• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

SPORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE OF CANADA CENTRE DE RÈGLEMENT DES DIFFÉRENDS SPORTIFS DU CANADA No.: SDRCC 15-0281 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Natasha Wodak (Claimant) AND Athletics Canada (Respondent) AND Georgia Ellenwood Tim Hendry-Gallagher (Affected Parties) ARBITRATOR: Ross C. Dumoulin APPEARANCES: For the Claimant: Robert Lonergan, Meredith MacGregor, Counsel For the Respondent: Jared MacLeod Operations Manager, National Team Programs, Athletics Canada For the Affected Parties: Georgia Ellenwood: Dave Ellenwood Tim Hendry-Gallagher: Not represented at hearing ARBITRATION AWARD March 3, 2016 - 1 - 1. This is an arbitration award rendered pursuant to paragraph 6.21(c) of the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code (2015) (the "Code"). I was selected by the parties and appointed as arbitrator by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) to hear and determine the present matter. 2. The case pertains to a dispute between Ms. Natasha Wodak (the "Claimant") and Athletics Canada (the "Respondent") concerning the granting of funding under Sport Canada's Athlete Assistance Program (AAP). Two athletes, Ms. Georgia Ellenwood and Mr. Tim Hendry-Gallagher, were ultimately identified as potentially affected parties. Ms. Ellenwood's father, David Ellenwood represented her at the arbitration hearing. Mr. Hendry-Gallagher did not attend and was not represented. 3. On February 17, 2016, a hearing by conference call was held pursuant to section 3.12 of the Code. The Panel informed the parties that the facts contained in their previously filed documents and submissions would be considered as accurate and as evidence unless contradicted at the hearing. The parties were then given the opportunity to present further evidence and submissions or to elaborate upon or emphasize aspects of their previously filed submissions. - 2 - THE FACTS 4. Sport Canada's Athlete Assistance Program (AAP) is a federal government grant program that provides direct financial assistance and tuition support to Canadian high performance athletes. The AAP seeks to relieve some of the financial pressures associated with preparing for, and participating in, international sport. The AAP financial assistance provides support to athletes in the form of a living and training allowance. The AAP support is referred to as "carding". Athletes who are approved for funding and are financially supported through the AAP are referred to as "carded athletes". 5. Athletics Canada's 2015-16 AAP Policy, Olympic Stream, and Carding Criteria read in part as follows: Under Sport Canada policy, AAP funding is designed to support athletes for the upcoming year who have: ...Been identified by Athletics Canada (AC) as progressing towards becoming a finalist at future IAAF Senior World Championships in Athletics or Olympic Games. (For the purpose of this document finalist is defined as - Top 8 – combined events and track – 100m to 800m, top 12 – field and 1500m, top 15 – 3000m Steeplechase, 5000m, 10,000m, Race Walk and Marathon) 6. The above-noted policy was developed by AC's National Team Committee (NTC) and applies to the carding cycle beginning November 1, 2015 and ending October 31, 2016. Athletics Canada submits a list of nominations for carding that Sport Canada ultimately approves. The final decision on granting cards is made by Sport Canada. The policy states that - 3 - the "authority for final nominations for carding to Sport Canada rests solely with the NTC". 7. The Claimant, Ms. Natasha Wodak, is a 34-year-old track and field athlete who competes in the 10,000 m run. 8. The AAP Policy states that in the fall of 2015, AC's National Team Committee (NTC) will meet "to decide which athletes should be nominated for carding". It goes on to say that in making its decisions, "the NTC will consider athletes by proceeding through the following five steps in sequential order..." Steps 4 and 5 are described as follows in the policy: Step 4 Athletes who achieved a relevant individual selection standard... a minimum of two times within the relevant qualification period AND who the National Team Committee believe demonstrates realistic potential to become finalists in an individual event at the 2017 IAAF World Championships OR win an individual medal at the 2020 Olympic Games. Step 5 If there are any nominations remaining, all athletes in the Carding Pool who have not been nominated through any of the above 4 steps will be considered based on the factors outlined below - on an athlete’s realistic potential to become a finalist at a future Olympic Games or IAAF World Championships. 9. In a note relating to "become a finalist at a future Olympic Games", the said policy states that for an athlete to be recommended for carding, they must "demonstrate realistic medal potential in an individual or relay events at either the 2016 or 2020 Olympic Games and the 2017 IAAF World Championships". - 4 - The note goes on to state that for the NTC to be confident of this potential, athletes must demonstrate that they are "bridging the gap" to the podium in their event. 10. The AAP policy states as follows with regard to the factors to be considered: In determining an athlete's "realistic potential to win a medal" and "realistic potential to become a finalist", as set out in the above steps, the NTC will consider the following factors: The AC Statistical Analysis "funnel" - Gold, Top 3, Top 5, Top 8 at the last 4 major Championships (2011, 2013, 2015 World Championships, and 2012 Olympic Games) and IAAF World Ranking in that time frame, "Bridging the Gap" analysis - Athlete performance over the year(s) compared with international statistics, The athlete’s ability to consistently repeat performances, particularly at peak times in the season (major championships and championship trials), Training and competition plans, International and major event performances (Olympic Games and World Championships), Head to head performances at 1. National Teams, 2. National Championships and 3. NTL competitions ... 11. On October 2, 2015, the NTC met to decide which athletes should be nominated for carding. In attendance were the voting members of the NTC, as well as Mr. Jared MacLeod, the Operations Manager for Athletics Canada, and other non-voting persons. The minutes of the said meeting indicate under the title "Process": - 5 - Step 4... NTC believes has potential finalist at 2017 World Champs or medalist at 2020 Olympic games Step 5 - nominations who have not been selected based on factors outlined - realistic potential to become a finalist at a future Olympics or WC. (funnel, bridging the gap analysis, ability to repeat performance, major championships, trials/head-to-head etc.) 12. Further on, after a reference to the Step 3 vote, the minutes read as follows: Step 4 - athlete achieved standard minimum of 2 times - NTC believes can become finalist in an individual event at WC 2017 or a medalist in 2020 (no relay) ... International major events - Olympic and WC - all other events - Pan Am, NACAC and FISU 1 point if top 12, 2 point top 8 and 3 points if you got medal - additional point if you have Olympic standard - do we believe they will be a finalist in 2017 or medalist in 2020? - Follow score table and if there is any issues - talk about it - would have to go through every single athlete - 13. Immediately below the above wording is a list of athletes with a "yes" or a "no" next to their name, or, in rare cases, a question or a question mark. Because this list of athletes immediately follows the question "do we believe they will be a finalist in 2017 or medalist in 2020?" and the words "would have to go through every single athlete", it is my finding that the "yes" or "no" next to the athletes' names is the NTC's answer to the above question for each athlete listed. Next to the Claimant’s name is a "No". - 6 - 14. The minutes later state the following with respect to the Claimant: Natasha Wodak - 10000 m - Canadian Record - she has underperformed when it counts, if she doesn't make the final in 2016, she should not be considered for next year. move to step 5" 15. A note in the minutes pertaining to Mr. Taylor Milne, a 3000 m steeplechase athlete who had a "No" next to his name, indicates that he "progressed quite well". The minutes later indicate that he was awarded a card under step 4. 16. Further on in the minutes, after a reference to Step 5, appear the following notes: Ross v. Natasha Ross - Yes funnel, No Gap, Yes Repeatability, Yes Intl., Intl. Score 2 Natasha - No Funnel, Yes Gap, No Repeatability, Yes Intl., Score 2, - three years out (2:08.00 - recording) Not a 2017 or 2020 athlete - two major events and didn't do well. Must have a response for a potential appeal. Given age, a guy who is younger could be using a funding. Age difference according to the pathway, investing in the future performance. Review of Step 5 criteria - who is between the two has potential finalist in 2017. Investing in Ross for the future. Results - Natasha unfortunately - will she be ready for 2017 or 2020? - 7 - 17. It was the evidence of Mr. MacLeod that athletes were evaluated in each of the above-noted five categories and given either a "yes" or "no" resulting in a score and a "Y/N Ratio". Athletes were ranked by their score and sub-ranked by their "Y/N Ratio". The Y/N Ratio only became relevant as a tie-breaker when comparing athletes with the same score. One point was given for each "yes", except in the international performance category. In this section, athletes received points based on their results in Olympic events on national teams this season.

Load more

  31

Copy Link