The case involves Tyron Lardy, a Dutch karate athlete, and the Karate-do Bond Nederland (KBN) appealing against the World Karate Federation (WKF) regarding a dispute over the allocation of a quota slot for the Tokyo Olympic Games. The conflict arose during the Men’s Kumite +75 kg category at the Karate Olympic Qualification Tournament in June 2021, where Lardy lost a match to Canadian athlete Daniel Gaysinski. A protest was filed against Lardy and upheld by the WKF Appeals Jury, resulting in Gaysinski securing the quota slot. The KBN contested the procedural handling of the protest, arguing it was flawed, and sought redress through the WKF’s Executive Committee and later its Disciplinary and Legal Commission (DLC). The DLC declined jurisdiction, prompting Lardy and KBN to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The appellants requested an expedited procedure due to the urgency of the Olympic deadline, but the WKF opposed this, arguing the matter was a "field of play decision" beyond CAS jurisdiction. CAS appointed a sole arbitrator, Prof. Martin Schimke, who dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellants had improperly approached the DLC, which lacked jurisdiction, instead of the correct appellate body. The arbitrator emphasized that procedural anomalies must first be addressed by the relevant internal body and that CAS could not intervene without a formal decision from that body. The arbitrator also rejected the appellants' attempt to amend their position after filing the appeal, as it was inadmissible under CAS rules.
The case highlighted several procedural issues, including the WKF President’s unilateral response to KBN’s letter instead of referring it to the Executive Committee for a formal decision. The arbitrator found that the protest was not filed within the required time or form, the Executive Committee did not issue a decision, and the DLC correctly recognized its lack of authority to reverse the Appeals Jury’s decision. Despite dismissing the appeal, the arbitrator acknowledged the procedural mishandling by the WKF, which caused unnecessary trouble and expense for the appellants.
Regarding costs, the arbitrator ordered the arbitration costs to be shared equally by both parties, considering the WKF’s procedural failures, and required each party to bear its own legal fees and expenses. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in sports disputes and the limited scope of CAS intervention when internal remedies are not properly exhausted. The case illustrates the challenges athletes face in navigating complex procedural frameworks in international sports governance and the deference given to field-of-play decisions unless evidence of bias or bad faith is presented. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and all other motions or requests for relief were also dismissed.