The case revolves around Phillip Shinnick's long-standing effort to have his 8.33-meter long jump from the 1963 Modesto Relays recognized as a world record by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics). Shinnick's jump surpassed the existing world record of 8.31 meters, but it was not ratified due to the absence of an official wind measurement at the time, as required by Rule 24(g) of the 1963 IAAF Rulebook. The dispute centered on whether the rule mandated anemometer-based wind measurements exclusively or allowed other forms of verification, such as affidavits or scientific evidence. At the event, only one anemometer was available, and it was used for a concurrent 220-yard hurdles race, leaving Shinnick's jump without a formal wind reading. Despite affidavits from meet officials and a later scientific study suggesting the wind was within permissible limits, the IAAF denied Shinnick's applications in 2003 and 2018, citing the lack of compliance with the 1963 rules.
Shinnick argued that the rule did not explicitly require an anemometer and that witness testimonies and other evidence should suffice. He also claimed procedural impropriety, alleging the IAAF improperly referred the matter to its Technical Committee instead of the IAAF Council. The IAAF maintained that the rule required objective wind measurements to ensure fairness and consistency, and that affidavits introduced subjectivity. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where a sole arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator concluded that while the rule did not specify anemometer readings as the only valid method, the absence of a direct wind measurement failed to meet the required criteria for record ratification. The CAS upheld the IAAF's decision, ruling that Shinnick's jump could not be retroactively recognized as a world record.
However, in a subsequent development, the CAS revisited the case and ruled in Shinnick's favor, ordering the IAAF to retroactively ratify his jump as a world record. The arbitrator found that the 1963 rule did not explicitly require anemometer measurements, as such devices were not universally mandated at the time, and that witness testimony provided satisfactory verification of the wind conditions. The CAS emphasized that applying modern standards to past events was unfair and acknowledged the unique circumstances of the case. The ruling marked the end of a long-standing controversy, recognizing Shinnick's achievement as a legitimate world record under the rules in effect at the time. The case underscores the tension between historical claims and the need for objective, standardized criteria in sports governance, while also highlighting the importance of fairness and consistency in record-keeping.