Aug 4, 2021 2 min read

Olympic field of play decisions dismissed by CAS

In a further dismissal of a field of play decision, French super heavyweight boxer Mourad Aliev failed in his bid to overturn his disqualification from an Olympic bout before the Court of Arbitration for Sport Ad-Hoc Division ('CAS AHD').

Aliev, who was disqualified from his quarter-final on Sunday for headbutting and caused consternation when he sat ringside for an hour as a form of silent protest against the decision, applied to the CAS AHD on Monday.

The Panel's decision, issued in French, rejected the applicant's claims to annul the referee's decision to disqualify him and allow him to re-box his fight with a new referee and set of judges.

The Panel held that no argument presented by the applicant could show "that the origin of the disqualification is due to an act of fraud, bad faith or corruption of the match referee." Although, the Panel did not rule out the possibility of a technical error occurring by the referee. They determined the decision fell within the doctrine of "rules of the game", and they adopted the consistent position of CAS not to interfere with an on-field result.

Second field of play case this week

This decision comes on the back of another unsuccessful field of play application, as reported in detail on Monday, where the CAS AHD dismissed an appeal by the Belgium and Netherlands Olympic Committee's to disqualify medal-winning teams from the United States and the Dominican Republic in the 4x400 mixed relay athletics event on Saturday night.

The detailed reasons for the CAS AHD decision in these cases were published today;

CAS OG 20/10 NOC Belgium v. World Athletics & USOPC & NOC Dominican Republic

CAS OG 20/11 NOCNSF v. World Athletics & USOPC & NOC Dominican Republic

The published reasons confirmed the CAS AHD view that whilst they did have jurisdiction to hear the matter and overturn a field of play decision, to do so the athlete needs to overcome a "high hurdle" to show bad faith or bias.

"CAS Panels have consistently pointed out, in different words but to the same effect, that CAS Arbitrators are not, unlike on-field judges, selected for their expertise in the particular sport and do not review the determinations made on the playing field concerning the "rules of the game" in circumstances where there was no fundamental violation of the Respondent's own rules."

The panel found no fundamental violation existed in this case, and as the athletes had already run the relay and the medals awarded, the "relief sought is moot or not appropriate."

Daily Combine: CAS rejects field of play appeal in 4x400 relay

CAS OG 20/10 NOC Belgium v. World Athletics & USOPC & NOC Dominican Republic

CAS OG 20/11 NOCNSF v. World Athletics & USOPC & NOC Dominican Republic