The case revolves around an appeal by Canadian rowers David Calder and Christopher Jarvis against their exclusion from the semi-final race in the Men's Pair event at the 2004 Athens Olympics. During the race, their boat encroached into the lane of the South African pair, causing interference that forced the South African crew to stop racing. Despite warnings from the umpire, the Canadians were unable to avoid overlapping their oar blades with the South African boat, disadvantaging the latter. The FISA Board of Jury initially placed the Canadian pair in last place and advanced the South African boat to the A-Final. The umpire's decision to exclude the Canadians was upheld by the Board of Jury but later modified by the FISA Executive Committee, which allowed the Canadians to participate in the B-Final instead. This decision became the subject of the appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Germany, Switzerland, and Bulgaria, examined the case under Swiss law, as FISA is governed by the Swiss Civil Code. The panel considered the extent of its power to review decisions based on discretionary authority, emphasizing that such review should not substitute the original decision-maker's judgment unless the decision was arbitrary or exceeded its powers. The panel affirmed that the governing body of the sport, not the competitors, holds the authority to decide on penalties. The FISA rules highlighted the responsibilities of rowers to maintain their lanes and avoid impeding opponents, as well as the umpire's authority to impose penalties, including exclusion, after warnings. The rules also outlined the protest and appeal process, culminating in the Executive Committee's final decision, with further appeals possible only to the CAS.
The Canadian rowers did not dispute the facts of the interference but challenged the penalty imposed, arguing it was too severe. They proposed alternatives, such as competing in the A-Final as a seventh boat or delaying the B-Final until the appeal was resolved. However, the CAS upheld the Executive Committee's decision, reinforcing the principle that sports governing bodies have discretion in applying penalties to ensure fair competition. The panel found no fault in the Committee's decision, ruling it was within the bounds of the rules and appropriately balanced fairness and penalty. The panel also noted the sportsmanship of the South African team, which did not oppose the Canadians' participation in the A-Final, but stressed that the governing body alone had the authority to impose penalties.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the application, confirming the FISA Executive Committee's decision. The ruling underscored the limited scope of judicial review in such cases, deferring to the expertise and authority of the sport's regulatory bodies. The case highlights the challenges of balancing competitive fairness with the consequences of unintentional rule violations in high-stakes sporting events, while also acknowledging the hard work and preparation athletes invest in their competitions.