The case revolves around Isabella Dal Balcon, a 28-year-old Italian snowboarder, who contested her exclusion from the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) and the Italian Winter Sports Federation (FISI). The dispute centered on the selection criteria for the Parallel Giant Slalom (PGS) event, which allowed only four female athletes to compete. Initially, the criteria were outlined in an October 2005 document, basing qualification on World Cup results from September 2005, with adjustments for the last three pre-Olympic races. However, these criteria were not formally communicated to the athletes, who were instead informed orally by their coach, Andrea Grisa. On January 13, 2006, Grisa unilaterally introduced the "2-best rule," which considered only the two best results from the World Cup races, a change not relayed to Dal Balcon. This rule led to the selection of four other athletes, excluding Dal Balcon, who learned of her non-selection via a letter from FISI on February 1, 2006.
Dal Balcon argued that the late modification of the criteria was arbitrary and unfair, as it was introduced without notice and applied retroactively. CONI and FISI defended the selection as discretionary and based on objective performance metrics, though they admitted the criteria were not formally communicated. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc panel found the 2-best rule to be arbitrary and unfair, particularly due to its late introduction and lack of communication to Dal Balcon. The panel emphasized that such changes undermine the integrity of the selection process, especially when athletes are not given adequate notice. Consequently, the panel ruled in Dal Balcon's favor, annulling CONI and FISI's decision and granting her the right to participate in the Olympics. The panel also ordered CONI and FISI to cover arbitration costs and ensure Dal Balcon received the same support as other Olympic athletes.
The case highlights the challenges of ensuring fairness in athlete selection, particularly under the tight timelines of Olympic preparations. The panel distinguished this case from others where discretion was properly exercised, noting that FISI had not used discretion but had instead followed a flawed directive. The ruling underscored the importance of transparency, fairness, and timely communication in high-stakes competitions. Ultimately, the panel declared Dal Balcon eligible for the team based on the original October 2005 criteria, disregarding the arbitrary 2-best rule, and ordered her immediate inclusion in the Olympic team. The decision serves as a reminder of the critical need for clear and consistent communication of selection criteria to all athletes.