The Appellant (the Athlete) is an international-standard athlete who was not nominated by the Respondent, National Sporting Organisation (NSO) to compete at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games.
Pursuant to clause 9.6(c) of the Australian Olympic Committee's Olympic Team Nomination and Selection By-Law (the By-law), the appeal was referred to the National Sports Tribunal (NST) on 27 June 2024, and required a determination by 30 June 2024, to meet the International Federation's deadline for nominations.
The NST Member was appointed on 29 June and the matter was heard by a sole Member in the NST General Division on 30 June 2024.
The Athlete submitted that the nomination process was unfair, citing bias and claiming high-performing benchmarking for the sport in the sense it was skewed in its methodology and application against the Athlete. The Athlete argued the NSO failed to consider extenuating circumstances and that they rightfully earned the Oceania quota place for the 2024 Paris Olympic Games.
The NSO submitted that the appeal should fail because no bias was claimed against the Selection Criteria. They also stated that the high-performance benchmarks were developed by the AIS and didn't inherently favour any athlete, the Athlete just did not meet the performance requirements.
After reviewing the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, the NST Member delivered their determination on 30 June 2024. The NST Member was not satisfied with the relevant standard that such bias exists within the AIS-overseen benchmarking criteria.
The NST Member found no legal basis to support the claim that the NSO's discretion regarding extenuating circumstances was improperly exercised. Furthermore, after considering the material, the Athlete did not meet the performance requirements outlined by the NSO nomination criteria.
The appeal was dismissed.