The Athlete (Applicant) was not nominated by the National Sporting Body (Respondent) for the Australian Team for a World Championship event. The Athlete’s application filed with the National Sports Tribunal (NST) challenged their non-selection on the grounds of the relevant selection policy. The Athlete alleged that the National Sporting Body did not properly follow and/or implement the selection policy.
As selection appeals can have adverse impacts on other athletes should the appellant be successful, the Respondent National Sporting Body identified several Interested Parties who were joined to the arbitration.
Of the 6 Interested Parties, five were selected for the World Championship event. Two of the selected athletes made substantive submissions in support of their selection and the National Sporting Body’s selection decision. The non-selected Interested Party also made submissions to the NST.
The sole NST Member considered all of the facts, matters and legal arguments submitted by the parties and made a determination on the papers, as all parties had consented to the matter being determined without an oral hearing.
The selection policy for the World Championship event contained nomination criteria. The nomination criteria were broken down into eligibility criteria, “general criteria” and other matters, including matters stated to be “expectations” and matters which were said to give rise to “higher selection ranking” if satisfied.
The NST Member did not accept the Athlete’s submission that an athlete that did not meet a stated “expectation” was by reason of that failure automatically excluded from selection in circumstances where other athletes had met the said expectation.
The Athlete also submitted, amongst other matters, that their past performances should have resulted in their selection to the World Championship event in preference to athletes who were selected. Addressing the Athlete’s grounds, the National Sporting Body relied on its selection material, produced by the selection committee, including a spreadsheet with written comments, competition result data and informal notes.
Although sections of the general criteria were considered unclear, the NST found that the Athlete had not established that the Selection Policy was not properly followed or implemented.
Whilst there were factors in favour of the Athlete’s selection, the proper application of the selection policy necessitates the application of both discretion and judgment. The NST Member found that the selection committee undertook the task required of it.
Therefore, the NST dismissed the Athlete’s appeal.