The case involves a dispute between the French Swimming Federation (FFN), athlete Aurélie Muller, and the French National Olympic and Sports Committee (CNOSF) against the International Swimming Federation (FINA) concerning Muller's disqualification during the women's 10km open water swimming event at the 2016 Rio Olympics. The incident occurred near the finish line when Muller, in second place, made contact with Italian swimmer Rachele Bruni. Muller initially finished second but was later disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct, allegedly impeding Bruni from touching the finish plate. The disqualification was not communicated immediately after the race but only minutes before the medal ceremony, prompting protests from the FFN.
The FFN argued that the disqualification violated FINA rules, specifically Article 6.3.2, which requires immediate disqualification. They contended that Muller was not informed promptly and that the decision was based on video review, which they claimed was not permissible under FINA rules. The protest was rejected by the referee and later by the FINA Jury of Appeal, which upheld the disqualification. The case was then brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc division for the Rio Olympics.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Rabab Yasseen, Ulrich Haas, and José Juan Pinto, examined whether the disqualification complied with procedural fairness and FINA regulations. The panel ruled that technical decisions, such as disqualifications in sports competitions, generally fall under the federation's discretion and should not be overruled unless they violate fundamental legal principles. They acknowledged the logistical challenges in open water swimming, which may delay disqualification decisions, and found the delay in notifying Muller reasonable under the circumstances. The panel also noted that sports adjudication differs from judicial proceedings, with a lower threshold for due process. Since Muller had access to two internal appeals before the CAS hearing, her right to be heard was deemed sufficient.
The claimants further argued that the referee's decision, partly based on video review, did not qualify as a "rule of the game" decision. The panel rejected this, stating that the nature of such a decision does not change based on timing and that no rule prohibited video footage use. The referee had observed the incident directly and used video only for confirmation. The claimants also alleged a violation of general legal principles, including the right to be heard. The panel clarified that competition rules differ from judicial procedures, especially given tight timelines in sports events, and emphasized the claimants' access to multiple appeal processes.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld FINA's decision, confirming Muller's disqualification and the reallocation of medals. The ruling underscored deference to on-field officials in technical decisions while ensuring compliance with general legal principles. The panel acknowledged the psychological impact on Muller, who initially believed she had won a silver medal, but stated this could not influence the legal decision. The case highlights the limited scope for overturning referees' judgments in sports absent clear procedural violations.