF Rule 21.3(ii) to refer such cases for review by its Arbitration Panel (or CAS), where the IAAF believes in the conduct or conclusions of such a hearing the relevant tribunal of the Member has misdirected itself or otherwise reached an erroneous conclusion.
(C) USATF contends that disclosure of domestic doping control results is not required by IAAF Rules or any other legal constraints, and is neither required nor permitted by the US laws, rules, regulations and agreements to which USATF is subject. USATF also contends that in any event the information requested by the IAAF cannot be disclosed because it would violate the legal and personal rights of the athlete. USATF further contends that the IAAF has no authority to review such domestic doping control cases.
(D) The dispute relates to a failure by USATF to disclose the information in (A) above during the period 1 October 1996 to a date to be determined by mutual agreement of the parties.
(E) The facts will be set out in the Statements of Case to be filed by the parties to the dispute.
In the opinion of the CAS Panel, based on its appreciation of the evidence as a whole, the unique facts and circumstances of this case constitute a valid and compelling reason why USATF should not be required to disclose the information in question to the IAAF, notwithstanding the proper interpretation of the relevant IAAF Rules. In the circumstances, and as requested by USATF, the Panel explicitly refrains from applying the relevant IAAF Rules, as interpreted, to the thirteen cases at issue in these proceedings.
Therefore on 10 January 2003 the Panel decides and orders as follows, unanimously with respect to the first question and by majority with respect to the second question and the issue of costs:
1. QUESTION (i) set out in paragraph 1.1 of the Arbitration Agreement dated 10 July 2002 is answered in the affirmative;
2. QUESTION (ii) set out in paragraph 1.1 of the Arbitration Agreement dated 10 July 2002 is also answered in the affirmative;
3. The costs of the arbitration up to the date of the present award, which will be calculated later by the CAS Court Office, shall be shared equally by the parties.
4. Each party shall bear all of its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this arbitration.
The issues to be resolved between IAAF and USATF by the CAS Panel are simply stated in the Arbitration Agreement:
1.1 The IAAF and USATF agree to submit to arbitration the following issues:
(i) properly construed, at all material times did IAAF Rules provide that USATF was obliged:
(a) to furnish the results of positive tests to the IAAF;
(b) to provide the IAAF with copies of decisions of USATF Hearing Panels exonerating athletes of Doping Offences, and
(c) to provide the IAAF with the material it needs to decide whether or not to seek to have a Hearing Panel's decision reviewed by its own Arbitration Panel or CAS?
(ii) if IAAF Rules did so provide, is there any valid reason why USATF should not be required to comply with these Rules?
