The case centers on Sandis Prusis, a Latvian bobsleigh athlete, and his eligibility to compete in the 2002 Winter Olympics after testing positive for the banned substance nandrolone in November 2001. The International Bobsleigh and Tobogganing Federation (FIBT) imposed a three-month suspension, retroactive to the test date, ending just before the Olympic events. The FIBT allowed Prusis to compete in the Games but stripped his points during the suspension and placed him at a disadvantage in the draw. The Latvian Olympic Committee (LOC) confirmed with the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee that Prusis could reside in the Olympic Village before his suspension ended. However, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Board unexpectedly rejected Prusis’s inscription, revoked his accreditation, and ordered him to leave the Olympic Village on 1 February 2002.
Prusis and the LOC appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, arguing that the IOC’s decision constituted double jeopardy since the FIBT had already sanctioned him. The IOC claimed authority under the Olympic Charter to exclude athletes for doping violations, while the FIBT defended its decision, stating it followed the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code. The CAS panel ruled that the FIBT, as the governing body for bobsleigh, had primary authority over doping sanctions and found no clear provision in the Olympic Charter allowing the IOC to override the FIBT’s decision. The panel emphasized Prusis’s legitimate expectation to compete after serving his punishment and warned against unfair additional penalties. It annulled the IOC’s decision, reinstated Prusis’s accreditation, and declared him eligible for the Olympics.
The case highlights tensions between the IOC’s broad authority and the disciplinary autonomy of international federations. The CAS panel underscored the importance of due process and preventing arbitrary exclusion, noting that athletes should not face extra penalties beyond those imposed by their sport’s governing body. The IOC’s unilateral action risked violating fairness principles, and the panel suggested that if the IOC disagreed with an international federation’s conduct, it should address the issue through broader measures rather than targeting individual athletes. The ruling reinforced the autonomy of international federations in disciplinary matters and the need for clear rules to resolve conflicts between the IOC and federations. Ultimately, the decision allowed Prusis to compete, upholding the integrity of the disciplinary process and protecting athletes’ rights.
The case also raised questions about procedural fairness, as the IOC’s exclusion of Prusis lacked prior notice or an opportunity for him to respond. The panel criticized the IOC’s reliance on Rule 49 of the Olympic Charter, arguing that the exclusion was more than an administrative act and required proper justification. While the panel acknowledged the IOC’s anti-doping efforts, it found no legal basis for the IOC to intervene in the FIBT’s decision. The ruling highlighted the need for mechanisms to harmonize anti-doping sanctions across sports while respecting the autonomy of international federations. The case serves as a precedent for balancing the IOC’s authority with the rights of athletes and federations, ensuring fairness and consistency in disciplinary proceedings.