The case centers on a dispute between the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) and the International Skating Union (ISU) over the outcome of the ladies' short track speed skating final at the 2006 Winter Olympics. The COC contested the referee's decision not to review video footage of an incident involving Bulgarian skater Evgenia Radanova, who finished second, while Canadian skater Anouk Leblanc-Boucher placed third. The COC alleged that Radanova committed a "kicking out" infraction, which they argued should have led to her disqualification, thereby promoting Leblanc-Boucher to second place and another Canadian skater to the bronze medal position. The COC sought a declaratory judgment from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to interpret ISU rules, particularly Rule 123, which allows protests against referee decisions, and Rule 293, which prohibits protests against racing rule violations.
The COC claimed that the head referee, Michel Verrault, discouraged the Canadian team from filing a formal protest, effectively refusing their claim. They argued that Rule 123 permitted protests and video reviews of racing rule violations, despite Rule 293's prohibition. The ISU countered that the COC failed to file a written protest with the required fee, as mandated by Rule 123, rendering their application inadmissible. The ISU also maintained that racing rule decisions by referees are final and not subject to protest, emphasizing that Radanova’s actions caused no danger, even if a "kicking out" motion occurred. The referee saw no reason to review the footage, as he had no doubt about the race outcome.
The CAS panel ruled that the COC’s request for a declaratory judgment was inadmissible under Swiss law unless the applicant had a specific legal interest and no other recourse. The panel found that the COC failed to follow the formal protest procedure outlined in ISU rules, placing the responsibility on the national team to know and adhere to these regulations. Additionally, the panel determined that the referee’s decision on racing rules was final and not subject to further review, dismissing the COC’s application. The ruling underscored that procedural failures by the COC, not the referee’s actions, led to the dismissal of their claim.
The case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in sports disputes and the deference given to on-field officials' decisions when no clear error or bad faith is demonstrated. The CAS ad hoc Division's decision concluded the matter, dismissing the COC's application and affirming the referee's authority. This ruling serves as a reminder of the finality of referees' decisions in racing rule violations and the necessity for teams to comply with formal protest procedures to challenge such outcomes. The case underscores the CAS's role in resolving sports-related disputes and its authority to render binding decisions.