Link copied to clipboard!
2018 Skiing / Ski Eligibility Dismissed English Ad hoc Procedure

Parties & Representatives

Appellant: Jeffrey Zina
Appellant Representative: Roland Ziadé

Arbitrators

President: John Faylor

Decision Information

Decision Date: February 14, 2018

Case Summary

The case involves Jeffrey Zina, a 19-year-old Lebanese alpine skier, who challenged his non-selection by the Lebanese Olympic Committee (LOC) for the XXIII Olympic Winter Games in PyeongChang. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division, focusing on the LOC's authority to select athletes under the Olympic Charter. Zina argued that his superior performance and ranking in the FIS Points List, particularly in slalom, should have secured his selection over Allen Behlok and Naim Fenianos, who were recommended by the Lebanese Ski Federation (LSF). The LOC defended its decision, citing the discretion granted to national federations in athlete selection, provided the criteria were published and applied fairly. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the USA, Vietnam, and Germany, reviewed the case and held a hearing on February 14, 2018. Zina sought the annulment of the LOC's decision and his inclusion in the Olympic team, claiming the process was irregular, arbitrary, and lacked transparency. He highlighted the LOC's failure to communicate with him during a critical period and its inconsistent statements about selection criteria. The LOC countered that additional local criteria, such as ranking in the 2017 Lebanese Championship, were communicated to clubs and athletes, and Behlok met both FIS and local requirements. The panel concluded that the LSF and LOC acted within their rights, emphasizing the broad discretion national federations have in Olympic selections. It noted that while the process could have been more transparent, there was no evidence of abuse of discretion. The panel dismissed Zina's application, upholding the LOC's decision and reaffirming the autonomy of national federations and Olympic committees in athlete selection. The ruling underscored the balance between athlete merit and the authority of national bodies, highlighting the challenges of aligning national and international selection standards. The case serves as a reminder of the deference given to national federations in such decisions, even when contested by athletes.

Share This Case