Sport

Read the full decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Kamila Valieva

Read the full decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport on Kamila Valieva

Court of Arbitration for Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte CAS JO 22/08-22/09-22/10 – Page 36 fundamental principle of justice and proportionality on which all systems of law are based, and the [WADC] itself, is founded. CAS 2006/A/1025. 201. This is an exercise in interpretation, not rewriting rules or developing policies that would be best crafted by sports bodies exercising good governance. The Panel would like to emphasize that it does not consider itself a policy maker or decision-maker, but is rightly called upon, as are courts around the world, to interpret the rules and their operation. See, for example, OJ 22/06, para. 7.16-18. Here, the inability of anti-doping authorities to reconcile the special rules they have created for protected persons and the rules they have created for athletes who are not protected persons necessitates the involvement of this panel. 202. Accordingly, the Panel determines that in cases involving Protected Persons, their Provisional Suspensions shall be assessed as Optional Provisional Suspensions under Article 7.4.2 of the WADC 2021 and its Offspring. The Panel determines that Ms. Valieva was entitled to an optional Provisional Suspension as a Protected Person and that, given the facts and circumstances, the option not to impose a Provisional Suspension should have been exercised in order that she is not prevented from participating in the 2022 OWG. this Athlete, given the specific facts of this case and the situation in which this Athlete finds herself through no fault of her own, and where the Athlete could have filed a request for conservatory measures with the CAS Appeal Division if it had not been placed in the current procedure of the ad hoc division of the CAS by the requests of the IOC, WADA and the ISU, the CAS well accepted and the related standards used to evaluate requests for provisional exemption are suitable for examine and produce the same result. 204. Article 37 of the CAS Code as well as Article 14 of the CAS ad hoc Rules allow interim measures to be granted by CAS panels upon proper presentation. 205. In accordance with regular CAS case law, and as a general rule, in order to decide whether interim measures can be granted, it is necessary to examine whether the measure is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, the likelihood that the applicant will gain appeal on the merits and whether the interests of the plaintiff outweigh those of the defendant. See CAS 3571/72; CAS 2003/0/486; CAS orders 2013/A/3199; CAS 2010/A/2071; 2001/A/329; and CAS 2001/A/324. These criteria are cumulative. See CAS Orders 2013/A/3199; CAS 2010/A/2071; and 2007/A/1403. Accord, Paolo Patocchi, “Provisional Measures in International Arbitration”, in International Sports Law and CAS Jurisprudence (M. Bernasconi, ed.), pp. 68-72 (2012); Jeffrey Benz and William Sternheimer, “Accelerated proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport”, CAS Bulletin