Hammer thrower Nayoka Clunis’s legal team says it regrets that the outcome of her appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was not better for her and Jamaica.

Clunis, through her legal representatives Dr Emir Crowne and Sayeed Bernard, filed an appeal with CAS’ Ad hoc Division last Thursday after being removed from Jamaica’s athletics team to the Paris Olympic Games. Her name was left off the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association’s (JAAA) updated list sent to World Athletics (WA), the international governing body. The JAAA’s given reason was that it had no electricity or Internet access after the passage of Hurricane Beryl earlier this month.

However, CAS ruled on Monday that it had no jurisdiction to hear Clunis’s application as the dispute arose more than 10 days before the Olympic Games opening ceremony, which takes place on July 26. This is because the 10-day period is when the Ad hoc Division is established, and its jurisdiction begins.

“In the end, the CAS panel did not agree with us, unfortunately — but at least we tried,” Crowne told the Jamaica Observer. “We worked tirelessly for the past week on a pro bono basis, to give the athlete a voice in a situation where she was voiceless, and where transparency and accountability were often lacking.

“It has been a whirlwind few days, but we are genuinely sorry the outcome wasn’t better for her and Jamaica.”

CAS says that the dispute between Clunis and the JAAA could be said to have arisen on July 4, and her name was omitted from the list sent to WA on July 7, while she was informed of her omission by the JAAA on July 8 — when WA told JAAA that it could not add her name to the list of competitors.

The CAS said Clunis knew there would be a challenge with the jurisdiction. It says this is because she said she was only aware of WA’s response to JAAA on the dispute after it made its submission to CAS. This submission was made on July 19, a day after the CAS received Clunis’s appeal.

Until then, Clunis had only received verbal summaries or assurances from the JAAA. Crowne and Bernard argued that the dispute could only have finally “crystallised” once she saw this official response from WA.

“More to the point, in the absence of those particulars, it would be hard for Ms Clunis and her professional advisors to discern the reasoning behind any decisions taken, and give appropriate advice or take appropriate steps,” Crowne said. “In other words, the ‘what’ may be known, but the correspondence sheds light on the ‘why’ and even the ‘how’.”

However, the CAS said it could not accept this submission.

“The relevant date is when the dispute between the athlete and the JAAA arose, not when it could be said to have ‘crystallised’ by the receipt of submissions from WA as an interested party,” it said. “A dispute does not arise when all steps to resolve the dispute have failed. The dispute either arose when the athlete became aware that her name had not been included on the list submitted by the JAAA to WA, or when she first became aware that the mistake would not, or could not, be rectified by WA. The panel does not need to decide which of these dates apply as both are beyond the 10 days prior to the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games.”

But Clunis and the JAAA’s response to this was that the dispute arose on July 15, when JAAA President Garth Gayle wrote to WA, to which there was no response before Clunis’s appeal on July 18.

“First, this is not when the dispute between the athlete and the JAAA arose by reason of the omission of her name,” the CAS responded. “Secondly, jurisdiction cannot be invoked, and a dispute said to have arisen, by repeating a request to resolve a problem. Thirdly, it is clear from the terms of the letter of July 15, 2024, that it refers back to the letter of July 8, 2024, in which WA set out its position and “reminds” WA of its earlier correspondence. Thus, it is effectively a reiteration of the JAAA’s position. In any event, the date of July 15, 2024, is beyond the temporal jurisdiction of the CAS Ad hoc Division.”

The JAAA responded to the outcome saying it was always supportive of Clunis’s bid to reclaim a spot on the team, and that it petitioned WA on her behalf, even if it meant increasing the number of participants in the women’s hammer throw at the Olympics from 32 to 33.

“CAS also made note that the respondent (JAAA) would have been unable to provide the relief being sought by the applicant (Clunis) and that World Athletics and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) would be the ones that could provide that relief,” the JAAA’s statement said. “Again, we are deeply saddened that this situation continues and are making every effort in the hope that World Athletics and the IOC will find a way to enable Ms Clunis to compete in the Olympics.”

Although this ruling presents another obstacle for Clunis to compete in Paris, she still has a slight chance to be added based on world ranking (27th), should one of WA’s named 32 competitors pull out of the Games.