The case CAS 2008/A/1459 involved seven U.S. athletes—Andrea Bolder, LaTasha Colander-Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, and Passion Richardson—who appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). The athletes contested potential disqualifications of their results as part of the U.S. women’s 4x100m and 4x400m relay teams from the 2000 Sydney Olympics, arguing that the IAAF lacked authority to alter Olympic results and that the IOC improperly delegated its decision-making power. The IAAF and IOC responded by stating no final decision had been made, rendering the appeal premature and inadmissible under CAS rules, which require exhaustion of internal remedies and submission of a formal decision for appeal.
The CAS examined whether a final, appealable decision existed, referencing Article R47 of the CAS Code, which mandates exhaustion of legal remedies, and Article R48, requiring submission of the appealed decision. The athletes failed to provide evidence of a formal ruling, while the IOC confirmed its disciplinary process was ongoing. The IAAF had only recommended disqualification to the IOC, which had not yet acted. The CAS distinguished this case from a 2004 precedent (CAS 2004/A/725), where the IAAF’s decision was uncontested, whereas here, both the IAAF and IOC explicitly denied issuing a final ruling.
The CAS dismissed the appeal, concluding that without a final decision, the case was inadmissible. However, it clarified that the athletes retained the right to appeal once a definitive ruling was issued. The IOC’s disciplinary process involved requesting a defense from the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC), with any final decision to be made by the IOC Disciplinary Commission and Executive Board. The CAS emphasized procedural requirements, noting the athletes were not yet disqualified and could file a new appeal if necessary. The ruling underscored that CAS jurisdiction depends on the existence of a final decision, and the athletes’ appeals filed in January and February 2008 could not proceed. The case highlights the importance of procedural adherence in sports arbitration, ensuring appeals are based on concrete rulings rather than preliminary recommendations.