The case involves an appeal by the Japan Triathlon Union (JTU) against the International Triathlon Union (ITU) concerning the disqualification of athlete Minami Kubono during the Elite Woman ITU World Triathlon Series race in Montreal on August 5, 2017. Kubono was disqualified for alleged intentional contact with another competitor, Charlotte McShane, during the swim portion of the race. The Race Referee, relying on video evidence, deemed the contact intentional and applied ITU Competition Rules (CR) Appendix K, which penalizes unfair contact. The decision was upheld by the Competition Jury and later by the ITU Arbitration Tribunal (AT), which invoked the Field of Play (FOP) doctrine. This doctrine limits appellate review of referees' decisions unless there is evidence of bias, malice, or legal error, ensuring the autonomy of officials and the finality of competition outcomes.
The JTU appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging both procedural and substantive aspects of the disqualification. They argued that the characterization of Kubono's behavior as "unsportsmanlike" was unjustified, a claim later removed from the ITU's records. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Murray Rosen QC, examined the applicability of the FOP doctrine and the fairness of the disqualification process. The panel upheld the AT's decision, emphasizing the deference owed to on-field officials and the absence of evidence showing bias or procedural error. The case highlights the balance between respecting referees' discretion and ensuring fair adjudication in sports disputes.
The ITU defended the disqualification as a valid FOP judgment, arguing that the CAS lacked jurisdiction under the FOP doctrine, which restricts review unless there is proof of bad faith or incorrect rule application. The CAS Panel, however, ruled that the FOP doctrine pertains to the merits of the case rather than jurisdiction, allowing the appeal to proceed. The Panel found the appeal admissible, as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated in the CAS Code. The applicable law for the dispute was the ITU's regulations, with no need for subsidiary recourse to Swiss law.
The Panel concluded that the FOP doctrine applied, as the Race Referee's decision and the Competition Jury's review were made promptly and within the competitive framework. The JTU's procedural criticisms, such as the failure to interview Kubono or McShane, were dismissed, as the athlete was represented by her coach and did not request witness testimony at the time. The Panel found the Race Referee's decision reasonable based on video and photographic evidence, noting the officials' experience and proximity to the incident. The JTU's arguments failed to meet the high threshold required to overturn a FOP decision, as there was no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal, upholding the disqualification and affirming the validity of the FOP doctrine in this context. The ruling reinforced the principle that field-of-play judgments are generally immune from further review unless there is clear evidence of misconduct or procedural irregularity. The decision underscored the importance of finality in sports adjudication, particularly when decisions are made promptly and within the competitive framework.