The case of Mitchell Iles v. Shooting Australia, decided by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 30 June 2016, revolved around the selection of athletes for the Australian Olympic trap shooting team for the 2016 Rio Olympics. Mitchell Iles challenged his non-nomination by Shooting Australia’s Shotgun Selection Committee (SSC), which had selected Michael Diamond and Adam Vella for the two available spots, leaving Iles as the reserve athlete. Iles appealed the decision on two grounds: that the nomination criteria were not properly followed and that the decision was affected by actual bias. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed his appeal, prompting Iles to bring the matter before CAS.
The Sole Arbitrator, Alan Sullivan QC, examined the principles governing the discretion of national federations in selecting athletes for major competitions. He emphasized that such discretion must be exercised in good faith and reasonably, both in process and outcome. The arbitrator referenced the legal test for drawing inferences in Australia, which requires circumstances that raise a reasonable and definite inference rather than mere conjecture. On the issue of actual bias, the arbitrator clarified that it exists only if the decision-maker pre-judged the case or displayed partisanship, assessed objectively based on their actions and statements.
The factual background revealed that the SSC had evaluated seven potential athletes, narrowing the choices to Iles, Diamond, and Vella. Diamond was selected for the first spot due to superior performance metrics, including head-to-head results and higher average scores. Vella secured the second spot for similar reasons, leaving Iles as the reserve. The Appeals Tribunal had rejected Iles’ claims, finding no procedural irregularities or evidence of bias. The CAS arbitrator upheld this decision, concluding that the SSC had acted within its discretionary powers, followed the nomination criteria, and made a reasonable and unbiased selection.
However, the arbitrator found that the SSC had failed to properly consider the "Development/2020 Factor," a criterion requiring the evaluation of athletes' potential for future Olympic success. The SSC’s written reasons did not explicitly mention this factor, leading the arbitrator to rule that the Appeals Tribunal erred in not recognizing this omission. The arbitrator dismissed Iles’ claim of actual bias against an SSC member, Mr. Val Timokhan, finding no substantive evidence of improper influence.
Ultimately, the arbitrator set aside the Appeals Tribunal’s decision and referred the matter back to the SSC for reconsideration under the 2016 Nomination Criteria. The arbitrator declined to impose specific terms for the reconsideration, such as a new selection committee, emphasizing that the SSC’s composition and decision-making process were within Shooting Australia’s discretion. The ruling underscored the importance of objective assessment in athlete selection disputes while respecting the autonomy of the SSC. The case highlights the complexities of sports arbitration and the balance between legal scrutiny and the discretion of sports governing bodies.