The case involves Behdad Salimi, an Iranian weightlifter and Olympic gold medalist, and the National Olympic Committee of the Islamic Republic of Iran (NOCIRI) challenging a decision by the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) during the 2016 Rio Olympics. The dispute arose when Salimi’s clean and jerk lift of 245kg was initially accepted by referees but later overturned by the IWF Jury, leading to his failed subsequent attempt. Salimi and NOCIRI appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division, arguing the lift should have been registered, allowing him to receive his medal based on rankings. The IWF maintained that all rules were followed and requested the appeal’s dismissal. The CAS panel, composed of Carol Roberts, Margarita Echeverria, and Mohammed Abdel Raouf, confirmed its jurisdiction under the Olympic Charter and examined the case under the IWF’s Technical and Competition Rules & Regulations (TCRR), the Olympic Charter, and Swiss Private International Law.
The applicants claimed the Jury violated TCRR provisions, including Article 7.5.7, which requires the Jury to consult referees and communicate reversal reasons to the athlete. The IWF countered that the decision was properly communicated and that Jury reversals are standard. The CAS panel reviewed evidence, including a video of the lifts, but found no proof of rule violations or improper communication. It noted Salimi’s lack of immediate protest, which supported the IWF’s claim of proper communication. The panel emphasized the "field of play" doctrine, which limits CAS interference in referees’ decisions unless there is evidence of bad faith, fraud, or arbitrariness. This doctrine respects the expertise of on-field officials and avoids disrupting competitions with excessive appeals. The panel found no such evidence and upheld the Jury’s decision, citing the finality of Jury rulings under TCRR Article 7.5.9, which bars appeals.
The panel also addressed the replacement of a juror with a technical controller, finding no rule violations or impact on the outcome. While acknowledging Salimi’s disappointment, the panel concluded there was no basis to overturn the decision. The application was dismissed, reinforcing the integrity and finality of field of play decisions unless clear misconduct is proven. The ruling underscores the deference owed to sports officials and the high threshold for overturning their judgments. The case highlights the balance between athlete rights and the need for authoritative, real-time decision-making in competitive sports. The panel’s decision maintains the principle that technical experts are best positioned to adjudicate in-the-moment sporting disputes.