The case revolves around Mitchell Whitmore, a professional speed skater, who appealed a one-year suspension imposed by the International Skating Union (ISU) following an altercation with Stefano Donagrandi, a coach, in Inzell, Germany, two days before an ISU World Cup event in December 2015. Whitmore, though not competing due to injury, was present for rehabilitation. After an evening at a bar, an altercation occurred outside a hotel, resulting in Whitmore striking Donagrandi, who sustained injuries including a dislocated shoulder and concussion. Whitmore apologized, and the matter initially seemed resolved, with United States Speed Skating (USS) imposing penalties such as community service and sending him home. However, Donagrandi later filed a police report and a complaint with the ISU, leading to the suspension for violating the ISU Code of Ethics.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the case, focusing on three key issues: the applicability of the ISU Code of Ethics, the standard of proof, and the proportionality of the sanction. The CAS confirmed the broad applicability of the Code, ruling that misconduct near an ISU event, even if not directly related, could fall under its jurisdiction. It upheld the "comfortable satisfaction" standard for disciplinary cases, requiring evidence stronger than a balance of probabilities but less than beyond reasonable doubt. While CAS generally defers to sports governing bodies on sanctions, it can intervene if penalties are evidently disproportionate or lack reasoned justification.
The ISU argued that Whitmore's actions violated the Code of Ethics, which prohibits violence and damage to persons or property, and that the sanction was justified given the severity of the misconduct. Whitmore contested the ISU's jurisdiction, claiming the altercation occurred outside formal ISU activities, and argued the sanction was disproportionate, citing prior disciplinary measures by USS and comparing his case to others with milder penalties. The CAS panel found that Whitmore was subject to the Code of Ethics as he was listed as a participant in the event, and his presence was tied to ISU activities. It rejected his self-defense claim, concluding his response was disproportionate to Donagrandi's initial push.
The panel acknowledged the ISU Disciplinary Commission's failure to adequately justify the one-year suspension but found the sanction reasonable given the seriousness of the offense. However, it considered mitigating factors, including Whitmore's prior discipline by USS and the parties' reconciliation, and reduced the suspension to six months. The panel upheld the ISU's jurisdiction and the finding that Whitmore violated the Code of Ethics but dismissed other relief requests. The case underscores the broad reach of sports ethics codes and the importance of proportionate disciplinary measures in maintaining professional conduct, even outside formal competition settings.