The case involves Dirk de Ridder, a professional sailor and former member of Oracle Team USA (OTUSA), appealing sanctions imposed by the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) for alleged misconduct during the 34th America’s Cup. The dispute centered on accusations that de Ridder directed or was involved in adding unauthorized weight to the forward kingpost of an AC 45 boat, violating class rules. De Ridder denied any involvement, but the ISAF Disciplinary Commission found him liable for gross misconduct, breaching sportsmanship, and bringing the sport into disrepute. Initial sanctions included exclusion from the next America’s Cup and a five-year revocation of ISAF eligibility, later reduced to three years by the ISAF Review Board.
De Ridder appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing insufficient evidence, disproportionate penalties, and procedural unfairness. The CAS panel, conducting a de novo hearing, emphasized the importance of fair disciplinary procedures, including clear role separation, full evidence disclosure, and adherence to natural justice principles. The standard of proof applied was "comfortable satisfaction," a middle ground between civil and criminal standards. The panel assessed witness testimonies, including those of Bryce Ruthenberg and Andrew Walker, who admitted to adding weight but provided conflicting accounts of de Ridder’s involvement. Ruthenberg’s testimony, though inconsistent on details, was deemed credible, while Walker’s statements fluctuated.
The panel concluded that de Ridder, directly or indirectly, instructed the weight addition, despite his unblemished career. However, considering mitigating factors—such as his long-standing reputation, the lack of impact on Oracle’s championship, and the personal toll of the sanctions—the panel reduced the ineligibility period from three years to 18 months, starting from September 1, 2013. The decision underscored the need for proportionality in sanctions and highlighted procedural improvements for future ISAF disciplinary cases. The CAS partially upheld de Ridder’s appeal, amending the sanction but affirming the liability findings. The case illustrates the complexities of adjudicating sports misconduct allegations and balancing fairness with disciplinary rigor.