Amy Graham appealed Equestrian Australia's decision not to nominate her and her horse, Bella Baloubet, for the 2012 Australian Olympic Jumping Team. The National Selection Panel initially informed Graham of her non-nomination on June 5, 2012. She appealed to an Equestrian Australia tribunal, which ruled in her favor on June 15, 2012, and referred the matter back for reconsideration. However, the Panel again decided against her nomination on June 21, 2012. Graham then filed two appeals with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging both the tribunal's decision and the Panel's second nomination ruling. The case revolved around the application of the Olympic Team Selection By-law, which governs the nomination process for the Australian Olympic Team. The By-law requires national federations to adopt and fairly apply nomination criteria approved by the Australian Olympic Committee. The criteria included provisions for Automatic Nomination and Discretionary Nomination. The key issue was whether the Panel correctly applied these criteria. The CAS arbitrator found that Automatic Nomination could not apply to Graham due to a tie for second place, meaning neither combination could be automatically nominated. The arbitrator also ruled that the Discretionary Nomination process was correctly applied, with no evidence of bias or irrationality in the Panel's decision.
The nomination process involved three methods: Early Nomination, Automatic Nomination, and Discretionary Nomination. Early Nomination was granted to Edwina Tops-Alexander and Cevo Itot du Château based on outstanding performances. Julia Hargreaves and Vedor received Automatic Nomination for having the least faults in designated rounds. A tie between Graham’s combination and James Paterson-Robinson’s led the Panel to use a "count back" method, favoring Paterson-Robinson due to better performance in grand prix rounds. For Discretionary Nomination, the Panel chose Matt Williams’ combination over Graham’s, citing better consistency and performance potential. Graham argued that Paterson-Robinson was ineligible for Automatic Nomination because he had not met the Minimum Eligibility Standard (MES) by the initial deadline. However, the Tribunal found the deadline had been amended, allowing eligibility if MES was met by the start of the second Nomination Event. The Tribunal also noted the Panel could have considered extenuating circumstances but had not done so.
The dispute also centered on whether amendments to the nomination criteria had received prior written approval from the Australian Olympic Committee. The Tribunal concluded that an email dated April 12, 2012, along with oral confirmations, constituted sufficient evidence of approval. The amendments removed the requirement for MES to be achieved by April 23, 2012, instead allowing combinations to attain it by May 31, 2012, before the second Nomination Event. This change aimed to accommodate riders facing difficulties due to canceled events in Europe. Graham contested the validity of the approval, but the Tribunal upheld the amendment’s validity, ensuring fair opportunities for all riders.
The CAS examined whether the Panel's decision to apply the Discretionary Nomination provision was irrational or unreasonable. While Graham presented compelling arguments, the Court found no evidence that the decision was obviously unreasonable or perverse. The Panel had provided detailed reasoning based on results, and the Court concluded the Nomination Criteria were properly followed. The appeals were dismissed, upholding Equestrian Australia's nominations. The CAS communicated its decision on July 6, 2012, to ensure timely Olympic entries, with each party bearing its own costs and the Australian Olympic Committee covering the Court's expenses. The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to established nomination procedures and ensuring fairness in the selection process. The case highlights the complexities of sports arbitration, particularly in high-stakes scenarios like Olympic team selection, where legal and procedural rigor must balance competitive fairness.