CAS 2007/A/1415 Michael Benjamin v/Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI)

CAS 2007/A/1415 B. v/ Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI)

Related case:

FEI 2007 FEI vs Michael Benjamin
September 25, 2007

• Equestrian
• Validity of the notification to undergo an anti-doping test
• Refusal to submit to doping control
• No compelling justifications and mitigating circumstances
• Determination of the sanction

1. No exact time limit is prescribed in the International Standard for Testing (IST). Even if the notification takes place when the Athlete had finished his ride, dismounted from his horse and proceeded to the bar it cannot be said that the notification is too late. The 15 minutes elapsed from the end of the ride to the notification cannot be considered excessive. Even if the Athlete had left the place of the Competition he could have been subject to an Out-of-Competition Test.

2. The intentional refusal to submit to doping control with the purpose to hide that the Athlete had drunk alcohol, which he was not sure was prohibited in connection with a competition, and also to cover the fact that he had taken another medication, which he was not sure of, constitutes anti-doping rule violation.

3. The possibility for the athlete of establishing No Fault or Negligence does not apply to violations under Art. 2.3 (refusal to submit to doping control). According to Art 10.5.4 and 10.2 the sanction therefore has to be two years ineligibility.

In November 2006 the South African Institute for Drugfree Sport (SAIDS) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete Michael Benjamin after he refused to provide a sample for drug testing. Consequently on 25 September 2007 the FEI Tribunal decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

Hereafter in October 2007 the Athlete appealed the FEI decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The CAS Panel determines that aim of the Athlete was to avoid that the test would establish that he had taken alcohol and a medication that might be forbidden substances. This is exactly what the Rule in Art. 2.3 intends to prevent.

If the Athlete considers the alternatives of refusing the test or of revealing at the occasion of a test that he has taken some contingently forbidden substances, the sanction shall be the same in both cases.

The Panel rules that towards this background the Athlete in this case cannot be deemed to have had any compelling justifications. On the contrary he has acted in a way which the relevant Rule aims to forbid.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 24 April 2008:

1.) The Appeal filed by the Athlete is only partially admitted.

2.) The decision issued by the FEI Tribunal is upheld except regarding the commencement date of the period of ineligibility which is fixed on 1 June 2007 instead of 27 October 2007. The period of Ineligibility thus will end on the 30 May 2009.

3.) The Athlete is disqualified from the Event CSI-W Cape Town, which took place between 23 and 26 November 2006, and his results obtained at this Event are annulled.

4.) All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

5. (…).

CAS 200S/A/834 Dubin, Österreichischer Behindertensportverband & Austrian Paralympic Committee v/ IPC

In October 2004 the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Austrian Parathlete Wolfgang Dubin after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Propylhexedrine.

The Athlete explained that he used for many years prescribed medication for his epilepsy while he was unaware that it contained a prohibited substance. The IPC concluded that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that he had failed to apply for a TUE.

On 8 November 2004 the IPC decided on 8 November 2004 to impose a warning and a reprimand on the Athlete including disqualification of his results. Following the Athlete's appeal the IPC decided on 2 February 2005 to uphold its previous decision.

Hereafter in February 2005 the Athlete, the Austrian Paralympic Committe and the Austrian Anti-Doping Committee appealed the IPC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Following assessment of the case the Panel determines that:

• The presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's samples and accordingly he committed an anti-doping rule violation.
• The Athlete did not use the substance intentionally, but only as treatment to control his epilepsy.
• The IPC acted not in accordance with the WADA Code during the analysis of the Athlete's B sample while the IPC already rendered its decision and a press release.
• The substance Propylhexedrine was listed on the 2003 IOC Prohibited List, but was then removed in 2004 without any explanation by WADA.
• The Athlete nor his doctor were fully aware of the situation, due to the ambiguous listing / de-listing of substances on the 2003 and 2004 Prohibited Lists.
• The Athlete acted with No Fault or Negligence.
• No period of ineligibility has been imposed on the Athlete and the warning and reprimand are cancelled.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 February 2006:

1.) The Appeal filed on 21 February 2005 by Mr Dubin, the Austrian Paralympic Committee and the Austrian Anti-Doping Committee against the decision issued on 2 February 2005 by
which the appeal against the Decision of 8 November 2004 was dismissed is partially admitted.

2.) The Decision of the IPC Management Committee of 2 February 2005 is corrected in the sense that the waming and the reprimand imposed on the appellant Wolfgang Dubin are fully cancelled.

3.) The present arbitration procedure is rendered without costs, except for the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) already paid by the Appellants which is retained by the CAS.

4.) The Respondent shall refund the CAS Court Office fee of CHF 500 (five hundred Swiss Francs) to the Appellants.

5.) Each party shall bear its own costs.

CAS 2004/A/717 Intemational Paralympic Committee v/ Broekman & WADA

In July 2004 the TUE Committee of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) decided to dismiss the TUE application of the British Parathlete Andrew Brockman.

By contrast on 23 August 2004 the WADA TUE Committee decided to reverse the IPC decision and to grant the Athlete's TUE application for the use of his medication.

Hereafter in September 2004 the IPC appealed the WADA Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). IPC requested the Panel to set aside the WADA Decision and to deny the TUE granted to the Parathlete.

IPC argued that a TUE can be denied even in the case the Technical Criteria are satisfied, when the health of the athlete would be seriously impaired by the use of the otherwise prohibited substance and/or by the practice of sport under the effect of the otherwise prohibited substance.

WADA, on the other hand, while agreeing on the importance of the "health factor" for the practice of sport, claimed that the list of the Technical Criteria Is exhaustive, so that an athlete has the right to obtain a TUE if he fulfils them all.

In view of the evidence the Panel determines that the Athlete was suffering from a chronic medical condition, that the otherwise prohibited substance was not specificaliy used for sport, but also in the course of the normal life of the Athlete.

The Panel deems that the administration of the otherwise prohibited substance was medically justified. The Panel finds that no evidence, assessed on the basis of a direct examination of the Athlete, was given that the cessation of the practice of the sport by the Athlete was a reasonable alternative to the administration of the prohibited substance.

As a result, the IPC, by denying the TUE, did not properly apply the Technical Criteria (as set forth by the WADC TUE International Standards and by the IPC Anti-Doping Code). WADA, therefore, was entitled to reverse the IPC Decision
pursuant to Article 6.3 of the IPC Anti-Doping Code.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 8 June 2005:

1.) The Appeal filed by the International Paralympic Committee on 15 September 2004 is dismissed.

2.) The decision adopted by the Therapeutic Exemption Committe of the World Anti-Doping Agency on 23 August 2004 is confirmed.

3.) (...)

4.) (...)

CAS 2007/A/1395 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. National Shooting Association of Malaysia (NSAM) & Joseline Cheah Lee Yean & Bibiana Ng Pei Chin & Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin

• Shooting
• Doping (propanolol)
• Tacit arbitration agreement between the parties
• Presumption of ingestion of the prohibited substance to enhance the performance
• Reduction of the period of Ineligibility not justified

1. An agreement to arbitrate may be concluded explicitly or tacitly and may result from the content of the pleadings submitted by the parties. The submission by a party of numerous pieces of correspondence to the CAS which never raises or suggests any objection to the prospective jurisdiction of the CAS and contain arguments concerning the rights of the parties in a dispute may constitute responsive pleadings that do not object to the CAS’s jurisdiction and therefore constitute an agreement to arbitrate before the CAS.

2. In case of a specified substance, the applicable two year period of ineligibility may be replaced by a lower period in the event the athletes can establish that the use of such a specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance. The performance enhancing effects of propranolol which is a beta blocker in shooting cannot be ignored. Therefore, the burden is upon the athletes to show how this specified substance entered in their systems, and to demonstrate that this manner of ingestion was not intended to enhance their performance. Evidence that in the given circumstances an unintentional violation of the anti-doping rules by the shooters was more likely than the intentional misuse of the substance is required particularly in view of the sport enhancing effects of the substance.

3. Athletes have a duty to exercise “the greatest vigilance” or “utmost caution” with regard what they ingest. It is constant in CAS jurisprudence that athletes are responsible for making enquiries about food and medications they are given, regardless of the source. The athlete’s willingness to ingest unwrapped chocolates without further enquiry is at least significantly negligent. The reduction or elimination of the period of ineligibility does not apply where the athletes do not rebut the presumption that they have ingested the prohibited substance to enhance their performance.

In April 2007 the National Shooting Association of Malaysia (NSAM) reported anti-doping rule violations against the Athletes Joseline Cheah Lee Yean, Bibiana Ng Pei Chin and Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin after their A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Propranolol.

Following the provisional suspension of the Athletes in April 2007 there were deliberations between the NSAM, the International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF) and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) about the imposition of the appropriate sanctions.

Prior in September 2007 the NSAM had imposed a sanction of 6 months on the Athletes. However in October 2007 the NSAM revised their decision and imposed a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes. Hereafter in October 2007 WADA appealed the NSAM decisions of 21 September 2007 and 6 October 2007 with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decisions and to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athletes. WADA contended that the NSAM did not bring sufficient evidence to establish that the Athletes did not ingest Propranolol for performance enhancing purposes.

Following assessment of the evidence in this case the Panel determines that:

• The Athlete's have committed a a violation of the ISSF Anti-Doping rules.
• The performance enhancing effects of Propranolol in shooting cannot be ignored.
• The burden is upon the Athletes to show how this specified substance entered in their systems, and to demonstrate that this manner of ingestion was not intended to enhance their performance.
• The Athletes and the NSAM did not discharge their burden of proof that the anti-doping rule violation was committed by the Athletes without intention to enhance their performance.
• The Athletes did not establish any exceptional circumstances whereby the suspension period may have been reduced or eliminated.

Theefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 31 March 2008:

1.) The Appeals filed by WADA on 5 October 2007 and 11 October 2007 are upheld insofar as they are directed against the NSAM. In relation to Ms Josline Cheah Lee Yean, Ms Bibiana Ng Pei Chin and Ms Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin the appeal by WADA is dismissed.

2.) The decision issued on 21 September 2007 by the National Shooting Association of Malaysia is set aside.

3.) The decision issued on 6 October 2007 by the National Shooting Association of Malaysia is amended as follows:

The Shooters Joseline Cheah Lee Yean, Bibiana Ng Pei Chin and Siti Nur Masitah Binti Mohd Badrin are sanctioned with a two-year suspension. The period of ineligibility shall be calculated from 18 April 2007. Any results in a competition obtained by the Shooters from 8 March 2007 until 18 April 2007 are disqualified.

4.) (…).

5.) (…).

6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2009/A/1948 Robert Berger v. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)

• Paralympics shooting
• Refusal to grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for Metoprolol
• CAS Jurisdiction
• CAS power of review regarding TUEs
• Burden of proof regarding the entitlement of a TUE
• Knowledge and information to be considered by the Committees considering TUE applications

1. According to the first sentence of Article 13.4 of the IPC Anti-Doping Code, decisions by WADA reversing the grant or denial of a TUE may be appealed to CAS but, on the other hand, because of the language of the second sentence, a decision of WADA confirming or “not reversing” the earlier decision relating to the grant or denial of a TUE could not be appealed to CAS. Pursuant to the general principle of contractual interpretation, where a tribunal concludes that there has been a clear mistake in the language used in the contract, it can correct that mistake by supplying, omitting or correcting words. However, the mere suspicion of a drafting error is not enough to accept the rewriting of an article. Furthermore, any possible alternative construction of the regulations involving a significant departure from the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used is not acceptable. In any event, CAS jurisdiction results from the express jurisdiction conferred by the parties in the order of procedure.

2. The extensive nature of the powers conferred on a CAS appeal panel has become well entrenched in CAS jurisprudence and there is nothing the CAS Code, the IPC Anti-Doping Code or the WADC which would restrict the express power of an appeal panel to review the facts and the law. This principle applies to the granting or denying of TUEs. The procedure before an appeal panel is a hearing de novo. Thus, a CAS appeal panel shall consider all oral, documentary and real evidence produced before it and any fresh evidence may be adduced as of right in a re-hearing whether or not that new evidence was available for use at first instance or discovered subsequently. In this respect, there is no reason to suppose that merely because the members of the CAS panel may not be physicians they are not competent to decide matters of a medical nature assisted by expert evidence. Therefore, all of the material which has been placed before the CAS panel, including the medical evidence and publications, even if some of that material was not before either the IPC TUEC or the WADA TUEC, shall be considered.

3. It is for an athlete to establish his or her entitlement to a TUE before each of the relevant TUE Committee’s. Since the hearing is de novo the athlete must also bear that onus of proof before the CAS. It follows that it is for the athlete to satisfy the CAS that each of the imperative and cumulative criteria in Article 4 of the International Standard for TUEs has been satisfied.

4. It is permissible for the Committees considering TUE applications, measured against the applicable published International Standards criteria, to refer generally to medical and scientific literature and studies which are publicly available and which one or other or both of those Committees may consider relevant and persuasive to a considered and reasoned point of view. The expert medical practitioners who undertake their responsibilities as TUE Committee members do not “leave their expert knowledge behind them at the door of the committee room” when undertaking their responsibilities. They are entitled to rely on their knowledge and the information which is available in the public domain as part of the process of considering an individual TUE. Of course, that knowledge and the information which is in the public domain, relevant to the issue before them, cannot substitute for consideration of the specific matters particular to the athlete, his or her medical condition, or the full breadth of circumstances upon which the athlete relies for the TUE application. All relevant information must be considered, be it of general application or specific to the athlete.

On 18 February 2009 the IPC TUEC rejected the Parathlete's application for the use of the prescribed medication Metoprolol. Thereupon the WADA TUEC decided 19 August 2009 to uphold the appealed IPC TUEC decision.

Hereafter the Parathlete appealed the WADA TUEC Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The Panel assessed and addressed the issue of upon whom rests the burden of establishing entitlement to an exemption (and therefore upon whom rests the burden of this appeal). Then the Panel considered the filed evidence on behalf of both parties, the appellant Mr Berger and WADA as respondent.

In view of the medical evidence the Panel deems that the Parathlete has not demonstrated that the therapeutic use of the Prohibited Substance would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by return to a state of normal health following the treatment of a legitimate medical condition.

The Panel concludes that the Parathlete in this case, at this time, on the basis of all the evidence before us, has not discharged the burden resting upon him to establish his entitlement to a TUE for the use of Metoprolol whilst participating in his chosen sport of shooting.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 1 March 2010:

1.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction to hear this Appeal but only by reason of the express conferral of jurisdiction upon it by Order 2.1 of the Order of Procedure.

2.) The Appeal is dismissed.

3.) The decision of the IPC TUEC dated 18 February 2009 not to approve a TUE for the appellant and the decision of the WADA TUEC dated 19 August 2009 not reversing the decision of the IPC TUEC, remain in force.

4.) That this Award be made public.

5.) (…).

CAS OG 10/04 Claudia Pechstein vs DOSB & IOC

• On 1 july 2009 the International Skating Union decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the German skater Claudia Pechstein for her anti-doping rule violation she committed.
• On 25 November 2009 the Court of Arbitration (CAS) decided to dismiss the Athlete's appeal (CAS 2009/A/1912) and to uphold the ISU Decision of 1 July 2009.
• On 10 February 2010 the Swiss Federal Tribunal also dismissed the Athlete's appeal.

Consequently the Athlete was ineligible to participate in the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games whereas the DSOB did not nominate the Athlete to participate in the 2010 Olympic Games.

Hereafter on 15 February 2010 the Athlete requested the DOSB to nominate her for the participation in the competitions of the female speed skaters during the Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver 2010. She also requested the IOC to allow her participation in those competitions.

Because the DOSB did not reply immediately on 15 February 2010 the Athlete addressed her application with the Court of Arbitration ad hoc Division.

The DOSB, the IOC and also the ISU requested the Panel to dismiss the Athlete's application and contended that the CAS ad hoc Panel has no jurisdiction the hear the Athlete's case.

Additionally the DOSB contended that the ad hoc Panel was bound by the Award CAS 2009/A/1912 of 25 November 2009 which was not set aside by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

The Panel determines that the Athlete had not identified any specific decision by the IOC, an NOC, and International Federation or an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games which has arisen during the Vancouver Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Games on 12 February 2010 which could be the subject of an appeal to the ad hoc Division.

The Panel has, on its own, searched the record and found no such decision. As a result the Panel finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the present matter and it so rules.

Therefore the ad hoc Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 18 February 2010:

1.) The ad hoc Division lacks jurisdiction to hear the present Application.

2.) The Application of Ms Claudia Pechstein is dismissed.

3.) Each party shall pay its own costs (see Article 22 of the CAS ad hoc Rules).

CAS 94/129 USA Shooting & Q. / Union Internationale de Tir (UIT)

• Doping of a shooter (ephedrine)
• Disqualification and suspension for 3 months
• Absence of strict liability rule in the UIT Antidoping Regulations
• Need to establish the guilty intent of the shooter to sanction him
• Right to be heard and due process

1. If the strict liability standard is to be applied, this fact must be clearly stated. The fact that the Court of Arbitration for Sport has sympathy for the principle of a strict liability rule obviously does not allow the CAS to create such a rule where it does not exist.

2. The fight against doping is arduous, and it may require strict rules. But the rule-makers and the rule-appliers must begin by being strict with themselves. Regulations that may affect the careers of dedicated athletes must be predictable. They must emanate from duly authorised bodies. They must be adopted in constitutionally proper ways. They should not be the product of an obscure process of accretion. Athletes and officials should not be confronted with a thicket of mutually qualifying or even contradictory rules that can be understood only on the basis of the de facto practice over the course of many years of a small group of insiders.

3. If the “hearing” in a given case was insufficient in the first instance, the fact is that as long as there is a possibility of full appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport the deficiency may be cured.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 May 1995:

1.) Grants the relief requested by the Appellants, and accordingly:
2.) reinstates Q. as the winner of the 1994 UIT Cairo World Cup entitled to retain the gold medal from that event, and
3.) declares that USA Shooting was therefore in principle entitled to the Olympic country quota slot earned as a result of Q.’s performance (it being recognised that this slot cannot be used in practice to the extent that U.S. athletes have already attained the maximum of three slots for any one country).
4.) Makes no award of costs.

CAS OG 08/05 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) vs Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/005 Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) & Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_01 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH & RFEH
  August 2, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_04 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF vs FIH
  August 5, 2008
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_424_2008 AFHF vs FIH
  January 22, 2009

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games
• Standing to bring an application before the CAS Ad hoc Division

The Applicants have no standing to file an application before the CAS Ad hoc Division because no adverse finding has been made against them by the Judicial Commission of FIH and thus there was no breach of the rules of procedural fairness in not giving the Applicants an opportunity to be heard.

From 12 to 20 April 2008, one of the three Women's World Hockey Qualifier competitions was held in Baku, Azerbaijan. The winner of the Event would qualify for the Olympic Games. The final of the Event was a match on Sunday, 20 April 2008, between the team representing the Real Federación Española de Hockey (RFEH) and the team representing the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF). The Spanish team won the final 3-2.

On 21 May 2008, the FIH communicated that the A and B samples of two players, who competed for the Spanish team, taken during anti-doping tests carried out at the Event showed adverse analytical findings (AAF). In the same communication, the FIH stated that the players concerned had requested a hearing by the FIH Judicial Commission.

The hearing impacted not only the players but could also have affected the entire Spanish team by virtue of article 11.1 of the FIH Anti-Doping Policy, which reads: “if more than one team member in a Team Sport is found to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule violation during the Event, the team may be subject to Disqualification or other disciplinary action."

The FIH requested that the Judicial Commission find that the two players had committed an anti-doping rule violation and as a result disqualify the Spanish team from the Event.
The Judicial Commission found that one of the players committed an anti-doping rule violation. However, there was no fault or negligence on her part so no sanction was imposed; the second player was not found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation ("the Decision").

On 31 July 2008, AFHF, together with the players of the Azerbaijan Women's Field Hockey team and the ANOC, filed an application with the ad hoc Division of the CAS.

By decision of 2 August 2008, the ad hoc Division of the CAS dismissed the application filed by the ANOC, the AFHF and the Players on 31 July 2008 (the "First Award"). In this First Award, the CAS Panel found that ANOC, AFHF and the Players did not have standing to bring an appeal of the Decision.

Faced with the absence of standing, on 5 August 2008, the Applicants brought a further application before the CAS ad hoc Division seeking an order that FIH itself bring an appeal to CAS against the Decision.

By decision of 5 August 2008, the CAS ad hoc Division dismissed the application filed on 5 August 2008, including the requests for preliminary relief (the “Second Award”).

This amounts to a third appeal to the CAS ad hoc Division by the Applicants seeking substantially the same final relief as sought in the application which led to the First Award.

According to the Applicants’ submissions, this application arises by reason of their consideration, for the first time, of a copy of the Decision which was made available to them as a result of a direction given by the CAS Panel which delivered the First Award.

The Applicants submit that the Decision “shows the Applicants were openly blamed for committing sabotage of the Spanish team” and that in the Decision, “the Judicial Commission endorsed the allegations put forward by the Respondents.”

The Applicants contend that the alleged findings of the Judicial Commission against them were made in circumstances where they had a right to be heard and were not heard. They submit that, in accordance with article 22.1 of the FIH Statutes and Byelaws, article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and general principles, since they have been denied procedural fairness by the Judicial Commission, the Decision should be annulled.

The CAS Panel finds that the Applicants seem to be seeking to appeal against the dismissed First Award. The First Award was erroneous. Indeed, with great respect, the Panel considered that it was clearly correct. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Applicants have no standing to bring this application. In addition it is not necessary to consider the merits of the application or whether the Decision was, in fact, a correct one.

On the basis of the foregoing facts and legal aspects, the ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport renders on 8 August 2008 the following decision:

The application filed by the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee on 7 August 2008 is hereby dismissed.

CAS OG 08/04 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) vs The Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/004 Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_01 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH & RFEH
  August 2, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_05 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
  August 8, 2008
• Swiss Federal Court 4A_424_2008 AFHF vs FIH
  January 22, 2009
  
  

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games

Discretionary power of IFs to adopt the reasoning of their judicial commission and not to appeal before the CAS in a doping matter. An International Federation does not have the obligation to appeal every time its own internal body decides after a review of the facts not to issue a sanction in a doping matter. The Federation must have the discretion to adopt the reasoning of its Judicial Commission and decide not to appeal.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 5 August 2008:

The application filed on 5 August 2008 by the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee and the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and their requests for preliminary relief are hereby dismissed.

• CAS OG 08/01 The Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC) & The Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF) &
• Hidayatova Nazira,
• Aliyeva Mi Kyong,
• Alizada Bo Jyong,
• Makayeva Feruza,
• Chegurko Lyudmila,
• Kheyirova Seda,
• Zeynalova Zarifahon,
• Mammadova Myungsoon,
• Suleymanova Zhang,
• Mirzaliyeva Dilfuza,
• Jafarova Inoyathan,
• Muzaffaova Emine,
• Nuriyeva Liana,
• Rustamova Seon Young,
• Aliyeva Marina,
• Shahbazova Viktorya (the Players)

vs The Federation Internationale de Hockey (FIH) & Real Federación Española de Hockey (RFEH)

CAS ad hoc Division (OG Beijing) 08/001 Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee (ANOC), Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation (AFHF), Hidayatova Nazira and others (the Players) v. Fédération Internationale de Hockey (FIH)

Related cases:

• CAS OG_2008_04 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF vs FIH
  August  5, 2008
• CAS OG_2008_05 Azerbaijan NOC, AFHF & the Players vs FIH
  August 8, 2008
  
  

• Field Hockey
• Olympic Games 2008
• Eligibility
• Standing to challenge a decision

In light of the FIH Anti-Doping Policy, the Applicants have no rights of appeal against the decision taken by the FIH Disciplinary Commission. Therefore, they have no standing to request a relief challenging such decision in relation to an alleged doping case committed by players of an opponent team during a qualifying tournament held for the OG.

The ad hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 August 2008:

The application filed by the Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee, the Azerbaijan Field Hockey Federation and the Players on 31 July 2008 is hereby dismissed.