The case revolves around a dispute between Jamaican bobsled athlete Jazmine Fenlator-Victorian and the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) concerning the allocation of the final quota spot for the 2-woman bobsleigh event at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. The conflict arose when Fenlator-Victorian tied with French athlete Margot Boch in the IBSF ranking list, each with 674 points. The tie was broken in favor of Boch based on the IBSF Qualification System, granting France the quota spot instead of Jamaica. Fenlator-Victorian challenged this decision, arguing that the IBSF Executive Committee's decision to count a rescheduled race twice unfairly advantaged Boch. The dispute centered on whether the double-counting of points from a canceled race on December 4, 2021, was justified under IBSF rules and whether it violated principles of fairness and non-discrimination.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined several legal issues, including Fenlator-Victorian's standing to appeal, the principle of non-retroactivity, and reliance on good faith. The CAS emphasized that standing to appeal requires a protectable or legitimate interest, meaning the applicant must be directly affected by the decision with a tangible sporting or financial stake. While Fenlator-Victorian had standing to challenge the ranking calculation, the Panel ruled she lacked standing to request quota reallocations or additional spots, as these decisions fall under the authority of National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Panel also addressed the IBSF Executive Committee's decision to double-count the results of a race on December 5, 2021, to compensate for the canceled race. Fenlator-Victorian argued this decision lacked a legal basis and unfairly impacted her qualification chances, while the IBSF defended it as a necessary measure under Article 22 of its Statutes, which grants the Committee discretion to address unforeseen disruptions.
The CAS Panel acknowledged the practical challenges faced by the IBSF, including logistical constraints and the COVID-19 pandemic, which made rescheduling the canceled race impossible. While the double-counting solution was imperfect, the Panel found it a reasonable compromise to ensure fairness for European athletes who otherwise would have had fewer qualifying opportunities. The Panel concluded that the Executive Committee acted within its discretionary powers and that the decision did not constitute discrimination or procedural unfairness. Fenlator-Victorian's claims of gender and nationality-based discrimination were dismissed, as the decision applied uniformly to all athletes, and she failed to meet the minimum sporting requirements for World Cup participation. The Panel also noted that her failure to appeal the Executive Committee's decision earlier undermined her reliance on good faith.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the IBSF's decision, dismissing Fenlator-Victorian's application. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to qualification rules while recognizing the discretionary authority of international federations to address exceptional circumstances. The case highlighted the complexities of ensuring equitable opportunities in Olympic qualification, particularly for athletes from smaller or non-European nations facing systemic disadvantages. The Panel's decision reaffirmed the balance between procedural fairness and the finality of qualification decisions in elite sports, emphasizing the need for timely challenges and the deference given to federations in administering their rules. The outcome left the quota allocation unchanged, with France retaining the spot, and Fenlator-Victorian unable to compete in the 2022 Winter Olympics.