The case involves a dispute between the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and the American Canoe Association (ACA) against the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the International Canoe Federation (ICF), and the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) regarding the allocation of an athlete quota place (AQP) for the Men’s Kayak Single (K1) 1000m Canoe Sprint event at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The dispute arose after the Pan American Continental Qualification Competition, originally scheduled in Brazil, was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the ICF Qualification Rules, the results of the 2019 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships were used to allocate the AQP. At the 2019 World Championships, the USA and Brazil were represented by Jesse Lishchuk and Vagner Junior Souta, respectively. Both athletes competed in separate heats but failed to advance to the semi-finals. The ICF later published results showing the Brazilian athlete ranked 30th and the US athlete 34th overall, leading the ICF to allocate the AQP to Brazil.
The USOPC and ACA contested this decision, arguing that the rankings did not reflect competitive fairness due to differing conditions in the heats and procedural irregularities in the ICF’s decision-making process. They claimed the allocation should have been based on finishing positions rather than times, as the US athlete had a higher placement in their heat. The respondents maintained that the allocation followed established rules and that the appellants had not exhausted all internal remedies before appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Stephan Breidenbach, ruled on the admissibility of the appeal, clarifying that the obligation to exhaust internal remedies under Article R47 of the CAS Code only applies to ordinary legal remedies, not extraordinary ones like requests for reconsideration. The arbitrator found that consultation with the IOC Sports Department, as required by the IOC Qualification Principles, did not constitute an ordinary legal remedy that would delay the 21-day appeal window.
The case centered on whether the ICF’s allocation of the AQP was fair and compliant with its own rules, with the appellants seeking to overturn the decision in favor of the US athlete. The respondents argued the appeal was inadmissible, claiming it was filed late and that the IOC’s role was merely consultative. The CAS ultimately ruled the appeal inadmissible, as it was filed beyond the 21-day deadline and the IOC’s communication did not qualify as an appealable decision. The arbitrator dismissed the case without addressing further relief requests, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in sports dispute resolution. The ruling highlights the complexities of interpreting qualification rules and the deference given to governing bodies in such disputes. The final decision underscored the necessity of timely and procedurally correct appeals to ensure fairness in Olympic qualification processes.