Report on the Major Games Team Selection Cases
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Report on the Major Games Team Selection Cases September 10th, 2002 Prepared by ADRSPORTRED Steering Committee A l t e rnative Dispute Resolution for Sport table of content 3 INTRODUCTION 4 PARTICIPANTS A. Acknowledgements 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 A. Recommendations 7 B. Observations 9 REVIEW OF THE SELECTION CASES I. Interim ADRSPORTRED Program: An Overview A. Background B. Administration of ADRsportRED 10 II. Review of Team Selection Cases A. Overview of Cases B. Selection for a World Cup Event C.Selection for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games 1. SUMMARY 12 2. CASES BIATHLON 13 SNOWBOARD BOBSLEIGH ALPINE SKIING 14 3. ADMINISTRATION 15 D. Selection for the 2002 Paralympic Winter Games 1. ADMINISTRATION E. Selection for the 2002 Commonwealth Games 1. SUMMARY 17 2. SWIMMING CASES CONTEXT CONCERNS 18 i. Joinder of Cases ii. Supplementary Decisions 19 iii. Judicial Challenge 20 iv. Administrative Process 21 v. Internal Appeal Process 22 vi. Independence of the System 23 3. WRESTLING CASE III. Recommendations 24 CONCLUSION 25 Appendix 1 – Summary of Cases - 2002 26 Appendix 2 – COA Team Selection Appeal Procedures 31 Appendix 3 – Notice of Appeal 33 Appendix 4 – Intervention of an Added Party 34 Appendix 5 – Notice of Confirmation by COA 35 Appendix 6 – Standard Letter - Initiating Process 38 Appendix 7 – Outline of Facts and Sequence of Events 40 Appendix 8 – Code Revision REPORT ON THE MAJOR GAMES TEAM SELECTION CASES i n t r o d u c t i o n TThe purpose of this report is to provide a review, assessment and analysis of the selection cases heard to date by ADRsportRED, including those cases related to the selection of the Canadian Olympic Team for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City, the Canadian Paralympic Team for the 2002 Paralympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City and the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. This report provides some suggestions for improvement to existing procedures as well as an opportunity for users of the program to better understand how the program works. 5 REPORT ON THE MAJOR GAMES TEAM SELECTION CASES p a r t i c i p a n t s This report has been prepared by the members of the TADRsportRED Steering Committee, with input from the Co-Chief Arbitrators, Richard H. McLaren and L. Yves Fortier, C.C., Q.C., for the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), the Honourable Paul DeVillers, P.C., M.P., and the Canadian sport community. The members of the Steering Committee, followed A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS by their appointing body, are: The Steering Committee would like to recognize MEMBERS and acknowledge the significant amount of input • Mr. Gordon Peterson received from members of the sport community. Chair Many of the participants in the selection cases to date • Ms. Sue Scherer were invited to provide information on their expe- Commonwealth Games Canada riences and to make recommendations to the Steering • Ms. Carla Qualtrough Committee on ways to improve the system. AthletesCAN ADRsportRED is a new system and the Steering • Dr. Bruce Kidd Committee has been charged with the responsibi- ADR Implementation Committee lity to improve the system over time and to oversee • Dr. Jean-Guy Ouellet the implementation of such improvements. ADR Implementation Committee • Mr. Marc Lemay 6 Canadian Olympic Committee EX-OFFICIO • Mr. Joseph de Pencier Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) • Mr. Benoit Girardin, AMG inc. Executive Director CO-CHIEF ARBITRATORS • Mr. L. Yves Fortier, C.C., Q.C. • Mr. Richard H. McLaren REPORT ON THE MAJOR GAMES TEAM SELECTION CASES executive summary As noted by the Honourable Paul DeVillers, Secretary event was dealt with on an ad hoc basis. In all cases, Aof State (Amateur Sport), in a press release issued ADRsportRED has rendered its decisions in a timely July 10, 2002, “It is always unfortunate when disputes ma n n e r , utilizing qualified, experienced sport arbitrators. arise between athletes and sport organizations, A table describing those cases, the parties involved, especially over participation at major games. The identifying the arbitrators and indicating the time interim Alternative Dispute Resolution for Sport periods over which they were resolved, is attached Program (AD R s p o r t R E D ) was created to give athletes as Appendix 1. All decisions for those cases are and sport organizations access to timely resolution public and are available on the ADRsportRED Web site of conflicts.” (w w w. A D R s p o r t R E D . c a) in the Resource Centre The creation of the A D R s p o r t R E D section. program was considered necessary “It is always unfortunate The initial experience with the because of the lack of consistency of when disputes arise AD R s p o r t R E D program in selection approach for dealing with sport between athletes and matters occurred prior to the disputes, inherent conflicts and ques- Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake tionable outcomes. The program sport org a n i z a t i o n s , C i t y. Four selection cases were was introduced as an alternative to especially over parti- handled in a timely, cost-effective litigation, an often costly, time- cipation at major manner using specially prepared consuming process which destroys games. The interim procedural rules. No controversies relationships and takes a huge A l t e rnative Dispute arose out of the cases handled and personal toll on those involved. Resolution for Sport parties appeared relatively content with Selection cases, in particular, have Pr o g ram (ADRsportRED) the outcomes reached. frequently been the subject of litigation was created to give and have also demonstrated a wide Unlike the specially prepared proce- 7 variance in the expertise of panel athletes and sport dural rules for the Olympic Winter members and the procedural o rganizations access Games, the Commonwealth Games fairness for parties involved when to timely resolution of in Manchester offered an opportunity handled outside the courts. conflicts.” to use the regular procedural rules in the AD R s p o r t R E D Code for selection Since its inception, the ADRsportRED cases. Although cases were still program has heard eight cases related to team handled in a timely manner and on a cost-effective selection, including those relating to selection to the basis, the need for some improvements was identi- Canadian Olympic Team for Salt Lake City, U.S.A. fied. and the Canadian Commonwealth Games Team for M a n c h e s t e r, U.K. In addition, prior to its official AD R s p o r t R E D has established an objective to create opening, a test case involving a national sport fede- expertise in a body of arbitrators for selection disputes. ration (NSF), a selection dispute for a world cup Each new case proceeding through the AD R s p o r t R E D REPORT ON THE MAJOR GAMES TEAM SELECTION CASES program provides experience that can lead to 3. A checklist needs to be developed for the Court improvements in the program. While the program Office to outline the sequence of events to be has performed well to date in delivering considered performed in a typical arbitration and a special outcomes to disputes on a timely basis, AD R s p o r t R E D chart for expedited measures similar to that has made some observations and developed some prepared for Salt Lake City selection. Additional recommendations for improvements to the system checklists for the Court Office should also be as a result of its recent experience with selection developed to enable a new case administrator to disputes. These improvements are identified in the pick up a case in midstream if necessary. recommendations and observations which follow. 4. The Court Office must maintain close contact with the Executive Director to ensure a smooth tran- A. RECOMMENDATIONS ARE: sition in the event of staff turnover. 1. Revise initiating process. “Friendly” user forms 5. The Court Office is to review its filing system (pref- to be developed which provide relevant and ereably using a “per case and per piece” system) essential instructions to the user of the form. to ensure that documents are readily accessible Consider adapting the forms used for Salt Lake to any added parties. City (specially prepared initiating process) to 6. Given the inexperience of the users, the the existing initiating process under the Code. A D R s p o r t R E D program should be open to Each form should contain a provision outlining clarifying, as much as reasonably possible, the intent the names of others who may be affected by the of its decisions. If a party requests clarification, appeal. For selection cases, the Respondent rather than assuming it is clear, the AD R s p o r t R E D shall certify that it is not aware of any other should outline the reasons for the decision in clear, parties likely to be affected. 8 unambiguous language. Where it involves inter- 2. Ongoing education of the users is required. pretation of more than one decision, the A communication plan has been developed but decision should be made by the Chief Arbitrator implementation may need to be accelerated – and the Code shall be amended to permit inter- the AD R s p o r t R E D Program needs to do more pretation of decisions for clarification purposes in order to familiarize people with the program by the Co-Chief Arbitrator. and how it works. Suggestions include enhancing 7. The Court Office is to create a distribution list, the website and providing informative booklets.