The case CAS 2012/A/2912 involved Japanese hammer thrower Koji Murofushi and the Japanese Olympic Committee (JOC) appealing against the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decision to disqualify Murofushi from the election for the IOC Athletes’ Commission. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel examined the legal nature of the IOC's decision, concluding it was a disciplinary measure based on rules with sanctions and proportionality in mind. The panel found the withdrawal of Murofushi's candidacy had a legal basis, as the election process was ongoing when the decision was made. The CAS rejected arguments based on res judicata, double jeopardy, and estoppel, noting Swiss law does not apply these principles to administrative decisions by sports associations. The panel emphasized the IOC's broad prohibition on promoting candidacies, covering any actions that could influence voters, including campaigning or distributing voting instructions. It ruled Murofushi could be held accountable for breaches by the JOC, as the candidacy agreement made it clear violations by the National Olympic Committee (NOC) would be attributed to the candidate.
The case stemmed from alleged violations of the Rules of Conduct (RoC) during Murofushi's campaign. The JOC nominated Murofushi, and all parties signed the RoC, which prohibited certain promotional activities. The IOC approved his candidature and provided guidelines on permitted and prohibited campaign actions, including restrictions on third-party promotion and campaigning in voting areas. On July 25, 2012, a volunteer reported Japanese athletes had identical voting patterns and a document encouraging votes for Murofushi, linking his election to Tokyo’s 2020 Olympics bid. This raised concerns about RoC breaches. The IOC demanded an immediate halt to distributing such materials, and the JOC complied. However, on August 7, Murofushi was observed campaigning in the Olympic Village dining hall using an iPad to display election-related documents while wearing his official IOC candidate badge. Witnesses reported this as a breach, leading to complaints and a delayed election results announcement.
The IOC Executive Board (EB) decided to withdraw Murofushi’s candidacy on August 11, citing repeated RoC breaches despite warnings. The JOC requested a review, but the IOC upheld its ruling. Murofushi and the JOC appealed to CAS, challenging the decision. The CAS panel examined whether the IOC's decision met formal and substantive requirements, including procedural fairness and adherence to due process. The panel concluded the decision was disciplinary and based on clear rules. It found Murofushi could be held responsible for the JOC's breaches, as the RoC and supplementary materials clarified NOC violations could lead to candidate disqualification. The panel also determined Murofushi’s distribution of phone wipes and his dining hall actions violated the RoC, as they constituted promotional activities in restricted areas.
The panel rejected Murofushi’s claims that the RoC were unclear or that he was misled, noting the IOC provided ample guidance and he had opportunities to seek clarification. It dismissed arguments that other candidates breached rules without consequences, stating this did not excuse his violations. The panel upheld the IOC's decision as proportionate, particularly given the seriousness of the voting instructions breach. However, it noted Murofushi was largely a victim of an overzealous JOC, with no evidence of dishonesty or intent to cheat, leaving his reputation untarnished. The CAS ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the IOC's decision to withdraw Murofushi’s candidacy as justified. The case underscored the importance of adhering to campaign regulations and the autonomy of sports bodies in enforcing disciplinary measures. The panel’s decision highlighted the balance between athlete rights and regulatory compliance in sports governance.