The case revolves around Iranian wrestler Saeed Abdevali's appeal against a decision by the International Jury of Appeal of United World Wrestling (UWW) regarding his semi-final match in the 71 kg Greco-Roman wrestling event at the XVII Asian Games in Incheon. Abdevali filed the appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division on October 2, 2014, seeking a rematch of the semi-final and final, reconsideration of his UWW ranking, sanctions against rule violators, and compensation for lost bonuses. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Vinayak Pradhan, Bruce Collins, and Chi Liu, dismissed the appeal on October 3, 2014, with a detailed decision issued later in December. The panel found that even if the Jury's decision were overturned, granting the requested relief was impossible because the other athletes and the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) were not parties to the appeal and had not been heard. The panel stressed the importance of timely appeals, noting that the delay in filing made the requested remedies unfeasible.
The dispute stemmed from a match where the referee initially declared Abdevali the winner, but the decision was overturned by the Jury of Appeal following a late objection from the Korean coach. The Iranian team alleged undue influence by a high-ranking Korean official, though no evidence was provided. The core issue was whether the Panel had jurisdiction to review the decision, as Article 22 of the wrestling rules prohibits appeals against refereeing decisions once finalized by the Jury of Appeal. The Sport Technical Handbook for the Asian Games further clarified that appeals to CAS are only permitted for violations of technical rules unrelated to reversing match results. Abdevali sought relief, including overturning the match result, sanctions against the alleged influencing official, and compensation for lost benefits such as a $150,000 prize, a university scholarship, and exemption from military service.
The majority of the Panel concluded it lacked authority to alter the match result due to the restrictions in Article 22 and the Technical Handbook. A minority opinion argued that the late objection and subsequent decision change were not field-of-play decisions and thus reviewable. However, the Panel unanimously agreed that even if they had the authority, they could not grant relief because it was impossible to reconvene the Asian Games for a rematch, as other athletes and the organizing body were not parties to the appeal. Additionally, Abdevali's delay in filing the appeal meant any potential relief could not be implemented before the final match. The Panel also noted it lacked the power to issue sanctions or order compensation as requested by Abdevali.
While the Panel acknowledged that Abdevali was wrongly treated by the Jury and should have advanced to the final round, they could not overturn the decision due to procedural constraints. They emphasized that the referee's confirmation of a fall, as per FILA Rules, should have ended the match, and any subsequent challenge by the Jury was untimely and invalid. The Panel suggested that FILA review the dispute to prevent similar incidents in the future. Ultimately, the CAS ad hoc Division dismissed Abdevali's application, recognizing the injustice but upholding the rules and procedural limitations. The case highlights the challenges of addressing perceived injustices in sports adjudication while adhering to established legal and procedural frameworks.