The case revolves around a dispute between the United States Parachute Association (USPA) and James L. Hayhurst against the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) and the National Aeronautic Association (NAA) concerning the certification of a world-record parachute jump by Alan Eustace. The conflict arose when Eustace allegedly broke the previous record set by Felix Baumgartner in 2014. Hayhurst, acting as the Official Observer (OO) for the USPA, compiled a dossier with evidence of the jump and submitted it to the NAA, represented by Arthur Greenfield. However, Greenfield rejected the initial submissions and later created and submitted a separate dossier without Hayhurst's approval, leading to conflicting records. The USPA and Hayhurst accused Greenfield of misconduct and bias, alleging violations of the FAI Sporting Code.
The FAI appointed a Board of Inquiry (BOI) to investigate, but its report was criticized for failing to address the core complaint—Greenfield's alleged fabrication of a dossier—and instead focused on determining the correct record. The BOI concluded there was no evidence of misconduct by the NAA or Greenfield, a finding the appellants contested as biased and procedurally flawed. Dissatisfied, the USPA and Hayhurst appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which ruled it had jurisdiction to hear the case but deferred to the BOI's findings on the merits. The CAS panel found no evidence of bias in the BOI's review but questioned the thoroughness of its conclusions, particularly regarding Greenfield's actions.
The case highlighted broader issues of governance, procedural fairness, and potential political interference within the FAI, given the NAA's significant influence. The appellants argued that FAI President Jonathan Grubbstrom and the BOI chairman displayed bias, favoring the NAA due to its political clout. Despite these concerns, the CAS upheld the BOI's report, dismissing the appeal and rejecting requests for additional relief, such as granting the USPA direct sporting powers or imposing sanctions. The decision underscored the challenges of adjudicating disputes within international sports federations while emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to established rules. Ultimately, the case revealed the complexities of maintaining integrity in record-keeping processes and the limitations of external oversight in organizational governance.