The case revolves around a dispute between cyclist Kathy Watt and the Australian Cycling Federation (ACF) concerning her exclusion from the 1996 Atlanta Olympics women's 3000m individual pursuit event. Watt, who had an outstanding competitive record and remained unbeaten by Australian cyclists since 1989, was initially guaranteed nomination by the ACF in April 1996. This guarantee, communicated via a written letter, was contingent only on unlikely scenarios such as injury, illness, or an unprecedented performance by another Australian cyclist. Relying on this assurance, Watt followed a specialized training schedule abroad to prepare for the Olympics. However, by June 1996, the ACF questioned her nomination, citing improved training performances by Lucy Tyler-Sharman, including near-world-record times. Watt was instructed to attend a final training camp in Houston for reassessment, which she declined, arguing it disrupted her preparation and violated the earlier guarantee. The ACF subsequently nominated Tyler-Sharman, prompting Watt to challenge the decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS proceedings focused on whether the ACF had acted fairly and adhered to its commitments rather than evaluating the athletes' medal potential. The arbitrator found that the ACF's revocation of Watt's nomination lacked justification, as Tyler-Sharman's training performances did not meet the exceptional criteria outlined in the original guarantee. The ACF's decision appeared influenced by pre-existing biases against Watt's dual preparation for road and track events, rather than new, competitive evidence. The arbitrator emphasized that the ACF had created legitimate expectations for Watt and failed to act in good faith by reneging on its commitment. The CAS ruled that the ACF's July 1996 decision to replace Watt was unfair and unreasonable, ordering the reinstatement of her nomination. The ruling underscored the importance of procedural fairness and honoring commitments in athlete selection processes, without assessing the relative merits of the cyclists' performances. The case highlights the consequences of sporting organizations departing from agreed-upon terms and the need for transparency in selection decisions. The CAS directed the ACF to nominate Watt to the Australian Olympic Committee, reaffirming the principle that binding commitments must be upheld unless valid grounds for revocation exist.