Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Livia Avancini, Max Batista, Hygor Bezerra v. World Athletics

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Livia Avancini, Max Batista and Hygor Bezerra (Brazilian athletes) v. World Athletics (WA); interested parties: IOC, Brazilian Olympic Committee, Brazilian Athletics Federation (CBAt), Natalia Duco, Chilean Olympic Committee, Chilean Athletics Federation, Bence Venyercsán, Hungarian Athletics Federation
Case no.
CAS OG 24/005, 24/006 & 24/007 (consolidated)
Forum and rules
CAS ad hoc Division, Paris 2024 Olympic Games; CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games; seat Lausanne, Switzerland
Treaty
None. Olympic Charter Rule 61.2 and World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules 2024, Rule 15.5.1(c)
Panel
Annabelle Bennett (President), Hamid Gharavi, Roberto Moreno Rodríguez Alcalá
Sector
Athletics; anti-doping; Olympic eligibility
Outcome
Application upheld (operative part 26 July 2024, reasoned award 1 August 2024). The AIU Board decisions were set aside and the three athletes may compete at Paris 2024.
Amount
No money claim. No order as to costs; CAS ad hoc services are free of charge.

The dispute

Three Brazilian athletes, a shot-putter, a race walker and a sprinter, qualified late for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. On 29 February 2024 the World Athletics Council had imposed additional pre-Games testing obligations on Brazil, a Category B federation: athletes needed "at least three no notice out-of-competition tests (urine and blood)" in the 10 months before 4 July 2024. Brazil's anti-doping agency (ABCD) read this as six tests per athlete, three urine and three blood. The AIU Compliance Manager clarified only on 10 June 2024 that three tests were enough. None of the Applicants met the requirement. The AIU Board refused exemptions for "truly exceptional circumstances" under Rule 15.5.1(c) WA ADR on 6–7 July 2024 and again, on reconsideration, on 24 July 2024. The Applicants challenged these decisions. The IOC and Ms Duco objected to jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute arose outside the ten-day window before the Opening Ceremony. WA argued that no truly exceptional circumstances existed and that the ABCD could have asked for clarification.

Key holdings

  1. The Panel had jurisdiction. The athletes learned of the refusals only on 16 July 2024. WA's reconsideration decisions of 24 July 2024, which incorporated the earlier decisions and stripped them of separate effect, were a further step in exhausting internal remedies, and they fell within the ten days before the Opening Ceremony. The Panel found the case closer to CAS OG 24/02 than to CAS OG 24/01. ¶¶ 35–39
  2. The words "at least three no notice out-of-competition tests (urine and blood)" can reasonably be read as requiring three urine and three blood tests. The ABCD did in fact read them that way and acted on that reading in good faith. Neither side was at fault for the misunderstanding; the Panel described them as "like ships passing in the night". ¶¶ 53–55
  3. On the balance of probabilities, the ABCD's interpretation was the material reason the Applicants were not fully tested. Resources, including an extra US $60,000, went to six tests for each athlete in a priority group of 102, and further government funding could not be obtained because the yearly budget was already set. Without that interpretation, the Applicants' testing would have been completed. ¶ 63
  4. "Truly exceptional circumstances" does not require impossibility. The examples in the Comment to Rule 15.5.1(c) are illustrative only, but there must be an objective reason. Late qualification or reallocation, and budget constraints on their own, are not truly exceptional circumstances. ¶¶ 65–70
  5. The reasonable interpretation and its cascading consequences together amounted to truly exceptional circumstances: the timing of the notification after Brazil's budget was set, the resourcing problems, the ABCD's good faith and the athletes' clean records. The assessment depends on the facts of each case, so CAS OG 20/012 did not compel a different result. This was a decision on how to construe and apply a rule, not merely a review of a discretion. ¶¶ 71–78
  6. The application was upheld and the athletes may compete. The operative part sets aside the AIU Board decisions it dates 23 July 2024; the body of the award dates the reconsideration decisions 24 July 2024. There is no order as to costs. ¶¶ 79–82; Decision

Procedural history

  1. 29 February 2024WA and the AIU notify the CBAt of the Council Decision imposing additional testing obligations on Brazil, effective 8 March 2024.
  2. 10 June 2024The AIU Compliance Manager clarifies that three tests (urine or blood) are sufficient.
  3. 3 July 2024The CBAt applies for exemptions under Rule 15 WA ADR.
  4. 6–7 July 2024The AIU Board rejects the exemption applications. The athletes are informed on 16 July 2024.
  5. 15 July 2024The CBAt seeks reconsideration, and WA accepts the request.
  6. 23 July 2024Three applications are filed with the CAS ad hoc Division. They are consolidated and the Panel is constituted.
  7. 24 July 2024The AIU Board rejects the second exemption applications. The Applicants file an amended, consolidated application the same evening.
  8. 26 July 2024Hearing; the operative part of the award upholds the application.
  9. 1 August 2024Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Marcelo Franklin
For the respondent
Tony Jackson · Laura Gallo · Nicolas Zbinden · Louise Reilly · Huw Roberts
For other participants
International Olympic Committee · Enric Ripoll · Edina Gyenes

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.

Case ID
CAS OG 24/005 & 006 & 007
Claimant
Livia Avancini, Max Batista, Hygor Bezerra
Respondent
World Athletics

Procedure: Ad hoc
Sport: Athletics
Matter: Eligibility (except nationality)
Outcome: Upheld
Panel: Annabelle Claire Bennett, Hamid Gharavi, Roberto Moreno Rodriguez Alcalá
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.