The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc panel during the Tokyo 2020 Olympics involved French boxer Mourad Aliev, the French Boxing Federation (FFB), and the French National Olympic and Sports Committee (CNOSF) challenging the disqualification of Aliev during his quarterfinal match against British boxer Frazer Clarke in the super heavyweight category. The dispute arose when the referee stopped the fight in the second round due to a cut on Clarke’s eyebrow, issuing a warning to Aliev before disqualifying him. The claimants argued that the referee misapplied the rules, specifically AIBA Rule 19.8.2, by first issuing a warning for headbutting and then disqualifying Aliev for the same conduct without clear justification. They sought to overturn the decision and have the match replayed with different officials. The respondents, including the IOC Boxing Task Force (IOC BTF) and the British Olympic Association (BOA), defended the referee’s decision, citing CAS precedent that limits judicial intervention in on-field refereeing decisions unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith.
The CAS panel, composed of Dr. Ismail Selim, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, and Mr. Francisco Mussnich, confirmed its jurisdiction under the Olympic Charter and the CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games. The panel emphasized the "rules of the game" doctrine, which restricts CAS from overturning refereeing decisions unless they violate legal or procedural standards. While the claimants presented video evidence to highlight potential technical errors, the panel found no proof of bad faith or corruption. It acknowledged concerns about the referee’s lack of transparency and potential errors, such as the discrepancy in the match results sheet, where Aliev was marked "DSQ" (disqualified) instead of "DQB" (disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct). However, the panel upheld the disqualification, reinforcing the principle that referees’ discretionary decisions should not be overturned absent clear legal breaches.
The ruling underscored the balance between ensuring fair play and respecting the autonomy of sports officials in real-time decision-making. The panel dismissed the claimants’ request but urged the IOC BTF to address refereeing transparency and consistency in future competitions. The case highlights the CAS’s deference to referees’ authority and the importance of finality in sports results, while also recognizing the need for clarity and fairness in officiating. The decision reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review in sports disputes, focusing on procedural integrity rather than re-evaluating technical judgments.