The case involves Ms. Bettan Andersson, a Swedish official in amateur boxing and President of the Swedish Boxing Federation, who was suspended by the International Boxing Association (AIBA) following allegations of misconduct during the 2009 European Women's Boxing Championships in Nikolaev, Ukraine. Ms. Andersson, also a member of AIBA's Executive Committee, was accused of manipulating the draw process for referees and judges (R&J) by conducting the selections alone, contrary to AIBA rules requiring at least two persons for such procedures. Complaints from 13 National Federations and 4 International Technical Officers (ITOs) highlighted procedural irregularities, with the Technical Delegate, Ms. Sirpa Makkonen, also implicated for inadequate oversight.
AIBA's Disciplinary Commission found sufficient evidence that Ms. Andersson and Ms. Makkonen violated AIBA's Technical & Competition Rules and the AIBA Disciplinary Code, particularly Article 4(1), which prohibits behavior harming the image of boxing. While no evidence of intentional corruption or favoritism was found, their failure to adhere to procedural requirements warranted disciplinary action. Both were suspended for 15 months from their positions in AIBA and related competitions, effective from October 2009, and ordered to pay partial procedural costs (CHF 1,500 each).
Ms. Andersson appealed the decision to the AIBA Executive Committee, which upheld the ruling, prompting her to file an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS reviewed the case under the principle of "tempus regit actum," applying the rules in force at the time of the alleged misconduct. The CAS clarified that disciplinary cases in sports require proof on a "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt." The panel examined evidence, including witness statements and correspondence, which indicated Ms. Andersson had unilaterally appointed referees and judges, bypassing the required random selection process.
The CAS upheld the Disciplinary Commission's decision, finding the sanctions proportionate given the procedural breaches, despite the absence of malicious intent. The ruling emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural rules in sports governance to maintain integrity, even in the absence of corrupt motives. The CAS affirmed that sanctions must be proportionate but deferred to the discretion of sports authorities unless penalties are evidently excessive. The case underscores that procedural lapses, even unintentional, can undermine the fairness and reputation of sporting events.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Ms. Andersson's appeal, confirming the decisions of the AIBA Disciplinary Commission and the Executive Committee. The award was rendered by majority decision, with Ms. Andersson bearing the cost of the CAS office fee (CHF 500). The case reinforces the principle that maintaining disciplinary standards is crucial for upholding integrity and fairness in competitive sports.