The case of Ángel Mullera Rodriguez, a Spanish middle-distance runner, revolves around his exclusion from the Spanish Olympic team for the 2012 London Games due to doping suspicions. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division ruled on the matter, addressing jurisdictional issues and the legality of Mullera's exclusion. The CAS determined it had jurisdiction over the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (RFEA) and the Spanish Olympic Committee (COE) as they were bound by the Olympic Charter, which includes an arbitration clause. However, it lacked jurisdiction over the Superior Sports Council (CSD), a governmental body not bound by the Charter. The dispute fell within the CAS's temporal jurisdiction as it arose within the ten-day period before the Games' opening ceremony.
Mullera was initially selected for the 3000m steeplechase but was later excluded after emails surfaced in which he discussed doping protocols with a trainer. While Mullera admitted to inquiring about doping, he denied actual use, and no adverse analytical findings were reported in subsequent tests. The RFEA and COE replaced him with another athlete, citing "technical reasons," which the CAS deemed insufficient. The panel emphasized that while national federations have discretion in team selection, such decisions must not be arbitrary. Excluding an athlete for ethical reasons, such as doping suspicions, must be explicitly provided for in selection rules. Absent such provisions, athletes have a legitimate expectation to participate once selected unless new grounds for exclusion arise.
The CAS ruled that Mullera's exclusion was unjustified under the existing rules, as there was no explicit provision allowing for his removal based on doping suspicions alone. The panel criticized the RFEA for acting under media pressure rather than addressing the issue independently, despite long-standing awareness of the evidence. While the panel ruled in Mullera's favor, it strongly condemned his behavior, including emails about doping methods and evading anti-doping controls, though it noted determining whether these actions constituted a violation was outside its scope. The decision required the RFEA and COE to facilitate Mullera's participation in the Olympics, as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had already rejected his replacement.
The case highlights the tension between an athlete's rights and a federation's discretion, underscoring the need for clear rules to govern such decisions. The ruling reaffirms the principle of legality in sports governance, ensuring athletes are protected from arbitrary exclusion while allowing federations to uphold ethical standards through properly defined rules. The panel's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and fairness in the selection process for major sporting events, balancing procedural integrity with the fight against doping.