The dispute involved the French Modern Pentathlon Federation (FFPM) and athlete Jean-Maxence Berrou challenging the International Modern Pentathlon Union (UIPM) over qualification for the 2012 London Olympics. The conflict arose when a Polish athlete withdrew, creating a vacancy. The UIPM allocated the spot to Irish athlete Arthur Lanigan-O’Keeffe, the next highest-ranked unqualified athlete from the 2011 European Championships, based on its Qualification System. The FFPM and Berrou contested this decision, arguing that the French version of the Qualification System should take precedence over the English version, citing Article 23 of the Olympic Charter, which states that in case of discrepancies, the French text prevails. They claimed Berrou was entitled to the spot as the replacement for the withdrawn athlete.
The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc division, which addressed three main issues. First, it affirmed its jurisdiction, noting that the UIPM’s internal arbitration lacked independence and efficiency, making an internal appeal ineffective. Second, it confirmed that English was the official language of the UIPM’s Qualification System, as per its statutes, dismissing the FFPM’s reliance on the French version. The CAS emphasized that the Qualification System was a product of collaboration between the UIPM and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), not an IOC document, and thus the English version was binding. Third, the CAS upheld the UIPM’s reallocation rule, stating the vacant spot should go to Lanigan-O’Keeffe, not Berrou, as he was the next eligible athlete under the established criteria.
The CAS criticized the UIPM for its lack of diligence in handling the dispute, which caused confusion and unnecessary harm to the athletes involved. Despite this, the panel found no grounds to overturn the UIPM’s decision, ruling that the reallocation was correctly applied. The final decision dismissed all claims by the FFPM and Berrou, upholding Lanigan-O’Keeffe’s qualification. The case highlighted the complexities of language discrepancies in international sports regulations and underscored the importance of procedural fairness and clarity in Olympic qualification processes. The ruling reinforced the authority of international federations to interpret their own rules, provided they align with the Olympic Charter and are approved by the IOC.