The case revolves around Maria Belen Simari Birkner, an Argentine alpine skier, who contested her exclusion from the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi by the Argentine Olympic Committee (COA) and the Argentine Ski Federation (FASA). She filed a claim with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, arguing that the selection process was unfair, discriminatory, and lacked transparency. The key issues examined by the panel included whether the dispute fell within the CAS ad hoc Division’s jurisdictional timeframe and whether the selection criteria applied by FASA were arbitrary or biased. The panel determined that the dispute arose on January 20, 2014, when FASA communicated its decision, which was outside the ten-day jurisdictional window preceding the Games’ Opening Ceremony. Despite this, the panel addressed the merits of the case due to the parties’ extensive arguments.
Simari Birkner claimed that her exclusion was motivated by bias against her family’s historical dominance in Argentine skiing, alleging that the National Team Program was designed to limit their influence. She also argued that the selection criteria, which prioritized domestic and regional competitions over international standings, were not disclosed in advance, disadvantaging her. Additionally, she contended that the equipment used in certain races differed from Olympic standards, affecting her performance. However, the panel found no concrete evidence to support her claims of discrimination or unfair treatment. It noted that two of her siblings and a cousin were selected for the team, and her parents were appointed as coaches, undermining her assertion of systemic bias. The panel also highlighted that she and her family had received financial support from various programs, including Olympic Solidarity.
The panel upheld FASA’s discretion in applying subjective criteria, such as future potential and long-term development, emphasizing that such evaluations are legitimate in athlete selection. It concluded that the Technical Committee’s decision was reasoned and not arbitrary, even though the criteria were not formally codified or communicated beforehand. The panel dismissed Simari Birkner’s claims, stating that her dissatisfaction with the selection process did not amount to a violation of fairness or reasonableness. The case underscores the challenges in proving discrimination in athlete selection and the deference given to national sports bodies in determining Olympic participation. While the panel recommended clearer communication of selection criteria to avoid future disputes, it affirmed that the CAS ad hoc Division lacked jurisdiction to overturn the decision. Even if jurisdiction had been established, the claims would have failed on the merits due to insufficient evidence of bias or unfairness. The ruling highlights the balance between objective qualifications and subjective discretion in Olympic selection processes.