Phillip, Costa-Ramirez, Wallace appeal court decision in cycling matter

The Court of Appeal has been asked to adjudicate over a legal dispute over a move by the T&T Cycling Federation to host trials for next month’s Pan American Cycling Championships in Chile on Saturday.

On Tuesday, High Court Judge Westmin James dismissed an injunction application to stop the trials sought by cycling clubs Just Living Daily Cycling Academy and Heatwave Cycling Club and professional cyclists Njisane Phillip, Alexi Costa-Ramirez, and Makaira Wallace.

Earlier yesterday morning, lawyers representing the group, led by Matthew Gayle, of New City Chambers, filed an appeal on behalf of Heatwave Cycling and Costa-Ramirez challenging Justice James’ ruling.

A date and time for the hearing of the appeal was not set up until late Wednesday.

In their court filings, obtained by Guardian Media Sports, attorney Jason Jones raised over a dozen grounds, under which he claimed Justice James erred in his ruling.

Jones claimed that the judge wrongly found that the group delayed in making the application last month after being aware of the trials for several months.

He also suggested that Justice James erred in finding that the group could be financially compensated if they are eventually successful in the lawsuit.

“Given the stage of the athletes’ careers and the point in the Olympic cycle, should they be denied a fair selection process at this point, they likely will never have that opportunity again,” Jones said.

“On the other hand, the Respondent and none of its members are disadvantaged by a fair and transparent selection process which does not include these trials,” he added.

Jones also said that the judge wrongly relied on an undertaking given by the federation to consider the times recorded by overseas cyclists while abroad when deciding on their final selections for the championships.

“The learnt trial judge erred and was plainly wrong in failing to give appropriate weight, or any weight at all, to the respondent’s admission during the virtual hearing on December 30 that the trials were not mandatory and confirmed that an alternate and/or satisfactory means of qualification was open to all athletes,” he said.

In their court filings, the group claimed that they were only informed of the federation’s decision, taken in mid-September, on November 10.

They claimed that the move was in contravention of the federation’s selection policy, which states that trials should be scheduled to take place on or before 12 weeks prior to an event.

“The Defendant has acted without proper reason and/or justification in deviating from its own selection policy,” they said.

They contended that after concerns were raised over the move, the federation held an emergency meeting in which its members approved the move.

They claimed that the vote was unlawful, as members were not fully informed of the situation.

“The Defendant has refused to reconsider its position in respect of the improper trials and has procured the most recent council vote by misleading the membership and/or failing or refusing to fully disclose pertinent documents to the Council as to the state of affairs with respect to the ongoing litigation as between the parties in the instant claim,” they said.

They claimed that Phillip, Costa-Ramirez, and Wallace would be prejudiced by the decision, as they are based abroad and would have to disrupt their training schedule and international commitments in order to participate.

“Since filing the instant claim, the third, fourth, and fifth claimants’ international ranks have increased, further highlighting the absurdity of these last-minute mandatory trials,” they said.

They also questioned whether the move may have an impact on the three athletes qualifying for the next Olympic Games.

“The Claimants’ Olympic prospects are likely to be severely diminished and/or put in jeopardy as a consequence of the Defendant’s unlawful and/or improper decision to hold trials, as the Pan American Cycling Championships is a key stepping stone to Olympic qualifications, and/or if the Defendant can simply rewrite selection policies and criteria on a whim with 24 hours’ notice, it would set a dangerous precedent for any future selection process, including Olympic selections,” they said.

In response to the application, the federation filed affidavits from several members, who voted in favour of the trials at the meetings.

The members all claimed that they were informed of the group’s legal concerns over the move and still voted in favour of it, as they felt it was the most fair and objective selection method in the circumstances.

The federation also contended that the change approved by its council was within its discretionary power to adjust the selection process when necessary.

In rejecting the injunction, Justice James also found that it would have bypassed the democratic decisions of the federation’s council, which twice voted in favour of having the trials on Saturday (January 17).

“Ultimately, maintaining the status quo was deemed the most equitable path to ensuring a fair outcome for the entire cycling community,” Justice James said.

The clubs and the cyclists are also represented by Dr Emir Crowne. The federation was represented by Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon, Kerri-Ann Oliverie, and Kalifa Lovelace.