New Zealand: The easy allegation that is hard to prove: appealing selection decisions in sport affected by bias

Regardless of how they were appointed, most selectors will have allegations of bias levelled at them in some form during their tenure.

This is simply a reality of the modern world we live in, where competition is fierce and the stakes in sport (both amateur and professional) are high.

This article will look at the allegations of bias that have arisen in the New Zealand Sports Tribunal (Tribunal) and Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to explore how they tend to be decided and the differences between actual and apparent bias.

As will be shown, only on very rare occasions are selection appeals based on bias successful.

A high standard of proof

The standard of proof required for selection appeals alleging bias is very high, primarily because selection decisions are inherently subjective. Selectors are chosen because they are deemed to be the people who are able to best exercise their discretion.

To successfully appeal a selection decision affected by bias, an appellant will have to:

  1. prove actual bias; or
  2. if apparent bias is a valid ground of appeal (through its inclusion in National Sporting Organisation (NSO) rules or selection agreements) then an appellant will need a direct piece of evidence which infers a pre-disposition of the selector(s), supported by other examples of the likelihood of bias.

What is bias?

Bias is partiality; a tendency to be less than disinterested.1

In a selection decision context, bias is when a selector is pre-disposed towards favouring one candidate over another, before taking into account all the other selection criteria.

It is largely agreed that there are two kinds of bias: actual bias and apparent bias (presumed bias being a subset of apparent bias).2 Actual bias is when a decision maker acts in a way that precludes him or her from effectively exercising the discretion required of such a decision maker. "Actual bias only exists where the decision maker has pre-judged the case against a party or acted with such partisanship or hostility as to show that the decision maker had his or her mind made up against the party and was not open to persuasion in favour of the party".3

Apparent bias is when there is no actual bias but there exists other reasons (e.g. family connections) why a decision maker is pre-disposed towards making a decision in a certain way.

How do you prove bias?

Proving bias is the most difficult part of the selection appeal process. The Tribunal and CAS do not treat allegations of selection bias lightly; this can be seen in the Tribunal's policy to only allow selection appeals based on actual bias in the absence of NSO rules or agreements to the contrary.4

Whether actual bias exists is an "objective inquiry which requires an assessment of the state of the mind of the decision maker, which is an objective inquiry to ascertain what the decision maker said and did."5

To put it simply, there must be direct evidence that the selector(s) had already 'made up their mind' before they made the relevant selection decisions. As will be explained below, in the absence of direct proof of bias the Tribunal and CAS will not set aside a selection decision.

In the absence of NSO rules or selection agreements to the contrary, selection decisions can only be overturned in New Zealand if there is actual bias. This is a strict rule. In Daisy Thomas v Surfing New Zealand6 (the leading case in New Zealand sports law concerned with selection decisions), the Tribunal found there was no ability for the appellant to argue apparent bias even when the NSO accepted that there was.

Unfortunately for appellants, there are not many NSO rules or selection agreements which provide for a selection decision to be overturned based on apparent bias. However, despite this, apparent bias is discussed regularly in Tribunal decisions.

There are a number of common allegations that are relied upon in selection appeals to the Tribunal that can be discussed here. Before appealing an athlete should recognise that:

  1. Allegations of negatively charged conversations with a selector or hearsay evidence of a selector's comments, without conclusive evidence that they occurred, will not be enough to convince the Tribunal that there was apparent bias.7
  2. An appellant cannot rely on the existence of a national, high performance or any other sort of 'team' to allege bias.8 If that team is one which is organised in the normal development of the sport then its existence will not automatically mean those associated with it will be biased towards its members. Once again, there needs to be conclusive evidence of a likely bias before the Tribunal will begin to view such a team as leading to the potential for bias to occur.
  3. "The simple fact of association through coaching will not usually meet the test of 'apparent bias' required by law ".9 Especially in New Zealand where there are limited numbers of participants in any given sport, an association, even a strong one, will not be enough to prove apparent bias. Once again, direct evidence that bias existed will be needed.10 That, along with the existence of other supporting factors like a close coaching relationship may be enough to persuade the Tribunal to set aside a selection decision due to apparent bias.
  4. A sporting body's act of funding some athletes and not others will not automatically give rise to an allegation of bias if a reasonable and logical explanation for the difference in funding can be given.11 It is common knowledge that sports organisations have limited funds; there will never be enough to fully satisfy everyone in the sport. The Tribunal recognises this problem and therefore an appellant will need to have direct evidence of the likelihood of bias and associate this with the lack of funding to bolster their allegation of apparent bias.
  5. Evidence of a previous disagreement between a selector and an athlete will not be enough on its own to give rise to a finding of apparent bias.12 If the disagreement is complicated and unable to be easily deciphered by the Tribunal, it is unlikely that it will attempt to do so. The Tribunal is likely to admit it is not in a position to adjudicate on the rights and wrongs of the dispute, and will simply acknowledge that it occurred.13 Only if the dispute leads to the likelihood of bias, and there are other supporting factors that would lead a reasonable observer to doubt the independence of the selector, will the Tribunal seriously consider setting aside the selection decision on the basis of apparent bias.

What Tribunal and CAS decisions show are that appeal bodies are extremely unlikely to set aside a selection decision unless it is completely confident there has been an element of bias involved in the decision. It will not accept allegations of bias if these are supported by hearsay evidence.

Put simply, if it comes down to a he-said she-said kind of argument, the Tribunal or CAS will be unwilling to decide the matter.

What an appellant needs to successfully argue apparent bias, is conclusive evidence inferring a selector has a predisposed mind, coupled with a number of other circumstances that support the allegation.

An email, a letter or an undisputed set of events that directly show a predisposed mindset will put the Tribunal on notice that bias could possibly have affected the selector's decision. The reasonableness of the further supporting circumstances will then allow the Tribunal to decide if the selector's mind was affected by bias when making a selection decision. If there is no other logical explanation for the supporting circumstances and there is evidence that bias is likely, the Tribunal and CAS will be more willing to find the decision was affected by bias.

What will the Tribunal/CAS do?

The final hurdle appellants need to consider is whether or not the level of bias is such that the Tribunal will be willing to set aside the selector's decision and make the selection decision itself, or if it will favour reverting it back to the sporting body to decide once again (usually with instructions on how to proceed). No athlete particularly wants a selection decision, which they feel is affected by bias, to be referred back to the selectors or organisation that made the decision being appealed against.

While a decision by the Tribunal to select the athlete (instead of referring it back to the selectors) is usually the ultimate goal of an appellant, it does not happen often. This is because selection decisions are not often set aside based on bias, but usually a combination of things amounting to a failure to adhere to proper processes. Those processes can be fixed with strict instructions from the Tribunal. Bias usually cannot.

If there is one piece of advice to appellants, it is that without at least one piece of direct evidence proving a pre-disposition of the selector's mind (or a strong inference of pre-disposition), it will be very difficult to successfully argue the selector's decision was affected by bias.


Here is a checklist that might be helpful for an appellant to follow when looking to challenge a selection decision affected by bias:

  1. Do I have direct evidence that the selector was pre-disposed towards a certain selection? This can be either:
    1. written evidence (e.g. email, letter); and/or
    2. events that are undisputed by either side.
  2. Are there other circumstances that look particularly suspicious given the existence of the above evidence?
  3. If I was the selector, what would my argument be in response to the allegations?
  4. Is the evidence and/or suspicious circumstance able to be negated by the selector simply by disagreeing with my claims?
  5. If I combine the evidence with the supporting circumstances, does it paint a picture of bias that any person completely uninvolved with the dispute would recognise?

Download article in PDF format


1 Spiller, Butterworths New Zealand Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (Wellington, LexisNexis NZ Ltd, 2005).

2 Smith, The New Zealand Judicial Review Handbook (Wellington, Brookers Ltd, 2011) 615.

3 Mitchell Iles v Shooting Australia CAS (Oceania Registry) A1/2016.

4 Rule 42(e)(iii) of the Rules.

5 Mitchell Iles, 14.

6 (SDT/09/06, 9 April 2006).

7 For example, in Miller the appellant accused the selector of previously informing her that he had the power to eliminate her from being eligible for the Olympics if he so wished, in favour of an athlete he coached. The selector argued this conversation was taken out of context and in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary the Tribunal was not able to rely on the appellant's narrative.

8 Bias v Cycling New Zealand (ST 08/15, 3 July 2015); Maria Belen Simari Birkner v Comite Olimpico Argentino (COA) & Federacion Argentina de Ski y Andinismo (FASA) 13 February 2014 Arbitration CAS ad hoc Division (OG Sochi) 14/003.

9 Thomas v Surfing New Zealand (SDT 09/06, 19 April 2006), [65].

10 Hunter-Galvan v Athletics New Zealand Inc (ST 07/08, 20 June 2008), [102] – [104].

11 Winther v Yachting New Zealand (ST 04/16, 1 June 2016), [24] – [25].

12 Her-Lee v Table Tennis New Zealand (ST 08/14, 2 July 2014), [21].

13 Ibid.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions