The case revolves around swimmer Suzu Chiba's appeal against the Japanese Amateur Swimming Federation (JASF) for not selecting her for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Chiba, a world-class swimmer with prior Olympic experience, came out of retirement to compete in Sydney. She participated in the 2000 Japanese Olympic Selection meet, placing first in the 200-meter freestyle and third in the 100-meter freestyle, meeting the FINA "A" and "B" time standards, respectively. However, she was not selected for the Olympic team. Chiba argued that the selection criteria required athletes to meet FINA standards and place first or second at the qualifying meet, which she believed she had fulfilled. The JASF, however, cited an undisclosed third criterion: the athlete's time at the 2000 Nationals had to be within the top eight times of the 1999 world rankings. Chiba's times did not meet this criterion, ranking 27th in the 100-meter and 17th in the 200-meter events for 1999.
Chiba filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting her selection for the Olympic team or damages. The JASF defended its decision, stating the third criterion was part of its "few but best" policy, though it admitted this requirement was not communicated to athletes or coaches before the selection meet. The policy was only defined after the 2000 Nationals, during a selection committee meeting. The JASF justified the criterion by explaining that Olympic medalists typically come from the top eight finalists, hence the emphasis on world rankings.
The CAS panel emphasized that athletes have the right to transparent selection criteria, as such decisions significantly impact their careers. However, the panel clarified that CAS does not intervene to choose between athletes but ensures fair application of established criteria. In this case, while Chiba met the first two criteria, the undisclosed third criterion was decisive. The panel noted the lack of transparency in communicating this requirement, which Chiba was unaware of during her preparation and competition. Despite this, the JASF's decision was upheld, as the selection committee had the authority to define and apply its criteria, even if communicated retrospectively.
The CAS examined whether JASF's decision violated principles of fair play and non-discrimination under the Olympic Charter and FINA rules. It found that while FINA sets minimum qualifying standards, national federations like JASF have discretion to impose stricter criteria. JASF's selection criteria, though not explicitly outlined in its bylaws, were consistent with FINA rules and the Japanese Olympic Committee's policy of selecting athletes capable of achieving satisfactory results. The CAS acknowledged that athletes have a right to know the selection criteria in advance but noted that JASF had communicated its general "few but best" policy beforehand, even if the specific third criterion was announced later.
The CAS concluded that JASF acted within its authority and did not violate any fundamental principles, as the selection criteria, though stringent, were applied uniformly and without discrimination. The appeal was dismissed, and the request for damages was denied due to lack of substantiation. However, the JASF was ordered to pay CHF 10,000 as a partial contribution to Chiba's costs, acknowledging that earlier communication of criteria might have prevented the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of transparency in athlete selection processes but found no grounds to overturn JASF's decision in this instance.