In Lausanne there is a quaint house that, unless you’re looking for it, you’d probably never find.
Hidden down a side road in the small Swiss city is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the final and ultimate authority in the world of sport.
And it’s about to get very busy.
Russia look set to appeal the IAAF’s blanket ban of its athletes – each individual athlete’s ban could be appealed, Russia may ask CAS to look at the specific details of each individual athlete.
On top of this Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus are reportedly facing bans in weightlifting from the IWF after test resamples from 2008 and 2012; bans which they would be likely to appeal.
iSportconnect was given exclusive access to CAS to speak to Secretary General Matthieu Reeb, ahead of what could be one of the organisation’s busiest months ever.
Reeb, sitting in the CAS arbitration room, a simple square set-up that could seen be in any office in the world, first of all outlined CAS’ remit:
“The Court of Arbitration for Sport is the last instance authority in the field of sport. We are dealing with all types of cases coming in from the entire world, from different countries, from international federations, from national federations looking at contractual disputes, doping problems, disciplinary matters, selection disputes. A large variety of issues, the only condition is that there is a relationship to sport.”
But one issue in particular has dominated the international sporting agenda recently. The IAAF’s ban of Russia was enforced in November, and confirmed less than 50 days before the Games. CAS have been bracing themselves for some time for the possibility that the IAAF would not allow Russian athletes to come to Rio, a decision which would be inevitably appealed en-masse. As such, they are suitable prepared.
“We are ready to cope with this possible flow of cases. What we know here is that we must be ready in case we have a certain number of appeals either before Rio, or in Rio. We have a special tribunal constituted on the occasion of the Olympic Games. We come together 10 days prior to the opening ceremony and we may also hear urgent appeals at that time.”
While CAS has had plenty of high profile cases come through its modest doors, the number of appeals by Russian officials and athletes, and the publicity that surrounds them, could be daunting. But Reeb says nothing will compromise the process.
“For us it doesn’t affect our performance. It’s true we have to cope with this increasing number of cases, but it’s our duty to provide a good service and even if we have high profile cases we ensure that the activity of CAS is not influenced or interfered with by anything else coming from outside.”
“We just need to know when the decision must be rendered and we will adapt the procedure according to the calendar that is available. So it means we have an expedited procedure, it means that the councils must also be ready to work quickly and our arbitrators must render a decision on time, our goal being that our decisions must have an impact for the future of the athlete so the athlete must know if he or she is allowed to compete or not.”
So who will be the people hearing these cases? CAS appoints arbitrators specifically for each case, to ensure that they have the right technical understanding of the issue. Their judgements will have far reaching consequences, and as such it’s vital that CAS has built its reputation to a level where it’s neutrality and independence is beyond reproach. Reeb has helped build that trust since his appointment to Secretary General in 2000.
“I think with time the reputation of CAS has grown and I think there are no questions about independence, or the fact that there are no external influences over CAS cases. Our arbitrators do not come from federations or sports organisations, they are independent people lawyers, attorneys, judges, professors of law and they are not employed by CAS. They have a single mandate, so they are selected by parties when there is a case, they just have one mission, and when they finish the case their mission is over.”
Reeb outlines how a standard case is handled at CAS. The initial phase will be the exchange of written submissions. The appellant can file an appeal with his reasoning, and the respondents would submit an answer in writing.
A hearing between the parties then will take place in Lausanne, or via video conference, in which testimony is heard. This process only lasts a day or two, before the parties are excused. Then the arbitrators begin their deliberations. Reeb explains that each case throws up a challenge:
“Some cases are complicated because the facts are complicated – but the law is not. Or the contrary, the interpretation of the law or contract is a problem, and you do not have a lot of evidence because the file is very thin. Here you have to think a lot about what the consequence would be from a legal point of view. In terms of the law we have had interesting cases concerning contracts or also when the regulations of a federation are not very clear, and allow for different interpretations – that leads for an interesting debate with the councils.”
Typically a decision is made around six weeks after the hearing, but in the case of the Russian athletes, CAS will ensure their judgements come as quickly as possible.
All this comes on top of CAS’s standard workload for an Olympic year. Reeb thinks 600 cases will have been initiated at CAS by the end of 2016 – a new record.
Part of that rise is the repercussions of a new low in trust for sport. Reeb admits the scandals that have been uncovered has affected their workload:
“This year we can say it’s a bad time for sport. We can see problems in governance, in doping, so that’s also the reason we have more cases.”
But Reeb’s belief is that rather than more corruption going on than normal, instead investigators and federations are getting better at uncovering it.
“I think, first of all there are more internal bodies to deal with these types of cases, within the federation. This is also why we know more about corruption within sport. It may be a bad thing for the public who believe it’s a bad moment for sport, but at the same time the guilty people are found and are sanctioned, so that’s probably the positive opinion for the future – we will have less problems or corruption of this type of thing in the future. So there’s probably better investigation, we go deeper into the facts and in the evidence, and therefore there are more cases coming up, which means more appeals coming up.”
Tens of thousands of cases have been submitted to CAS since it was founded in 1984, and Reeb has seen a lot of them, having been at the organisation since 1995. When asked about which cases have stood out in his 22 years with CAS, there have been some interesting ones…
“We have some strange cases which have never been entertained. We were asked to reconsider the result of the FIFA World Cup Final in 2006 because of the incident between Zidane and Materazzi – the claim was to try prove there was video refereeing. That type of request happens sometimes. We also had an interesting request at the Salt Lake City Games [in 2002] where the organising committee had planned to organise a rodeo demonstration, but PETA asked CAS to stop the organisation of rodeos during the Games. Cases like that we do not entertain because we do not have jurisdiction there.”
“The most challenging case, probably because it was so unique, was Oscar Pistorius. I know the name is probably difficult to pronounce today [in regard to his murder conviction] but the case in 2008 was whether a disabled athlete could compete in the Olympic Games and the question was to decide whether the prosthetics he used were giving him an advantage or not. That was more biomechanics rather than real law, and we had to hear a lot of experts’ opinions, testimonies and statements to decide the case. It was quite a fascinating and unique case, as we have never had anything like it.”
The next month will be a stressful time for many – for athletes, officials and IFs. But CAS will be confident that despite the pressure and the high stakes, they will continue to do what they do best – offer all parties a fair and independent judgement.
{jcomments on}
