The Appellant is an athlete in a para-sport. The Respondent is the National Sporting Organisation which also serves as the National Federation for the purposes of Paralympic Games nomination and selection.
The Appellant was not nominated by the Respondent for the Australian Paralympic Team to compete in the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games. The Respondent was given five quota places for their team including one for a competitor in a ‘ring-fenced’ category. The Appellant does not compete in the ring-fenced category.
The matter was referred to the National Sports Tribunal pursuant to the Paralympics Australia Nomination Appeals Policy which is Schedule 1 of the Paralympic Team Nomination, Selection and Appeals By-Law (the By-Law). The Appellant contended that ‘the Nomination Policy was not properly applied by the National Federation (NF) or Paralympics Australia (PA) with respect to the Appellant’ as per subsection 8(a) of the By-Law.
The National Federation Nomination Panel (NFNP), formed by the Respondent to decide on the nomination of athletes according to set criteria, decided between the Appellant and a nominated athlete for the final quota slot. The deliberation included consideration of the athlete’s ability to achieve or contribute to a medal winning performance, podium finishes at international benchmark competitions within the ‘Performance Time Period’, the athlete’s performance at trials and testing, and the athlete’s consistency in training and performance against targeted objectives. The Appellant relied on three specific matters not being considered or not properly considered by the NFNP.
The Tribunal considered the complete recording from the NFNP’s meeting, witness statements and evidence, precedent from similar matters previously heard by the Tribunal, and submissions presented to the NFNP. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondent failed to consider any of the three specific matters which were the subject of the Appellant’s complaint and found that even if the NFNP had failed to consider one or more of the matters, it had no positive obligation to do so under the Nomination Policy.
The appeal was dismissed.