Vincent Gagnon Racquetball Canada Affected Parties
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Introduction Claimant: Vincent Gagnon Respondent: Racquetball Canada Affected Parties: Mike Green, Corey Osborne, and Brian Istace Type of Dispute: Selection to World Championships Arbitrator: Patrice M. Brunet Date of Decision: July 24th, 2004 A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Dispute Summary Vincent Gagnon appealed a ruling by Racquetball Canada that overturned the original National Team selections for the 2004 World Racquetball Championships in Anyang, Korea. A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Background Facts There is no disagreement between the parties about the selection criteria which stated that the Head Coach would choose the members of the Senior National Team. Out of that group, the World Championship Team would be selected based on results from the two most recent monitoring events. The most recent event was worth 67 per cent, and the other worth 33 per cent. Vincent Gagnon was a member of the Senior National Team and was one of the athletes being considered for the World Championship Team. The Head Coach was Michel Gagnon, also Vincent’s father. Given the potential conflict of interest, another national coach (Loren Prentice) was asked to select the world championship team. He also had the authority to name players to either singles or doubles events. A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Background Facts (cont’d) The selection criteria also stated that an athlete who qualified for both singles and doubles would automatically be considered chosen for singles until the team was officially announced by the Head Coach. If such an athlete was chosen to play doubles, he would be replaced in the singles competition by the athlete with the next highest score in singles selection events. Mike Green qualified for both events. Mr. Prentice exercised his discretion and chose Mr. Green for the doubles competition. Based on the criteria, Mr. Gagnon was selected for the singles event as the competitor with the next highest point total. The other selections for the World Championship Team included Brian Istace (singles) and Tom O’Brien (doubles). These selections were appealed by Mike Green – who wanted to play singles – and Corey Osborne – who was displaced by Mr. Gagnon’s higher singles point total. A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Background Facts (cont’d) An internal Appeals Tribunal reviewed the selections. Mr. Prentice was unable to attend that internal hearing. The internal Appeals Tribunal concluded that Mr. Prentice’s decision to assign Mr. Green to the doubles competition was motivated by a desire to have Mr. Gagnon on the team. Citing bias by Mr. Prentice, the internal Appeals Tribunal overruled the selections, choosing instead: Singles: Mike Green and Brian Istace Doubles: Tom O’Brien and Corey Osborne A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Claimant’s Position Vincent Gagnon’s case was based on the following arguments: • That the criteria were fully respected in the selection of the World Championship Team; • That Mr. Prentice had the authority and the discretion to name Mike Green to the doubles competition; and, • That he (Vincent Gagnon) was the proper choice for the singles competition, based on the selection criteria. A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Respondent’s Position Racquetball Canada’s case was based on the assertion that Mr. Prentice’s decision to place Mike Green in the doubles competition was biased. Having Mr. Green play doubles opened up a spot for Vincent Gagnon in the singles competition. Mr. Gagnon would be coached in that competition by his father, Michel, the Head Coach of the World Championship Team. A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Arbitrator’s Analysis Patrice M. Brunet concluded that it was perfectly reasonable that a Head Coach would be given some form of discretion in the case of double qualifiers. Further, while he did not dispute the honest perception of the internal Appeals Tribunal that Mr. Prentice was influenced by bias in choosing the National Team, he found that members of that internal Tribunal had not substantiated their finding with detailed evidence. Furthermore, he concluded that Mr. Prentice had exercised the discretion he had been given by Racquetball Canada and dismissed any suggestion of bias: “There is no doubt in my mind that bias was completely absent in Mr. Prentice’s choice to select the Canadian National Team...His selection may not have been the most popular choice, but it was his choice, exercised within the confines of the selection criteria…” A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Ruling The appeal was granted and the internal Appeals Tribunal decision was quashed. The athletes selected for the World Championship were: Singles: Brian Istace and Vincent Gagnon Doubles: Mike Green and Tom O’Brien Click here for the full text of this ADRsportRED judgment. A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Vincent Gagnon v. Racquetball Canada Lessons Learned 1. Some form of subjectivity is permissible when selecting a team for a major event. 2. Allegations of “bias” are serious and there must be objective facts supporting such allegations other than references to personal relationships. A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.