The case revolves around a dispute concerning the eligibility of two New Zealand alpine skiers, Todd Haywood and Jesse Teat, to compete in the Slalom and Giant Slalom events at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The New Zealand Olympic Committee (NZOC) had entered both athletes for these events based on their International Ski Federation (FIS) rankings, which placed them within the top 500 in one discipline each—Haywood in Slalom and Teat in Giant Slalom. The NZOC submitted the necessary entry forms to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) in December 2001, and during a Delegation Registration Meeting in January 2002, SLOC confirmed the entries without raising any eligibility concerns. However, on February 18, 2002, SLOC informed the athletes that Haywood was ineligible for Giant Slalom and Teat for Slalom, citing their failure to meet the top 500 ranking requirement in those specific disciplines. The NZOC sought clarification, and the matter was referred to FIS, which upheld the ineligibility decision. The NZOC then escalated the issue to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and subsequently to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Dirk-Reiner Martens, Massimo Coccia, and Hans Nater, held a hearing on February 19, 2002, with representatives from NZOC, SLOC, FIS, and the IOC. The NZOC argued that SLOC's initial acceptance of the entries had led the athletes to prepare for both events, making their late exclusion unfair under the principle of estoppel. SLOC admitted it had failed to flag the eligibility issue during registration, while FIS maintained that the qualification system aimed to limit competitors and that the NZOC's interpretation would undermine this intent. The panel did not resolve the dispute over the interpretation of the Qualification System but instead focused on the principle of estoppel, ruling that SLOC and FIS were estopped from enforcing their interpretation due to their prior acceptance of the entries. The panel emphasized that the athletes had relied on SLOC's confirmation and prepared accordingly, making their exclusion unjust.
The decision highlighted ambiguities in the Qualification System, which did not explicitly state whether a top 500 ranking in one discipline granted eligibility for all disciplines. The panel referenced a similar case from the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, which had prompted the IOC to clarify its regulations. While acknowledging the potential for broader participation under the NZOC's interpretation, the panel suggested future regulations specify that eligibility is discipline-specific. Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of the NZOC, allowing Haywood and Teat to compete in both events, underscoring the importance of procedural fairness and the consequences of administrative errors in high-stakes sporting events. The ruling reinforced the doctrine of estoppel by representation and the need for clear communication in Olympic eligibility processes.