LANDMARK JUDGMENTS - Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim & Vincent Zhou v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

1.PARTIES TO THE CASE

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) in the arbitration between Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim, and Vincent Zhou (the "Applicants") and International Olympic Committee (IOC) (the "Respondent"). The Applicants are members of the United States Figure Skating Team who placed second in the Figure Skating Team Event at the XXIV Olympic Winter Games in Beijing (the “OWG 2022”). The Respondent is the International Olympic Committee (the “IOC”), which is the governing body of the Olympic Games and the organisation responsible for the Olympic movement, having its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. One of the primary responsibilities of the IOC is to organise, plan, oversee and sanction the summer and winter Olympic Games, including the OWG 2022, fulfilling the mission, role and responsibilities assigned to it.

2.FACTS

On 7 February 2022, the Applicants competed in the Figure Skating Team Event at the OWG 2022 and placed second, with the Russian Olympic Committee (“ROC”) team placing first. The medal ceremony for the Figure Skating Team Event, which was originally planned to take place on the same date, was postponed to the day after in order for all the members of the teams to be able to participate in the ceremony. 

On 8 February 2022, based on an Adverse Analytical Finding in a sample of one of the athletes, Ms. Kamila Valieva, who had been competing as a member of the ROC team in the Figure Skating Team Event, she was provisionally suspended as of the same date by decision of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (“RUSADA”).

On the same date, the IOC announced that the medal ceremony for the Figure Skating Team Event was delayed due to a “legal issue”, without giving further information about the nature of this “legal issue”.

On 9 February 2022, and following Ms. Valieva´s request, the provisional suspension of the Athlete imposed by RUSADA was lifted by decision of the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (the “DADC”).

On 11 February 2022, the IOC, the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) and the International Skating Union filed their respective applications with the CAS Ad Hoc Division against the decision of the DADC, with Ms. Valieva, RUSADA and the ROC as respondents. The Applicants in these proceedings requested that the decision of the DADC of 9 February be set aside.

On 14 February 2022, the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed all three applications in the consolidated proceedings and clearly expressed that the decision taken was not a decision on whether Ms. Valieva violated the anti-doping rules. It was limited to the sole question of whether Ms. Valieva could be provisionally suspended from the Olympic competition following a positive A-sample taken on 25 December 2021.

Thereafter, by letter of 18 February 2022 to the President of the IOC and to the members of the IOC Executive Board, the legal representative of the Applicants wrote- “Our clients seek the legal right they have earned to be given their silver medals in a public ceremony at the Olympic Games prior to the Closing Ceremony. The lOC's own rules mandate that a victory ceremony "to present medals to the athletes, shall follow the conclusion of each sports event at the competition venue and/or where applicable for the Olympic Winter Games, at the Medals Plaza." Our clients have trained a lifetime for this opportunity to have their achievements publicly recognized before the world. A dignified medal ceremony from our clients' vantage point is one in the Medals Plaza as originally planned and afforded to all other medalists. While we hope the IOC reconsiders its decision and decides on its own to award to the United States team the silver medal for the Figure Skating Team Event in a public medal ceremony prior to the close of the Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022, we are committed to protecting our clients' rights before the CAS and anticipate that the Panel assigned to this case will understand that our clients are being denied a legal right they have earned and are entitled to receive.”

3.THE CASE PROCEEDINGS

On 18 February 2022, the Applicants filed an Application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division against the Respondent with respect to the Appealed Decision as included in the statement of the IOC of 14 February 2022. 

On 19 February 2022, pursuant to Article 15 (c) par. 1 of the CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games, the Parties were notified of the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal (the “Panel”).

At 14:49 (Beijing time), the Respondent filed its Answer, requesting, inter alia, that since the Applicants’ request had no legal bearing, it should be summarily dismissed without the need to hold a hearing.

On 19 February 2022 at 19:00 (Beijing time), a hearing was held by way of video-conferencing.

4.SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANTS

The Applicants earned their second place in the OWG 2022 Figure Skating Team Event and cannot be deprived “of being awarded their silver medals in a public ceremony”.

Pursuant to Article 56 of the Olympic Charter, the Applicants “are entitled to a public medal ceremony to be held prior to the close of the XXIV Winter Olympic Games”. In particular, the IOC Protocols mandate that “the Victory Ceremonies, to present medals to the athletes, shall follow the conclusion of each sports event at the competition venue and/or, where applicable for the Olympic Winter Games, at the Medals Plaza”.

It is not disputed by the IOC that the Applicants are entitled to be awarded the silver medals following the OWG 2022 Figure Skating Team Event, and with the Appealed Decision, the IOC has therefore violated the said provisions and, accordingly, the Appealed Decision requires reconsideration.

The Applicants could not have known from reading the applicable rules that if there was a pending doping case involving another team, then the Applicant would be denied their opportunity to receive their medals during a ceremony conducted during the OWG 2022.

The Appealed Decision violates the principle of legal certainty, whereby athletes must not be penalised by a sudden and unwarranted change of clearly established rules.

The absence of the public recognition of the Applicants’ outstanding life achievements to win an Olympic silver medal may cause a mental hurdle and psychological damage, which will affect their future performance.

The Appealed Decision based on the IOC’s implementation of the CAS award violates the equality of treatment between athletes. The Applicants have fairly and unquestionably won their silver medal and must not be treated differently from others who will benefit from a medal ceremony during the Olympic Games.

5.SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

It is stressed that the CAS Ad Hoc Division is a court of law, which simply cannot replace a decision by the IOC unless the necessary legal standards are met, which is not the case in this matter.

It follows from Rule 56 of the Olympic Charter that the awarding of any victory medal “falls within the sole authority of the IOC”, which authority the IOC. 

Furthermore, and even if the IOC Protocols states that a victory ceremony “shall follow the conclusion of each sport event at the competition venue and/or where applicable for the Olympic Winter Games, at the Medal Plaza”, such provision is part of the “Operational Requirements”, which are mere directions given by the IOC to the Organising Committee.

The Applicants were never “promised” or “guaranteed” a public medal ceremony to be held before the closing of the OWG 2022.

This situation is indeed an unprecedented one and could not have been expected or foreseen since it involves an Adverse Analytical Finding (“AAF”) in a sample taken long before the opening of the OWG 2022, but with the result only being available after the Athletes had competed in the Figure Skating Team Event. Based on that, the results of the event are not yet to be considered final since the possible consequences of the Adverse Analytical Finding are still to be decided.

By this measure alone, the submissions of the Applicants based on the principles of legitimate expectations, equal treatment, estoppel and legal certainty have no legal basis in this situation.

6.APPLICABLE LAW 

Under Article 17 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Panel must decide the dispute "pursuant to the Olympic Charter, the applicable regulations, general principles of law and the rules of law, the application of which it deems appropriate."

The Panel agrees with the Parties that the “applicable regulations” in this case are the Olympic Charter. The Panel further notes that it finds that Swiss law is applicable on a subsidiary basis should the need arise to fill a possible gap in the Olympic Charter.

7.LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The present proceedings are governed by the Ad Hoc Rules enacted by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport on 14 October 2003. They are further governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act of 18 December 1987 ("PILA"). The PILA applies to this arbitration as a result of the express choice of law contained in Article 17 of the Ad Hoc Rules and as the result of the choice of Lausanne, Switzerland as the seat of the Ad Hoc Division and of its panels of Arbitrators, pursuant to Article 7 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules. 

According to Article 16 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the Panel has "full power to establish the facts on which the application is based".

Rules 56 of the Olympic Charter is read as follows: 

“56. Victory, medal and diploma ceremonies and the awarding of medals- Any decision regarding the awarding, withdrawal or reallocation of any victory medal or diploma falls within the sole authority of the IOC. Victory, medal and diploma ceremonies shall be conducted in accordance with the IOC Protocol Guide and other protocol-related requirements set forth in the Olympic Host Contract. To the extent reasonably possible, the ceremonies for reallocation of medals shall replicate the formal ceremonies for allocation of medals. The format and design of the medals and diplomas shall be submitted to the IOC for its prior approval.”

Rules 58 of the Olympic Charter is read as follows: 

The authority of last resort on any question concerning the Olympic Games rests with the IOC.”

8.DISCUSSION

While the Respondent, on its side, submits that, pursuant to the above-mentioned Rules, any matter with regard to the awarding of victory medals falls within the sole authority of the IOC, the Applicants, on their side, submit that it follows from Rule 56 that the “sole authority of the IOC” only covers “who” is to be awarded victory medals, while the “where” and “when” are not covered by IOC's discretion as these matters are already set out in the IOC Protocol Guide and other protocol-related requirements set forth in the Olympic Host Contract.

So even if it follows from the “Operational Requirements” as set out in the IOC Protocol that “the Victory Ceremonies, to present medals to the athletes, shall follow the conclusion of each sports event at the competition venue and/or, where applicable for the Olympic Winter Games, at the Medals Plaza”, the Panel agrees with the IOC that no rights for or guarantees to the Applicants with regard to the “where” and “when” of the medal ceremony can be derived out of these “operational requirements”.

In this regard, the Panel points out that in accordance with Swiss law and the well-established CAS case law, the discretionary powers of the decision-making bodies of Swiss sports associations are broad. Such case law consistently allows for a wide exercise of such powers, which is to be restrained by the CAS only in extreme cases (i.e., illegality, arbitrariness or abusiveness).

In the matter at hand, the Panel finds that the Appealed Decision was neither abusive nor arbitrary, nor does the Panel find that the IOC EB exceeded its power.

As much as the Panel has sympathy for the interests of the Applicants to be awarded their well-deserved medals in a public ceremony before the closing of the OWG 2022, the Panel initially notes that the Appealed Decision, which does not deprive the Applicants from being awarded their medals at a subsequent dignified ceremony, was only made after the consultation with the relevant National Olympic Committees (“NOC”) concerned and after the Applicants were given the opportunity to present their point of view before the President of the IOC.

However, and as confirmed during the hearing, none of the Parties ever expected a situation like the one at hand to arise, which is why the Panel finds no legal basis for concluding that the Appealed Decision did in fact breach any legal rights of the Applicants based on the above-mentioned principles.

When a certain situation is unprecedented, as set out by the Respondent, the Panel does not find that a submission based on the principle of legitimate expectation has sufficient legal basis to set aside the Appealed Decision, and as the Panel further notes that it does not consider the Appealed Decision to be a sanction imposed on the Applicants.

The same goes for the Applicants’ submission based on the principle of equal treatment of the Olympic athletes as the Panel agrees with the IOC that the decision to treat a different and unprecedented situation in a different way does not per se constitute or imply an unjustified unequal treatment of the athletes covered by such a decision.

However, the Panel at the same time recognises the sole discretion of the IOC to decide on issues regarding, inter alia, the medal ceremonies as set out in Rule 56 of the Olympic Charter.

As such, and based on the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds no legal basis for ordering the IOC to organise a medal ceremony for the OWG 2022 Figure Skating Team Event during the OWG 2022. Consequently, the Applicants’ Application of 18 February 2022 is therefore dismissed.

Therefore, the Appealed Decision stands and in view of the above considerations, the Applicants’ Application is dismissed.

According to Article 22 par. 1 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules, the services of the CAS ad hoc Division “are free of charge” and it was confirmed at the hearing that none of the Parties seek costs. Accordingly, there is no order as to costs.

Written by

Ojaitra Arora

LinkedIn