The case of CAS 2008/A/1603 Jahangir Shagaev v. Australian Water Polo Incorporated (AWPI) involved a disciplinary dispute concerning the misconduct of water polo coach Jahangir Shagaev during a match on 2 March 2008. Shagaev, the coach of the Sydney University Lions, was accused of slapping referee Aleks Zlatkovic and using abusive, racially charged language after a match against the Hunter Hurricanes. The incident was reported under the Australian National Water Polo League's Operations Manual and AWPI's Code of Conduct, which outline disciplinary procedures for misconduct, including assault and verbal abuse toward officials.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, comprising three legal experts, examined whether the league's regulations, which primarily address player misconduct, could also apply to coaches. The panel determined that the rules created binding contractual obligations for all participants, including coaches, and that disciplinary provisions for players could be applied mutatis mutandis (with necessary changes) to ensure fairness and consistency. The panel upheld the charges against Shagaev, finding his actions—physical assault and verbal abuse—violated the explicit and implied terms of the regulations. The AWPI's disciplinary framework classified such offenses as Grade 2, warranting penalties ranging from suspension to lifetime bans.
The case highlighted procedural aspects, such as the validity of referee reports and the right to amend charges during hearings to ensure fairness. Witness testimonies, including those from Zlatkovic and another referee, Nick Hodgers, corroborated Shagaev's aggressive behavior, including threats and ethnic slurs. The Sydney University Lions issued an apology and suspended Shagaev pending further action. The AWPI Judiciary initially imposed severe penalties: a two-year suspension for abusive language and a lifetime ban for assault, subject to review after ten years. On appeal, the AWPI Board reduced the sanctions to a five-year disqualification for assault, with an additional five years suspended contingent on good behavior.
Shagaev appealed to CAS, arguing the charges were invalid as the rules did not explicitly cover coaches. The panel rejected this, affirming that the AWPI Constitution and Operations Manual implicitly bound coaches to disciplinary standards. The panel upheld the suspension, emphasizing the importance of maintaining respect and integrity in sports. The decision underscored the authority of governing bodies to enforce conduct codes and the need for clarity in disciplinary provisions to avoid future disputes.
Ultimately, the CAS panel validated the charges and sanctions, imposing a three-year suspension effective from the incident date. The case reinforced the principle that all participants, including coaches, are accountable for misconduct, and it highlighted the necessity of clear, comprehensive disciplinary frameworks in sports governance. The panel also recommended that AWPI explicitly include coaches in its disciplinary rules to prevent ambiguity. The ruling emphasized procedural fairness, the credibility of evidence, and the finality of CAS decisions under the AWPI Constitution. The outcome served as a reminder of the serious consequences of misconduct in sports, particularly toward officials, and the importance of upholding professional standards.