SPORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE OF CANADA (SDRCC) CENTRE DE REGLEMENT DES DIFFERENDS SPORTIF DU CANADA (CRDCS) DECISION

Transcription

1 SPORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE OF CANADA (SDRCC) CENTRE DE REGLEMENT DES DIFFERENDS SPORTIF DU CANADA (CRDCS) SDRCC NO: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: KAYLA BONNEAU (CLAIMANT) represented by: Marianne Deluca and David Tremblay and CANADIAN AMATEUR WRESTLING ASSOCIATION (CAWA) (RESPONDENT) represented by Don Ryan and Tamara Medwidsky and ASHLEY OSACHUK (AFFECTED PARTY) represented by Shelley Osachuk, Paul Osachuk and Penny Gardner DECISION SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 1 of 16

2 I PARTIES 01. Kayla Bonneau ( Kayla or the Claimant ) is a first-year Juvenile class female wrestler who placed second in the FILA Cadet Pan American Trials ( FILA Cadet Trials ) in the 56kg weight class but was subsequently found to be ineligible following a grievance made to the national federation. 02. The CANADIAN AMATEUR WRESTLING FEDERATION ( CAWA or the Respondent ) is the national federation governing wrestling in Canada. 03. Ashley Osachuk ( Ashley or the Affected Party ) is a first-year Juvenile class female wrestler who placed third in the FILA Cadet Pan American Trials in the 56kg weight class but was elevated to second as a result of the determination of ineligibility for Kayla by the CAWA Executive Committee. II JURISDICTION 04. Pursuant to Sections 6.3 and 6.6 of the CAWA Grievance Procedures (Section 14.4 updated June 2008), all of the Parties have agreed to a final determination by SDRCC and each has agreed that the Arbitrator has jurisdiction pursuant to the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code. III BACKGROUND 05. The 2012 Cadet/Juvenile National Wrestling Championships ( Nationals ) were held in Fredericton, New Brunswick from April 12-15, At the Nationals, the National Championships for the Juvenile weight class was held followed by the FILA Cadet Trials for the World and Pan American Championships. The age categories for CAWA and FILA differ by a year, resulting in first-year Juvenile wrestlers and second-year Cadet wrestlers being eligible to wrestle in the FILA Cadet class. 07. In order to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials, wrestlers had to achieve certain criteria in the Nationals. The top five first-year Juvenile wrestlers and the top three Cadet wrestlers were eligible to compete in the FILA Cadet Trials. The winner of the FILA Cadet Trials qualified to attend the World Championships and the second place finisher qualified to attend the Pan American Championships. SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 2 of 16

3 08. The qualifications to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials were changed in 2010 and were set out in a number of documents circulated to or posted for the wrestling community. 09. There was evidence presented regarding the availability of information relating to the FILA Cadet Trials. On October 15, 2010, the Procedures for FILA Cadet Trials were sent to the wrestling community. 10. A new qualification process to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials was established. The top three Cadets and top five first-year Juvenile wrestlers were to be selected from Nationals to form a bracket of eight athletes for the FILA Cadet Trials. Any first-year Juvenile wrestler who was eliminated by a second-year Juvenile wrestler in the qualifying event was given a right to petition to the Domestic Development Manager to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials. There was no other ability to petition for open spots (such as if an eligible athlete elected not to participate). 11. A further notice was sent to the wrestling community dated February 16, 2011 regarding the changes to the FILA Cadet Trials procedures and specifically referencing qualifying. 12. The invitation for the 2011 Cadet/Juvenile National Wrestling Championships held in Windsor, ON from April 6-10, 2011 that was posted on the CAWA website contained similar information to that set out in the 2012 invitation also posted on the CAWA website. The petition requirement was not contained in the invitation. 13. In the Weight Categories section of the Specific Information for the 2012 Nationals contained in the invitation set out on the CAWA website ( Information ), it stated NOTE: FILA Trials is double elimination with Only Top 3 Cadet and Top 5 Eligible Juveniles from the Nationals eligible to participate. In addition, the Information provided NOTE: please be aware in order to compete in the FILA trials you MUST compete in the National Championship event to qualify for the TRIALS! 14. At the Coaches Meeting at the Cadet/Juvenile National Championships, held April 12, 2012, the information regarding the FILA Cadet Trials was reiterated. Unfortunately, the Claimant s coach did not attend the Coaches Meeting because of commitments to his team. He also did not send a representative. Further, he did SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 3 of 16

4 not attend the Coaches Meeting at the 2011 National Championships where the change in procedures was also discussed. 15. At the 2012 National Wrestling Championships, the Claimant was defeated by two first-year Juvenile wrestlers and did not qualify to be in the top five first-year Juvenile wrestlers. Accordingly, she did not meet the qualification requirements to compete in the 2012 FILA Cadet Trials. 16. Mr. Clint Kingsbury, the Domestic Development Manager, was called as a witness by the Respondent and confirmed that there is usually a red dot placed beside each second-year Juvenile wrestler in the tournament bracket but for unknown reasons this did not occur at Nationals. 17. In order to identify the top five first-year Juvenile wrestlers, it was necessary to await the bronze medal match. After the announcement, the coaches waited in line to register and only one coach was permitted into the room at a time. The Domestic Development Manager (who accepts petitions under the rules) was in the room. 18. There is uncertainty as to how or why the Claimant was permitted to enter the FILA Cadet Trials. The Claimant was clearly not eligible to wrestle based on the requirements. 19. The error was brought to the attention of Mr. Kingsbury but it was not addressed prior to the Claimant wrestling the Affected Party in the FILA Cadet Trials. 20. In the Minutes of the Executive Committee decision, it states it remains unclear as to how Kayla was entered into the draw there was no written petition received; there was no weigh-in slip received. 21. Instead of a round robin of five wrestlers, each wrestling the other, a bracket of six wrestlers resulted. The final standings for the FILA Cadet Trials for the 56 kg category published April 15, 2012 evidence that the Claimant finished second overall, thereby qualifying for the 2012 Canadian Team at the FILA Cadet Pan American Championships. To finish second, the Claimant defeated the Affected Party, avenging the loss to the Affected Party in the Juvenile Nationals that knocked the Claimant out of contention to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials. SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 4 of 16

5 22. The Affected Party s parents tried to question the outcome immediately following the tournament and left messages for Mr. Kingsbury on April 16 and 17. They further pursued it with CAWA, leaving a message for the Executive Director on April 19. On April 22, 2012, the Affected Party s parents wrote to CAWA Executive Committee questioning the inclusion of the Claimant in the FILA Cadet Trials. 23. The April 22, 2012 letter was considered to be a grievance under Section 14.4 Grievance Procedures. In accordance with those procedures, a written intent to grieve must be filed with the National Office to the attention of the President within 21 days of the alleged incident. The letter was within the requisite time period and the necessary fee was paid. 24. In accordance with the procedures, the CAWA President notified the coach of the minor athlete (Kayla) regarding the grievance and provided an opportunity to respond. Mr. Tremblay responded, evidencing compliance with Section 3.3 of the procedures. 25. Following the completion of its review, the Executive Committee determined that the Claimant was not eligible to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials and elected to remove the Claimant from the results. The Claimant then brought this appeal in a timely manner pursuant to Article 5 of the Grievance Procedures. IV SUBMISSIONS 26. In accordance with Sections 6.3 and 6.6 of the Grievance Procedures, the matter has been referred to the SDRCC for final determination. 27. The parties submitted written evidence and arguments in advance of a hearing. The oral hearing was held by conference telephone call on June 18 and each party was provided ample opportunity to make oral submissions to the Arbitrator. 28. The Claimant was ably represented by her coach, Mr. David Tremblay, and her mother, Ms. Marianne Deluca. Mr. Tremblay submitted that he asked if the Claimant could wrestle in the FILA Cadet Trials at the time of registration. 29. Mr. Tremblay testified that he was not aware there were criteria to petition for inclusion. He asked about entering the Claimant because he was not aware if she was eligible. Mr. Tremblay submitted that he was not aware of who were first or SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 5 of 16

6 second-year Juveniles. Accordingly, he did not know whether Kayla had finished in the top five first-year Juveniles. In addition, one of the athletes who finished ahead of Kayla (Krystal Adair) was apparently injured and unable to compete in the FILA Cadet Trials. Based on those facts, he asked for Kayla to be included in the 56kg event when registering two other eligible athletes from his club in different weight classes for the FILA Cadet Trials. 30. Mr. Tremblay was advised he must submit a petition in writing and he stated he would prepare it on site. He stated he was told by Mr. Kingsbury that it was not necessary as he would verify the bout sheets, following which he confirmed the Claimant was eligible to enter. 31. Mr. Kingsbury testified that there were three people dealing with entry into the FILA Cadet Trials: Mr. Kingsbury, a representative from New Brunswick organizing committee and a referee. The process was to confirm eligibility, collect the entry fee and the referee then filled out the weigh-in slip for eligible athletes. Mr. Kingsbury further testified that he did not recall specifically the complete conversation with Mr. Tremblay but he does recall speaking with him, confirms that his number of athletes was changed from two to three and entry fees were recalculated. Mr. Kingsbury noted his respect for Mr. Tremblay but could not confirm Mr. Tremblay s evidence of what happened. 32. Whilst Mr. Kingsbury could not recall the exact circumstances that led to the changes, he stated that a number of coaches had made requests for petitions and he did not believe he had simply accepted an oral petition because of how strict I was with how many athletes who tried to get into the tournament. Mr. Kingsbury submitted it would be unusual for him not to follow procedure since he required every other coach to complete a written petition in order to ensure their athletes were eligible. 33. Mr. Tremblay suggested that the fact so many coaches tried to petition must have meant the rules were not very clear and he was not alone in asking whether his athlete was eligible. The fact that he was told his athlete was eligible and others were refused was not his mistake, nor that of his athlete, and the Claimant should not be punished for the errors made by another. 34. Mr. Tremblay submitted that when the petition was accepted, he paid the entry fee and the Claimant wrestled, qualifying for the Canadian Team to the Pan American SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 6 of 16

7 Championships. Mr. Tremblay suggests that the fact there was an administrative error should not impact the Claimant s qualification as she earned the position on the field of play. The fact is that errors were made and the Claimant was permitted to enter and, once entered, she won her right to represent Canada fairly; she is an athlete eligible to participate in the FILA Cadet Pan American Championships and she wrestled to earn that spot. He suggests that to take it away from a young athlete is very harsh when that athlete did nothing wrong. 35. The suggestion appears to be that the error should be treated as an error made by a referee on the field of play if the play continues, the result stands. In this case, the error was permitting her to enter but since no one questioned it before the determination as to who made the team, it should be permitted to stand unless the athlete is incapable of representing Canada at the event for which she was selected. 36. Further, Mr. Tremblay noted that there may have been other errors that were not caught (as there were in the past) and suggests that the coach and the athlete followed to the best of their knowledge the past procedures to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials and they should not be penalized after earning the spot because a defeated athlete, who did not question the eligibility before wrestling, questions the eligibility after losing. 37. The Claimant differentiates between an athlete who cheated, through doping, false documentation, unsportsmanlike or violent acts, and one who followed the rules and was permitted to participate through an administrative error. The Claimant does not believe that it is fair for an error by an administrative official to be used to punish an innocent athlete. The Claimant submits that the fact is the Claimant defeated the Affected Party at the FILA Cadet Trials and therefore earned the right to represent Canada. 38. The Respondent submitted that when the error was brought to the attention of CAWA, it did its best to rectify the situation. Since the Claimant should not have been eligible to enter into the FILA Cadet Trials, CAWA made the best decision it could after it became aware of the error. CAWA recognizes that the ideal situation would be for the FILA Cadet Trials to be held again with only the eligible athletes participating but this approach is not feasible. Accordingly, CAWA has removed the ineligible athlete from the results and moved the remaining athletes up. This SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 7 of 16

8 approach is consistent with what CAWA has done in the past when issues are presented after the fact that affect the results. 39. The Respondent confirmed that Mr. Tremblay has always conducted himself in an ethical manner and there was no reason to doubt his intentions. Nevertheless, CAWA has determined that the result cannot stand because there was an error permitting an ineligible athlete to compete. The Respondent submitted that the criteria were well established. Although there were many alternatives considered, the CAWA Executive Committee felt strongly that an ineligible athlete should be removed and determined this was the best approach to rectify the situation. 40. Mr. Kingsbury testified that there was no written petition letter from Kayla or her coach and that there was no weigh-in slip for Kayla. He confirmed that all of the eligible wrestlers had weigh-in slips, although there were some errors in them (such as Ashley having a weigh-in slip for 65kg). He suggests that the errors were partially the result of disorganization and the fact that he never had an opportunity to review the brackets following the registrations because they were not presented to him the night before the tournament began. 41. Mr. Kingsbury confirmed that the petition process was discussed at the Coaches Meeting and that it had also been discussed at the Coaches Meeting at the 2011 Nationals. Mr. Tremblay advised that he was not at either of the Coaches Meetings and he was not aware of the criterion that the athlete had to have been defeated by a second-year Juvenile in order to be eligible to petition for a spot in the FILA Cadet Trials. He confirmed that had he been aware of that criterion, he would still have asked about whether the Claimant was eligible to enter because he was not aware of whether she was in the top five first-year Juveniles. 42. The Affected Party submits that the eligibility criteria were widely circulated and the athletes were aware of the requirements. Unfortunately, it was a chaotic morning and there were many errors affecting the competition. 43. When it was noticed that the Claimant was incorrectly participating in the trials, it was brought to the attention of Mr. James Messenger, the Affected Party s on-site coach (not her usual coach), but he wanted the Affected Party to focus on her performance. It was suggested that Mr. Messenger prefers for matters to be determined on the field of play but there was no evidence provided by Mr. Messenger. It was also brought to the attention of Mr. Kingsbury after the matches SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 8 of 16

9 had begun. There was a suggestion Mr. Messenger was told by Mr. Kingsbury that the Claimant had properly petitioned for entry into the FILA Cadet Trials but Mr. Kingsbury was not asked to confirm this suggestion. 44. The Affected Party submitted the fact that an ineligible wrestler competed impacted all the qualified wrestlers in the draw and particularly impacted the Affected Party as she did not have the opportunity to wrestle to qualify for the World Championships. 45. Mr. Kingsbury could not state unequivocally what he would have done had it been clear Mr. Messenger was requesting to remove the Claimant and replace her with the Affected Party. He was unsure whether he would have had the authority or the support to take such action. 46. The Affected Party agreed there were lots of errors but submitted that the fact remains that the Claimant was clearly ineligible to compete in the FILA Cadet Trials and the result cannot be permitted to stand. While there may have been administrative errors (including in the grievance process and the decision making), it does not vitiate the fact that an athlete who should not have been eligible to participate in the FILA Cadet Trials was permitted to participate and the athletes who had properly qualified in accordance with the rules were negatively impacted as a result. The Affected Party suggested that the CAWA Executive Committee took the best possible action to rectify the situation in the circumstances and its decision should be upheld. 47. The Arbitrator would like to thank each of the parties for their submissions and the detailed documentation received from all of the parties. V REVIEW OF EVIDENCE Issue # 1 Did Non-Compliance with the Grievance Procedures Vitiate the Decision? 48. As Mr. Tremblay ably represented in his submission, there were a plethora of errors made. There were errors made at the Nationals and then the Grievance Procedures were not rigorously followed. It is for this reason that the SDRCC Code provides for a de novo process, rather than merely a review process. It permits each of the parties to have any errors made along the way corrected. It is unfortunate but not unusual that an NSF does not completely follow the correct SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 9 of 16

10 procedures and it is essential not only to determine the impact of such procedural flaws but to reverse them if necessary. 49. One of the provisions of the Grievance Procedures not followed was the requirement to have an athlete representative involved in considering an issue that was athlete-based. There is good reason to have an athlete representative present when considering matters that impact the athletes. Where the athletes affected are not provided with an opportunity to be heard, the athlete perspective is often important to ensure that all relevant issues have been canvassed. In this instance, although the Claimant was not provided with an opportunity to make verbal representations and have the Executive Committee question her, she did have an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the Affected Party s representatives. In addition, the Executive Director for CAWA who was present (without vote) at the Executive Committee review, was a former national champion wrestler who had undergone her own team selection dispute in October 2003 and certainly brought the essential perspective to the matter. That said, I do not want to minimize the need to follow the properly established rules of CAWA. 50. It is clearly possible in this instance to address some of the errors made at the Nationals and to permit the Claimant to have an opportunity to be heard prior to making a decision on whether her results should be expunged from the record. All of the parties have had an opportunity to be heard in this hearing and to question the other parties submissions which overcome the failure to follow the Grievance Procedures. 51. Based on those facts, I see no reason for the non-compliance with the Grievance Procedures on its own to eliminate any impact of the Executive Committee decision. Issue # 2 Should the Error Admitting the Claimant be Corrected? 52. All parties agree that there was an error in admitting the Claimant into the FILA Cadet Trials. Based on the rules, she was not qualified to enter. The question is whether it is too late to correct the error. 53. While Mr. Tremblay was not aware of the requirements to petition, I am satisfied that the requirements were clearly set out, had been communicated to the wrestling SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 10 of 16

11 community on a number of occasions and were reiterated at the Coaches Meeting prior to the start of the tournament. 54. The Claimant s representatives suggest that it is too late and the fallout from changing the result is unfair to the Claimant who did nothing wrong. While I understand that the Claimant s coach believes he did everything within his power to determine whether she was eligible to wrestle (by asking the appropriate CAWA representative if she was eligible and paying the entry fee), I cannot ignore the fact that the rules were clear and the participants have a responsibility to know and abide by the rules. 55. The decision made, whether by error or otherwise, was clearly not in accordance with the rules. If it could have been corrected on site, it should have been notwithstanding Mr. Kingsbury s uncertainty over whether he had the authority or the support to do so. As an aside, I believe it is essential that there be a body on site to deal with such issues. I do not know whether CAWA has a Jury of Appeal or similar body to deal with such issues but I understand Mr. Kingsbury s reluctance to be an individual making such difficult decisions without the ability to fully debate the merits with others. If the issues are canvassed fully and a decision is made (with the right of appeal in the event such decision was not made in accordance with the rules), discretionary decisions by a properly established decision-making body should be given significant latitude and permitted to stand, even on appeal when the appeal body may have made a different decision if the appeal body had been considering the same information as the original decisionmaking body. A properly established decision-making body considering the merits of a case in accordance with fair procedures particularly an expert body in the case of team selection issues should be given great deference. 56. In this case, there was no conscious decision made by such a body. The decision to permit entry, regardless of who made it or how it was made, was in contravention of properly established and communicated rules. While I have sympathy for Mr. Tremblay not being aware of the petition requirements as there are so many rules to be aware of, the fact remains that the rules are there to facilitate the conduct of the tournament and the preferable time to question them is always when they are first introduced, not when they first negatively impact an athlete. SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 11 of 16

12 57. Similarly, the best time to question the eligibility of an athlete is not after the athlete has defeated another athlete but prior to the commencement of the tournament. The Affected Party was immediately aware the Claimant was not eligible when looking at the initial bracket. Why was it not immediately addressed? I understand that there are many things going on (such as the focus on being placed in the correct weight class) but there has to be some understanding if one of the athletes is aware that another is not eligible to compete in that tournament, it is only fair to ensure it is brought to the attention of the athlete BEFORE she wrestles. It is unfair for an athlete to believe that she has earned a spot, only to have it wrested away from her on an issue of ineligibility after the fact. 58. While it is desirable for the organizing committee to determine correctly who is eligible, there is a fair amount of responsibility placed on the athletes and coaches as well. Surely if an athlete believes she is eligible and is told she is not, she is going to investigate further. If an athlete has questions, it is incumbent upon that athlete (or her coach) to ensure all necessary procedures are followed. 59. It is trite to say that the desire of most sport participants is to have the activities on the field of play determine the outcome of a bout. In this particular instance, the Claimant, after losing to the Affected Party at Nationals, defeated the Affected Party at the FILA Cadet Trials. Obviously, it would be preferable to have the result on the field of play determine who qualifies to be on the 2012 Canadian FILA Cadet Pan American Team. 60. Where results have been achieved on the field of play, it is usually undesirable to have those results overturned after the fact. There is great controversy in golf when a television viewer notices a rule infraction and communicates to the governing body, resulting in a stroke penalty being imposed on a golfer after a tournament ends that costs thousands of dollars in prize money. There are legitimate questions as to whether such infractions should be capable of being corrected after the fact. 61. Mr. Tremblay has suggested that the decision about entry was made and it should not be subject to review after the fact. There are many wrong decisions made on the field that have significant ramifications (such as an uncalled Hand of God in SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 12 of 16

13 FIFA World Cup play or a wrongly called third strike to end a baseball game). These errors are unfortunate but have been an accepted part of the game. 62. Many sports, however, have questioned whether the errors should be accepted as part of the game and are now using video replay to ensure that field of play decisions are correct. There are requirements for those replays to overturn the decisions made: the rules of how to appeal have to be followed; appeals have to be made within a certain time and the evidence has to show that the decision was clearly incorrect. 63. Rules are an essential part of sport. We must have them and follow them for results to mean anything. If athletes are able to compete, regardless of eligibility, the concept of winning is tarnished. In this instance, it was clear to all that there were criteria to be eligible to wrestle in the FILA Cadet Trials. The criteria were properly established and had the opportunity for questions. In fact, it appears that the timeline for petition was changed when it became evident that sufficient information was not available 30 minutes following the knock-out bout as to whether an athlete was one of the top five first-year Juveniles. 64. Mr. Tremblay focused on the number of errors made and that there may be precedence for errors not having been corrected in the past. With the greatest of respect, I believe that the fact that there may have been other errors is not relevant to this matter. There may be many errors that go unnoticed and do not get addressed. This may be viewed in the same manner as speeding. Many people exceed the speed limit and do not get sanctioned. Where someone is caught, however, they cannot justify their speed by saying others were exceeding the speed limit as well or that some people who were speeding in the past and caught were not sanctioned because of the circumstances surrounding their offense. 65. We are dealing only with this situation in which an error was made allowing an athlete who was not permitted by the rules to wrestle in a tournament. Although the suggestion has been that the error has had an impact on all of those participants in the FILA Cadet Trials because the draw would have been different, the only person directly affected by that error was the Affected Party because she is the only person who wrestled the Claimant in the FILA Cadet Trials and lost. It not only directed prevented Ashley from being named to the Canadian Team for the SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 13 of 16

14 Pan American Championships, it also directly prevented her from wrestling for the opportunity to represent Canada at the FILA Cadet World Championships. 66. The fact that the unfairness can be addressed after the fact has some support from the way other unfairness has been addressed in the past. The evidence regarding a doping offense, notwithstanding that this unfairness is different and the Claimant did not cheat intentionally, can be used to show how the unfairness can be addressed. While not akin to an intentional doping offense, it may be likened to an unintentional doping offense where an athlete takes precautions but still has a prohibited substance in the body; that athlete is removed from the results and everyone moves up. 67. Based on the foregoing analysis, there appears to be no reason to overturn the Executive Committee decision based on any standard of review. Issue #3 Is the Unfair Impact on the Athlete Sufficient to Justify Ignoring the Rules? 68. The Claimant left the Nationals believing she had qualified for the Canadian Team to the FILA Cadet Pan American Championships. There was no suggestion that she should not plan her travel nor focus her training on that event. About a month after believing she had earned her spot, she was informed she had been removed from the team. That is difficult for any athlete to accept, especially one of 16 years of age. 69. The Affected Party s disappointment was different but not necessarily any less. She believed prior to wrestling the Claimant that the Claimant could not have been eligible. Her coach wanted her to focus on her bouts and not worry about whether another was in compliance with the rules. That does not seem to be bad advice especially if compliance can always be questioned later. Is it wrong to question after losing on the field of play whether it was in compliance with the rules? 70. After losing the bout, the questions began in earnest. If the answer had been that the Claimant was properly in the tournament, the questions would have ended. When the questions were not answered in that manner, it is not surprising that a grievance was filed the existence of the Grievance Procedures is to address matters such as non-compliance with the rules. Each of the Affected Party and the Claimant has utilized this process. SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 14 of 16

15 71. Mr. Tremblay submits that following the rules is unfair to the Claimant because it is after the fact and she had no warning prior to the decision being made. She believed she had won fair and square and did not intentionally breach any rules. 72. If the rules are ignored, however, the Affected Party is unfairly treated. She complied with the rules in all respects. While she lost on the field of play, she did so only because she had to wrestle an athlete who did not comply with the rules in all respects. Which is more unfair? VI DETERMINATION 73. Although I do not refer in this Decision to every aspect of the parties submissions and evidence, in reaching my conclusions and in making my decision I have considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by them in this proceeding. 74. This is an unfortunate case. Young athletes are impacted because of the errors not of their making. On the one hand, an athlete and her coach do what they believe is appropriate and petition to compete in a trials event based on the fact that she may or may not have qualified and some otherwise qualified athletes are not competing. On the other hand, an athlete who is clearly qualified loses to the athlete she never should have had to compete against. The losing athlete loses not only her opportunity to travel to the FILA Pan American Championships but her opportunity to wrestle for an opportunity to travel to the FILA World Championships. Either result is not fair the athletes did not try to cheat but one has proceeded in accordance with the rules and one has, unknowingly, not. 75. One athlete, who she earned the right by her efforts on the field of play, was defeated by someone who had no right to be there. The other athlete had something taken away that she had earned on the field of play. The difference is one athlete had the right to earn the outcome. The other athlete did not. 76. While I accept the evidence of Mr. Tremblay, I believe it is incumbent upon those seeking exemptions or accommodations to take the extra steps to ensure all i's are dotted and all t s are crossed. This is especially true where there are lots of errors, time constraints and confusion surrounding the entry. 77. It is clear on the facts that the Claimant had no right to enter the FILA Cadet Trials. It is unfortunate for her that she entered and wrestled and apparently made SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 15 of 16

16 a Canadian team. While her result on the field of play is admirable, however, it cannot be acknowledged because she should not have been entered in the first place. Rules must be followed for the results to mean anything. 78. The Respondent reacted in accordance with its rules. Upon receiving a grievance, it processed it largely in accordance with its Grievance Procedures. While there were some errors in procedure, those errors were addressed through this hearing. Having heard the evidence, I see no reason to interfere with the decision reached by the Respondent s Executive Committee. VII JUDGEMENT 79. The application by the Claimant is dismissed. 80. The decision of the Executive Committee of CAWA is confirmed. IX THE COSTS 81. None of the parties requested an award of costs. I accordingly make no such award. X RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 82. I reserve the right to deal with any matter arising from this decision and its interpretation. DATED: June 22, 2012 Gordon E. Peterson, Arbitrator SDRCC Kayla Bonneau (Claimant), CAWA (Respondent), Ashley Osachuk (Affected Party) Page 16 of 16