The case centers on a dispute between the Vanuatu Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee (VANASOC) and the Vanuatu Beach Volleyball Federation against the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) and the Rio 2016 Organizing Committee. The dispute arose when the Italian beach volleyball team replaced Viktoria Orsi Toth, who tested positive for the banned substance Clostebol, with Laura Giombini. The Applicants argued that this replacement violated the Late Player Replacement Policy for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, which permits substitutions only for urgent medical conditions or exceptional circumstances. They sought to annul the decision, exclude the Italian team, and allow the Vanuatu team to compete instead. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division, which operates under the Olympic Charter and CAS Arbitration Rules for disputes related to the Games.
The Applicants filed their application urgently on 5 August 2016, requesting a decision by noon the same day to ensure their athletes could travel to Rio in time for the competition. The Respondents did not submit replies within the given deadline. The Applicants contended that doping violations should not qualify as exceptional circumstances for player replacement, citing the Olympic Beach Volleyball Tournament Specific Competition Regulation, which holds team members jointly liable for anti-doping violations. They also argued the replacement was untimely, as Ms. Toth was suspended after preliminary inquiries on 2 and 3 August, while the FIVB’s decision, communicated on 4 August, lacked detailed justification for allowing the replacement.
The sole arbitrator ruled that the burden of proof rested with the Applicants to demonstrate that the Policy was not followed. Since they could not establish that the circumstances did not amount to exceptional circumstances, their application was dismissed. The arbitrator emphasized that the Policy granted discretion to the Rio 2016 Organizing Committee to authorize replacements on a case-by-case basis, and without evidence of non-compliance, the decision stood. The ruling upheld the FIVB’s approval of the replacement, allowing the Italian team to compete.
The Applicants' challenge was based on the argument that the replacement was unjustified under the Late Player Replacement Policy, which permits substitutions after 19 July 2016 only for urgent medical or exceptional circumstances, provided the replacement athlete meets eligibility criteria and has no pending doping issues. However, the CAS panel found that the Applicants failed to prove the policy was violated or that exceptional circumstances did not exist. Despite the lack of response from the Respondents, the panel stressed that the burden of proof lay with the Applicants to demonstrate misconduct or the absence of exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the panel dismissed the application, concluding that the evidence did not support the claim that the replacement was unjustified, thereby upholding the Rio Organizing Committee's discretion to authorize the replacement under the policy.