The case revolves around a dispute between the National Wheelchair Basketball Association (NWBA) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) concerning the disqualification of the USA Wheelchair Basketball Team from the 1992 Barcelona Paralympics due to a doping violation. The controversy began when a team member, K., tested positive for dextropropoxyphene, a banned substance found in Darvocet, a painkiller provided by his coach. Although the coach had checked the Medical Controls Guide, he failed to identify the banned component. The International Coordinating Committee (ICC), the IPC's predecessor, initially proposed that the USA team forfeit the match and K. forfeit his medal, along with a six-month suspension. However, the ICC President later decided to disqualify the entire team and reallocate the medals, a decision ratified by the ICC Executive Committee.
The NWBA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the team should retain the championship or, at minimum, that all team members except K. should keep their medals. The appeal was based on a special arbitration agreement, with the condition that the gold medals be held by CAS pending the decision. The IPC initially contested jurisdiction due to incomplete medal returns but withdrew this objection after the NWBA compensated for the missing medals. The CAS panel, applying ICC rules, found no provision for team disqualification without a proposal from the ICC Doping Committee, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the panel ruled that the USA team should retain the championship, as the disqualification decision did not comply with the applicable rules.
The case underscores the principle of strict liability in doping violations, where the presence of a banned substance constitutes a violation regardless of intent. The panel acknowledged ambiguities in the ICC rules, particularly regarding distinctions between individual and team sports, forfeiture of results versus loss of medals, and violations detected during versus after competition. Rule 1.1.4, which mandates automatic forfeiture of a match if a team member tests positive, was deemed severe but unambiguous. However, the panel criticized the ICC's unclear drafting and inconsistent understanding of its own rules, which necessitated a detailed legal analysis. Despite sympathy for the non-violating team members, the panel upheld the strict application of the rules, emphasizing that a team's integrity is compromised by any member's violation.
The panel rejected the NWBA's arguments, including claims of procedural unfairness and disproportionate penalties, noting that team sports operate under different rules than individual sports. It also dismissed comparisons to another case where an individual athlete retained his medal due to administrative errors, highlighting the distinct nature of team sports regulations. Ultimately, the panel upheld the IPC's decision to disqualify the USA team, finding the sanctions appropriate under the applicable rules. The case concluded with the panel dismissing all alternative relief requests, instructing the CAS Secretary General to manage the medals in custody, and deciding not to award costs, citing the ICC's ambiguous rule application as a contributing factor. The ruling reaffirmed the forfeiture of the USA team's medals and highlighted the need for clearer anti-doping regulations in sports governance.