The case centers on Bulgarian rower Rumyana Dimitrova Neykova's appeal against the results of the women’s single sculls event at the 2000 Sydney Olympics, where she was declared second by a mere 0.012 seconds behind Ekaterina Karsten of Belarus. Neykova and the Bulgarian Olympic Committee contested the outcome, arguing that the photo finish system was inaccurate and presented video evidence suggesting she had won. They claimed the photo finish was taken slightly after the actual finish line and questioned the precision of the timing equipment. The International Rowing Federation (FISA) defended the result, explaining that the official timing system used two Swatch cameras fixed above the finish line, with backup systems in place, and emphasized that television footage was not part of the official timing process. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, which had jurisdiction under the Olympic Charter. Neykova sought a declaration of a dead heat and a shared gold medal, while FISA argued that judges' decisions are final unless proven arbitrary or illegal, citing a prior CAS ruling. The panel examined the evidence, including the Swatch photo finish and television footage, and considered arguments about potential mechanical errors. The case highlighted the challenges of adjudicating close finishes in sports and the balance between technical precision and judicial review. The panel referenced a previous CAS decision (M. v. AIBA) which emphasized that field-of-play decisions are generally shielded from judicial interference unless proven flawed. While the panel acknowledged this case involved questioning the equipment's accuracy rather than the officials' judgment, it found Neykova failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the Scan’o’vision system was faulty. The television footage was deemed inconclusive and less reliable than the official photo finish, as the camera was not precisely aligned with the finish line and used different technology. The panel dismissed Neykova's arguments about discrepancies in rower positions between the footage and the photo finish, upholding the judges' decision and affirming Karsten as the winner. The outcome underscored the importance of clear rules, reliable technology, and the limited scope for overturning judges' decisions in sports arbitration. The panel's dismissal of the application set a precedent for handling similar disputes in future competitions, reinforcing the finality of technical decisions unless compelling evidence of error is presented.