The case involves Alexander Peternell, a South African equestrian athlete, who appealed against the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) and the South African Equestrian Federation (SAEF) after being excluded from the 2012 London Olympics despite meeting all selection criteria. Peternell, ranked third among South African riders in the FEI Olympic Athletes Ranking, argued that his non-selection was unfair and arbitrary. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel reviewed the dispute, focusing on the interpretation and application of selection criteria set by SASCOC and SAEF.
SASCOC established general criteria for all athletes, while SAEF developed specific criteria for equestrian events. Peternell contended that he fulfilled all mandatory FEI criteria and additional SASCOC and SAEF requirements by the April 30, 2012 deadline. The panel found no justification for changing the deadline or selection process, concluding that Peternell was treated unfairly. SAEF's criteria stipulated that the highest-ranked available rider should be nominated, which in this case was Peternell, ranked 164th with 76 points, compared to Paul Hart, ranked 442nd with 5 points. Despite this, SAEF nominated Hart, leading to Peternell's appeal.
The panel emphasized the importance of clear communication of deadlines and criteria to ensure athletes can meet requirements. By the final deadline, both Peternell and Hart had satisfied the criteria, but Peternell's higher ranking should have secured his nomination. The panel ruled that SAEF's decision was inconsistent with its own criteria and unfairly disadvantaged Peternell. The case highlighted the complexities of athlete selection, jurisdictional conflicts, and the impact of administrative deadlines on competitive opportunities.
Peternell was initially included on the shortlist, but the selection deadline was moved to May 25, 2012, by SASCOC, conflicting with the FEI's June 17 deadline. Peternell was unaware of this change and could not qualify his alternate horses by the earlier deadline. SAEF nominated Hart, citing Peternell's inability to meet the new deadline. Peternell contested the decision, arguing the process was unfair, but the selection stood, and Hart was officially announced as South Africa's representative on June 7, 2012.
The CAS panel reviewed the case thoroughly, considering witness testimonies and legal frameworks, including SASCOC's Articles of Association, SAEF's Constitution, and the Olympic Charter. The panel determined that the April 30 deadline applied only to athletes, not horses, and found SAEF's imposition of an unpublicized May 25 deadline arbitrary and unfair. The panel concluded that Peternell should have been nominated over Hart based on the established criteria.
The CAS ruled in Peternell's favor, overturning the SAEF and SASCOC decisions and declaring Peternell eligible for selection in place of Hart. The decision underscored the importance of transparency and fairness in athlete selection processes, particularly in high-stakes competitions like the Olympics. The ruling dismissed all other claims for relief, finalizing the matter in Peternell's favor and emphasizing adherence to the principles of sport in the selection process.