The case revolves around a dispute between the Virgin Islands Olympic Committee (VIOC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning the allocation of an additional quota place for the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. The VIOC sought to secure a spot for their skeleton athlete, Kathryn Tannenbaum, who met the minimum qualification criteria but was not allocated a place due to the limited quota positions in women’s skeleton. The International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF) had allocated 20 quota places based on rankings and continental representation, leaving the Virgin Islands seventh in line for reallocation of unused spots, which ultimately excluded them from participation. The VIOC argued for the principle of universal representation, which aims to include athletes from diverse nations, but the IOC maintained that this principle does not guarantee every country the right to participate. The IOC also highlighted its discretion in deciding whether to establish a tripartite commission for winter games, as it does for summer games, to allocate additional spots. The VIOC’s request was denied by the IOC, citing the absence of such mechanisms for winter sports.
The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division, which has jurisdiction over Olympic-related disputes. The panel reviewed submissions from both parties and the IBSF, which provided an amicus curiae brief. A hearing was held, though the IOC and IBSF did not attend in person. The VIOC sought relief to allow Tannenbaum to participate, while the IOC requested the application be rejected. The panel concluded that while universal representation is a fundamental Olympic principle, it does not entitle every country to automatic participation. The IOC has full discretion in setting up mechanisms like the tripartite commission, and past practices of allocating spots to underrepresented countries could not serve as a basis for granting an additional quota place. The panel ruled against the VIOC, upholding the IOC’s decision and denying Tannenbaum’s participation.
The VIOC further argued that the Virgin Islands had recently suffered two devastating hurricanes, making their Olympic representation symbolically significant. They also noted that Tannenbaum had met all qualification criteria and held a higher world standing than some selected athletes. However, the panel found these arguments insufficient to justify an additional quota place. While expressing sympathy for the Virgin Islands’ circumstances, the panel determined that the natural disasters were irrelevant to the universality principle or quota allocation. It also affirmed that the IBSF had properly applied the quota system, and Tannenbaum’s higher standing did not influence the outcome. The panel dismissed the VIOC’s application, upholding the IBSF’s quota system and rejecting the request for Tannenbaum’s participation. The decision concluded the case without further recourse.