The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division ruled on the disqualification of athlete R. for marijuana use during the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics, where he had won a gold medal in snowboarding. The case centered on whether the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had the legal authority to sanction R. under the IOC Medical Code for testing positive for marijuana metabolites. The CAS panel, composed of Richard Young, Jan Paulsson, and Maria Zuchowicz, determined that the IOC lacked the authority to impose sanctions in this instance. The IOC's decision was based on a provision in the IOC Medical Code requiring an agreement between the IOC and the relevant international federation, the International Ski Federation (FIS), for marijuana testing and sanctions. However, no such agreement existed. The panel noted that marijuana was not classified as a prohibited substance under the IOC Medical Code but fell under "drugs subject to certain restrictions," meaning sanctions could only be imposed if the IOC and FIS had a specific agreement, which they did not.
R. did not dispute the test results but argued that the metabolites resulted from passive exposure to marijuana smoke before the Olympics. The IOC did not challenge this claim but maintained that the presence of metabolites alone justified sanctions. The CAS panel rejected this argument, emphasizing that the IOC Medical Code did not independently classify marijuana as a doping violation. Testimony from IOC officials confirmed that prior marijuana testing at the Olympics was for data collection, not enforcement, and previous positive results had not led to sanctions. FIS President Mr. Hodler testified that FIS had adopted the IOC Medical Code without additional doping rules for marijuana and had no agreement with the IOC to treat it as a banned substance in R.'s event. The panel concluded that without a clear agreement, the IOC's disqualification of R. lacked legal foundation.
The panel underscored its role in applying existing sports law, not creating new prohibitions. While acknowledging ethical and medical concerns about marijuana use, it stressed that sanctions must align with clearly established regulations. The decision reaffirmed the principle of equal treatment under the law for all athletes. The panel ruled in favor of R., overturning the IOC's disqualification and reinstating his gold medal. The case highlighted the importance of clear regulatory frameworks and explicit agreements between governing bodies when imposing sanctions. The panel also addressed concerns about R.'s reputation, noting he had not been accused of active cannabis use but rather of passive exposure, a claim unchallenged by the IOC or FIS. The ruling aimed to clarify the factual circumstances and protect R.'s integrity, reversing the IOC's decision without awarding costs and mandating immediate publication of the decision. The panel's decision was based solely on the lack of legal foundation for the sanctions, not on any technicality.