| continued
1.5. Protocol ceremonies
On the occasion of the World Championship in New Zealand, the US team won the gold medal. The national anthem played was a pop version of the national anthem by Jimmy Henricks. Luckily, no press or official representative of the town of nation was attending.
The unsuitable US national anthem was actually played at the 2002 champion- ships in Canada. This occurred because teams were asked to supply their anthem, and this version was the one supplied by the US officials, and it was not checked by the organisers. No offense was taken by any USA persons present. But, let me assure you, steps have now been taken to prevent such an occurrence as it is deemed inappropriate. All anthems are now supplied by the organisers and previewed by the World Tournament Director. We do apologise and assure you it will not happen again.
1.6. Sports Licenses
According to Obligations and Procedures, each athlete participating in the a CMAS Championships, must have a CMAS sports license for the corresponding discipline.
The name list of athletes taking part at the 2006 championship was never communicated to CMAS. CMAS reconstructed on its own this list via site of the championship where the names of the athletes of each national team were listed.
A control was carried out on the basis of this reconstructed list, those results are here below
From this control the result is, taking into account Elite category only
a. that 39 athletes of the 320 did not have any sport licenses ie 87.81%
b. that no athlete of 3 teams from 2 countries out of 16 who participated at the 2006 championships have no sports license (Turkish male and female teams and Japanese team)
As the CMAS employee was not present at the 2006 World Championships, it became the responsibility of the host organizing committee to check the sport licenses for all elite teams. Each federation at the event was required to present their licenses to the championships office. This was done. But it would be helpful if a formal procedure for this process in the future.
There are always player changes at the last minute for any of several reasons: injury, illness, family obligations, work obligations and so forth. The CMAS underwater sports are true amateur sports, and the participants are subject to pressures not seen in the Olympic level athlete.
We apologize for any misunderstandings, but all licenses were checked, and I believe all athletes present in the elite divisions had current licenses, but as the CMAS office was closed, it was not possible to match licenses at the champion- ships with any list in the CMAS office. Also such a large event makes accuracy difficult. It may be noted the Dutch teams were issued out of date uw rugby licenses by CMAS which further compounded the confusion. We did the best we could under the circumstances, and hope a better method of accuracy can be achieved.
2. CMAS Statutes and Internal Rules
2.1 . Participation of teams of no CMAS affiliated federations (2006)
When the request of affiliation of ‘Jersey UW Hockey Club’ was rejected by CMAS BD, this refusal was confirmed by CMAS General Assembly, the Commission accepted one team of this club at the 2006 CMAS World Championships.
The commission esteems to be able to go beyond the decisions taken by CMAS General Assemblies is compulsory to all CMAS members.
At the time of the 2006 World Championships, the request to CAS regarding the status of Jersey had not been decided. The Commission, at the time, believed the request/decision could easily go either way. It would have been of no use to Jersey to discover after the Championship they were eligible to play - if CAS had agreed with the Commission. A decision was made to allow their participation but in a division other than elite - a division that was ‘unofficial’ by CMAS regulations.
As it turned out, the Commission was wrong as CAS agreed with CMAS. It was a calculated risk, and the Commission was in error. We always acknowledged the vote of the General Assembly, and we apologise, but we wanted to err on the side of participation - which was the whole point of our case to CAS.
2.2. Anti Doping Control
If it had to be confirmed that no anti doping tests was carried out when the anti doping code was approved by CMAS General Assembly, this show ion the same way that the hockey commission esteems to have the right beyond decisions taken by CMAS General Assembly.
As pointed out in point 1.3, anti doping tests were carried out; all negative.
2.3. Meeting of the Commission held by video conference on March 14, 2006 and whose decisions have been voluntarily hidden to CMAS.
in a document sent to CAS and signed by Mr. Graham Henderson, he points out that the following decision has been taken
‘It is proposed to discuss with CMAS to change its decision and if this could not be done in a reasonable time, the President is authorised to submit claim against the decision and begin the procedure the funds of the commission (sec) will be used and if insufficient, demand will be made to ‘affiliated federations to obtain necessary funds’
In the accompanying letter, Mr. Graham Henderson states:
“I enclosed, as by your request, copy of the minutes. I have to stress the fact that we should have sent “it normally to CMAS after its approval by our general assembly scheduled during out World Championships. In that case we decided to keep these minutes up to the end of the CAS procedure, this not to prejudice our suit.’
Please be reminded that the minutes of all meetings held at the 2006 World Championships (August 2006) were not available to anyone until late Fall 2006. The Secretary of the Commission left the World Championships and immediately had surgery on her hand. She was off work 12 weeks, in physical therapy and unable to type.
Thus being full aware of the obligations up to all commissions, Mr Graham Henderson did not observe this rule of the CMAS Internal Rules.
It is a voluntary and admitted by writing nonobservance of CMAS Statutes and Internal Rules. It was thanks to a letter received by CAS that CMAS was informed about the procedure of claim started upon the request of the Hockey Commission and not by the latter.
2.4. Current account open in the name of the Commission
At point 2.3, Mr. Graham Henderson deals about money up to the commission. He confirms the existence of a current account opne in the name of the Commission and he states that the existence of this account gives a juridical status to the Commission by justifying the right of the Commission to submit claim before the CAS about the decision taken by the BD and confirmed by the General Assembly in rejecting the membership request of Jersey.
Data of this account as by statement of account are the following:
Name of the bank Commonwealth Bank of Australia
No account 06 3144 10339172
Owner of the account World Underwater Hockey Commission
Received statement Statement of account n 4
(turnover from Aug.22,2006 to Nov.11, 2006)
Full balance: 2, 03 AUD
The existence of this account was totally unknown to CMAS before the authorisation in opening an account for the Commission.
Further more, the Commission never submitted balance to any General Assembly.
Once again the Commission is beyond laws and obligations up to it and established in CMAS Statutes and Internal Rules.
As it is not treated in the Statutes or Internal Rules, we were unaware of any prohibition on any commission having a bank account. And, as none of the commissions have any budget from CMAS, the account was set up (by Graham Henderson, co signed by Carol Rose) to accept donations for world underwater hockey not the commission per se. It was actually a personal account designed for support of the sport. We were unaware of any prohibition on such accounts, but be assured, the moneys (income and expense) in the account will be reported to CMAS if necessary. Again we apologise.
3. Wrong matters submitted by Mr. Graham Henderson
3.1 . Decision taken by the Board of Directors in rejecting the request of Jersey's affiliation
This candidature was rejected by 8 NO, 7 Yes and 4 abstentions
Taken into account that 2 members brought 2 proxies and a third person one proxy, 3 members had a total of 8 votes and Mr. Graham Henderson state that these 3 members alone, with their proxies, rejected the Jersey candidature. Being the number of votes not quoted in the Minutes of BD meetings, unless expressly requested for the vote that they have expressed, this statement without grounding.
There were 19 votes at the BOD meeting in question - as stated in the Minutes. The affiliation of Jersey was rejected by one vote. As the proxy holders were also noted in the Minutes, it is known that persons opposed to the affiliation held the proxies, therefore it is logical, in the face of a rejection by one vote, to assume the proxy holders votes were the power behind the rejection. The information and numbers stated in the minutes support this conclusion.
3.2 Confirmation by the General Assembly of the decision taken by the Board of Directors
Mr. Graham Henderson omits consciously to say that the refusal by the Board of Directors was confirmed by the following General Assembly by
85 Yes 64.89% of total expressed votes
28 No 21/37% of total expressed votes
18 Abstentions 13.74% of total expressed votes
No legislative body is always correct and/or legal in their deliberations. The Commission believed as there are no specific criteria for affiliation in the Statutes or Internal Rules that the General Assembly was prejudiced by statements made against the Jersey. Most democratic countries have a highest court, and organisations as well as government are allowed to appeal to that judicial body. CAS is the highest court in sport; therefore, the Commission appealed to it. |