ANNUAL REPORT 2013 - 2014 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Chairman’s Report 2

2013-14 REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5

Sport Resolutions

ARBITRATION & MEDIATION CENTRE 6

SEMINAR PROGRAMME REVIEW 8

National Anti-Doping Panel

PRESIDENT’S REPORT 10

UK ANTI-DOPING V CRAIG WINDSOR JNR 12

National safeguarding panel

President’s Report 14

Coach X v National Governing Body 16

Athlete Selection & Eligibility

Athlete S v National Ice Skating Association 18

Case management

SR 2013-14 CONCLUDED CASES 20

2013-14 STATISTICS 22

MANAGEMENT BOARD 24

1 INTRODUCTION

Chairman’s Report

Glasgow and Edinburgh. These greater scrutiny and the need to are important in demonstrating ensure that our performance in all that we are a UK body not solely our areas of business is constantly “London centric” and are keen of the highest standard. to strengthen our wider UK activities and involvement. I was This could not happen without delighted to support the elections the skills and strength of all of Richard Hendicott, of the Welsh the people who work for us and Sports Association, to the Deputy contribute in so many ways to our Chairmanship of the board and growing reputation. May I thank of Keith McGarry, of the Northern the arbitrators and mediators on My first year as Chairman has Ireland Sports Forum, to the our panels for their commitment been an exciting and challenging Management Board. to working with all relevant parties one for Sport Resolutions. I have to resolve the disputes that come tried to build upon the hard Our work in the ever more before us. We are very fortunate work of my predecessor Gerard important area of child to have skilled, committed, Elias QC. All involved in Sport safeguarding in sport continues experienced and enthusiastic staff, Resolutions owe Gerard a great to grow and recent events only growing in number under the vote of thanks for his hard work emphasise the vital need in able leadership of Ed Procter and and success in taking us forward. our society for this service and Richard Harry. Ross Macdonald It has been important to ensure the expertise of the National runs the office as efficiently as he continuity as well as trying to Safeguarding Panel, under does his triathlons. Jen Lincoln, achieve growth during the past the leadership of its President Chris Lavey and Jo Parry have year. In today’s economic climate, Stephen Bellamy James QC. helped to run a highly efficient Sport Resolutions recognises the casework service and Honor pressures on Government funding Once again I must thank UK Sport Lansdell has made a big difference and is keen to grow and expand for its continued support of our to our marketing efforts and alternative sources of income work and efforts. The Department our presence on social media whilst maintaining and protecting for Culture, Media and Sport platforms. On behalf of the our key values of independence (DCMS) has agreed to extend our directors may I thank all the staff and integrity. contract to operate the National for their individual and collective Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) for a contributions to our success. Firstly, may I thank all the further year under the Presidency directors of Sport Resolutions of Peter Leaver QC and we intend Our big challenge is to keep our for their support during my to grow our efforts and expertise independence and integrity whilst first year as Chairman. We in this vital area and to continue at the same time increasing our have seen recent changes in to work with DCMS and UK Anti- efforts to diversify our income the directors nominated by our Doping in future years. sources. We recognise the issues member organisations with Ian and problems in doing this but Braid, for the British Athletes The Secretariat had its busiest hope that with the continued Commission, Adam Horne for the year so far, in responding to support of the growing numbers British Paralympic Association 222 case enquiries and helping of sporting organisations and and Shahab Uddin replacing Sara to resolve 115 disputes, with people who use our services, Sutcliffe for the British Olympic most matters arising from the abilities and commitment of Association, working alongside safeguarding, anti-doping, athlete our panel members, excellent our independent non-executive selection, match-fixing and the professional staff and the valuable directors. regulation of professional football. contributions of our directors, In some cases the consequences we can continue to achieve our We have made special efforts have proved to be very serious for objectives. to link more closely with our those concerned. member organisations with visits to meet the key sporting We must remain alert to the fact organisations in Cardiff, Belfast, that with increased profile comes Peter Crystal 2 3 INTRODUCTION

2013-14 Review of the year

Executive Director Ed Procter looks back at another busy and successful year for Sport Resolutions. It saw the launch of the National Safeguarding Panel, the delivery of a successful seminar programme and the resolution of over 100 disputes involving allegations of match-fixing, discrimination, anti- doping, child protection and athlete selection and eligibility.

Edward Procter

APRIL to JUNE The National Safeguarding Panel completes its first cases having finalised its procedural rules and protocol for undertaking child protection investigations.

Sport Resolutions’ Non-Executive Director Di Ellis is made a Dame in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List, recognising a lifetime’s commitment to sport.

Boxer, Craig Windsor Jnr, receives a ban of three years and nine months from the National Anti-Doping Panel following an online confession to having taken anabolic steroids.

JULY to SEPTEMBER Sport Resolutions appoint former national schools tennis champion Honor Lansdell to a newly created Marketing role.

Office Manager Ross Macdonald completes the Zurich Ironman challenge in under ten hours in searing 36 degree heat.

A Sport Resolutions tribunal chaired by Adam Lewis QC bans snooker player Stephen Lee for eight years on charges of match-fixing.

OCTOBER to DECEMBER Sport Resolutions kicks off a series of eight seminars with “How to avoid, manage and resolve conflict in sport” led by mediation panel members Neil Goodrum and Chris Newmark.

Executive Director Ed Procter and Dispute Resolution Manager Richard Harry give a presentation on child protection in sport to a Law and Sport Conference hosted by the Northern Ireland Law Society in Belfast.

JANUARY to MARCH Glasgow 2014 announces a Commonwealth Games pro bono legal advice and representation service which is to be operated by Sport Resolutions in conjunction with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.

Sport Resolutions tribunals help to resolve athlete selection appeals in the sports of speed-skating and bobsleigh for the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi.

An independent tribunal convened by Sport Resolutions under FA Rule K dismisses a legal challenge to a red card given to West Ham striker Andy Carroll in a Premier League game against Swansea City.

4 5 SPORT RESOLUTIONS

ARBITRATION & MEDIATION CENTRE “I can only say positive things about the venue, convenience, Arbitration and Mediation Centre offers lunch and facilities.” private refuge in the heart of London

Since opening in March 2011, giving them sole use. Additional Sport Resolutions’ 1 Salisbury privacy is offered by locating Square arbitration and mediation opposing parties on different centre has provided the venue floors with access to separate for the resolution of numerous facilities. The centre also leads out sporting and non-sporting onto a quiet and leafy square with disputes. This has included all numerous benches which allow London based National Anti- users to grab some fresh air and Doping Panel hearings, athlete collect their thoughts away from “I have no doubt we will use selection appeals, safeguarding the intensity of an arbitration your venue again in the future.” tribunals and various appeals and or mediation. arbitrations for 30 different sports including football, cricket, rugby Centre Manager Ross union and tennis. All have been Macdonald explained: resolved in a purposely designed building overlooking a quiet “Whilst our main focus is sport square at the St Paul’s Cathedral we welcome organisations and end of Fleet Street, a few minutes individuals from all other sectors. walk from Blackfriars and City We often take bookings for Thameslink stations. board meetings, seminars and workshops as well as for hearings Offering a main hearing room and and mediations. All the rooms four breakout rooms, the centre is have large windows which bring also proving a popular venue for in natural daylight and come mediation. All rooms are sound equipped with free WI-FI, climate proofed and clients like the fact control system and Nespresso “The centre was excellent and that the centre is self contained coffee machines” the Tribunal appreciated the lightness of the main room.” For centre enquiries please contact Ross on 020 7036 1966 or [email protected]

“Thanks to @SportRes_UK for the meeting room today – good value, great location just off Fleet Street.”

I Trust Sport (@itrustsport)

6 7 SPORT RESOLUTIONS

Seminar Programme Review “Good mix of presentation styles and audience Case studies are key to seminar programme success participation.”

187 delegates from 32 different sports attended Sport Resolutions’ autumn and spring seminar programme to learn lessons arising from recent cases involving athlete selection, anti-doping and child protection. All seminars were led by experienced members of Sport Resolutions’ panel of arbitrators and mediators.

The seminars were designed to provide a forum for delegates to discuss and examine issues using practical case study material. Numbers were restricted to provide an interactive learning experience for all who attended. Feedback was very positive, with 74% of delegates rating the seminars as excellent.

Date Seminar Title Seminar Leaders October How to avoid, manage and Neil Goodrum resolve conflict and disputes in Christopher Newmark sport November How to manage athlete Richard Harry selection William Norris QC

November How to investigate Kim Doyle safeguarding concerns in sport Carol Chamberlain

January Case Histories: Lessons to be Richard Harry learnt from doping cases in Christopher Quinlan QC sport February How to run a model sport Jane Mulcahy QC disciplinary process Dan Saoul

March How to be an effective panel Nicholas Stewart QC member in sport tribunals

Sport Resolutions now looks forward to welcoming delegates to its 2014-15 seminar programme.

“Great seminar with “Thoroughly interesting day @SportRes_UK today on at @SportRes_UK looking disciplinary procedures. Lots at Sports Disciplinary of best practice to work on.” processes. Lots of useful info shared and discussed.” Jon Napier (@NapierJon) Rebecca Morgan (@Bec_m_84)

8 9 NATIONAL Anti-doping panel

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

seriousness, attracting sanctions will apply to intentional cheating. ranging from 3 years and 9 Whilst the Code sets out how this months up to 8 years. is to be determined, it will be interesting to see how panels will The NADP has also received its interpret and apply these first referral utilising the athlete new provisions. biological passport system. This is the first case of its type in Another change sees an attempt the UK and will independently to deal more effectively with test the robustness of the use of those individuals who work with the passport as an anti-doping athletes, such as coaches, trainers tool. I am sure that the wider and other support personnel. In the last year the National anti-doping community will be International Federations are now Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) has watching the outcome of this required to adopt rules which dealt with a wide range of anti- case quite carefully, as it may obligate the National Federations doping rule violations ranging affect whether sports choose to to require such support from positive tests to possession utilise the system and influence personnel to agree to the results and trafficking. how other National Anti-Doping management processes of the Organisations (NADO’s) use relevant NADO’s. In my last Annual Review I information obtained through commented on the number of the passport in shaping charges Along the same lines, athletes can methylhexaneamine (MHA) cases against athletes. also potentially commit an Anti- that were coming before the Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) if NADP. The panel has not seen At the World Anti-Doping Agency they associate with a prohibited such a case now since March (WADA) Conference in November person, although they must first 2013, hopefully a sign that the 2013 in Johannesburg, the final receive written notification from message is getting out to athletes draft of the 2015 Code was the NADO that they are doing so of the risk of ingesting this agreed by global stakeholders. and be required to desist from substance through the taking The new 2015 Code will come in such association from receipt of of supplements. to effect in January 2015. the notification.

Over the last year there has been There are some notable changes Once again, I would like to thank an even split of cases between from the current version, including all members of the NADP for analytical and non-analytical. Of the increase of the standard their continued excellence, and the analytical, the substances sanction from the existing two to the NADP Secretariat at Sport included MHA, amphetamines, years up to four years. The Resolutions for their efficiency ephedrine and oxilofrine. rationale for this change is that and professionalism. In its short whilst the current Code provides life, the NADP has become It is noteworthy that an increasing for an increase of sanction acknowledged as an example number of referrals to the NADP where there are “aggravating of excellence in the fight are of a non-analytical nature. circumstances”, this is not against doping. These include cases involving use, widely applied. possession and trafficking. The decisions that have been handed The intention from 2015 is that down in such cases reflect their the standard four year sanction Peter Leaver QC

10 11 NATIONAL Anti-doping panel

UK ANTI-DOPING V CRAIG WINDSOR JNR

Background the length of sanction only. The athlete, a professional boxer, UKAD argued that aggravating was charged with Anti-Doping circumstances were present that Rule Violations (ADRV’s) under justified a period of ineligibility Article 2.2 and Article 2.6 (use greater than the standard period and possession of a Prohibited of two years. The athlete accepted Substance) of the World Anti- that aggravating circumstances Doping Code (WADA Code). The were present, namely that: substances involved were the anabolic steroids oxandrolone 1. the ADRV’s involved the and stanozolol. The charges possession of multiple were brought by UK Anti- Prohibited Substances and Doping (UKAD) which relied the use was over a significant upon admissions made by the period; athlete in messages sent to 2. the athlete had specifically another athlete on the social planned his doping in networking website Facebook. In preparation for the nuances of the Facebook conversation, the his sport, and athlete stated the substances 3. the athlete only admitted that he was taking and described the ADRV’s on the day of the the effects and benefits on his hearing. body and performance. The case was referred to the National The Tribunal was satisfied Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) for that there were aggravating resolution under the Anti-Doping circumstances and ruled it Rules of the British Boxing Board appropriate to impose an of Control. increased period of ineligibility of 3 years and nine months. Reasoning and Decision of the Tribunal Analysis The athlete initially denied the This case highlights the fact charges and argued that he that an athlete does not have to could not be charged when he provide a positive sample to be had not tested positive. Despite charged with an ADRV and shows his protestations, the athlete how facts can be established by subsequently made an admission any reliable means, including at the start of the hearing. The admissions and conversations on Tribunal therefore considered social media.

12 13 national safeguarding panel

President’s REPORT

Often the safeguarding measures The past year has seen a that are in place are not adequate number of referrals to the or not properly followed and NSP. Investigations have been the standard and quality of conducted on behalf of several investigation can vary. Slowly NGB’s where allegations have these matters are being dealt been made of bullying and historic with but some sporting bodies still sexual abuse and the Panel has have not fully grasped the need been active in the regulatory field for an independent authority, holding inquiries in a variety of outside their own internal bodies, sports. Increasingly, the NSP is to adjudicate upon them. Good being requested to review the progress has been made within processes and decisions that have the sporting world to put in place already been concluded by NGB’s, The first full year of the National standards and procedures for often in response to individual Safeguarding Panel (NSP) has dealing with the safeguarding claims that those processes have seen various national governing of children. The challenge for not been fair. bodies of sport amending their sporting bodies is to develop rules and regulations so they can expertise in properly managing A number of successful seminars refer safeguarding matters to the and investigating safeguarding on investigating safeguarding Panel. There has been a growing complaints and to recognise concerns in sport have been held awareness amongst sporting when external professional help is with Sport Resolutions for all bodies that in order to protect required. levels of safeguarding personnel. themselves from criticism they Due to their success future require an independent body of Sport Resolutions worked closely seminars are being planned. experts to arbitrate in relation with the NSPCC Child Protection in to safeguarding children and Sport Unit on appointments to the The NSP itself is also keen to vulnerable adults in sport. NSP set against stringent criteria, remain abreast of developments in an open competition. As an and good practice and holds Recent well-publicised reports independent body comprising child regular review and training affecting the safety of children, safeguarding experts drawn from meetings. Recently we including the Jimmy Savile a mix of legal, policing, social were privileged to receive a scandal, the cases of Max Clifford, work, offender management and presentation from Professor Stuart Hall and others, have sport administration backgrounds Celia Brackenridge OBE on her highlighted the effects such the NSP is uniquely placed to distinguished and pre-eminent scandals have on organisations provide this independent service. work in this field. The Panels’ but above all of the need to be existing expertise is being vigilant to ensure the safety The NSP both investigates constantly enhanced by both the of children in a variety of safeguarding complaints and/or referrals to it and these seminars. environments. acts as an independent arbitration service on a wide range of The NSPCC and its CPSU have Every day huge numbers of safeguarding issues. Any National been hugely supportive of the children participate in some form Governing Body or other sports Panel and its work along with UK of sporting activity. Research organisation, which has a referral Sport which has helped to fund has revealed that traditionally mechanism in its rules, can refer essential secretariat services. their safety has not received the a matter to the NSP. Individuals attention it needs. The sporting who are the subject of an NGB environment is no exception decision may also refer or appeal to children being abused but to the NSP where NGB or NSP historically there has been a poor procedures allow this or there response to it. This is changing is clear consent of all parties to but often too slowly. confer jurisdiction upon the NSP. Stephen Bellamy James QC

14 15 national safeguarding panel

Coach v National Governing Body

Background children for sexual gratification. Coach X appealed the decision His explanation was that the of a National Governing Body images must have appeared as (“NGB”) Child Protection unsolicited pop-ups from naturist Committee to restrict his coach websites he admitted frequently licence by excluding him from visiting. coaching children and young persons under the age of 18 The appeals panel ruled that years, due to the risk that he once such material is found in a could pose to children and young person’s possession, the evidential people within the sport. The burden shifts to that person. appeal was referred to Sport Subsequently, they ruled that Resolutions in accordance with Coach X did not adduce sufficient the appeal procedure of the evidence to demonstrate that NGB’s child protection policy. the images were unsolicited and Following a de novo re-hearing as a result, the appeal should the independent appeals panel be dismissed. The appeals panel dismissed the appeal and upheld upheld the decision of the Child the licence restriction. Protection Committee to restrict Coach X’s coaching licence to the Reasoning and Decision coaching of persons over the age of the Tribunal of 18 given the risk that he could The Child Protection Committee’s pose to children and young people decision was made following a within the sport. police investigation after Coach X acquired a DVD via a naturist Analysis website which contained images This case highlights the need of naked girls. In a subsequent for NGBs to request and obtain search of Coach X’s house, 18 relevant information from the indecent images of children were police that may arise out of a found on his computer, including criminal investigation, to support two which depicted images of the internal disciplinary proceedings. most serious levels of child sexual As with this case, criminal charges abuse. One such image fell within are often not pursued, leaving it Category 4 and one image fell to the NGB to establish the facts within Category 5 of the COPINE of a case and to decide the matter Scale. Coach X denied accessing in accordance with its sporting material showing nude pictures of rules and regulations.

16 17 Athlete Selection & Eligibility

Athlete S v National Ice Rankings 1, 2, 3 and 4” should be give to the different elements ii) contrary to natural justice or no weight and not giving it selected. Athlete R, ranked third of that wider information, and in particular to the duty consideration at all. Skating Association highest , was therefore selected including the 2013/14 World Cup on a sports governing body and Athlete S, ranked fourth performances, was to be a matter to take into account all The Appeals Panel found that highest, was not selected. for the Performance Director’s relevant criteria when reaching whilst there were some errors Background Cup Rankings. In relation to the own fair and honest judgment, decisions; and in the second selection process, Athlete S appealed the decision third place, the Selection Criteria The Appeals Panel noted that in but he was not entitled to discard iii) contrary to the first Appeal the Performance Director had of the National Ice Skating stated that “the Performance his statement, the Performance the wider information entirely. Panel’s direction that the followed the correct procedure. Association (NISA) Selectors not Director will take into account Director added that whilst a Performance Director must The appeal was therefore to nominate him for selection to performance indicators from the subjective argument for both The Appeals Panel therefore take into account performance dismissed. the GB Non-Relay speed skating 2013/14 season and other past skaters could be made using upheld the appeal, set aside indicators that could team at the 2014 Sochi Winter performances”. Two athletes were training times, lower level the Performance Director’s reasonably have a bearing on Analysis Olympic Games on the grounds eligible for selection for the third competitions, relay tests and time recommendation, and ordered his decision. This case highlights the need for that the NISA Selectors had not and final place, and Athlete R was trials, he had ultimately taken that the Performance Director NGB’s to follow and apply the followed the published Selection selected over Athlete S. Athlete the view that as the skaters were consider the selection afresh, When the Performance Director criteria set out in a Selection Criteria. An Appeals Panel was S argued that the Performance similar in all areas, to make a taking into account performance informed Athlete S of his second Policy when going through the appointed by Sport Resolutions Director had failed to properly decision using the World Cup indicators from the 2013/14 selection decision he provided a selection process. Applying in accordance with NISA’s consider all relevant performance ranking, as had been used for season and other past two page document of written different criteria, or disregarding Selection Policy. indicators and that had he done the first two skaters, was the performances. reasons for non-selection. The criteria set out in the policy, may so, he would have selected fairest and most obvious Appeals Panel stated that these well give rise to a successful Reasoning and Decision Athlete S. objective analysis. A second selection decision was reasons should not be approached appeal if challenged. of the Tribunal made by the Performance Director as a carefully written judgment Athlete S appealed on the grounds NISA’s Performance Director The Appeals Panel found that the and ratified by the NISA Selectors where any apparent contradiction The NGB must also follow the that the NISA Selectors had not stated in his selection decision Performance Director had not which again did not select Athlete or omission could lead readily policy and/or the directions of an followed the published Selection that “the third place on the taken the decision in accordance S. Athlete S appealed against the to an inference that material Appeals Panel when reconvening Criteria when selecting the athlete team is a Performance Director’s with the Selection Criteria, as that second selection decision on the factors had been disregarded to re-consider selection. Any to fill the third and final individual selection and I continue with the required him to take into account basis that it was made: or given unreasonable weight. failure in this regard may result in place available. The first two same objective process that the information wider than the World The Panel noted that there is a an athlete appealing again on the places went to the two highest third highest ranked skater from Cup rankings. The Appeals Panel i) contrary to the Selection difference between considering a basis that the correct process was ranked skaters from the World a single distance from World Cup recognised that what weight to Criteria; criterion and then giving it little not followed. 18 19 Case management

SR 2013-14 cONCLUDED CASES

Arbitration Parties Type of Dispute Jurisdiction Arbitrator(s) Rugby Football League Appeal 15 months ineligibility Tim Kerr QC, Dr Terry Crystal, Dr Player vs FA Anti-Doping FA Rules Christopher Quinlan QC Kolasa vs UKAD (Appeal) Neil Townshend Doncaster Belles vs FA Appeal FA Rules Craig Moore UCI Stimulants Six months ineligibility William Norris QC, Colin Murdock, Player vs FA Anti-Doping FA Rules Blondel Thompson UKAD vs Croall Kitrina Douglas Thurrock FC vs FA Appeal FA Rule K David Casement QC Welsh Rugby Union Application to lift provisional Application Refused Peter Leaver QC Kinsella vs FA Anti-Doping Appeal FA Rules Christopher Quinlan QC UKAD vs Edwards suspension FA vs Anelka Discipline & Integrity FA Rules Christopher Quinlan QC Welsh Rugby Union Anabolic steroids Three Years Christopher Quinlan QC, Dr Barry West Ham United (Carroll) vs FA Discipline & Integrity FA Rule K Nicholas Stewart QC UKAD vs Edwards (Possession & use) O’Driscoll, Lorraine Johnson WPBSA vs Lee Integrity & Discipline WPBSA Rules Adam Lewis QC WPBSA vs Lee (1) Integrity & Discipline Appeal WPBSA Rules Edwin Glasgow QC, Peter Stockwell National Safeguarding Panel WPBSA vs Lee (2) Integrity & Discipline Appeal WPBSA Rules Nicholas Stewart QC Parties Reason Jurisdiction Panel Member Cowan & Others vs British Employment & Discrimination BPA Ltd Rules Graham Stoker N vs National Governing Body Safeguarding Appeal Administered appointment heard Gillian Irving QC, Ian Wilson, Parachute Association under NGB Rules Amanda Quirke Sport Wales Independent Review 1 & 2 By consent of the parties David Casement QC X vs National Governing Body Safeguarding Appeal Appointment heard under NGB Ian Wilson Stanley vs NISA Athlete Selection & Eligibility NISA Rules Nicholas Stewart QC, Janice Rules Shardlow, Gordon Barnes National Governing Body Safeguarding Review Consent of parties Kate Gallafent QC

Stanley vs NISA (post-successful Athlete Selection & Eligibility NISA Rules Nicholas Stewart QC National Governing Body Investigation Consent of parties Carol Chamberlain appeal) National Governing Body Investigation Consent of parties Martyn Dew Athlete vs British Disabled Ski Athlete Selection & Eligibility Pursuant to NGB selection policy Adam Lewis QC National Governing Body Chair Appointment for Disciplinary Pursuant to NCB Disciplinary Rules Kate Gallafent QC Team Appeal Athlete vs British Swimming Athlete Selection & Eligibility British Swimming Rules Robert Englehart QC National Governing Body Safeguarding Review Consent of parties Carol Chamberlain Athlete vs British Swimming Funding Appeal British Swimming Rules Jane Mulcahy QC

Athlete vs British Bobsleigh Athlete Selection & Eligbility Pursuant to NGB selection policy Adam Lewis QC Individual vs National Safeguarding mediation Consent of parties (withdrawn) Jane Mulcahy QC Governing Body National Anti-Doping Panel Parties Type of Dispute/Substance Decision Arbitrator(s) Mediation British Boxing Board of Control Stimulants (MHA) Appeal dismissed Charles Flint QC, Dr Barry NGB Type of Dispute Jurisdiction Mediator(s) UKAD vs Whyte O’Driscoll, Colin Murdock N vs National Governing Body Integrity & Discipline Mediation Agreement (withdrawn) Jonathan Dingle British Boxing Board of Control Application to lift provisional Application refused Peter Leaver QC Manager vs Club Commercial Mediation Agreement Jane Mulcahy QC UKAD vs Windsor suspension Club vs National Governing Body Integrity & Discipline Mediation Agreement Paul Johnson British Boxing Board of Control Anabolic Steroids Three years, nine months Christopher Quinlan QC, Lorraine Agent vs Club Commercial Mediation Agreement Christopher Newmark Windsor vs UKAD ineligibility Johnson, Dr Barry O’Driscoll NGB vs NGB Commercial Mediation Agreement Jane Mulcahy QC British Boxing Board of Control Appeal Appeal dismissed Peter Leaver QC Athlete vs Agent Commercial Nomination Confidential Windsor vs UKAD British Boxing Board of Control Appeal Appeal dismissed Charles Flint QC, Dr Barry Anderson vs UKAD (Appeal) O’Driscoll, Lorraine Johnson British Boxing Board of Control Stimulant Two years ineligibility David Casement QC, Dr Kitrina UKAD vs Hoffmann Douglas, Lorraine Johnson Welsh Rugby Union Anabolic steroids (trafficking & Eight years ineligibility Christopher Quinlan QC, Carole UKAD vs Colclough possesion) Billington-Wood, Dr Barry O’Driscoll Welsh Rugby Union Appeal Appeal withdrawn Paul Gilroy QC, Colin Murdock Colclough vs UKAD (Appeal) and Kitrina Douglas British Boxing Board of Control Anabolic steroids (trafficking) Life time ineligibility Paul Gilroy QC, Carole Billington- UKAD vs P Tinklin Wood, Dr Neil Townsend “Thanks again for your professional Rugby Football League Sample refusal Two years ineligibility Matthew Lohn, Lorraine Johnson, response to my request…SR acted in a UKAD vs Kolasa Colin Murdock genuine, straight and forthright way.”

20 21 Case management

2013-14 STAtistics

222 requests for dispute 222 resolution guidance and help

115 115 case referrals

187 delegates attending 187 Sport Resolutions’ seminars

74% delegates give Sport Resolutions’ 74% seminars an “excellent” rating

Helped to resolve disputes 39 across 39 different sports

30 different sports used 1 Salisbury 30 Square Arbitration and Mediation Centre

22 23 MANAGEMENT BOARD

Peter Crystal Dame Di Ellis David Rigney Member Association Directors Independent Chairman Non-Executive Director Independent Non-Executive Director Simon Barker – Professional Players’ Federation John Kerr – Scottish Sports Association Peter is a solicitor and expert in Di represents the Sport and David is a qualified chartered Warren Phelops – European Sponsorship Association corporate finance and sports law. Recreation Alliance and also sits on accountant with extensive financial, Ian Braid – British Athletes’ Commission He is founder and senior partner the board’s Panel and Appointment human resource management and Shahab Uddin – British Olympic Association of Memery Crystal LLP, as well Review Committee. Di was British non-executive director experience. Adam Horne – British Paralympic Association as chairman and non-executive Rowing’s Chair for 24 years until He is the Chairman of Bacs Payment director of various public and 2013, when she was awarded Schemes Limited and also chair private companies. Peter is also a a DBE, recognising a lifetime of Sport Resolutions’ Finance and trustee of several charities. commitment to sport. She is now Human Resources Committee. Secretariat Honorary President of British Edward Procter – Executive Director Rowing. Richard Harry – Dispute Resolution Manager/Solicitor Richard Hendicott Trevor Watkins Ross Macdonald – Office Manager Vice-Chairman Non-Executive Director Jenefer Lincoln – Case Officer Richard Harry Chris Lavey – Case Assistant Richard has represented the Welsh Company Secretary Trevor is a leading sports lawyer, Joanna Parry – Case Assistant Sports Association on the Sport heading up the sports legal team at Honor Lansdell – Marketing Assistant Resolutions board for 10 years, Richard is the Dispute Resolution Pinsent Masons. He is also a former before becoming Vice-Chairman in Manager at Sport Resolutions. He Chairman of AFC Bournemouth and 2013. He is a retired District judge is a sports lawyer, former Chief has previously been a divisional and also a qualified golf referee. Executive of the Welsh Rugby representative on the board of the Players’ Association and consultant Football League and a founding to the World Anti-Doping Agency. director of Supporters Direct. Trevor Simon Cliff is also chair of Sport Resolutions’ Independent Non-Executive Marketing and Service Development Director Keith McGarry Committee. Non-Executive Director Simon is General Counsel of Manchester City FC and a former Keith is a Solicitor Advocate who corporate finance lawyer, who acted represents the Northern Ireland for Abu Dhabi United Group in its Sports Forum on the Sport acquisition of Manchester City. Resolutions board. He also sits on Simon is also chair of the board’s the board’s Finance and Human Panel and Appointment Review Resources Committee. Committee.

Edward Procter Margot Daly Executive Director Independent Non-Executive Director Ed is the Chief Executive Officer of Sport Resolutions. He has Margot is a business woman, previously held senior roles for the accredited mediator and judge of Legal Services Commission and the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal. Sport England. She also sits on the board’s Marketing and Service Development Committee and is Sport Resolutions’ Equality Champion.

24 25 www.sportresolutions.co.uk [email protected] Fax: 0207936 2602 Tel: 02070361966 EC4Y 8AE 1 SalisburySquareLondon Sport Resolutions(UK)

Designed by www.nemisys.uk.com