The case involves Maxim Agapitov, the Acting President of the European Weightlifting Federation and President of the Russian Weightlifting Federation, who challenged the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) decision to withdraw his accreditation for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. The IOC based its decision on an additional criterion requiring officials to have no personal history linked to anti-doping rule violations or sanctions. Agapitov argued this criterion was overly broad, vague, and disproportionate, lacking clarity and reasonable limitations. He contended that the IOC's failure to respond to his reconsideration request amounted to an appealable decision under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), citing prior CAS rulings that treated organizational silence as a final decision. Agapitov received his Olympic Identity and Accreditation Card (OIAC) in mid-June 2021 but was later informed by the IOC, via the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF), that his accreditation was withdrawn due to the new criterion. He challenged this decision, asserting it violated principles of natural justice and due process, as it effectively sanctioned him without proper hearing or justification. The case was brought before the CAS Ad Hoc Division, where a panel was formed to address the dispute.
The central legal issue was whether the IOC's criterion was sufficiently precise and proportionate. The panel noted terms like "personal history" and "linked to any" were excessively broad, failing to meet clarity and predictability standards. Agapitov argued the IOC's actions violated the WADC by imposing new accreditation conditions without proper justification or procedural fairness. The IOC countered that Agapitov's application was inadmissible, as no formal decision had been made to withdraw his accreditation, and maintained full discretion in granting or denying accreditations. They argued Agapitov did not meet the criteria due to his association with anti-doping rule violations and the Russian Weightlifting Federation's doping history. The IOC distinguished between a Personal Visitor Card (PVC) and an OIAC, emphasizing the latter was solely within their purview.
The CAS Panel confirmed its jurisdiction, citing the Olympic Charter, and found Agapitov properly challenged the withdrawal. It rejected the IOC's argument that an earlier communication was the relevant decision, noting the withdrawal was based on criteria outlined in a July 2021 letter. The Panel deemed the criteria's language overly broad and vague, lacking precision and clarity. It also found the automatic application of the criteria to Agapitov disproportionate, particularly as his 1994 violation was unrelated to current governance issues. Testimony from Professor Richard McLaren highlighted Agapitov's commitment to reforming the sport, describing him as honest and integral to anti-doping efforts. The Panel concluded the withdrawal did not align with the IOC's objectives and could be counterproductive.
Ultimately, the CAS Panel ruled in Agapitov's favor, declaring the IOC's decision unenforceable and ordering the reinstatement of his accreditation. The decision underscores the importance of proportionality and context when evaluating past infractions, particularly when unrelated to present responsibilities and conduct. The case highlights tensions between sports governance and individual rights, emphasizing the need for clear, proportionate, and predictable regulations in sports administration to avoid arbitrary sanctions.