The case of Benjamin Hill v. Cycling Australia (CAS 2013/A/3242) centers on jurisdictional issues regarding the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the right to appeal sanctions for anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). The dispute arose when cyclist Benjamin Hill admitted to an ADRV and waived his right to a hearing under Article 15.7 of the Cycling Australia Anti-Doping Policy (CA Policy). Cycling Australia subsequently imposed a two-year ineligibility period based on ASADA's recommendation. Hill sought to appeal the severity of the sanction to the CAS Appeal Division, but ASADA contested the jurisdiction, arguing no prior hearing had occurred as required under Article 16 of the CA Policy.
The sole arbitrator, the Hon. Tricia Kavanagh, ruled that while athletes can waive their right to a hearing under the WADA Code and CA Policy, they cannot waive their right to appeal a sanction. However, the right to appeal under Article 19 of the CA Policy is contingent upon a prior decision made under Article 16.9, which involves a hearing. Since Hill waived his hearing, no such decision existed, rendering the CAS Appeal Division without jurisdiction. Instead, the dispute over the sanction could only be heard by the CAS Ordinary Division, which has authority under Article 16.3(b) of the CA Policy.
The case highlights the procedural intricacies of anti-doping regulations, emphasizing the distinction between the CAS Appeal and Ordinary Divisions. The arbitrator underscored that jurisdictional objections must be raised before any defense on the merits and confirmed that Swiss law governs the arbitration, as Switzerland is the seat of the CAS. The decision clarifies that athletes retain the right to appeal sanctions even after waiving a hearing, but such appeals must follow the correct procedural pathway.
The broader legal framework involves the WADA Code, the ASADA Act, and the National Anti-Doping Scheme, which collectively ensure athletes' rights to fair hearings and appeals. The CA Policy aligns with these instruments, prohibiting the waiver of judicial review rights. The tribunal concluded that Hill's dispute over the sanction must first be addressed by the CAS Ordinary Division, with any subsequent appeal to the Appeal Division only possible after an initial decision. The ruling reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in anti-doping cases and delineates the jurisdictional boundaries within CAS.
Ultimately, the arbitrator ruled that the CAS Appeal Division lacked jurisdiction to hear Hill's appeal due to the absence of a prior hearing decision. The dispute was directed to the CAS Ordinary Division, with the time limit for filing starting from the award's publication. The case underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements while safeguarding athletes' rights to challenge sanctions. The decision provides clarity on the jurisdictional limits between CAS divisions and the procedural steps required for appeals in anti-doping cases.