Commen Sense prevails, Women's ski jump attempt falls short!

[SpongeG]

Vanoc must let women compete in ski jump or drop men’s events, court told

VANCOUVER — The Vancouver Organizing Committee must either put on a ski-jumping event for women or remove the three mens-only events being planned for the 2010 Winter Games, a B.C. Supreme Court was told Monday.

In what is becoming an internationally significant case, 15 women ski jumpers have gone to court seeking a declaration that Vanoc is violating their Charter rights by refusing to hold an event for them.

They argue that Vanoc is violating Section 15 of the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms by allowing a men-only event while refusing to hold one for women.

In an opening submission on Monday in chambers, Ross Clark, acting for the plaintiffs, told Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon that Vanoc's refusal means that "simply because of their sex, the (women) have been told they cannot participate in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games."

Vanoc has said that it is abiding by the wishes of the International Olympic Committee, which has told the women that their sport is not developed enough to permit an Olympic competition.

Vanoc's lawyer George Macintosh has not yet made his opening remarks, but Clark said Vanoc has maintained that it is not in violation of the Charter because it is contractually bound to implement the IOC's decision not to include a women's ski-jumping competition.

"The IOC's decision perpetuates the historical prejudices that to date have excluded women from ski jumping in the Olympics," Clark said. "Vanoc's blind acceptance of the IOC's decision effectively incorporates these historical prejudices into its own organization, staging and financing of the 2010 Games."

Clark ran through the sport histories of some of the plaintiffs, including Norwegian Anette Sagen, American Lindsey Van and Canadian Katie Wills. He noted Van is the "first and current" world champion of the normal hill at the Vanoc-built Whistler Olympic Park ski jump.

"Vanoc's failure to plan, organize, finance and stage a ski jumping event for women as part of the 2010 Games is a direct assault on the human dignity of these plaintiffs and elite women ski jumpers across the world," he said. "It denies them the opportunity to demonstrate their accomplishments, dedication and athleticism and to have them celebrated and recognized."

The case continues.

Updates to come …

http://www.vancouversun.com/Vanoc+must+women+compete+jump+drop+events+court+told/1515408/story.html

[mr.x]

That's quite ridiculous....they're only going to send VANOC scrambling to make changes to quite a few things at such a late date. And this was an IOC decision, not VANOC's. VANOC is contracted to abide to the decisions of the IOC.

And the IOC's claims are quite legit, that the women's sport hasn't even held a international competition yet and that there are very few women ski jumpers. It has nothing to do with women being discriminated.

It's amazing how the judge told VANOC to either allow both to compete or cancel the whole ski jumping competitions altogether.


Only in Canada could this ever happen.....Vanoc should give all the women ski jumping champions a lump of coal as their medals.

[djun]

Originally Posted by mr.x

It's amazing how the judge told VANOC to either allow both to compete or cancel the whole ski jumping competitions altogether.

I think you misinterpreted the opening sentence "The Vancouver Organizing Committee must either put on a ski-jumping event for women or remove the three mens-only events being planned for the 2010 Winter Games, a B.C. Supreme Court was told Monday."

The ski jumpers told the court that, rather than the court/judge telling VANOC.

So yeah, let's see what the judge's verdict is and maybe it'll come after the Olympics.

[mr.x]

Whoops...well, in that case I think the judge will side with Vanoc considering what the women's ski jumpers are doing is borderline blackmail.

It's way too late to include them anyway, being 10 months out.

[G-Slice]

Any contract that includes a provision that violates the Charter is unenforceable anyways, so the argument that VANOC has no choice but to exclude the women doesn't hold water.

I think this case is pretty interesting, whatever your position, because it raises questions about the IOC's obligation to alter its own practices and regulations to conform to the laws of the countries where it holds events. I haven't heard of anything like this happening before, has anybody else?

[djun]

Female ski jumpers misusing Canadian law - lawyer says
Jeff Lee, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009


VANCOUVER - Female ski jumpers who want to compete in the 2010 Winter Olympics are misusing Canadian law to sue the Vancouver Organizing Committee, a lawyer for the committee said Wednesday.

Vanoc may wish to hold an event for female ski jumpers, but only the International Olympic Committee has the power to make that decision and it has already said the sport is not developed enough to permit it, George Macintosh told reporters outside B.C. Supreme Court.

"Frankly, Vanoc feels caught a little bit in the middle. The plaintiffs have an understandable desire to get into the 2010 Olympics for ski jumping and the IOC who decides these things has decided it is premature for the women ski jumping in 2010, maybe in 2014," Macintosh said. "Vanoc is in the position of advising the court that the wrong defendant's been sued."

Fifteen elite female ski jumpers are suing Vanoc arguing that the committee is violating their Charter rights by holding events for male ski jumpers but none for women.

The case is being closely watched by the International Olympic Committee, which Vanoc says in court documents has said that if it loses the case it would likely never hold another Olympics in Canada.

Renee Smith-Valade, Vanoc's vice-president of communications, said the organizing committee has offered help to the women to get ready for entry to the 2014 Sochi Games but isn't responsible for their denial to the Vancouver Games.

"We truly understand how disappointed the women ski jumpers are that they are not on the programme for the 2010 Winter Games," she said. "If anyone understands Olympic dreams, we do.Unfortunately for them, the reality is the decision is made by the IOC."

Smith-Valade said Vanoc offered a lot of help to the women.

"What we've done in the 2008 and 2009 winter season is to offer them free access to the training jumps in Whistler," she said. "We staged two national and one international competition, we've assisted them with their expenses, including their accommodation and transportation, and we've offered a number of ski jumping introductory courses to get more women involved in the sport."

The case, which is attracting international attention, is into the third day before Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon, who is being asked by the women to declare that Vanoc is violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Macintosh opened his defence to a packed standing-only courtroom, saying the women are using "an artificial construct to do what they ordinarily cannot do."

Earlier in the week the women's lawyer Ross Clark argued that Vanoc by its nature is either substantially controlled by Canadian governments or is undertaking a project at government request. If true, that would make Vanoc subject to the Charter and therefore would have to tell the IOC it either has to put on both men and women's events or neither.

But in his opening remarks to the judge, Macintosh said Vanoc isn't controlled by government.

"It is a fundamental point that the IOC alone determines the sports and diciplins of any sports in any Olympics," he said. "The IOC controls every facet of Vanoc's operations."

The case continues.

[email protected]

[djmk]

my money is on the women winning.

the charter trumps all

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by djmk

my money is on the women winning.

the charter trumps all

Yet, this has nothing to do with the Charter.


I hope Vanoc wins.

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by djun

The case is being closely watched by the International Olympic Committee, which Vanoc says in court documents has said that if it loses the case it would likely never hold another Olympics in Canada.

I don't know how serious the IOC is about taking its ball, going home, and never coming back to Canada - but if they are, I would imagine that would make some heads in Toronto explode: "We lost the chance to ever hold the Summer Olympics because of what!?!"

[zivan56]

This is hilarious. I think I'll start my own skiing federation and file a complaint in the courts that I'm being discriminated against because I'm a crappy skier. Likewise, an obese league should not be discriminated against just because they don't qualify, discrimination!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Locked In

I don't know how serious the IOC is about taking its ball, going home, and never coming back to Canada - but if they are, I would imagine that would make some heads in Toronto explode: "We lost the chance to ever hold the Summer Olympics because of what!?!"

I'm quite sure the IOC is being quite serious about this, considering if the court rules with the women ski jumpers it'll mean that in Canada they wouldn't have control/authority over their Olympics, which is organized on their behalf by the local organizing committee. The next time Canada bid, that issue will arise again - the host nation's legal process is an entire chapter of the bid books that bid cities submit.

[Jacques]

The IOC is run by a bunch of bigots, they would endorse the Sharia law before lowering they own ego's and allow equality!

I hope the women win their case before the 2010 games

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Jacques

The IOC is run by a bunch of bigots, they would endorse the Sharia law before lowering they own ego's and allow equality!

I hope the women win their case before the 2010 games

You don't know what you're talking about.

No one is saying ski jumping is unsuitable to women, the IOC and FIS is saying that it is not technically developed enough for inclusion at the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. There are far too few women ski jumpers out there (only a few dozen), and they're all from only about 10 nations. In addition, there has only been ONE women's ski jumping World Cup - and that was this year! It normally takes 10-years for a sport to become an Olympic sport, it needs to grow.

They are saying the sport is not developed enough for the prestige of the Olympic Games. This has nothing to do with equality, but everything to do with the level of competition and the depth of the competition field.

There are lots of events (for some reason mainly in the summer games) that only women compete as there isn't a male version of the sport. So it is not like there is discrimination. Stop wasting our time and money and build your sport up so you can actually have a competition. There are participating rules for all sports, men and woman so why should this be any different. Spend the time and money developing the sport so it will be included in 2014.

In the meantime I'm going to start a synchronized swimming team and a rhythmic gymnastics team, only those 200+ with beer bellies need apply (like Chris Farley in the SNL skit). Then we'll start our court proceedings....

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by zivan56

This is hilarious. I think I'll start my own skiing federation and file a complaint in the courts that I'm being discriminated against because I'm a crappy skier. Likewise, an obese league should not be discriminated against just because they don't qualify, discrimination!

You sound as if the woman ski jumpers aren't skilled. They have not competed in any international-level championship, but unofficially, they have jumped further than the current records set by male ski jumpers.

There are only two potentially acceptable argument here against hosting a female ski jumper Olympic event:
- there aren't enough female ski jumpers
- the event planning has gone too far to implement change

[johnjimbc]

I think people are being way too snarky to be comparing this to someone wanting to start an ice-knitting competition and other goofy suggestions.

Ski jumping is a legitimate sport that requires a tremendous amount of dedication, training, and skill. I feel for the competitors of any sport as it starts to expand in popularity but before it is yet considered "worthy" of international recognition. These are not the first competitors to have to petition repeatedly to have their sport recognized on an international level, nor will they be the last. But I won't diminish their sport or their dedication to their cause.

Frankly, I think it is entirely appropriate for them to tackle this from the angle of the Charter. Good for them.

Unlike some, I support the Olympics and tend to defend it a lot (as is necessary these days). But if the IOC and VANOC are forced to feel a bit uncomfortable about this, then maybe they should. It is how I felt about them banishing the athlete-started "Right to Play" advocacy group from the Olympic Village because they were concerned its presence might interfere with the Olympic Committee's corporate sponsorship agreements, yet they then turned around and started their own group for promoting youth sports in under-developed countries - shutting out the Athlete's movement to create their own "corporate model" to compete with it. It just reeked of the kind of manipulation that harms the reputation of the Olympic Committee and by direct extension, the Games themselves.

As for the argument that any decision contrary against the IOC will "harm Canada's chances" for future Olympics. Well, I just don't think anyone should even go there. If Canada supporting its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms is considered a "bad mark" by the IOC, then my instinct is to say to heck with future Games. That would reflect more poorly on the Olympic Movement than it would Canada. I'd be rather proud of Canada being on the right side of that argument.

Ideally, what I would like to see - which might not fully mollify the women athletes I realize - is a settlement by which a fully sanctioned "demonstration sport" event is agreed to be held during the Games, showcasing the talents of the women ski jumpers. Given the press generated by the case and subsequent agreement, my guess it would even be covered well. Heck, they could sell tickets which would be gone within a day. And CTV could get good press by covering it as it would any other sport.

It just seems, to me, like that would be the best compromise between allowing the women athletes an official presence at the Games while still honoring the decision (which I assume was an objective one) that the sport is not globally recognized enough for full competitive status.

Allowing the event as a demonstration sport might well spur more interest in the event in other countries, which I would think is one of the athelete's primary objectives anyway.

As for the arguments that planning is already too far along, I don't quite buy that no changes could be made. There could be a massiave blizzard during the Games, and I doubt seriously that they'll cancel events if weather interferes. Something tells me there is a bit of flexibility in the current schedule. My guess is they could fit in a one day showcase event if they tried real hard.

Those are my thoughts anyway . . . now if I only had some authority on the matter

[djmk]

Originally Posted by mr.x

You don't know what you're talking about.

No one is saying ski jumping is unsuitable to women, the IOC and FIS is saying that it is not technically developed enough for inclusion at the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. There are far too few women ski jumpers out there (only a few dozen), and they're all from only about 10 nations. In addition, there has only been ONE women's ski jumping World Cup - and that was this year! It normally takes 10-years for a sport to become an Olympic sport, it needs to grow.

They are saying the sport is not developed enough for the prestige of the Olympic Games. This has nothing to do with equality, but everything to do with the level of competition and the depth of the competition field.

There are lots of events (for some reason mainly in the summer games) that only women compete as there isn't a male version of the sport. So it is not like there is discrimination. Stop wasting our time and money and build your sport up so you can actually have a competition. There are participating rules for all sports, men and woman so why should this be any different. Spend the time and money developing the sport so it will be included in 2014.

while trying to be objective....

the women will argue that it is not the number of athletes but the quality of the athletes. of course quality is subjective and the judge could not determine this. and then the women could argue that the current IOC rules hamper sport growth because the olympics provides a huge potential market in which they have never been allowed to use.

furthermore, these games are branded as Canada's games and there have been a long line of Canadian politicians including our Prime Minister promoting and paying for the games. who owns Vanoc? who pays Jack Pooles wages? Charter rules may be very important.

furthermore

off the IOC website

As a leader of the Olympic Movement whose first objective is to promote Olympism and develop sport worldwide, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has played an important role in establishing a positive trend to enhance women's participation in sport, especially in the last 20 years. The IOC has also undertaken more general action in the field of advocacy, especially among National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and International Sports Federations (IFs), with the aim of raising awareness of the need to ensure strict equality between men and women, to provide women with wider access to sports activities, as well as encouraging them to take leadership positions in sports administration.

The women and sport Olympic movement is fairly "young". Strategies and coordinated actions led by the IOC started to emerge in the late 1980s. Although its expansion is encouraging and much progress has been seen in the field of play, much remains to be done at the leadership level. Of all the sectors of activity, the management and administration of sports organisations is certainly the one in which greater efforts must be made to address the inequalities which still exist. The IOC recognised the need to keep the pressure on and to have a multi-sector approach dealing with women and sport issues.

and whats Vanoc's argument? the contract was signed with IOC and there is not enough woman athletes? personally, i think the judge is not going to care about either of these.


and at the end of the day, its the IOC that is going to get heat.

[mr.x]

The IOC controls what events are held at an Olympics. If a country wants to host any Olympic Games, it must abide by the IOC rulings.

I'm sure there are numerous IOC rulings that contradict many country's charters, but that is part of the deal to get a Games. This was all known well ahead of us getting the games. Many sports are gender-biased, although that is changing somewhat. I don't see any men doing synchro swimming. What about female doubles-luge?

With female ski jumping, the fact is that there are not enough internationally recognized women competitors to make the event viable or relevant, end of story. If that changes in the future then the IOC may choose to make an exhibition of the event, and depending on its success female ski jumping may become permanent. This case of 15 women wanting their own unproven event is an unrealistic stunt. First, they must establish their sport just like all previous Olympic sport entries.

[flight_from_kamakura]

well, if the broads win, the ioc will have to back down. the judge will probably make the right decision, as would the appeals court, and the supreme court, should the case follow that route. and guys, if the supreme court of canada sees this sort of thing as discriminatory, my guess is that there are about 15 other potential host countries that have laws equivalent to those of the canuckistan, or more strict.

so yeah, from where i'm sitting, there's not much to sweat here. a far more serious question asks whether it's going to rain every day of the olympics and bum out all the tourists like they've never been bummed out before, leaving vanada with a reputation as a sullen, depressing city.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by mr.x

If a country wants to host any Olympic Games, it must abide by the IOC rulings.

say's who? let the court decide that. parts of the contract can be deemed null and void if it is deemed tobe against the charter.

what i'm most curious is why the athletes are fighting this hear and not in switzerland (ioc homebase)

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by mr.x

The IOC controls what events are held at an Olympics. If a country wants to host any Olympic Games, it must abide by the IOC rulings.
I'm sure there are numerous IOC rulings that contradict many country's charters, but that is part of the deal to get a Games.

That's not right. If VANOC is found to be subject to the Charter, and VANOC's actions are found to infringe the female ski jumpers' s.15 rights, the courts will enforce it. A body found to be violating an individual's Charter rights can't rely on any sort of agreement to avoid liability.

Originally Posted by djmk

what i'm most curious is why the athletes are fighting this hear and not in switzerland (ioc homebase)

I'm guessing that a Swiss court wouldn't have jurisdiction over an agreement concluded between the IOC and VANOC in Canada. The ski jumpers want an injunction against VANOC - best way is through the Canadian courts.

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

As for the argument that any decision contrary against the IOC will "harm Canada's chances" for future Olympics. Well, I just don't think anyone should even go there. If Canada supporting its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms is considered a "bad mark" by the IOC, then my instinct is to say to heck with future Games. That would reflect more poorly on the Olympic Movement than it would Canada. I'd be rather proud of Canada being on the right side of that argument.

Could not agree more. If that really is the IOC's position, and the IOC/VANOC's actions are found to be infringing, it would be absolutely shameful for the IOC to blacklist a country because the IOC was found to be violating the Charter rights of Canada's citizens and others.