The case involves an appeal by the Uzbekistan Swimming Federation (USF) and five swimmers against a decision by the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) to invalidate results from the 2020 and 2021 Uzbekistan Open Swimming Championships, which were qualifying events for the Tokyo Summer Olympics. FINA's decision, made on 27 April 2021, followed complaints about alleged result manipulation and also referred Uzbek swimming officials to the FINA Ethics Panel for investigation. The appellants challenged FINA's decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the invalidation was unjust and lacked proper consultation. However, the CAS panel ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not first appealed to the FINA Bureau, as required by FINA's Constitution.
The USF and swimmers claimed they were unaware of FINA's decision until May 2021 and requested explanations and documents, but received no satisfactory response. The CAS panel emphasized procedural grounds, noting the importance of exhausting internal remedies before seeking external arbitration. The swimmers expressed frustration over the delayed communication, which hindered their chances to qualify through other competitions. The USF escalated the matter to CAS on 14 June 2021, seeking to annul FINA's decision and reinstate the results, but FINA contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing the dispute should have been addressed by the FINA Bureau.
The appellants argued that the decision was not disciplinary and thus did not require prior appeal to the FINA Bureau, while FINA maintained it was a sanction requiring internal review. The CAS panel, constituted on 2 July 2021, considered submissions but focused on jurisdictional issues. It found that neither the FINA Constitution nor the CAS Code provided grounds for jurisdiction, as the appeal was against the FINA Executive's decision, not the Bureau's, and internal remedies had not been exhausted. The panel dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, underscoring the need to follow required steps before seeking arbitration.
The case highlights tensions between national federations and international governing bodies, particularly in disputes involving misconduct allegations and athlete eligibility. It also reflects concerns over procedural fairness and transparency, as the appellants claimed they were disadvantaged by delayed communication. The CAS panel's decision reinforces the procedural framework governing sports disputes, emphasizing adherence to internal processes before external appeals. The ruling ultimately dismissed all claims, marking the end of the legal process and leaving no further actions to be pursued.