The case revolves around Clyde Getty, an Argentinean freestyle skier specializing in aerials, who sought eligibility to compete in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The dispute arose when the International Ski Federation (FIS) initially offered Argentina a quota spot for the aerials event but later retracted it, stating that Getty did not meet the eligibility criteria. Getty, who had competed in previous Olympics, argued that he had a legitimate expectation to participate based on the initial offer. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division was tasked with resolving the matter. Under the Freestyle Skiing Qualification System (FSQS), athletes must meet two conditions to compete in the Olympics: they must be eligible by placing in the top 30 in a FIS World Cup event or the Aerials World Championships and have at least 80 FIS points, and their National Olympic Committee (NOC) must be allocated a quota place. Getty had accumulated only 65 FIS points, falling short of the requirement. Despite this, Argentina's NOC initially accepted the quota spot offered by FIS on January 24, 2014, based on an email from FIS. However, FIS later rescinded the offer, acknowledging it had failed to verify Getty's eligibility beforehand.
Getty filed an application with CAS, requesting a declaration of his eligibility and orders for FIS and the IOC to allow his participation. The CAS panel examined the case and emphasized that qualification rules are designed to provide a predictable framework and must be applied consistently. It found that Getty did not meet the eligibility criteria and that no legitimate expectation could arise from FIS's initial offer, as the federation had not made any prior representations or assurances about his eligibility. The panel also noted that considerations of fairness, age, or sporting career are policy matters, not legal questions, and thus outside its purview. Getty argued that he was eligible based on the re-allocation of unused quota places, as Argentina’s NOC had been listed as "Eligible" in FIS’s Summary of Quota Allocation Lists. He contended that FIS’s initial offer of a quota place created a legitimate expectation that he could compete and that FIS was estopped from later denying his eligibility. Getty also emphasized fairness and the spirit of the Olympic Movement, noting his status as the only male freestyle athlete from South America and his adequate preparation for high-level competition, even if he was not a medal contender.
FIS, in response, argued that Getty’s description of the qualification process was incorrect. They clarified that quota spots are assigned to NOCs, not individual athletes, and that athletes must meet specific eligibility criteria, including achieving a minimum level of FIS points. FIS maintained that Getty did not meet these criteria and emphasized the need for consistent application of rules to all athletes. They denied any hostile treatment toward Getty and stated that their email briefly allocating a quota spot to Getty’s NOC was revoked within hours, thus not creating a legitimate expectation. The Panel rejected Getty's appeal, upholding FIS's decision to withdraw the quota spot. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to established qualification criteria and clarified that procedural errors by federations do not create enforceable rights for athletes who fail to meet those criteria. The case highlights the strict application of eligibility rules in Olympic sports and the limited scope for exceptions based on equitable considerations. The Panel concluded that Getty did not meet the FSQS eligibility requirements and that FIS was not estopped from denying him a quota place. The decision was based on the clear language of the FSQS, the absence of any binding representations by FIS, and the lack of precedent supporting Getty's arguments. Ultimately, the CAS ad hoc Division rejected Getty's application, upholding FIS's decision to deny him a quota place for the Sochi OWG. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to established qualification rules, even in cases involving athletes with notable achievements or compelling personal circumstances.