Support for fencer vs Sascoc

Marginal sports bodies throw weight behind Juliana Barrett in lawsuit against SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee

WHETHER or not fencer Juliana Barrett beats the SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc) in court, she already seems to have won the backing of other marginal sports bodies in the country.

Barrett is suing Sascoc for not selecting her for the Rio Olympics last year, her damages claim of more than R5.5-million calculated on losing a $70 000 annual sponsorship as a result of not being picked as well as her estimated costs to qualify for Tokyo 2020.

At the heart of the matter is Sascoc’s Olympic qualifying standards.

Qualifying criteria are determined by the international sports federations, most of which offer tough top-level avenues and easier continental routes, especially for Africa.

Sascoc went with the tougher options and, with the exception of football and road cycling, rejected African routes for all other sports, which eliminated Barrett and several others from different codes.

Sascoc had each national sports federation sign an agreement stipulating these qualifying criteria, and told the public these had been discussed and unanimously accepted.

But that was not the case, former SA National Archery Association president Selwyn Moskovitz told the Sunday Times this week. “It is not our policy, it is Sascoc’s.”

He said that at a Sascoc meeting after the 2012 Olympics he got the impression that continental qualifying criteria would be accepted for Rio 2016. His federation spent more than R1-million trying to qualify archers until mid-2015, when Sascoc’s qualifying agreement appeared, much to his surprise.

Sascoc refused to negotiate and Moskovitz said he reluctantly signed after speaking to all his executive members. One SA archer qualified through Africa. The cost of missing out was lack of exposure, he added, explaining that after the Games there was usually a membership spike of a few thousand.

New SA Modern Pentathlon Association president Pieter Oosthuizen said he would never have signed the agreement had he been in office at the time, adding the standards had not been debated within his federation.

One modern pentathlete qualified through Africa. A late bid to qualify two athletes on the tougher standards by sending them to competitions overseas cost R250 000.

Last year the SA Hockey Association, which had both men’s and women’s teams qualifying through Africa, said it had signed the agreement “under duress”.

The head of the SA National Boxing Organisation thought he could sign now and debate later.

The Fencing Federation of SA (FFSA) president signed too, but Barrett insists that he “did not have the authority to represent (FFSA) in concluding” the agreement, which “unlawfully denuded (FFSA’s) power to recommend and select athletes”.

In her particulars of claim she argues that Sascoc is obliged to select athletes recommended by national federations.

She said she was recommended by FFSA and, in what might be the crux of her case, Sascoc “intentionally, alternatively negligently, and wrongfully” failed to enter her for the Olympics by the deadline of June 6, 2016.

According to a member of Barrett’s team, by allowing the entry deadline to lapse rather than rejecting her, Sascoc denied her the chance of taking her omission to arbitration before the Games.

The member also believes Sascoc contravened the Olympic Charter, which demands that international federations draw up their qualification systems for approval by the International Olympic Committee executive at least two years before the Games.

The international fencing federation published its criteria in June 2014, but the Sascoc agreements were all signed in mid-2015.