In a decisive ruling on Monday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute brought forward by Jamaican hammer thrower Nayoka Clunis. The decision came after a detailed examination of the timeline and events leading up to the application filed by Clunis on July 18, 2024.

On July 4, 2024, Clunis's name was omitted from the list sent to World Athletics (WA). By July 7, she was informed by the JAAA that her name was missing from the list, and on July 8, WA confirmed that her name could not be added. Despite Clunis's contention that the dispute only crystallized when she received detailed submissions from WA on July 19, the CAS determined that the dispute had arisen earlier.

The CAS proceedings began on July 18, 2024, with a videoconference hearing on July 20. The parties involved included Clunis and her counsel Dr Emir Crowne and Sayeed Bernard, representatives from the JAAA, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), WA, and the Jamaica Olympic Association (JOA). The panel, consisting of President Dr. Annabelle Bennett and arbitrators Ms. Carine Dupeyron and Ms. Kristen Thorsness OLY, found that the timeline of events placed the dispute outside their jurisdiction.

Clunis's submission stated that due to an administrative error and the impact of Hurricane Beryl, her name was not submitted to WA for the Paris Olympic Games. She argued that this exceptional situation warranted the CAS Ad Hoc Division's intervention to prevent an unjust outcome. However, the IOC and WA contested the jurisdiction, pointing out that the dispute arose before the 10-day window preceding the Opening Ceremony.

The CAS panel reviewed the chronology of events, noting key dates such as World Athletics (WA’s) confirmation of qualified athletes on July 5 and the JAAA’s attempts to rectify the error from July 6 onwards. The dispute, according to the CAS, did not arise when Clunis received the detailed correspondence but rather when she was first informed of the omission.

Ultimately, the CAS concluded that it had no jurisdiction as the dispute arose before the 10-day period leading up to the Olympics. The panel acknowledged the unfairness to Clunis, who was deprived of the opportunity to compete due to circumstances beyond her control. Despite recognizing the hardship, the CAS emphasized that jurisdiction could not be assumed where it does not exist under the rules.

Mike Morgan and Ben Cisneros appeared for the JAAA; Antonio Rigozzi and Eolos Rigopoulos for the IOC, Ian Wilkson for the JOA and Catherine Pitre (Counsel) and expert witnesses Carlo de Angeli and Marton Gyulai for World Athletics.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport's (CAS) Ad hoc panel has extended the deadline to Monday, July 22, 2024, to deliver a decision on the dispute between Jamaica's hammer thrower Nayoka Clunis and the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association (JAAA). The decision follows a hearing held on Saturday, where key legal representatives presented their arguments.

Dr. Emir Crowne and Sayeed Bernard represented Clunis, while Ben Cisneros appeared for the JAAA, Ian Wilkinson (KC) for the Jamaica Olympic Association, Catherine Pitre for World Athletics, and Antonio Rigozzi for the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Clunis, who secured her spot for the Paris Olympics with a national record throw of 71.93m in May, was initially selected by the JAAA to represent Jamaica in the hammer throw. However, an administrative oversight led to her name not being submitted to World Athletics, jeopardizing her Olympic participation. In response, Clunis sought a ruling from the CAS Ad hoc Division to ensure her inclusion in the hammer throw competition.

The panel of arbitrators, led by Honourable Annabelle Bennett QC, SC of Australia as President, along with Ms. Carline Dupeyron of France and Ms. Kristen Thorness Oly of the USA, initially aimed to announce their decision on Sunday, July 21. However, the complexity of the case necessitated an extension to Monday.

Clunis' appeal highlights the urgency of the situation, particularly given the lack of timely communication from the JAAA. After receiving no response from the JAAA by a specified deadline, Clunis instructed her legal team to escalate the matter to CAS. The JAAA was subsequently given until 11 a.m. on Friday, July 19, to file materials, a deadline they reportedly did not meet.

In a crucial development leading up to the 2024 Paris Olympics, the Court of Arbitration for Sport's (CAS) Ad hoc Division is expected to rule on the dispute between hammer thrower Nayoka Clunis and the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association, by Sunday, July 21.

Clunis, who earned her spot with a national record throw of 71.83m in May, was initially selected by the JAAA to represent Jamaica in the hammer throw. However, her name was not submitted to World Athletics by the JAAA, leaving her Olympic status in jeopardy. In response, Clunis has sought a ruling from the CAS Ad hoc Division to ensure her inclusion in the hammer throw competition at the Paris Olympics.

The panel of arbitrators, comprising Honourable Annabelle Bennett QC, SC of Australia as President, along with Ms. Carline Dupeyron of France and Olympian Ms. Kristen Thorness of the USA, will hear the case on July 20, 2024. The panel's decision is expected to be announced the following day.

The urgency of Clunis' appeal stems from a lack of response from the JAAA. On Tuesday, Clunis instructed her lawyers to contact CAS if no response was received from the JAAA by 5 p.m. that day. Despite the CAS setting an 11 a.m. Friday deadline for the JAAA to file materials, they reportedly failed to meet this requirement.

Sportsmax.TV sources did indicate that the Jamaica Olympic Association (JOA), World Athletics (WA) and the IOC have all filed submissions in the dispute.

Clunis' bid for inclusion in the Olympic roster has been fueled by frustration over the JAAA's handling of her case. Her throw, placing her among the top 32 hammer throwers globally this year, underscores her qualification and readiness to compete at the highest level.

A favorable ruling would rectify the administrative oversight and allow Clunis to showcase her talent on the Olympic stage, fulfilling her dream of competing in Paris.

 Clunis is represented by attorneys Dr Emir Crowne and Sayeed Bernard.

UEFA’s investigation into Manchester City concluded that two £15million payments from a broker was funding from the club’s owners disguised as sponsorship revenue.

The report by the adjudicatory committee of UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is effectively the written reasons behind the decision announced in February 2020 to suspend City from European competition for two years.

The report was never published because the club appealed against the decision and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) later overturned the CFCB verdict, but it has been obtained by the makers of a YouTube film released on Thursday, and has also been seen by The Times.

UEFA did not comment on the report when contacted by the PA news agency on Friday.

The report said City’s lawyers had told a UEFA disciplinary hearing that two £15m sponsorship payments from telecommunications firm Etisalat in 2012 and 2013 were made by a man called Jaber Mohammed, who was described as a broker, and that Etisalat repaid the money to City’s owners in 2015.

The Times reports that the adjudicatory committee of the CFCB concluded:  “Arrangements were made under which payments were made or caused to be made by ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group, a private equity fund controlled by City owner Sheikh Mansour) but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat so as to disguise the true purpose of equity funding, and those arrangements were carried into effect by the payments made by Jaber Mohamed totalling £30million.

“The management of the club was well aware that the payments totalling £30million made by Jaber Mohamed were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.”

CAS overturned the two-year suspension in July 2020, and in its judgement it said UEFA should not have dealt with the charges related to Etisalat because they had passed the five-year time limit. It is not known whether the Etisalat payments form part of the Premier League’s ongoing case against City, where they face 115 charges over alleged breaches of the league’s financial rules and a failure to co-operate with the investigation, but, if they do, they would not be time-barred.

In the same judgement, the CAS panel also stated it was “not comfortably satisfied” that City had disguised equity funding from Sheikh Mansour or ADUG as sponsorship contributions from the Etihad airline.

It said in relation to the Etihad sponsorship: “There is not sufficient evidence on file to establish that arrangements were actually made between MCFC and HHSM (Sheikh Mansour) and/or ADUG, or between HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad, or that HHSM and/or ADUG funded part of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations directly.

“In the absence of a link being proven…the majority of the panel finds that UEFA’s theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated.”

City have not commented on the latest report, but it is understood they believe questions should be asked about the origins of the funding for the new YouTube film, and the motivations of those who provided that funding.

Little is known about the company behind it, Sunrise Media, which was registered in the British Virgin Islands on June 9.

The life ban imposed on Rosnick Grant, the former vice president of the Haitian Football Federation, has been upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. However, the fine imposed on Grant has been significantly reduced, CAS said in a release on Thursday.

This decision comes a few weeks after another CAS decision concerning the former President of the FHF, Mr. Yves Jean-Bart, who was released from the sanctions imposed on him by FIFA due to insufficient evidence. That CAS decision is currently being appealed to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

CAS said the Arbitral Panel found that the evidence against Mr. Grant regarding the sexual abuse charges was sufficiently convincing and that, as a result, the sanction imposed on him by the Court should be confirmed, with the exception of the fine, which was reduced to 35,000 Swiss Francs.

Grant, the former Vice-President and Head of Referees of the Haitian Football Federation (FHF), was banned by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee for violation of Article 23 (protection of physical and mental integrity) and Article 25 (abuse of power) of the FIFA Code of Ethics in connection with acts of harassment, sexual abuse, threats and coercion against female referees.

The fine of 100,000 Swiss Francs was initially imposed on Mr. Grant. That has been reduced to 35,000 Swiss Francs.

In May 2020, the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee opened an investigation into Mr. Yves Jean-Bart, former President of the FHF, who was suspected of having coerced several female players from the National Technical Centre in Croix-des-Bouquets into having sexual relations with him.

During the proceedings, the Investigatory Chamber identified Mr. Grant as one of the perpetrators of sexual abuse and opened an investigation against him in August 2020. On 22 July 2021, based on the final report of the FIFA Ethics Committee, the testimony of a victim, the statements of Mr. Grant, and the statements of the Chairman of the Investigation Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee, the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee issued the Challenged Decision.

On October 6, 2021, Mr Grant filed an appeal at CAS requesting the annulment of the Challenged Decision, claiming that he was innocent of the charges against him. A CAS Panel of three arbitrators, composed of Mr Alexander McLin, President (Switzerland/USA), Prof. Gérald Simon (France) and Mr José J. Pintó (Spain), was constituted to decide the appeal.

A hearing was held on 15 and 16 February 2023, during which numerous witnesses were heard, some of whom benefited from special protective measures.

As a basis for its decision, the Arbitral Panel considered the testimony of a victim, who had travelled to Switzerland for the hearing, to be accurate, coherent and credible. The Panel also noted the inconsistency and imprecision in the statements of the witnesses called by Mr. Grant, most of whom stated, in a contradictory and unconvincing manner, that the accusations against Mr. Grant were the result of a conspiracy against him.

Finally, the Arbitral Panel found that the fine imposed on Mr. Grant was disproportionate to the salary conditions he was subject to in Haiti. In conclusion, the Arbitral Panel found that the evidence against Mr. Grant regarding the sexual abuse charges was sufficiently convincing and that, as a result, the sanction imposed on Mr Grant by the Court should be confirmed, with the exception of the fine, which was reduced.

Bahrain's Salwa Eid Nasser, the 2019 400m world champion, will miss this summer's Olympic Games in Tokyo, Japan, as she has been banned for two years after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) today partially upheld the decision issued by the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal on October 14, 2020.

The ban takes effect today.

However, her results from the 2019 World Championships in Doha will remain.

“Ms Salwa Eid Naser is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of two years, commencing on the date of notification of this award, with credit given for the period of provisional suspension already served between 4 June 2020 and 14 October 2020,” CAS said.

“All competitive results obtained by Ms Salwa Eid Naser from November 25, 2019, through to the date of notification of this award shall be disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prize and appearance money.”

She will also have to pay 5000 Swiss francs to World Athletics and to the World Anti-Doping Agency as a contribution towards their costs connection with these arbitration proceedings.”

In the wake of the ruling, the attorneys representing the athlete Dr Emir Crowne, Mr Matthew Gayle and Ms Kristie Irving have expressed concern about a part of the CAS ruling which can have serious implications for athletes. "A majority of the panel says it is okay for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to re-characterize charges in the middle of an appeal. So, the majority of the panel said WADA can re-characterize a missed test as a filing failure if they want to. With all due respect to the majority of the panel, that can't be right. That cannot be a fair principle in any court system," Dr Crowne told Sportsmax.TV this morning.

The Nigerian-born 400m runner was charged with four alleged whereabouts failures by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) in June 2020. These included filing failures on March 16, 2019, and three missed tests on March 12 and April 12 as well as January 24, 2020.

However, the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal ruled the alleged violation in April 2019 should not stand which meant Naser had not missed three tests.

Naser won the world title in a time of 48.14, the third-fastest time in history defeating Shanuae-Miller Uibo who ran a lifetime best of 48.37 and Shericka Jackson who also clocked a personal best of 49.47 for third.

Hearing dates for the consolidated appeals of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and World Athletics against 2019 400m World Champions Salwa Eid Naser have been set for Thursday, April 22 and Friday, April 23, 2021.