Athlete v National Sporting Organisation (with Affected Party)

Non-nomination Appeal for the 2024 Olympic Games.

Matter number:
NST-E24-248931
Date of decision:
Dispute type:
Selection and eligibility dispute
Dispute resolution method:
Arbitration
Description:

The Applicant was not nominated by the Respondent to represent Australia at the 2024 Olympic Games. Rather, the Respondent proposed to nominate the Affected Party under its Nomination Criteria. The Applicant brought an appeal pursuant to clause 9.6(c)(ii)(B) of the Australian Olympic Committee’s Olympic Team Nomination and Selection By-Law on the ground that the Nomination Criteria were not properly applied.

The relevant Nomination Criteria provided that the Respondent’s Nomination Panel may, in its absolute discretion, have regard to all or none of a set of generic factors including an athlete’s ability to achieve or contribute to medal winning performances at the Olympic Games, as well as consistency in training, performance, attitude, conduct and technical execution during a specified performance period. The Nomination Criteria also set out discipline-specific criteria that included performance standards.

Citing his past performances and addressing the relevant Nomination Criteria, the Applicant contended that he ought to be nominated in place of the Affected Party. The Respondent sought for the appeal to be dismissed on the ground that there was no basis to contend the Nomination Criteria were not properly applied. In support of its position, the Respondent set out five specific criteria that the Nomination Panel reviewed in their decision-making process as between the Applicant and the Affected Party. The Respondent also provided affidavit and video evidence of the meeting of its Nomination Panel. The Affected Party provided submissions addressing factual issues and a report with relevant medical information.

The Tribunal concluded that a careful and thorough analysis of all the data and other information presented demonstrated that there was a proper foundation for the Respondent’s Nomination Panel to exercise its discretion to nominate the Affected Party instead of the Applicant.

The NST dismissed the appeal.