{"id":654447,"date":"2026-09-29T09:14:34","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T16:14:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.swimmingworldmagazine.com\/news\/?p=654447"},"modified":"2026-09-29T09:14:34","modified_gmt":"2026-09-29T16:14:34","slug":"bettina-fabian-fires-back-at-european-aquatics-statement-after-open-water-dqs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.swimmingworldmagazine.com\/news\/bettina-fabian-fires-back-at-european-aquatics-statement-after-open-water-dqs\/","title":{"rendered":"Bettina Fabian Fires Back at European Aquatics Statement after Open Water DQs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bettina Fabian Fires Back at European Aquatics Statement after Open Water DQs<\/h4>\n
\n
European Aquatics Statement & Rulings<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
European Aquatics has released a statement following the DQs of David Betlehem<\/strong> and Bettina Fabian<\/strong> at the Open Water Swimming Cup at Razanac, Croatia, which had seen the latter rebuke the governing body on social media over the weekend.<\/p>\n
Both swimmers were disqualified during the race for wearing a non-compliant cap and appealed against the rulings although the appeals were rejected.<\/p>\n
European Aquatics stated: \u201cIn the spirit of openness and transparency, we are publishing the Jury of Appeal decisions in full.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn addition, European Aquatics will refer the full sequence of events, both during and following the competition, to its Integrity Unit for an independent review of the claims raised and to determine whether any violations of the European Aquatics Integrity Code may have occurred.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bettina Fabian Ruling\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
Case Details\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
Athlete: Bettina Fabian (Hungary)<\/li>\n
Event: European Aquatics Open Water Swimming Cup Leg 3 Razanac<\/li>\n
Subject: Appeal against disqualification regarding the non-compliant cap \/ starting with unauthorized equipment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Summary of the Athlete’s Claims <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The athlete\/protestor argued that:<\/p>\n
\n
Officials accepted the incorrect cap in the 1st Call Room.<\/li>\n
She did not receive or notice any information during the last briefing.<\/li>\n
A replacement cap was only offered shortly before the start; because it was not delivered in time, she started without it and was not prevented from doing so.<\/li>\n
The EPAM logo is not mandated by World Aquatics rules.<\/li>\n
The disqualification was only executed after the finish of the race.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Jury of Appeal reviewed the case, the applicable rules, and the statements provided by the officials and rejected the appeal based on several grounds, confirmed by the chief referee. This included procedural inadmissibility where European Aquatics say the protest wasn\u2019t submitted within the mandatory time limit which is 30 minutes after the completion of the race.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the protest was delivered by the athlete rather than the team leader which violates European Aquatics\u2019 formal protest procedures.<\/p>\n
They also stated that it was the fundamental responsibility of all competitors to know the rules and arrive prepared with the correct equipment.<\/p>\n
Betlehem\u2019s protest was similarly rejected on the same grounds by the Jury of Appeal comprising Bastian Esefeld, Dag Rinden and Volkan Unutmaz.<\/p>\n
Fabian hit back, however, in a long post on social media, stating: \u201cI am extremely disappointed to see false factual claims published in an official document.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was NEVER offered a cap at registration, NEVER wrote HUN on one and NEVER refused to wear one. Multiple witnesses can confirm this. And what reasonable reason would I possibly have had to refuse a compliant cap if one had actually been offered to me?<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd as it later became clear, even if I had received the replacement cap, it apparently would not have protected me from disqualification, because that is exactly what happened to @betlehemdavid<\/a>: he wore the cap PROVIDED BY THE ORGANISERS and was still disqualified for wearing the \u201cwrong\u201d cap. Even your own versions contradict each other. Which one is it?<\/p>\n
\u201cThe claim that this rule was communicated at the final briefing is also false, and athletes who attended can confirm it. Before the start I was simply told my cap was \u201cnot good\u201d and that they would bring another one. They never did and instead rushed me onto the pontoon.<\/p>\n
\u201cRegarding @betlehemdavid<\/a> , another athlete wearing the same cap configuration was not disqualified. We have video and photographic evidence of this, and athletes have competed in the same cap configuration at previous competitions without being disqualified. This raises serious concerns about unequal treatment based on nationality.<\/p>\n
\u201cMore than a million people have now heard directly from us what happened, and the evidence and witnesses speak for themselves. This situation resulted from the actions of officials within the organisation: unethical decision making, unequal treatment and unprofessional handling of the entire situation. People responsible for decisions like these should not be in positions where they can treat athletes this way.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
View this post on Instagram<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n