FAI International Appeals Tribunal decision
In the Appeals Tribunal report, no rule was mentioned in their ‘Decision’. The only apparent charge was “competing under irregular conditions and not sharing knowledge of irregular conditions”.
See full quote of the appeals tribunal decisions statement below.
“APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISIONS
- Penalties applicable to the AUS National Team The International Appeals Tribunal’s decision is to regard all competition results of the AUS Team as ineligible because they were gained under irregular conditions, and consequently to invalidate the respective results of all Australian Team Pilots and to disqualify the latter from the WWGC 2019. The inaction of the AUS Team Pilots to share any knowledge about these irregular conditions, however limited, with competition officials is reprehensible. Even if the pilots only passively benefited from information which their competitors did not have, they have been competing in conditions which were not consistent with the spirit of fair play. However, the Appeals Tribunal recommends FAI to not consider further disciplinary actions against any individual AUS Team Pilot. As a consequence of the indisputable unsporting behaviour of both AUS Team Captain, Terry CUBLEY, and AUS Team Coach, Matthew GAGE on behalf of the AUS Team in violation of provision 1.12.5 of the FAI Statutes the Appeals Tribunal recommends FAI to consider initiating disciplinary actions against them.”
Comments:
- In the ‘Decision’, note the emotive language, value judgments and opinions given rather than reference to rules and facts used to explain the decision: ‘reprehensible’, ‘not consistent with spirit of fair play’, ‘indisputable unsporting behaviour’.
- The FAI Statute provision mentioned to is not a rule and refers to people acting on behalf of FAI not abiding by the Code of Ethics. The Statute is quoted in full is as follows. “1.12.5. Any person acting on behalf of FAI in any capacity shall abide by the FAI Code of Ethics.”
The only rule that was mentioned was in the report background. But only half the rule was quoted in the report. This omission concealed the fact that the rule was for how the Organisation must display tracking data. The rule actually did not apply to pilots.
The name and first sentence of the rule that was not included in the report is as below:
“4.1.1.c Carriage of GNSS data transmitters for public displays
The organizers will require competing sailplanes to carry GNSS data transmitters to enable the public display of GNSS flight records during competition flights.
Instead the following distorted version of the rule was given in the report:
The WWGC 2019 Local Procedures 4.1.1.c provision, relative to the carriage of GNSS data transmitters for public display and conditions in which this public display will be done, states: “Such display will not begin before the start line is opened and the actual positions of the sailplanes shall be displayed with a time delay of at least 15 minutes. This delay may be reduced to zero prior the finish.”
See Quoted Rule in full:
Local Procedures, 4.1.1.c Carriage of GNSS data transmitters for public displays.
The organizers will require competing sailplanes to carry GNSS data transmitters to enable the public display of GNSS flight records during competition flights. Such display will not begin before the start line is opened and the actual positions of the sailplanes shall be displayed with a time delay of at least 15 minutes. This delay may be reduced to zero prior the finish.
Comments:
- In the report the pilots are accused of breaking a rule that does not apply to pilots. The rule they mention specifically refers to the Organisation’s public display, yet they chose to omit this in their report. We believe that this was deliberate to give the impression that the rule might apply to pilots.
- There is a suggestion in the report that the pilots should have interpreted the rule to apply to them because this was a clarification made by the CD. There was in fact no published change to the rule so as to apply to pilots at the competition. There is no reason for any pilot to believe that this rule would apply to them.