The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a landmark ruling on October 4, 2011, in the dispute between the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning the validity of the "Osaka Rule." This IOC regulation barred athletes suspended for more than six months for doping violations from participating in the next Olympic Games after their suspension ended. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Richard McLaren, Mr. Michele Bernasconi, and Mr. David Rivkin, examined whether the rule constituted an eligibility requirement or a disciplinary sanction, its consistency with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code, and its alignment with legal principles such as autonomy and double jeopardy (ne bis in idem).
The panel distinguished between qualifying rules, which set neutral eligibility criteria, and disciplinary sanctions, which penalize prior misconduct. It concluded that the Osaka Rule functioned as a sanction because it excluded athletes based on past doping violations rather than neutral criteria. The panel found the rule introduced an additional ineligibility period not provided for under Article 10 of the WADA Code, violating Article 23.2.2, which prohibits substantive changes to the Code. Since the WADA Code is incorporated into the Olympic Charter, the rule was deemed inconsistent with the IOC's own statutes. The panel also addressed the principle of ne bis in idem, ruling that the Osaka Rule imposed a second penalty for the same offense, contravening this principle.
The case involved high-profile athletes like LaShawn Merritt and Jessica Hardy, whose eligibility for the 2012 Olympics was at stake. The USOC argued the rule was illegal and unenforceable, while the IOC defended it as a valid eligibility measure under Olympic Charter Rule 45.2. The panel referenced prior cases, including USADA v. LaShawn Merritt, where similar rules were invalidated. Witnesses, including athletes and IOC President Dr. Jacques Rogge, provided testimony, and amicus briefs from anti-doping organizations were considered. The hearing took place in Lausanne, Switzerland, with Swiss law governing the dispute.
The panel emphasized that the IOC could propose amendments to the WADA Code to include such sanctions, allowing for a unified adjudicatory process. However, the unilateral imposition of additional sanctions was deemed non-compliant. The ruling underscored the tension between anti-doping enforcement and athlete rights, highlighting the need for proportionality and fairness. The panel ultimately declared the Osaka Rule invalid and unenforceable, urging the IOC to refrain from enforcing it pending formal repeal. This decision clarified the boundaries of sports governance and reinforced the primacy of the WADA Code in anti-doping regulation. The CAS ruling marked a significant moment in sports law, balancing regulatory authority with fundamental legal principles.