Translator: click on flag to translate

Monday, January 22, 2018

Speed Skating Canada v William Dutton Appeal Award Re: Use of Times of Russian Athletes with Anti-Doping Violations in Canadian Olympic Speed Skating Criteria

SPORT DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE OF CANADA (SDRCC)
CENTRE DE RÈGLEMENT DES DIFFÉRENDS SPORTIFS DU CANADA (CRDSC)
NO: SDRCC 18-0344
WILLIAM DUTTON
 (CLAIMANT)
AND
SPEED SKATING CANADA (SSC)
 (RESPONDENT)
AND
JORDAN BELCHOS
BENJAMIN DONNELLY
LAURENT DUBREUIL
 (AFFECTED PARTIES)
Attendees at hearing:
For the Claimant: William Dutton, represented by Dr. Emir Crowne, Amanda Fowler
and Liam McFarlane
For the Respondent: Susan Auch, Dominique Gravel, Shawn Holman and Scott Maw,
represented by Steven Indig
For the Affected Parties: Jordan Belchos, represented by Michael Belchos
Benjamin Donnelly
Laurent Dubreuil, represented by Robert Dubreuil and Michaël
Bardagi

SHORT DECISION
(Reasons to follow)
This is my decision pursuant to the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code (January 1,
2015). The Request by the Claimant that the Respondent reconsider its selection criteria is
granted.
The grounds raised by the Claimant in his appeal are as follows:
1. The Respondent made procedural errors in failing to follow its own approved policy.
2. The Respondent made procedural errors in failing to consider relevant information and
in taking into account relevant information.
3. The Respondent exercised its discretion for an improper purpose.
4. The Decisions made were grossly unreasonable in the circumstances.
Background:
The Respondent’s selection criteria included using the International Skating Union (ISU)
rankings for determination of selection. The Appellant argued that the ISU ranking list includes
athletes who have violated anti-doping policies. The Appellant argued that it was unfair for his
results to be compared against such athletes. He further argues that the Respondent failed to
consider its Fair Play Policy after the IOC’s announcement on December 5th, 2017 (the IOC
Announcement), suspending the Russian Olympic Committee from participation in the 2018
Winter Olympic Games. He argued that all of the results by Russian skaters should not be
considered.
The Respondent indicated that it made its decision based on pre-established criteria that the
Claimant had never challenged. It also submitted that the Olympic Selection Committee
considered this argument and determined that the Olympic Performance Standard should not
be modified because (i) the ISU has not revised the SOQC; (ii) appeals of banned athletes have
not yet concluded; (iii) the IOC has not yet issued an invitation list to the 2018 Olympic Games;
and (iv) only the IOC has the discretion to make the final decision on which athletes may
participate and/or be invited to participate to the 2018 Olympic Games.
The Affected Parties supported the decision of Speed Skating Canada.
Conclusion:
The Claimant showed that the Respondent made procedural errors in failing to follow its own
approved policies. The Claimant showed that the Respondent made procedural errors in failing
to consider relevant information and in taking into account relevant information. The Claimant
failed to show that the Respondent exercised its discretion for an improper purpose. The
Claimant failed to show that the Decision made was grossly unreasonable in the circumstances

The Respondent did not show sufficient evidence that it considered how the IOC Announcement
affected its athletes in international rankings that determined eligibility for participation in the
2018 Winter Olympic Games. The Respondent did not indicate how it justified determining its
athletes’ eligibility using results that included competitors who have since been banned for
doping violations. No reasons were given as to what consideration the Respondent gave to its
Fair Play Policy in this circumstance.
Order:
I send this back to the Respondent for reconsideration. The Respondent must consider the
following in the selection process:
a) SSC Fair Play Policy, in particular sections 1.1, 4.3 and 5.1;
b) The IOC Announcement dated December 5, 2017;
c) The McLaren Report;
d) The Schmid Report;
e) That Russian skater, Mr. Pavel Kulizhnikov, appears to be ineligible for the Games as
he will be unable to meet the testing requirements as set out in the IOC
Announcement;
f) That Russian skater, Mr. Artyom Kuznetsov, was banned on December 22, 2017, by
the ISU, for doping violations, and is currently ineligible for participation in the
Olympics. Is it appropriate to wait for the results of his appeal to the CAS which will
only be determined after Canada finalizes its team selections;
g) Whether it should consider any of other Russian skaters’ results in the qualification
period in light of the above reports and the SSC Fair Play Policy.
The Respondent must issue its decision with written reasons demonstrating that they have
considered the above by noon (EST) on January 24th, 2018.
I retain jurisdiction for any matter related to the implementation of my order.
Written reasons for my decision will follow within the timelines prescribed by the Canadian Sport
Dispute Resolution Code.
Signed in Ottawa, Ontario this 21st day of January 2018.
`
David Bennett
Arbitrator

Original signed by David Bannett

Will A Canadian man make the podium in World Cup group A?