The case involves a dispute between several U.S. track and field athletes—Andrea Anderson, LaTasha Colander Clark, Jearl Miles-Clark, Torri Edwards, Chryste Gaines, Monique Hennagan, and Passion Richardson—and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) regarding the redistribution of medals from the 2000 Sydney Olympics. The athletes were part of the U.S. relay teams that won bronze and gold medals in the 4x100 meters and 4x400 meters races. Their teammate, Marion Jones, later admitted to doping violations, leading the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) to annul all of Jones' results from September 2000, including the relay team performances. The IOC subsequently disqualified Jones and the relay teams, ordering the return of medals and diplomas.
The athletes appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Rule 25.2.2.4 of the 2000 Olympic Charter imposed a three-year limitation on challenging decisions made during the Games, which had expired by the time the IOC acted in 2008. They sought a preliminary ruling on this issue, but the CAS panel dismissed their motion, stating that procedural rules did not allow for summary disposition. The athletes then filed a full appeal, maintaining that the three-year rule barred the IOC's actions.
The CAS panel examined the interpretation of the three-year rule, noting differences between the French term "remise en cause" in the 2000 Olympic Charter and the term "challenged" in the 2008 version. The panel clarified that the rule applied only to IOC decisions, not those of other bodies like the IAAF, and specifically covered eligibility or exclusion decisions rather than medal distribution. The panel emphasized that the IOC's role in awarding medals was administrative, implementing results determined by the IAAF, and did not constitute a formal legal act under Swiss law.
The panel concluded that the three-year rule did not prevent the IOC from revisiting medal distributions tainted by doping, as the rule applied only to formal IOC decisions, not routine administrative acts. The athletes' argument that the IOC's actions were time-barred was rejected, allowing the case to proceed on its merits. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional boundaries between the IOC and International Federations, affirming that IFs retain exclusive authority over competition results, while the IOC's role is primarily administrative.
Ultimately, the panel dismissed the athletes' preliminary objection based on the three-year rule, reserving further decisions for subsequent stages. The case underscores the complexities of applying anti-doping regulations retroactively and the legal nuances of revisiting Olympic results long after the events have concluded. The ruling reaffirmed the CAS's jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal and clarified the scope of the IOC's authority in amending competition outcomes.