The case involves General Taweep Jantararoj, then President of the Amateur Boxing Association of Thailand and a member of the International Boxing Association (AIBA) Executive Committee, who appealed disciplinary sanctions imposed by AIBA. The dispute stemmed from Jantararoj's public statements during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, where he alleged biased refereeing and manipulation in matches involving Thai boxers. AIBA initiated disciplinary proceedings, resulting in his provisional suspension in December 2008, later upheld by the AIBA Executive Committee in February 2009. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined the legal principles involved, including the retroactivity of rules and the validity of AIBA's disciplinary procedures.
The CAS panel, comprising Martin Schimke, Brigitte Stern, and András Gurovits, clarified that substantive rules generally do not apply retroactively unless explicitly stated, though disciplinary proceedings may favor the milder rule under the "lex mitior" principle. The panel also determined that a letter from AIBA affecting Jantararoj's legal standing qualified as an appealable decision. It emphasized that disciplinary rules need not meet criminal law's strict certainty standards but must be sufficiently clear. The panel underscored the importance of protecting referees' integrity, ruling that unfounded public accusations by a high-ranking official without evidence constituted a serious breach of AIBA's regulations.
The case involved multiple procedural disputes, including challenges to the fairness of disciplinary proceedings and the independence of adjudicating bodies. AIBA's disciplinary process evolved during the dispute, with the Appeal Commission being abolished and appellate authority transferred to the AIBA Executive Committee. Jantararoj contested the impartiality of the new Disciplinary Commission's president and argued that his comments did not harm AIBA's reputation. The CAS panel ultimately upheld AIBA's sanctions, ruling that Jantararoj's unsubstantiated claims violated disciplinary standards and undermined the sport's integrity. However, considering mitigating factors such as procedural delays and the time already served under suspension, the panel reduced the sanction to six months, which Jantararoj had effectively completed.
The case highlights the complexities of internal sports governance and the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. It also underscores the balance between an individual's right to free speech and the obligations of high-ranking officials to uphold the integrity of their sport. The CAS decision reinforced federations' authority to enforce rules protecting fair competition while ensuring that disciplinary measures are proportionate and procedurally sound. The final ruling annulled AIBA's earlier decision but imposed no further sanctions, concluding the dispute based on the applicable legal framework and the principles of fairness and justice.