Pan Am archer could be cut over Facebook post
Jay Lyon’s online comment is part of groundswell of athletes standing up to sport politics, lawyer says
With just weeks before the Pan Am Games, Canada’s archery team could get another shakeup in a case that pits an amateur athlete against his governing body.
A disciplinary hearing will decide Thursday if Jay Lyon broke the rules when he posted a Facebook comment criticizing how Archery Canada handled team selection for the Games.
Lyon claims he was just stating his opinion and standing up for a teammate when he called the body’s defence in a recent Star article “bull---” and “pure political hogwash.”
Archery Canada recently overturned a decision to exclude Kateri Vrakking from the team despite her third-place finish at the trials, after she alleged that ageism was involved in the decision.
Lyon went on to say Archery Canada’s leadership was questionable and asked the organization to “show a little more respect and equality for the female shooters.”
He has since removed the post, but stands by his words.
“I will admit that I regrettably used (a swear word), but that was just out of the heat of the emotions,” Lyon told the Star. “I still don’t think I’ve done anything in violation of the policy.”
Lyon faces a range of potential punishments, ranging from a write-up on his file, to being removed from the Pan Am team, to being expelled from the organization.
The incident report, filed the same day Lyon wrote the post, claims that he made statements in a public forum that were “unfounded and based on rumour.”
“He has brought AC’s well founded polices into disrepute and has caused damage to the sport of archery and to AC as an organization,” the report says.
Lyon’s lawyer, Mark McMackin, who also represented Vrakking, calls the case a free-speech issue.
“It’s reasonable within any organization; constructive criticism makes things better,” McMackin said. “Especially in a country like Canada, people should be able to say what they want to say as long as it’s not slanderous and libelous.”
McMackin calls this a seminal case of an athlete taking on an overbearing sports organization.
“There’s a real groundswell of athletes that are tired of these little politics,” he said. “These are earnest, hard-working people, and they get taken advantage of and pushed around.”
Olympic triathlon champion Simon Whitfield tweeted his support, saying: “All the best Jay, admire you for being true to yourself and your opinion. Best of prep for Pan Ams. #timetorefocus”
Archery Canada executive director Scott Ogilvie maintains the organization is acting in a fair and reasonable manner.
“I don’t at all feel that we are bullying Jay Lyon or any athlete. We’re committed that all our athletes have the best possible experience.”
“This is not easy for anyone, but here we are,” Ogilvie said. “We have policies in place that we must abide by.”
Policies and athlete agreement contracts such as those set out by Archery Canada are common in the sports world, says Hilary Findlay, a lawyer and professor in Brock University’s sport management department.
“It’s an interesting contract, because the athletes must sign it if they want to compete,” Findlay said, adding there is often very little room to negotiate the terms.
Archery Canada’s athlete agreement with Lyon dictates rules on things such as dress codes and drinking during competitions and requires that he avoid activities in his daily life that has the potential to interfere with “high-performance achievement.”
The deals are similar to morality clauses, traditionally pushed by sponsors, that professional athletes are often required to sign, Findlay said.
Amateur athletes have been penalized for off-court actions before. Nathan Kotylak was an Olympic hopeful when the teenager was booted from the Canadian junior water polo team after being photographed taking part in the Vancouver Stanley Cup riot in 2011.
“The extreme ones are easy to deal with. These ones are not so easy to deal with,” Findlay said, referring to cases such as Lyon’s.
“It’s not just a matter of hurt feelings . . . the onus is on the organization to show it has been damaged somehow.”