Miriam Manzano appealed the decision of the Ice Skating Australia (ISA) Appeals Tribunal regarding the nomination criteria for the 2006 Winter Olympics, alleging a breach of natural justice and an error of law. The dispute centered on whether the ISA had properly adopted and communicated the Nomination Criteria to athletes, as required by the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) Selection By-laws. These by-laws mandated that National Federations inform athletes of the criteria and provide relevant documentation to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process.
The Shadow Team for Ice Skating was selected in August 2004, but athletes were not initially informed of the Nomination Criteria. A draft was presented during the Four Continents Figure Skating Championship in February 2005, though it was not approved by the AOC until April 2005. The criteria specified that the top-ranked Australian skater at the Four Continents Championship would represent Australia at the World Championships, with a chance to secure an Olympic spot if they placed within the top 24. Joanna Carter, the top-ranked skater, met these conditions and was nominated for the Olympics.
Manzano argued before the ISA Appeals Tribunal that the criteria were not properly followed, she was denied a fair opportunity to meet them, and Carter's nomination lacked a valid basis. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed these claims. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) found that the ISA and AOC had failed to comply with the AOC's Selection By-laws, particularly clause 3.1.2, which required timely communication of the Nomination Criteria. The CAS concluded that the Appeals Tribunal had erred in law by not recognizing this failure. However, since this specific legal error was not raised in the initial appeal, the CAS declined to overturn the decision.
Despite this, the CAS emphasized the significance of the matter and recommended that the AOC reconsider the nomination process. It suggested evaluating the performances of both Manzano and Carter in key events—the 2005 Four Continents Championship, the 2005 World Championship, and the 2005 Australian Championship—before finalizing the Olympic nomination. The CAS's decision highlighted procedural shortcomings but upheld the Appeals Tribunal's ruling due to the technicality of the appeal grounds.
The Appeals Tribunal was found to have erred by failing to recognize that no valid Nomination Criteria had been properly adopted and communicated. However, the decision stood because this specific ground was not raised during the initial appeal. The AOC, though not a party to the proceedings, was advised against assuming a valid Nomination Criteria existed and instructed to adopt new criteria considering the performances of both athletes in the specified events, provided they had competed in them. The case underscored the importance of strict adherence to procedural fairness and transparency in athlete selection processes, revealing that while the AOC and ISA had well-considered procedures, neither fully complied with their own bylaws and policies. The outcome reinforced the necessity of following established rules to ensure fairness in competitive sports.