Michel Larue v. Boulingrin

Introduction

Claimant: Michel Larue

Respondent: Bowls Canada Boulingrin (BCB)

Affected Parties: David Anderson, Lyall Adams, , Keith Roney, Wayne Wright

Type of Dispute: Selection to World Championships

Arbitrator: Paule Gauthier, Q.C.

Date of Decision: July 19th, 2004

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Dispute Summary

Michel Larue appealed a ruling by an internal appeal Panel that confirmed a decision by Bowls Canada Boulingrin (BCB) not to select him to the National Team for the 2004 Men’s World Bowls Championships in Ayr, .

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Background Facts

Michel Larue qualified for the BCB’s 2004 Evaluation Camp based on a two-medal performance at the 2003 Asia-Pacific Games in . BCB’s National Team Committee (NTC) used the Evaluation Camp to select five athletes for the 2004 World Bowls Championship in Ayr, Scotland. During the camp, the participants were advised that only the top ranked player in each of the four positions (skip, vice-skip, second and lead) would be named to the World Bowls Team. From the four top-ranked players, one would be selected to compete in singles. The player ranked second in the position vacated by the singles player would be the fifth team member. Based on the NTC’s evaluation, the five Affected Parties were named to the World Bowls Team. However, on April 20th, 2004, the BCB sent a letter to each player acknowledging that there had been serious problems with the camp.

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Background Facts (cont’d)

On May 28th, an internal Appeals Panel issued a report, confirming there had been many errors in the selection process. The report noted that “there (was) no evidence to support that the assessment tool used at the camp had any validity in identifying and assisting the NTC to select players for World Bowls…If the current scoring system is to be used for future camps, the Appeals Panel strongly recommends the system be completely revamped.” Nevertheless, the Panel decided to send the original 5-member team, based on a conclusion that there were no credible data to justify a change.

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Claimant’s Position

Michel Larue’s case was based on the following arguments: • BCB gave no reason to justify its decision not to select him to the World Bowls Team; • BCB failed to follow its own procedures. and approved policies in selecting the Team; and, • The decision was biased and grossly unreasonable.

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Respondent’s Position

BCB’s case was based on the following arguments: • Participating players at the Evaluation Camp had been fully advised of the selection criteria, which were consistent with previous selection events; • In spite of the many flaws in the process, there was no substantial evidence to warrant any change in team selection; and, • It would be contrary to past practice to take such a decision.

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Arbitrator’s Analysis

Arbitrator, Paule Gauthier, Q.C., disagreed with Mr. Larue’s assertion that the decision not to select him had been biased. The arbitrator pointed out that all the players had been treated the same way and had received the same information. She acknowledged the many errors in the process, but added it was not her role to re-write the criteria – Bowls Canada Boulingrin and the National Team Committee were responsible for the criteria and the selection process. She further determined that, in spite of the flaws in the evaluation, Mr. Larue had been unable to prove his case. The arbitrator concluded that the athlete had to bear at least some of the responsibility for the results since he had not done enough to ensure he had the opportunity to compete at all four positions. Lastly, given the short timeframe leading up to the scheduled departure date for Scotland, it was impossible to order another selection process before the World Championships.

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Ruling

The appeal was dismissed and the original team selections were confirmed for the 2004 World Bowls Championships.

Click here for the full text of this ADRsportRED judgment.

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada Michel Larue v. Bowls Canada Boulingrin

Lessons Learned

Time limits, the shared responsibilities of parties involved, and the potential for error in the selection process are all factors to be considered by an arbitrator when rendering a decision.

A program of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada