The case involves a dispute between Gymnastics Canada (GC) and the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) over the allocation of a quota place for men’s trampoline gymnastics at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. GC appealed FIG’s decision, arguing that the Olympic Qualification System was incorrectly applied, preventing Canadian athlete Jérémy Chartier from qualifying under Criteria 3. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) heard the case, with Carine Dupeyron serving as the sole arbitrator. The Olympic Qualification System outlined three criteria for quota allocation: Criteria 1 (2019 World Championships), Criteria 2 (2020 Continental Championships), and Criteria 3 (2019-2020 Trampoline World Cup Series). Canada secured two female quota places but none for men, prompting GC to challenge FIG’s interpretation of the criteria.
GC filed its appeal on July 7, 2021, requesting an expedited process to meet the Olympic entry deadline of July 23, 2021. FIG was the sole respondent, though GC acknowledged that the Colombian and Ukrainian Gymnastics Federations were affected parties. The parties agreed to a sole arbitrator, initially proposing Pierre Muller, but Dupeyron was appointed after Muller became unavailable. FIG submitted its response on July 16, and GC filed a rebuttal on July 20, including new exhibits. FIG objected to some submissions, but the arbitrator admitted them, deeming them relevant.
Key legal issues included GC’s standing to sue and the rights of third parties not formally included in the proceedings. FIG argued that only National Olympic Committees (NOCs) could challenge quota decisions, as per the Olympic Charter, and since the Canadian Olympic Committee did not join the appeal, GC lacked standing. The arbitrator ruled that GC had a legitimate sporting interest, granting it standing. However, the arbitrator noted that if the appeal’s outcome affected third parties like the Colombian NOC, their inclusion would be necessary.
The dispute centered on interpreting the Qualification System. GC argued that the "chronological order of qualification" referred to events, not criteria, and that Criteria 2 should only apply if a continent lacked representation under Criteria 1 or 3. FIG maintained that the criteria must be applied sequentially, with Criteria 2 ensuring continental representation, even if it meant reallocating quotas from Criteria 3. The arbitrator sided with FIG, ruling that the plain text of the Qualification System supported a chronological application of criteria. The arbitrator also rejected GC’s claim that Criteria 3 quotas were immutable, noting that continental representation and the 16-athlete limit justified reallocations.
The CAS dismissed GC’s appeal, upholding FIG’s decision. The ruling emphasized the interconnectedness of the criteria and the need to prioritize continental representation. The arbitrator concluded that GC’s interpretation conflicted with the reallocation rules for the Host Country quota, which further supported FIG’s position. The case highlights the complexities of Olympic qualification disputes, particularly when third-party rights are involved, and underscores the importance of adhering to the Qualification System’s explicit terms. The final award was issued on November 12, 2021, with the operative part dated July 23, 2021.