Anatomy of an Appeal North American FIS TD Working Group ©Gary Wright/Paul Van Slyke 2007

Jury Problem Jury Problem This jury problem is different than most of the ones we review because the situation below is an appeal. Most of us will never serve on an appeal commission to review the propriety of a jury decision. However, I am hopeful that everyone will be able to identify the errors made by the jury that led to the appeal. This jury problem is different than most of the ones we review because the situation below is an appeal. Most of us will never serve on an appeal commission to review the propriety of a jury decision. However, I am hopeful that everyone will be able to identify the errors made by the jury that led to the appeal. Keep in mind that just because the jury made a mistake, does not automatically mean the appeal should be granted and the jury decision overturned. Here, this situation is loosely based on real events. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. Keep in mind that just because the jury made a mistake, does not automatically mean the appeal should be granted and the jury decision overturned. Here, this situation is loosely based on real events. The names have been changed to protect the guilty.

This appeal is from a jury decision from a regional FIS race, a Ladies SL, held in the southern hemisphere. The pertinent facts can be determined from the attached Appeal of Jury Decision. You may assume that the appeal was timely filed and all filing fees paid. Please discuss and answer the following questions: This appeal is from a jury decision from a regional FIS race, a Ladies SL, held in the southern hemisphere. The pertinent facts can be determined from the attached Appeal of Jury Decision. You may assume that the appeal was timely filed and all filing fees paid. Please discuss and answer the following questions:

1. What documentary information should the Appeal Commission request and obtain to use in its evaluation of the appeal? 2. Would you interview any individuals regarding this situation? If so, who would you interview and what would you ask them?

3. What Rules Should You Consider in Evaluating this Appeal? 3. What Rules Should You Consider in Evaluating this Appeal? 4. What would you do differently? 4. What would you do differently? 5. What result do you think the Appeal Commission reached and why? 5. What result do you think the Appeal Commission reached and why?

Jury Meeting Notes Jury Meeting Notes During the second run of the Paraguay Cup, a slalom taking place on 4 August Racer 14 (representing the Bolivian Race Association) was not charged with a fault by the responsible gatekeeper. Shortly after the run there was a question regarding proper passage of gate 26 by racer 14 presented to the Referee by Don Eagle-eyes Gringo (representing Federation Argentina Groupe). The referee interviewed the gatekeeper responsible as well as the keeper above and below. The gatekeeper assigned to the gate had no notation of a fault for the racer. The gatekeepers above and below had no notation either During the second run of the Paraguay Cup, a slalom taking place on 4 August Racer 14 (representing the Bolivian Race Association) was not charged with a fault by the responsible gatekeeper. Shortly after the run there was a question regarding proper passage of gate 26 by racer 14 presented to the Referee by Don Eagle-eyes Gringo (representing Federation Argentina Groupe). The referee interviewed the gatekeeper responsible as well as the keeper above and below. The gatekeeper assigned to the gate had no notation of a fault for the racer. The gatekeepers above and below had no notation either

Following the race and after the Referees Report was posted a protest was submitted by Juan Garcia (also representing Federation Argentina Group). The protest was filed in a timely manner and the protest fee was accepted. The Jury agreed to accept a fee of $40 and the protestor had only one five hundred thousand- peso bill and there was no change available. Following the race and after the Referees Report was posted a protest was submitted by Juan Garcia (also representing Federation Argentina Group). The protest was filed in a timely manner and the protest fee was accepted. The Jury agreed to accept a fee of $40 and the protestor had only one five hundred thousand- peso bill and there was no change available.

Testimony from: Juan Garcia and Dan Eagle-eyes Gringo Testimony from: Juan Garcia and Dan Eagle-eyes Gringo Juan and Eagle-eyes testified that they were standing together at the finish line approximately 50 meters from gate #26, and observed racer 14 straddle the gate. Both witnesses agreed that they had seen clearly and had no doubt of their observation. Juan and Eagle-eyes testified that they were standing together at the finish line approximately 50 meters from gate #26, and observed racer 14 straddle the gate. Both witnesses agreed that they had seen clearly and had no doubt of their observation.

Testimony from: Pablo Martinez and Luis Limonade Testimony from: Pablo Martinez and Luis Limonade Pablo and Luis were standing two gates below gate 26 and both stated that they clearly saw racer 14 straddle gate #26. They further stated that they commented to each other at the time that the racer had straddled the gate. Pablo and Luis were standing two gates below gate 26 and both stated that they clearly saw racer 14 straddle gate #26. They further stated that they commented to each other at the time that the racer had straddled the gate.

Acting on the statement from Eagle-eyes immediately following racer 14's run, the gate judge for the gate in question was interviewed by the Referee and found to be a new gate keeper, with no experience, who asked for help and clarification of faults during the process of the interview. Acting on the statement from Eagle-eyes immediately following racer 14's run, the gate judge for the gate in question was interviewed by the Referee and found to be a new gate keeper, with no experience, who asked for help and clarification of faults during the process of the interview.

It was the Referees observation that the gatekeeper was very nervous and unsure of her job. She also stated that she did not want to get in trouble with any of the parents and that many of the parents are armed. It was the Referees observation that the gatekeeper was very nervous and unsure of her job. She also stated that she did not want to get in trouble with any of the parents and that many of the parents are armed.

No representative for the athlete was available to be interviewed or represent the athlete. All members of the athletes home organization had left the venue. The Jury attempted to locate anyone to represent the athlete by going through the lodge asking for anyone from the organization. In addition, no video evidence could be located. No representative for the athlete was available to be interviewed or represent the athlete. All members of the athletes home organization had left the venue. The Jury attempted to locate anyone to represent the athlete by going through the lodge asking for anyone from the organization. In addition, no video evidence could be located.

Jury found that all of the evidence presented supported granting the protest and disqualifying racer #14 for incorrect passage of gate #26 on second run. Jury found that all of the evidence presented supported granting the protest and disqualifying racer #14 for incorrect passage of gate #26 on second run.

Paraguay Cup Slalom #4 Blue Sky Mountain Ski Area FIS Codex P22334 Appeal of Jury Decision Appeal of Jury Decision

The racer wearing bib 14 (Appellant) finished her first run 3 seconds ahead of the second place finisher. The Appellant finished the second run and received a valid finish time. The valid time placed her in first place for the overall race. All gate judges recorded that bib 14 passed correctly through each gate. The posted Report of the Referee did not list bib 14 as a DSQ. The racer wearing bib 14 (Appellant) finished her first run 3 seconds ahead of the second place finisher. The Appellant finished the second run and received a valid finish time. The valid time placed her in first place for the overall race. All gate judges recorded that bib 14 passed correctly through each gate. The posted Report of the Referee did not list bib 14 as a DSQ.

A team captain representing another competitor subsequently protested the referee report. The basis for protest was that in the coaches opinion, bib 14 faulted, but was not listed on the referee report. A team captain representing another competitor subsequently protested the referee report. The basis for protest was that in the coaches opinion, bib 14 faulted, but was not listed on the referee report.

IRC 641 describes types of protests that are permitted. While the rule provides for a protest against disqualification (641.4), the rule does not provide for a protest against non- disqualification. On this basis alone the protest was invalid to begin with and should not have been allowed. Furthermore, if non- disqualifications could be protested, arguably every racer in every race with a clean gate judge card would be subject to a protest.. IRC 641 describes types of protests that are permitted. While the rule provides for a protest against disqualification (641.4), the rule does not provide for a protest against non- disqualification. On this basis alone the protest was invalid to begin with and should not have been allowed. Furthermore, if non- disqualifications could be protested, arguably every racer in every race with a clean gate judge card would be subject to a protest..

The jury not only allowed the protest to come in, but also upheld the protest based solely on the verbal testimony from third-party interveners, all of who had a vested interest in the outcome. The jury not only allowed the protest to come in, but also upheld the protest based solely on the verbal testimony from third-party interveners, all of who had a vested interest in the outcome.

IRC allows for written notes from other gates judges, a member of the jury, or an official video controller to be interpreted by the jury in view of a decision concerning a protest. None of the third party interveners were other gate judges, members of the jury, or official video controllers. IRC allows for written notes from other gates judges, a member of the jury, or an official video controller to be interpreted by the jury in view of a decision concerning a protest. None of the third party interveners were other gate judges, members of the jury, or official video controllers.

Neither the Appellant-Athlete, nor her coach were ever contacted or called upon to give testimony regarding the protest seeking her disqualification. Two of the Appellant- Athletes Coaches Jose Cuervo and Timmy Tequila were present in the ski lodge after the race was complete, around 2 p.m. Neither the Appellant-Athlete, nor her coach were ever contacted or called upon to give testimony regarding the protest seeking her disqualification. Two of the Appellant- Athletes Coaches Jose Cuervo and Timmy Tequila were present in the ski lodge after the race was complete, around 2 p.m.

A team captain representing another competitor subsequently protested the referee report. The basis for protest was that in the coaches opinion, bib 14 faulted, but was not listed on the referee report. A team captain representing another competitor subsequently protested the referee report. The basis for protest was that in the coaches opinion, bib 14 faulted, but was not listed on the referee report.

Jose Cuervo assisted the host mountain in dismantling the course. At no time during this period were either Jose or Timmy contacted or made aware that there may be an issue with one of the Appellant- Athlete who was one of their athletes. Jose and Timmy saw many coaches of other teams as well as race officials around the venue for more than an hour after the Ladies race. Jose Cuervo assisted the host mountain in dismantling the course. At no time during this period were either Jose or Timmy contacted or made aware that there may be an issue with one of the Appellant- Athlete who was one of their athletes. Jose and Timmy saw many coaches of other teams as well as race officials around the venue for more than an hour after the Ladies race.

Neither Jose, Timmy nor the Athlete- Appellant were notified that a protest had been filed against bib 14 or that the jury would meet to consider a protest against bib 14's successful 2nd run. Neither Jose, Timmy nor the Athlete- Appellant were notified that a protest had been filed against bib 14 or that the jury would meet to consider a protest against bib 14's successful 2nd run.

In fact, Jose and Timmy were notified by telephone later that evening that bib 14 was disqualified. Yet, no phone calls were made to Neither Jose, Timmy nor the Athlete-Appellant earlier while the jury was considering the protest. We believe that this jury decision is grossly unfair and should be reversed for the following reasons: In fact, Jose and Timmy were notified by telephone later that evening that bib 14 was disqualified. Yet, no phone calls were made to Neither Jose, Timmy nor the Athlete-Appellant earlier while the jury was considering the protest. We believe that this jury decision is grossly unfair and should be reversed for the following reasons:

The protest was invalid. Rule 641 does not provide for a protest against a non- disqualification and the athlete was not disqualified on the course. The protest was invalid. Rule 641 does not provide for a protest against a non- disqualification and the athlete was not disqualified on the course. All of the gate judges accounts and written records show absolute correct passage at every gate on the course in accordance with Rules 662.3, 662.4, and All of the gate judges accounts and written records show absolute correct passage at every gate on the course in accordance with Rules 662.3, 662.4, and

The athlete was not listed on the original DSQ list and would not have known that a protest was filed. The athlete was not listed on the original DSQ list and would not have known that a protest was filed. None of the third party interveners were other gate judges, members of the jury, or official video controllers as discussed in Rule None of the third party interveners were other gate judges, members of the jury, or official video controllers as discussed in Rule

A team captain representing another competitor subsequently protested the referee report. The basis for protest was that in the coaches opinion, bib 14 faulted, but was not listed on the referee report. A team captain representing another competitor subsequently protested the referee report. The basis for protest was that in the coaches opinion, bib 14 faulted, but was not listed on the referee report.

The jury meeting was conducted without representation for the athlete, although two of her coaches, Jose and Timmy were present at the venue. The jury meeting was conducted without representation for the athlete, although two of her coaches, Jose and Timmy were present at the venue.

For these reasons we strongly urge you to reverse the jurys decision and allow this athletes originally recorded time to stand. For these reasons we strongly urge you to reverse the jurys decision and allow this athletes originally recorded time to stand. Respectfully submitted, Jose Cuervo and Timmy Tequila Respectfully submitted, Jose Cuervo and Timmy Tequila

Back to the original Questions……. Back to the original Questions…….

1. What documentary information should the Appeal Commission request and obtain to use in its evaluation of the appeal? 1. What documentary information should the Appeal Commission request and obtain to use in its evaluation of the appeal?

Written protest, first and second start lists, official results including penalty calculation, first and second run Report by the Referee, Minutes of Jury Decision (with protest), Gate Judge Card, Start and Finish Referee Recording Forms, and Technical Delegate Report. Written protest, first and second start lists, official results including penalty calculation, first and second run Report by the Referee, Minutes of Jury Decision (with protest), Gate Judge Card, Start and Finish Referee Recording Forms, and Technical Delegate Report.

2. Would you interview any individuals regarding this situation? If so, who would you interview and what would you ask them? 2. Would you interview any individuals regarding this situation? If so, who would you interview and what would you ask them?

Coach or Team Captain - questions: 1. Location at time of athletes 2nd run. 2. What did you see and specifically, did you see the athletes run? 3. When did you review the referee report for this run?

4. When and how did you become aware of any protest relating to this run? 5. When and how did you become aware that racer 14 had been disqualified based on a protest filed with the jury? 6. Anything else you want to tell me? If so, what?

The Athlete - questions: 1.Tell me about your 2nd run of the slalom. Did you think you missed any gates or have any close calls? If so, what happened? 2.Did you check the referee report or did you rely on your coach? 3.When did you become aware that there had been a protest which sought and obtained your disqualification?

To the Jury as a Whole: 1.Was the protest against racer 14's correct passage filed in a timely manner and if so, when? 2.When was the jury convened? 3.Was there a delay and what information was obtained from the racer or racers team captain?

4. What time did the jury make its decision? 5.How was it published? 6.What did you do to obtain as many witnesses as possible for the protest? 7.What witnesses did you interview for the protest? 8.Did you confirm their location and proximity to the gate that racer 14 allegedly missed?

To the Technical Delegate: 1.Please explain how your jury satisfied the requirements of the person accused of an offense shall be given an opportunity to present a defense at a hearing, orally or in writing?. 2.Under what circumstances can the jury waive this requirement?

3.What constituted an opportunity for the person accused of an offense in this situation? 4.What discussion occurred among the jury regarding due process?

3. What Rules Should You Consider in Evaluating this Appeal? 224.7, , 644.3, 645, 647, 662.3, 666.2, 668, and 670.

4. What would you do differently? 5. What result do you think the Appeal Commission reached and why?

Remember Where It All Begins!