The case centers on professional tennis player Karol Beck, who appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after the International Tennis Federation (ITF) Anti-Doping Tribunal found him guilty of a doping violation. Beck tested positive for clenbuterol during a Davis Cup match in September 2005, leading to a two-year suspension, disqualification from competitions, and forfeiture of titles and prize money. He sought a postponement of the tribunal hearing, citing an ongoing criminal investigation in Bratislava that might yield new evidence, but the tribunal denied this request, suggesting he could present such evidence in a potential CAS appeal.
Beck filed his appeal with CAS on December 1, 2006, significantly exceeding the 21-day deadline set by ITF rules. He argued that the delay was justified by new evidence from the Bratislava investigation. The ITF opposed the appeal, asserting that Beck neither sought their consent for the late filing nor obtained an extension from the tribunal chairman. They also contended that CAS lacked jurisdiction to extend the appeal deadline under its procedural rules. The CAS panel determined that Beck likely received the ITF decision between February 13 and 15, 2006, making the appeal deadline March 8, 2006. His filing, over eight months late, was deemed inadmissible because CAS rules prohibit extending time limits unless the respondent consents, which the ITF did not.
The panel acknowledged the ITF tribunal's suggestion that Beck could present new evidence directly to CAS, which may have led him to act in good faith. However, the panel clarified that new evidence should first be submitted to the ITF tribunal for review, potentially prompting a revised decision that could then be appealed to CAS. The hybrid approach suggested by the ITF tribunal was criticized as confusing and ineffective, as it provided no assurance that new evidence would be considered. The panel recommended that if Beck submits new evidence to the ITF tribunal in the future, its relevance should be assessed to determine whether the initial decision should be reconsidered.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Beck's appeal due to its untimeliness, emphasizing the strict enforcement of procedural deadlines in sports arbitration. The decision highlights the limited flexibility in extending appeal deadlines under CAS rules and underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures. While the panel offered guidance for future submissions, it could not issue binding orders on the matter, leaving the parties to navigate next steps based on the panel's observations. The case illustrates the challenges athletes face in contesting doping violations when procedural deadlines are missed, even when new evidence is involved.