Athlete v Polocrosse Australia - [2022] NST NST-E22-245214

Case number: NST-E22-245214

Case Title: Athlete v Polocrosse Australia

Determination

National Sports Tribunal

General Division

sitting in the following composition:

Panel Member Mr Bruce Collins KC

in the arbitration between

Athlete (Applicant)

Unrepresented

And

Polocrosse Australia (Respondent)

Represented by Ms Susan Rose, Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph
1.	Parties	1
2.	Introduction	2
3.	Basis of the jurisdiction of the National Sports Tribunal	3
4.	Proceedings before the National Sports Tribunal	4-5
5.	Reasons – Introduction	6-10
6.	Other provisions of the Arbitration Agreement	11-20
7.	The proper formulation of an issue for determination	21-23
8.	The course to be taken by the arbitrator	24-26
9.	The factual background: A description of the Athlete’s conduct	27-52
10.	The question for the Board of Polocrosse Australia	53-56
11.	The decision challenged by the Athlete	57-64
12.	The Applicant’s submissions	65-83
13.	The Polocrosse Australia submissions	84-102
14.	The evidence of the President of Polocrosse Australia	103-19
15.	Arbitrator’s conclusions as to the process and procedure followed by the Board of Polocrosse Australia	120-125
16.	Arbitrator’s findings concerning the Athlete’s credit arising out of the hearing	126-137
17.	Publication	138-148
18.	Conclusion	149-150
19.	Collateral allegations made by the Athlete	151-152
20.	The Determination	Page 33

PARTIES

The applicant, the Athlete, has been a highly respected and talented polocrosse player who for a long period has been a successful senior and influential member of the Australian Polocrosse Team. The Athlete has been widely acknowledged as a valuable contributor to the international success of the Australian Team. The respondent, Polocrosse Australia Limited (Polocrosse Australia), administers and controls the sport of Polocrosse in Australia.

INTRODUCTION

The Athlete hoped to participate in an international women’s polocrosse series against New Zealand to be held in Queensland in May 2022. The Athlete had been made aware by Polocrosse Australia that they were required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before they could compete in that series. They were not vaccinated and on four occasions they forged Australian Government documents in order to show that they were vaccinated. On further occasions the Athlete lied to Polocrosse Australia, wrongly representing that they had been vaccinated. After a fair and thorough process, Polocrosse Australia imposed penalties and sanctions upon the Athlete who did not deny the charges laid against them.[1] The Athlete argues that the penalties and sanctions imposed by the Board were “manifestly excessive”.

Basis of the jurisdiction of the National Sports Tribunal

[1] The Board’s sanctions and penalties are set out in full at paragraphs 57 and 59 below.

The rules of Polocrosse Australia do not make provision for an appeal from the Board’s decision in the present case. The parties are to be commended for agreeing upon a reference to arbitration invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the National Sports Tribunal Act 2019 (the Act).

Proceedings before the National Sports Tribunal

The arbitrator appointed by the National Sports Tribunal made a number of written directions to the parties so as to ensure that the parties’ written…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Athlete v Polocrosse Australia

Details

AGLC: Athlete v Polocrosse Australia [2022] NST NST-E22-245214
Case: [2022] NST NST-E22-245214
Decision Date: 23 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Athlete v Polocrosse Australia involved an arbitration by the National Sports Tribunal (NST) over the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Athlete by Polocrosse Australia. The Athlete, a highly respected and talented polocrosse player, was required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to participate in an international women's polocrosse series. However, the Athlete forged Australian Government documents to show they were vaccinated and later admitted to cheating by providing false documents to Polocrosse Australia. Polocrosse Australia imposed penalties including removal from the national team, a suspension, and a three-year ban from selection. The Athlete argued that these penalties were "manifestly excessive" and sought arbitration.

The NST arbitrator determined that the penalties and sanctions were not "manifestly excessive" given the Athlete's deliberate and repeated deception. The arbitrator considered the Athlete's conduct to be in breach of Polocrosse Australia's rules and detrimental to the sport's reputation. The Athlete's arguments that they did not understand the gravity of their conduct and that the sanctions were punitive were rejected. The NST arbitrator concluded that the sanctions were appropriate given the Athlete's actions and the objectives of Polocrosse Australia.

The NST arbitrator also decided that the reasons for the determination should be published, noting the importance of setting sporting disciplinary standards. The Athlete's collateral allegations against Polocrosse Australia representatives were not considered as they were outside the scope of the arbitration. The NST dismissed the Athlete's application, finding that the penalties imposed by Polocrosse Australia were justified.

Orders