The case revolves around Anthony Little, an elite boxer who won the 60kg weight division in the 2006 Commonwealth Games selection trials but was subsequently disqualified after testing positive for cannabis metabolites. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) determined that the cannabis was passively inhaled, not performance-enhancing, and issued only a warning without imposing ineligibility. However, under Boxing Australia Inc.'s (BAI) Anti-Doping Policy, the positive test automatically disqualified Little’s trial results, affecting his eligibility for selection. BAI’s Nomination Criteria allowed for amendments under Clause 1.2, but such changes required approval from the Australian Commonwealth Games Association (ACGA). Little’s legal team argued that the criteria should be amended to account for his unique circumstances, but Clause 6.2 restricted appeals to cases where the criteria were not properly followed, not to failures in amending them.
The sole arbitrator, David Grace QC, ruled that BAI’s discretionary power to amend the criteria was permissive, not mandatory. Since the criteria were correctly applied in disqualifying Little, there was no basis for an appeal under Clause 6.2. The tribunal upheld BAI’s decision, emphasizing that the appeal process addressed procedural failures, not challenges to BAI’s discretion. Little’s disqualification stood, and the silver medallist, Lenny Zappavinga, was nominated instead. Little’s legal team further argued that BAI should have sought ACGA approval to amend the criteria, but the Appeal Panel dismissed this, stating that the decision to amend was discretionary and not subject to appeal. The Panel also noted that amending the criteria retroactively would unfairly disadvantage Zappavinga, who had rightfully been nominated.
The case highlights the strict application of anti-doping regulations and the limited grounds for appeal when selection criteria are followed as written, even in mitigating circumstances. It underscores the tension between fairness and adherence to rules, reinforcing that discretionary powers of sports federations are not subject to appeal unless there is a clear failure in implementing established criteria. The CAS ultimately dismissed Little’s appeal, upholding Zappavinga’s nomination and affirming the importance of transparency and fairness in the selection process. The decision illustrates the challenges athletes face when unintentional violations collide with rigid regulatory frameworks, leaving little room for exceptions.