The case centers on an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning a decision to re-run an 800-meter wheelchair race (T54 class) at the 2000 Paralympic Games following a collision during the event. The race, held on October 22, 2000, was initially won by Chantal Petitclerc, but a protest was filed due to a collision involving three participants 198 meters from the start line. The referee upheld the protest and ordered a re-run, a decision later supported by the Jury of Appeal. Petitclerc, the Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC), and Athletics Canada appealed to CAS, arguing that the starter, not the referee, had exclusive authority under the rules to decide whether to stop and restart the race. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) initially contested CAS's jurisdiction but conceded the issue did not involve technical discretion.
The CAS panel examined the relevant rules, particularly the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) rules as amended by the IPC Athletics Section Rules. Rule 128(1) designates the starter as the sole judge of any fact related to the race's start, while Rule 162(12), an IPC amendment, grants the starter the power to stop and restart races of 800 meters or longer if a collision occurs within the first 200 meters. The panel interpreted "the race" to include all participants, even if some had passed the 200-meter mark, and concluded that the collision, occurring at 198 meters, fell within the starter's exclusive jurisdiction. Since the starter chose not to stop the race, the panel ruled that the referee and Jury of Appeal had overstepped their authority by ordering a re-run.
The decision underscored that the starter's discretion under Rule 128(1) and Rule 162(12) was absolute in such cases, meaning the original race result should stand. The panel dismissed the appeal against Petitclerc's victory, affirming that the starter's inaction validated the initial outcome. This ruling clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between race officials and reinforced the principle that technical decisions, such as race stoppages, rest solely with the starter when collisions occur within the specified distance. The case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules in sports arbitration and the limited scope for overturning on-field decisions.
Additionally, the document argues that the referee's decision to re-hold the race was invalid because it was based solely on the collision, not on obstruction or jostling as required by Rule 163. The referee lacked the factual basis to justify a re-race under this rule, which only permits such action if an athlete obstructs or impedes another once the front wheels of the incoming athlete are in sight. As a result, the CAS upheld the appeal by the Canadian Paralympic Committee, setting aside the decisions of the referee and Jury of Appeal. The ruling nullified the order for a re-race, affirming the original outcome of the event. This case serves as a precedent for the strict interpretation of procedural rules and the delineation of authority among race officials in competitive sports.