A new model for sports conflict resolution emerges
Just about four commonwealth games ago, there emerged an event which highlighted the mistake committed by the British Athletics Federation that had bankrupted a sport and ruined the life of an innocent woman athlete.
This was when Diane Modahl, the 800m reigning champion failed a drugs test just a few days before the commonwealth games of 1994, held in Canada. The girl had been sent home with sheer disgrace.
About a year later, the British Athletics Federation (BAF) eventually found out that Modahl’s positive test was not the result of performance-enhancing drugs, but the incorrect storage of her sample, taken by the laboratory. Learning the true reasons behind
the incident, the BAF lifted the ban from the girl.
Nine months later when the BAF authorities had acknowledged the error made by the laboratory, the international federation followed the suit and allowed the girl to take part into the athletics event worldwide. The decision restored Modahl’s reputation as
she was now free to compete at the highest level again. However, this did not end there.
Four years down the line, Modahly broke in tears in court after losing one million pounds claim for the damage to her career caused by the BAF. Though the girl had lost the case, but the legal proceedings had drained the bank account of BAF. After dozens
of hearings, Modahl was homeless while the British athletics was bust.
Fortunately, the lessons were learnt from the incident, which culminated in adopting a new approach for settling the sporting arguments. That was the establishment of an independent arbitration service owned and run by the independent experts. This new arbiter
was named as the Sports Dispute Resolution Panel.
The panel, whose name was later on changed to Sports Resolution, has been probably the most successful entity in British Sports one could have never heard of.
The recent case of John Higgins match fixing inquiry, the issue of Patrice Evra, or Rio Ferdinand’s infamous miss-tested debacle; just name any high profile dispute and you would learn that it was Sport Resolutions which had sorted it out.
For ordinary journalists and spectators, it was Higgins case which brought their attention towards the presence and workings of Sport Resolution, and many of them were amazed to learn that it was a perfect example of how the impressive organization worked.
In case anyone has forgot the 3-time world snooker champion was caught on camera in a newspaper sitting, which apparently showed that he had agreed upon losing the match. Initially it looked like more of an open-and-shut case of fraud, but fortunately for
the Scot it was more complicated than that. In reality, the truth was totally different from the general perception.
What was commendable out of the issue was the timely response from the snooker association, and that too in a thorough and transparent manner as the reputation of snooker being a credible sport was on stake. When the correspondent authorities were totally
confused about what to do next, the Sport Resolution came in to offer the solution.
Taking charge of the case, Sports Resolution took on the paper work by thoroughly consulting the World Snooker’s rule book, brokered a time and place for the hearing and brought the experts in the panel from its 120-stonglist of lawyers and experts of the
sport.
The hearing, chaired by Ian Mill QC who happens to be the country’s top sports barrister, took place for two days in London, and when finally it was over, it was found that Higgins was innocent; hence he was given his career back, a corrupt agent was thrown
out of the sport and despite of being left bruised, snooker did not end up broken.
Right from its inception in 1997, the Sport Resolution has dealt with more than 500 cases where the justice has not only done on time, but in limited budgets as well. The presence of such a credible arbiter has not only brought fairness into the systems
of sports boards, it has also emerged as a last and dependable asylum for the athletes facing discriminations, prejudices and injustices in their respective fields.
Tags: