The case revolves around Alexander Peternell, a South African event rider, who contested decisions by the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) and the South African Equestrian Federation (SAEF) that excluded him from the 2012 London Olympics in favor of another rider, Paul Hart. The dispute centered on the selection process, with SASCOC citing its Memorandum of Association, which required athlete nominations to be based on recommendations from national federations like SAEF. Peternell challenged the initial decisions, leading to a ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on July 21, 2012, which found in his favor, annulling the earlier selections and declaring him eligible for the Olympics. Despite this, SAEF later refused to endorse Peternell, arguing he did not meet SASCOC’s general selection policy and that Hart was better prepared. In response, SASCOC informed the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) that South Africa would not field an eventing competitor, citing SAEF’s refusal to recommend Peternell. Peternell then filed another appeal with CAS, challenging these new decisions.
The legal issues focused on SASCOC’s authority to select athletes and the role of national federations in providing recommendations. The CAS panel emphasized that while National Olympic Committees (NOCs) like SASCOC rely on national federations for technical expertise, a CAS decision resolving a selection dispute could override the need for a federation’s recommendation. The panel ruled that SASCOC could not justify its refusal to select Peternell based on SAEF’s non-recommendation after CAS had already determined his eligibility. It found SASCOC’s decision to withdraw South Africa’s participation unjustified and ordered Peternell’s selection for the Olympics. The panel also dismissed SAEF’s arguments, including unfounded claims about Peternell’s horse not meeting registration requirements, and criticized SAEF’s stance as contrary to the Olympic Charter and principles of fair play.
The final CAS ruling annulled the contested decisions by SAEF and SASCOC, declared Peternell eligible for the Olympic team, and mandated his inclusion, emphasizing the binding nature of CAS decisions and the importance of procedural fairness. The case highlights the balance between NOC autonomy in athlete selection and adherence to legal and sporting principles, reinforcing that once CAS resolves a dispute, NOCs must comply, even if national federations withhold recommendations. The decision underscored the need for transparency and consistency in athlete selection processes, ensuring fairness and upholding the integrity of Olympic participation.