Overview:

Appeal against non-nomination for Olympics – shooter appealed his non-nomination for Olympics in men’s prone event – another shooter nominated ahead of him in this event and he did not appeal this – NSO had one unused transfer quota available and nominated competitor (W) in another event (air pistol) – both appellant and W had met qualifying standards for Olympic nomination but only one spot available – appellant argued he should have been nominated instead in the prone event – interpretation of NSO’s quota reallocation criteria – meaning of “designated matches” and determining which shooting matches to be taken into account in working out which shooter had better performance and should have been nominated – appellant argued relevant matches to be considered were entire series of qualifying matches held over more than a year and if so he had better high score results than W and should have been nominated – NSO argued relevant events were 3 ranking matches held over 2 months in which W had performed better – Tribunal held on objective interpretation of criteria it was the 3 ranking matches that had to be considered not the entire series of events – W had performed better on results of the 3 matches – appeal dismissed.