Australian Team did not receive justice

Justice was not delivered to the Australian Team at any point. After an accusation was made on the last day of the competition, the Competition organisers gave a penalty without proper investigation of the claim of illicit access to data. They did not specify which rules were breached when giving the penalty. They also increased the penalty following a complaint which was based on the incorrect belief that the data was illicitly accessed. A similar lack of justice was meted out by the Jury and the FAI.

On the evening of last day of the competition, the International Jury made a decision against the Australian team without meeting as a group. The information they were given was not fully investigated and they did not speak with any members of the Australian team. They also did not specify a breach of any rules in their determination (see Jury reply).

The FAI formed an appeal panel with members who had a clear conflict of interest given that they were from the IGC. The Panel frequently and consistently displayed bias and lack of transparency. After twenty months, they concluded their process with a decision that included emotive language, value judgments and opinions. Most notable was that they did not mention any rules at all in their decision except for reference in the report background to a rule that did not apply to pilots.

There was conjecture that Australia had a special system that used the tracking data as its basis. The facts are that in the days leading up to the competition during the practice period, Matt Gage compiled a simple program on an amateur basis to overlay several publicly available data sources on the same computer screen for the ground crew to view. This included weather radar, updated weather models, and glider locations from Flarm via OGN, G TrackLive, and Flight Radar24. On the screen, the gliders were shown separated by class and task (i.e. there were 3 screens for Club, Standard and 18m).

The International Jury process was not fair

The Jury did not follow a fair process as set out in guidelines.

• The full International Jury did not meet as a group to discuss the protest and they did not talk to the Australian team.
• The Jury made their decision based on information that was untrue and not properly investigated.
• The Jury did not provide a written report until after the closing ceremony.
• The Jury report did not provide evidence of any rule being broken.

FAI Panel was not transparent or impartial

• There were many draft versions of the summary of facts – the document that was to form the basis of the appeal decision. Facts that supported the Australian appeal were repeatedly excluded from drafts. Opinions and non-factual information with a bias against the Australian appeal were repeatedly included.
• Also included in the summary of facts were a number of arguments against the Australian Team which were completely untrue and were backed by opinions and emotive statements.
• The choice of witnesses and information included in the proceedings were not impartial.
• The treatment of the Australians in the hearings was hostile and aggressive unlike the friendly jovial treatment given to witnesses who did not support the Australian appeal.
• During the proceedings, information was not kept confidential and was shared with the very people vested in the failure of the Australian appeal.
• The report on the appeal decision used emotive language, speculation and value judgments that were biased against the Australian Team. It also distorted the meaning of a rule through partial quotation which concealed the fact that the rule applied to the Organisation, not to pilots.

Appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport denied

The Team’s final opportunity to receive a fair and impartial hearing was denied due to FAI making an objection on an administrative technicality. In terms of receiving a fair go, the Australian Team had to accept that this was not possible and that their case would never receive a fair hearing.