The case involves an appeal by judo athlete Kayhan Ozcicek-Takagi against Judo Australia's (JA) decision not to nominate him for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games. The decision followed an investigation by the International Judo Federation (IJF) into the athlete's conduct during a match at the 2021 Judo World Championships, where his performance raised suspicions of match-fixing. The IJF issued a "serious reprimand and warning" but did not disqualify him from Olympic qualification. JA's Board considered multiple factors, including the IJF's findings, concerns from coaches about his past performance, and video footage of the match, before deciding against his nomination. The athlete argued that the decision was improper and appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under the Olympic Team Nomination and Selection By-Law of the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC).
The CAS Sole Arbitrator, the Hon. Annabelle Bennett, examined whether JA properly implemented its nomination criteria, emphasizing that courts should not reassess the merits of a decision-maker's judgment unless there is evidence of bad faith or procedural flaws. The arbitrator found JA had reasonable grounds for its decision, considering the IJF's disciplinary findings and internal assessments of the athlete's performance. The athlete contested JA's reliance on Clause 5(g) of the Nomination Criteria, which requires athletes to be "positive ambassadors" for the sport, arguing JA failed to account for his back injury, language barriers, or the possibility of appealing the IJF decision. JA defended its position, stating it reviewed video evidence, coach statements, and the athlete's explanations, concluding his performance was unacceptable and inconsistent with judo's values.
The arbitrator noted JA's decision was based on multiple considerations, not solely the IJF's findings, and that the Board—composed of judo experts—acted within its discretion. There was no evidence of procedural unfairness or bad faith. The athlete's claim that JA did not assess Clause 5(d) (likelihood of meeting AOC criteria) was dismissed, as the Board's decision rested on other valid grounds. The arbitrator upheld JA's decision, concluding the athlete failed to demonstrate flaws in the process or unreasonableness in the grounds for non-nomination. The case underscores the deference given to sports governing bodies in nomination decisions and the limited scope for judicial intervention unless clear procedural or substantive errors are shown. The appeal was dismissed, and all related motions were denied.