The case involves a dispute between the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Bobsleigh et de Tobogganing (FIBT) over the allocation of a quota place for the Women’s 2-man Bobsleigh event at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The AOC challenged the FIBT’s decision to deny Australia a quota place, arguing that the FIBT misinterpreted its own Qualification System, specifically the "Continental Representation" rule. The FIBT had allocated quota places to several nations, including multiple teams to Germany, the USA, Canada, Switzerland, Britain, and Russia, among others. The FIBT justified its decision by stating that since Australia already had two teams qualified in the men’s events, Oceania was considered represented, and thus no additional quota was available for the women’s event.
The FIBT’s Qualification System, developed in collaboration with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), guaranteed participation for top teams, the host nation, and non-represented continents, provided athletes met specific ranking criteria. The system recognized five continents and allowed for one men’s or women’s team per non-represented continent if pilots met performance requirements. The AOC argued that the FIBT’s interpretation was incorrect, as the Qualification System intended continental representation to apply at all stages of allocation, not just during the reallocation of unused quotas.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division heard the case, with a panel composed of Prof. Michael Geistlinger, Mr. Henri Alvarez, and Prof. Ulrich Haas. The Brazilian Ice Sport Confederation (CBDG) also intervened, claiming its women’s bobsleigh team was higher-ranked than Australia’s and questioning Ireland’s qualification. The CAS panel had to determine whether the FIBT’s interpretation of the Qualification System was correct and whether the AOC’s appeal should be upheld.
The CAS panel ruled that the FIBT’s Qualification System clearly intended continental representation to mean one men’s or women’s team per non-represented continent, not both. Since Australia already had representation in the men’s events, it was not entitled to an additional quota in the women’s event. The panel emphasized that the FIBT’s interpretation aligned with the system’s wording and structure, rejecting the AOC’s argument that continental representation applied independently for each event. The decision upheld the FIBT’s allocation of quota places, confirming that the AOC’s appeal was unfounded.
However, in a subsequent ruling, the CAS panel reconsidered the interpretation of the Continental Representation rule, concluding that the word "and" in the rule should be interpreted as "in addition," ensuring non-represented continents could field one men’s team and one women’s team, rather than being limited to one or the other. This interpretation aligned with the document’s structure, which treated men’s and women’s events separately. The panel rejected arguments that the rule granted discretion to choose between men’s or women’s teams, emphasizing the clear language of the Qualification System.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of the AOC, ordering the FIBT to allocate a continental quota place to Oceania and recommending the addition of a 21st place for the Women’s Bob Event to accommodate the AOC without displacing another team. The panel noted that such adjustments had been made in previous cases and referenced an email from the FIBT Secretary General supporting the inclusion of an additional team. However, the panel clarified that it could not mandate the inclusion of a 21st team, as this required approval from the IOC and the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC). The final decision upheld the AOC’s application, partially set aside the FIBT’s decision, and denied all other relief requests. The case highlights the complexities of Olympic qualification rules and the role of CAS in resolving such disputes.