The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an advisory opinion on May 28, 2009, concerning the participation of an underage gymnast in the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. The case involved a gymnast who won team and individual bronze medals but was later suspected of being younger than the minimum age requirement of 16 years. The Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) sought clarification on three procedural issues: which authority should handle the case, whether results could be annulled, and whether the case could still be pursued eight years after the Games. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Christoph Vedder, Prof. Petros Mavroidis, and Mr. Vit Horacek, analyzed the Olympic Charter (OCh) and FIG regulations to provide guidance.
Under the Olympic Charter, the technical responsibility for Olympic competitions lies with the relevant International Federation (IF), which must enforce IOC eligibility rules, including age limits. The IOC Executive Board retains exclusive authority to withdraw accreditation during the Games and to annul results and medals afterward, though such decisions can be appealed to the CAS. The IF also has the power to correct rankings if an athlete is found ineligible. The panel noted that neither the FIG nor the IOC rules impose time limits for investigating rule violations, meaning the case could still be examined despite the eight-year delay. The gymnast’s accreditation and documents appeared valid at the time, but if falsified, the relevant authorities (IOC or FIG) could take action.
The document further clarifies the roles of the FIG and IOC in handling age limit violations. The FIG's Code of Discipline (CoD) defines misconduct, including breaches of age limits, but does not explicitly provide for the annulment of results. The FIG's Executive Committee can interpret and enforce its regulations, including taking disciplinary action, while the IOC Executive Board handles Olympic-specific consequences like medal withdrawals. The FIG's Disciplinary Commission lacks the authority to annul results, which remains within the Executive Committee's jurisdiction.
Regarding statutes of limitations, the panel found that no general time limits apply to age limit violations under FIG or IOC rules, except for anti-doping cases, which have an eight-year limit under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code). The principle of bona fide requires that investigations be pursued promptly after discovery to avoid being barred by undue delay. The panel assumed the FIG acted without delay in requesting the advisory opinion.
In summary, the CAS opinion clarified that the IOC and FIG share responsibility for enforcing eligibility rules, with the IOC Executive Board having exclusive authority over Olympic medal withdrawals and the FIG responsible for determining violations. No statutory time bar prevents revisiting the case, provided proceedings were initiated promptly. The opinion underscores the ongoing authority of sports governing bodies to address rule violations, even years after competitions conclude, while highlighting the jurisdictional boundaries between the IOC and FIG. The case illustrates the complex interplay between Olympic and federation regulations in maintaining the integrity of sports competitions.