The case revolves around an appeal by Massimiliano Biaggi and Aprilia Racing Srl against a penalty imposed by the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) during the Superbike World Championship. The dispute centered on whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had jurisdiction to review the penalty and whether the appeal was filed within the required timeframe. During a race in Monza on May 10, 2009, Biaggi left the track and cut a chicane without using the designated access road, violating a pre-race notice. Although the Race Direction did not observe the infraction in real-time, it was later informed by a marshal and a team official. After reviewing TV footage post-race, the Race Direction imposed a 20-second penalty, demoting Biaggi from third to eleventh place. The penalty was communicated via official race results displayed on monitors and posted on the official board.
Biaggi and Aprilia Racing Srl filed an appeal with CAS on May 29, 2009, contesting the penalty. The FIM argued the appeal was late, as its regulations required appeals within five days of the decision. The appellants claimed they were unaware of the penalty until later, but CAS ruled the decision was effectively communicated when displayed post-race. The CAS panel addressed two key issues: jurisdiction and admissibility. On jurisdiction, the panel ruled that the "field of play" doctrine, which limits CAS review of in-race decisions, did not override the broadly drafted arbitration clause in the FIM Regulations. CAS affirmed its jurisdiction but noted it would assess whether the doctrine applied to limit its review.
On admissibility, the panel found the appeal was filed late, as the five-day deadline began when the penalty was displayed. The appellants failed to meet this deadline, rendering the appeal inadmissible. The panel applied Swiss law as supplementary to the FIM Regulations, given FIM's Swiss domicile. Ultimately, CAS dismissed the appeal due to the late filing, upholding the FIM's penalty. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines in sports arbitration and clarifies CAS's jurisdiction over field-of-play decisions when arbitration clauses are broadly framed.
The document also outlines FIM regulations regarding penalties, protests, and appeals. Penalties such as ride-throughs and black flags are enforced for rule violations, with specific provisions for interrupted races. If a rider fails to comply with a ride-through penalty, they may receive a black flag. If the penalty cannot be enforced before the race ends, a 20-second time penalty is applied. Riders must stay on the track or rejoin it safely without gaining an advantage. Violations during practice result in lap time cancellations, while race infractions lead to penalties like fines, disqualification, or loss of championship points.
The protest and appeal process allows riders or teams to contest decisions, but certain penalties, such as ride-throughs, cannot be protested. Appeals must be filed within strict timeframes: 30 minutes for Race Direction decisions and five days for FIM Stewards appeals. CAS serves as the final arbiter, with appeals required within five days of the decision. The CAS's jurisdiction depends on the presence of an arbitration clause, exhaustion of internal appeals, and a formal decision by the sports body.
The document references CAS case 2009/A/1860, involving Biaggi and Aprilia Racing SRL, where CAS examined whether the penalty was a post-race time penalty or a substitute for a ride-through. The Race Direction clarified the time penalty was applied due to practical constraints preventing a ride-through during the race. CAS upheld the penalty, confirming the Race Direction's authority under FIM regulations. The decision emphasizes the finality of CAS rulings and the importance of transparency in disciplinary actions.
The "field of play" doctrine, a key principle in CAS jurisprudence, limits review of on-field officials' decisions unless bad faith is proven. The doctrine preserves sporting integrity by deferring to officials trained to apply the rules. While CAS affirmed its jurisdiction in this case, it acknowledged the doctrine might limit its review of the merits. The FIM Regulations grant broad jurisdiction to CAS, ensuring athletes' right to appeal, though the doctrine may restrict the scope of review.
Regarding the appeal's timeliness, the FIM Regulations require appeals within five days of receiving the decision. There was ambiguity between English and French versions of the regulations, but the panel ruled