Robin Clegg, Martine Albert, Marijke Ciaramidaro and Biathlon Canada Canadian Olympic Association (COA) Selection to Olympic Team Ed Ratushny, Q.C.

Transcription

1 Introduction Claimants: Respondent: Type of Dispute: Arbitrator: Robin Clegg, Martine Albert, Marijke Ciaramidaro and Biathlon Canada Canadian Olympic Association (COA) Selection to Olympic Team Ed Ratushny, Q.C. Date of Decision: January 27 th, 2002

2 Dispute Summary Robin Clegg, Martine Albert and Marijke Ciaramidaro, members of the Biathlon Canada National Team, appealed a decision by the Canadian Olympic Association (COA) not to include them on Canada s Team for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Shortly after filing the appeal, Mr. Clegg was successful in meeting the performance standards which created additional grounds for his appeal.

3 Background Facts The selection of athletes to compete in biathlon at the 2002 Olympic Winter Games was governed by a selection agreement between the COA and Biathlon Canada which set out the specific qualification process. The agreement was based on the COA Team Selection Policy which required that an athlete must have demonstrated a reasonable probability of achieving a top 16 and top half performance at the Games. At the time of the appeal, none of the claimants had achieved all of the performance standards. Clegg met the standards shortly after the appeal was filed.

4 Claimants Position The case brought forward by the three athletes and Biathlon Canada was based on the following arguments: It is vital to a young athlete s development to experience Olympic competition; The Canadian performance standards were much higher than those established by the International Biathlon Union, whose standards all three athletes had met; The Olympic Games represented two vital Nations Cup qualifying races towards competing in the next World Cup; Canada has competed in biathlon in every Olympics since 1984 with considerable success; The absence of Olympic exposure could have resulted in significant loss of corporate sponsorship.;

5 Claimants Position (cont d) It was unfair to apply the standards rigidly since the athletes had played no role in establishing them and were not parties to the agreement in question; Selection criteria established for other sports created unfair conditions for biathlon; and, One of the athletes was thinking about competing for another country because of her dual citizenship.

6 Respondent s Position The COA s case was based on the following arguments: Its Team Selection Agreements with the National Sport Federations (NSF) are the cornerstone of team selection. They would be meaningless if they simply could be ignored to allow athletes who have not qualified to participate in the Olympics; and, The agreements are the product of discussion, negotiation and approval by the Board of the COA on which the various sports, including biathlon, are represented. Their purpose is to maintain objectivity and to avoid arbitrariness.

7 Arbitrator s Analysis Ed Ratushny, Q.C., concluded that while the frustration expressed by the athletes was understandable, the issues they raised must be addressed in the development of appropriate standards in the future. He ruled that the issues could not be allowed to over-ride the application of existing standards under the existing agreement.

8 Follow-up Case On January 25 th, 2002, four days after the appeal was launched, Robin Clegg met the required performance standards. However, this was 12 days after the final qualification date identified by the COA. The COA declined a request from Biathlon Canada to extend the qualification deadline to January 25 th, indicating that the Committee was guided by principles of preserving the integrity of the COA/NSF Team Selection Agreement and the fairness of the process.

9 Arbitrator s Analysis Follow-up Case Ed Ratushny concluded that it was not entirely clear from the Team Selection Agreement that the specified time period was intended to be a standard of the same mandatory nature as a performance standard. He made reference to a recent precedent in the sport of bobsleigh (skeleton) where there had been a departure from the closing date of January 13 th. He also concluded that it was difficult to take issue with Biathlon Canada s argument that the foundation of the entire process was the principle of merit-based selection. Mr. Ratushny determined that the COA s considerations, while valid, were administrative rather than performance-related.

10 Ruling Follow-up Case The appeal was allowed for Robin Clegg, but denied for Martine Albert and Marijke Ciaramidaro. Click here for the full text of this ADRsportRED judgment.

11 Lessons Learned 1. When selection criteria for an event are part of a formal selection agreement negotiated by the national sport organization (NSO) and the COA, and the criteria are communicated to the athletes, they must be respected; 2. When these same selection criteria are not operating in the best interests of the sport, they have to be reassessed in future negotiations; 3. The time frame within which the qualification standards must be achieved is not a standard of the same mandatory nature as performance standards negotiated by the NSO and the COA and included in the selection agreement. It responds to administrative considerations rather than performance-related ones; and, 4. An athlete can be selected if he/she achieves the standards after the deadline when the deadline for registration with the COA has not expired and where no other athlete is affected by such qualification.