The case revolves around an appeal by the Korean Olympic Committee (KOC) against the disqualification of Korean skater Kim Dong-sung in the men’s 1,500-meter short track speed skating final at the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. The disqualification, issued by lead referee James Hewish, was based on Kim allegedly crossing the course of American skater Apolo Anton Ohno, resulting in Ohno being awarded the gold medal. The KOC argued that the decision was arbitrary and influenced by public pressure, particularly referencing a prior controversial disqualification of a Chinese skater by Hewish in the 1,000-meter event. They contended this precedent created pressure to favor Ohno in the subsequent race.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division heard the case, emphasizing that it generally does not review referees' "field of play" decisions unless there is direct evidence of bad faith or arbitrary conduct. The KOC faced the high burden of proving bias or malice, which they attempted to do by calling Hewish and his assistant referees as witnesses. However, the panel noted these witnesses would not undergo cross-examination. The referees maintained their decision was rule-based and uninfluenced by external factors, with Hewish denying any bias and asserting the disqualification was solely due to a rules violation.
The CAS panel ruled the KOC failed to provide sufficient evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness, upholding the International Skating Union’s (ISU) refusal to reconsider the protest. It highlighted that referees have discretion under the sport’s regulations, and their decisions are not typically reviewable without proof of misconduct. The panel cited Rule 292.5(d) of the Special Regulations for Short Track Speed Skating, which explicitly bars protests against refereeing decisions on rule infringements. The ruling reinforced CAS’s reluctance to interfere with technical judgments during competitions unless compelling evidence of wrongdoing exists.
Further testimony from Kim’s coach, Jun Myung Kyn, disputed Hewish’s stated reason for disqualification ("2-step"), but the panel found the referees credible and dismissed claims of bias. It declined to review video evidence, arguing such reviews would undermine referees' authority and invite excessive appeals. The panel referenced CAS jurisprudence, clarifying that field-of-play decisions can only be challenged with proof of a breach of duty or malicious intent, not mere disagreement. It concluded the KOC failed to meet this high burden, upholding the disqualification as a legitimate exercise of refereeing judgment.
The case underscores the principle that sports participants must accept referees' decisions, even if perceived as incorrect, unless clear misconduct is proven. The panel acknowledged Kim’s disappointment but found no evidence of bad faith, emphasizing the finality of field-of-play decisions absent arbitrariness or malice. The ruling reaffirmed the autonomy of referees in making technical judgments during competitions.