Nathan Baggaley, a prominent Australian canoeist, appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against a two-year suspension imposed by the International Canoe Federation (ICF) following a doping violation. The ICF's decision, issued on March 15, 2006, lacked reasoning or evidence, prompting Baggaley’s legal team to request clarification to prepare a proper appeal. Despite repeated requests, the ICF delayed providing the necessary details, only offering a brief explanation on May 16, 2006, citing an uncontested doping violation and Rule 10.2 of its Doping Control Rules, which mandates a two-year sanction. Baggaley argued that the ICF denied him procedural fairness by not allowing him to present arguments for a reduced penalty and failed to recognize a prior CAS ruling that had reduced his suspension to 15 months due to no significant fault or negligence.
The central issue before the CAS panel was whether Baggaley’s appeal, filed on October 11, 2006, was timely under CAS Rules, which require appeals to be lodged within 21 days of receiving the decision. The ICF contended the appeal was time-barred, as the deadline expired around April 6, 2006. Baggaley’s legal team argued that compliance was impossible without the ICF’s delayed reasoning, but the panel rejected this, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines. The panel clarified that CAS, as an arbitral body, lacks inherent powers to waive or modify rules, and the terms "Appeal" and "Statement of Appeal" are synonymous, meaning the 21-day limit applies to the initial filing.
The panel also dismissed Baggaley’s arguments based on waiver, estoppel, and good faith, noting that the ICF’s silence or delay did not override the self-executing nature of the deadline. Even if the ICF’s decision was flawed due to lack of reasoning, the procedural rules required strict compliance with timelines, which Baggaley failed to meet. The panel did not evaluate the merits of the case, focusing solely on the procedural inadmissibility of the appeal. The ruling underscores the importance of procedural certainty in sports arbitration and highlights the challenges athletes face when contesting sanctions without timely or sufficient reasoning from governing bodies. The CAS ultimately declared Baggaley’s appeal inadmissible, upholding the ICF’s decision without further review.