He also discusses WorkSafe’s investigation into Carlton over Elijah Hollands’ mental‑health situation, noting there is precedent for WorkSafe action in sport. Horvath says both the AFL and clubs share responsibility for player wellbeing and that internal and external reviews are appropriate.

Listen to the interview here

The post Paul Horvath on 3AW with Jacqui Felgate – AFL Tribunal Process and Clubs’ Duty of Care appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

Sports Tribunals | What Happens at a Disciplinary HearingRead More »

The post Sports Tribunals | What Happens at a Disciplinary Hearing appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

They provide their key takeaways from that matter – highlighting the harsh
realities athletes face in selection disputes.

Read it here: bit.ly/3gmCoXj

The post Harsh realities athletes face in selection disputes appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

The post Natural Justice and Appeals in Sport appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

At the lower levels of the sport, tennis faces a “tsunami” of betting and other integrity breaches according to an interim independent review of integrity in Tennis released in April this year.

The report, which addresses integrity issues facing the sport, provides a damning insight into the scope and seriousness of betting-related integrity issues in professional tennis today. The investigation, which was established after shock allegations of corruption dominated the 2016 Australian Open, made a welcome finding that there were no widespread systemic issues at the higher levels of professional tennis, namely at grand slam level or on the ATP and WTA tours. Despite the opportune timing of such a finding, with Wimbledon kicking off in July 2018, the issues at lower-level tournaments risk exposing the integrity of the sport as a whole.

A key issue set out in the report which is said to exacerbate the problem is the emergence of online betting and the sale of official live scoring data. These contracts make tens of thousands of matches available for betting which “creates greater opportunities for players and officials to bet or act corruptly.” In an effort to stamp out such corruption, the report recommended that the International Tennis Federation (“ITF”) end its data-rights deal with Swiss company ‘Sportradar’ worth $70 million over a five-year period, at least, as it relates to the lowest tiers of professional tennis.

Whilst deals such as these are considerably lucrative for the sport, they also open up the available markets for betting within professional tennis. The report asserted that the lucrative nature of the data sales should not be used to justify the continued practice, stating, “the resolution of significant integrity concerns cannot be driven by the question of financial return — even when much of it is redistributed to the sport.”

These lucrative incentives are particularly appealing to lower-level tournaments. As the report notes, players who regularly compete at lower levels are unable to recoup their costs from tournament winnings, much less earn a living wage. Match-fixing is much more common at these levels for this reason.

Notably, the TIU has investigated a number of ITF Futures players in 2018, finding them guilty of corruption charges under Section D of the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program. Offenses under this provision include match-fixing, facilitating betting, providing insider information and failing to report corrupt approaches to the TIU. In some instances, players approached other players and offered payment in return for agreeing to lose nominated sets and games. The result of this is that if the approached player does not disclose the approach to the TIU, both players are liable to sanctions, even if the approached player did not agree to the approach.

Punishments in these instances can include the issuing of lifetime bans, and carry significant fines.
Upon release of the interim report, the governing bodies of tennis, including the ATP and WTA Tours, the International Tennis Federation and the four grand slam tournaments including Tennis Australia Chair Jayne Hrdlicka, confirmed their agreement with the package of measures and recommendations proposed by the report and advised that they required time to consult and respond to the recommendations after detailed “exploration and analysis” whilst continuing to “implement existing initiatives to enhance and expand tennis’s governance of the sport in relation to betting-related integrity”.

As the report concludes, these changes are “necessary, pragmatic and effective approaches to containing betting-related breaches of integrity”.

We provide legal advise on integrity – contact us if you wish to discuss your situation.

The post Tennis Integrity appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

Domestic sporting bodies are obliged under the common law to conduct fair hearings. Independent of any rules or by-laws they must accord with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. One such principle is that a party must be given an opportunity to make submissions on the question of penalty as well as on guilt.

Hall v New South Wales Trotting Club [1977] 1 NSWLR 378, is a case in which the failure of the club to invite the member to make submissions on penalty constituted a breach of natural justice.  South Melbourne Football Club Ltd v Football Federation Victoria Inc [2010] VSC 355 is a more recent case which also requires that a party be able to make submissions on the question of penalty.

On the 11th of April 2010 the South Melbourne Football Club (SMFC) played against Heidelberg United Football Club. Due to unacceptable conduct on the part of SMFC supporters the referee abandoned the match. In relation to one of the conduct charges laid against the club Justice Pagone of the Supreme Court found that the FFV Appeals Board did not satisfactorily articulate the charge and therefore SMFC did not have the opportunity to make any meaningful submissions on penalty. Justice Pagone found that this was a breach of procedural fairness.

Procedural Fairness in Sport

Carter v New South Wales Netball Association [2004] NSWSC 737 involved controversial conduct of a volunteer junior netball coach and life member of the Mount Druitt Netball Association, Sandra Carter. Parents believed her conduct constituted child abuse and wrote to the New South Wales Netball Association (NSWNA). This letter was forwarded to Ms Carter for a response. The letter did not particularise any person alleged to have been abused and was therefore hard to refute in any detail.

An Investigator was appointed to look into the allegations and make a decision on whether or not Ms Carter had breached the NSWNA’s Anti Harassment Policy (the Policy). The Investigation was poorly conducted. Following the decision of the Investigator that Ms Carter did breach the policy, the NSWNA’s Disciplinary Committee banned Ms Carter as a member of Netball NSW for a period of five years.

The Court overturned the decision and described her conduct to be “excessively enthusiastic coaching” rather than child abuse. The Court also found that the Disciplinary Committee did not afford Ms Carter procedural fairness which would have included amongst other things:

• Informing Ms Carter with sufficient particularity of what she was accused and by whom;
• Giving Ms Carter a reasonable opportunity to consider the specific accusations in advance of her interview with the investigator; and
• Affording Ms Carter a fair hearing including an unbiased decision.

Whilst it may be important to seek tough penalties against those who are in breach of rules in place to protect children sporting bodies must follow a proper process in handling a complaint.  If they do not follow the relevant rules, by-laws and laws, innocent parties can be wrongly found guilty or the decision will be able to be successfully challenged.

The post A fair hearing in sport appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

Thank you to Television Education Network Pty Ltd and Adrian Anderson.  The topic was fairness in disciplinary investigations and tribunal hearings within sporting organisations (including appeals and legal consequences) and not following a fair process.

The post FAIRNESS IN DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.

These include:

• Having a clear written policy setting out the process and criteria;
• Making sure all athletes are aware of selection process and criteria;
• Following and apply selection criteria;
• Not applying inappropriate criteria;
• Being transparent;
• Being consistent; and
• Acting in good faith and without bias.

The above considerations aim at achieving a smooth process of selection, however, in reality, selection disputes will always arise.  Athletes often make many sacrifices and work extremely hard to be selected.  In the case of Olympic athletes, they only have the opportunity to be selected to compete at the Olympics once every four years.  If they are not selected during this small space of time they may feel unfairly excluded regardless of whether or not the relevant selection criteria were complied with.  Often athletes feel they have nothing to lose in challenging non-selection and therefore pursue an appeal against their non-selection.

It is important for you, as selectors, to know if and when such challenges are likely to be successful, given that selection appeals are becoming more frequent.

If an athlete can prove that a selector has made a decision based on bias or has not acted fairly, an appeal against the decision has relatively high prospects of success.  However, if we assume for the purposes of this article that a selector is not acting in bad faith and that natural justice has been afforded, the following case illustrates that no matter what decision is made by a selector, it is unlikely to be overturned on appeal if the selector properly applied relevant policies and considered the correct criteria.

The decision of Mewing v Swimming Australia Limited (CAS 2008/A/1540) states that:

“being entitled to consideration for nomination and being eligible for nomination is not the same as having a right to nomination.  In selection disputes, in the absence of bad faith, dishonesty or perversity, the CAS has consistently considered that an appeal against a selection decision cannot succeed when……the relevant decision maker, has properly following and implemented the Nomination Criteria and has given proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the overall needs of the team.”

In Mewing v Swimming Australia Limited, Andrew Mewing was not selected for the Australian men’s 4 x 200 relay team for the Beijing Olympics 2008 despite satisfying the eligibility criteria.  There were no grounds for disqualifying him.  Further, additional places in the team were also available and his selection wold not have displaced another swimmer.  Mewing appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The post Selectors: Avoiding successful challenges to selection decisions appeared first on Sportslawyer - Experts in Sports Law Melbourne & Australia-wide.