A Father’s Perspective and An Athlete’s Duty: Gratitude and the Quest for Truth
Integrity on the field is defined not only by the final score, but by the fairness of the game You must decide if fighting this fight is a matter of principle, or just another battle for a trophy.
Hi readers, I invited my dad to write an article as a guest contributor
.
- Paloma
Dear Readers: I’m Paloma’s father. I’m a lifelong competitor in track and field and sailing. I work in a field that prioritizes due process and transparency. These are my thoughts. My daughter writes well. I recommend that you read her article first, located here: When Winning Doesn’t Feel Right.
After a championship qualifying event in any sport, athletes reflect on their performance. Some will have joy, and others will have a gnawing sense of what could have been. For those who give their all, the governing body that organizes the event, the venue’s hosting organization, and all the hard-working volunteers deserve our gratitude.
Yet, for some, this gratitude is complicated by a deeper obligation—to the sport itself, and to the pursuit of fairness and impartiality[i] for all competitors. The path forward requires a delicate but necessary balancing act: acknowledging the positives while speaking out against the negatives, especially when due process is compromised.
An athlete with integrity wants the opportunity to win fairly but also recognizes a higher calling to help improve the sport by identifying deficiencies that, if left unchanged, prevent governing bodies from putting the world’s best athletes on the world stage to compete.[ii]
The Importance of Appreciation
First, it is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the hard work of the organizers. Staging a major championship is a monumental effort. It requires months or years of planning, financial investment, and the tireless dedication of countless volunteers. Officials, volunteers, and staff ensure the smooth operation of the event, from managing logistics to maintaining a safe and fair environment. Thanking the governing body for this infrastructure is not just a courtesy; it acknowledges that the event itself is a shared accomplishment, one that provides athletes with a platform to showcase their talent.
This public acknowledgment helps build goodwill and reinforces the positive aspects of the sport, strengthening the community and encouraging future investment. It also creates a foundation of respect, which can make subsequent critical dialogue more constructive and less combative.
Balancing Appreciation with The Courage to Critique
Still, gratitude cannot silence the need for accountability. Athletes are the sport’s most essential stakeholders, and their voices are critical for its improvement. When a hearing on alleged rule violations is tainted by incomplete evidence, it can fail, and an athlete could be wronged. The silence of athletes, administrators, organizers, judges, or witnesses who is not only a disservice to themselves but to the integrity of the entire sport.
Blocked exculpatory evidence suppresses due process and can lead to disqualification without a fair hearing. This is more than a personal setback; it taints the sport’s credibility and casts a shadow over the championship’s legitimacy. An athlete’s decision to speak out is therefore an act of courage and an ethical responsibility. It exposes flaws that might otherwise remain hidden and ignored.
The Tainted Process: A Violation of Due Process
The suppression of exculpatory evidence fundamentally undermines the principle of due process, a right that should be foundational to any disciplinary proceeding. Due process ensures that all individuals are treated fairly and have a chance to defend themselves. In sports, this means athletes must be notified of charges, given an opportunity to present a defense, and provided a fair hearing.
When evidence that could clear an athlete’s name is not presented or considered, the integrity of the process collapses. The resulting disqualification is not a matter of a tough call but of a broken system. The athlete who speaks out is not just complaining about a bad result; they are demanding that the governing body uphold its own stated principles of fairness. Most governing bodies have a provision for this.
The Best Governing Bodies in U.S. Sports Have Rules to Maintain Due Process
Witness tampering is considered a serious act of misconduct in skiing and other sports, potentially leading to severe consequences from sports governing bodies. For example:
· U.S. Ski & Snowboard and the U.S. Center for SafeSport. This includes consequences to athletes for actions that intimidate, threaten, or harass a person to prevent them from reporting misconduct or participating in an investigation.
· USA Gymnastics has policies that consider witness tampering a violation, and it can result in penalties in addition to legal consequences.
· USA Track & Field (USATF) and its partner, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, have several overlapping policies to address witness tampering and general misconduct. The overarching principle is a strict anti-retaliation policy for all members who report violations.
· USA Swimming rules address misconduct through codes of conduct that prohibit acts like witness tampering, fraud, and violations of sportsmanship. These include rules against any act of fraud, deception, or dishonesty in connection with USA Swimming activities, as well as intimidating behavior towards officials, which is considered misconduct. Other rules cover acts of retaliation against those who report misconduct in good faith and violations of the Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies.
· Witness tampering in sailing is a serious act of misconduct that falls under RRS rule 69, which prohibits actions that are a breach of good sportsmanship or bring the sport into disrepute. It can be addressed by a protest committee or appeals committee, with potential penalties ranging from a warning to disqualification, and the possibility of further action from the national authority. Lying in a hearing is an example of misconduct explicitly listed under Rule 69. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
· Definition: Misconduct under RRS rule 69 includes “conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour”. [1, 2, 6]
· Consequences: Actions that are considered misconduct are subject to hearings and potential penalties. [1]
· Examples: Other examples of misconduct under rule 69 include bullying, cheating, and disregarding the instructions of officials. [7]
· Process: A protest committee can decide whether to hold a hearing based on evidence, and a person’s testimony can be part of that process. [1, 4]
· Penalties: Penalties can vary, but witnesses are allowed to question the person who is being accused, and officials can take action under the World Sailing Disciplinary Code. [1, 4, 5, 7]
Appeals Processes after Hearings on Rule Violations Should Be Reasonable, Allowing Days, but Not Hours to Appeal, after discovery that Evidence was Withheld
Leading sports governing bodies in the U.S. can, and do shorten the length of time for appeals, but they shorten it to a few days, not hours. For example:
Emergency hearings: The National Board of Review (NBOR) procedures, as outlined by USA Swimming, contain provisions for an “emergency hearing” when requested by a party. This can lead to a decision on a member’s suspension within 21 days.
US Ski & Snowboard can shorten appeals windows to a few days, but not hours
Re-Opening Hearings Based on a Discovery of Egregious Behavior When Athlete Selection is Being Made for International Competition
There are several examples of discretionary re-opening of hearings when US athlete selection is high stakes and serious sportsmanship, misconduct, or a tainted hearing process comes to light, when exculpatory evidence was withheld. These rulings have gone both ways, but they do happen. The case of Jordan Chiles and USA Gymnastics comes to mind:
At the 2024 Paris Olympics, a scoring inquiry submitted by Team USA’s gymnastics coach for Jordan Chiles was ruled invalid by the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) ad hoc division because it was deemed to have been filed four seconds too late. The ruling meant that Chiles lost her bronze medal in the floor exercise to Romania’s Ana Bărbosu.
However, the case later saw new developments that spurred a potential reopening of the proceedings:
· Withheld evidence revealed: Following the CAS decision, USA Gymnastics announced that it had received new evidence—video and audio footage from a documentary crew—that proved the inquiry had, in fact, been submitted well within the one-minute deadline.
· Request to reopen: Citing a “critical factual error” and the new evidence, Chiles’ legal team requested that the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which oversees CAS, reopen the proceedings. While the CAS rejected USA Gymnastics’ initial request to reconsider the case, the Swiss Federal Tribunal retained the power to order a reopening based on the new, previously unknown evidence.
The Path Forward: Combining Thanks with a Call for Change
An athlete can address this complex situation by adhering to a few principles:
Be Specific and Objective: Don’t forget gratitude, but also, don’t be fearful of being a self-advocate. Focus on the facts of the case and the specific procedural failures rather than resorting to emotional attacks. Detailing how due process was violated—for instance, by showing what evidence was withheld—is more effective than general accusations of injustice. Seek affidavits or other statements from those who were pressured not to share evidence.
Frame Criticism as a Call for Improvement: Instead of simply attacking the governing body, frame the critique as a constructive effort to make the sport better for everyone. The goal should be to improve the system so that no other athlete faces a similar fate.
Leverage Your Platform for Advocacy: Use the visibility gained from the championship to advocate for systemic change, such as more transparent disciplinary procedures or the establishment of independent review panels. This elevates the issue beyond a single case and serves the broader athletic community.
A High Value Human and an Athlete
A high-value human who is a competitive athlete possesses positive attributes such as integrity, responsibility, humility, resilience, discipline, and a commitment to fairness and respect. Regarding an alleged rule violation, a high-value athlete should appeal the decision when they know exculpatory evidence was withheld to ensure a just and fair outcome, consistent with their values of honesty and justice.
Positive Attributes of a High-Value Competitive Athlete
A “high-value” athlete, in terms of character and not just performance, demonstrates a blend of strong personal and performance-related qualities that extend beyond the field of play.
Integrity and Honesty: They are upright, sincere, and fair in all their dealings, both on and off the field. They do not attempt to bend the rules for personal gain.
Responsibility and Accountability: They take ownership of their actions and mistakes, learning from them rather than making excuses. This self-accountability fosters personal growth.
Humility: They remain grounded and avoid arrogance, giving credit to teammates and coaches for success. They are open to new perspectives and continuous learning, recognizing they can always improve.
Resilience and Mental Toughness: They can bounce back from setbacks, failures, and adversity without excessive encouragement. They view challenges as opportunities to learn and grow stronger.
Discipline and Strong Work Ethic: They exhibit exceptional self-discipline in their training, diet, and lifestyle, consistently putting in the necessary hard work and making sacrifices to achieve their goals.
Sportsmanship and Respect: They show respect for opponents, teammates, officials, and coaches, in both victory and defeat. They value fair play and equality.
Leadership and Team Player Mentality: They are positive influencers and understand that success is a team effort. They work cooperatively with others for the common good, putting the team above personal well-being.
Coachability: They are receptive to advice and criticism from coaches and mentors, using the feedback to adapt their strategies and improve their skills. [
A high-value athlete should appeal an alleged rule violation when they know exculpatory evidence was withheld because it aligns with their core values:
Due Process and Fairness: The essence of competitive sports relies on fair play and a level playing field. A hearing where material evidence is withheld is inherently unjust. Appealing the decision upholds the principle of justice, ensuring the process is fair and impartial.
Integrity of the Sport: Upholding personal integrity means not allowing a wrongful outcome to stand. By challenging the flawed process, the athlete helps preserve the integrity and credibility of the sport’s judicial system.
Responsibility: Taking responsibility involves addressing an injustice using the proper channels. An appeal demonstrates the athlete’s commitment to truth and transparency, rather than quietly accepting an unfair penalty.
Setting a Positive Example: By taking a stand for a fair process, the athlete serves as a positive role model for others, illustrating that pursuing the truth and challenging an unjust system is a critical personal and social responsibility.
In short, a high-value athlete’s personal character necessitates action to ensure a just outcome when a rule violation hearing has been compromised by the withholding of evidence.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the article serves as a reminder that an athlete’s relationship with their governing body is not one-dimensional. It is a partnership built on mutual respect and a shared love for the sport. While expressing gratitude for the positive aspects is essential, it must not come at the cost of silence in the face of injustice. By speaking out, athletes ensure that championships are not just won on the field but also in the pursuit of fairness and the upholding of due process—principles that are as vital to a sport’s soul as any medal.
[i] The right to due process is a fundamental component of justice and is considered a crucial civil right. It ensures fair treatment and legal procedures in all government actions that could deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. In the U.S., this right is enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is a federal law that allows individuals to seek remedies when their constitutional or federal rights, (e.g., when an individual is deprived of their rights by a person acting “under color of” state law, such as their right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[i] The right to due process is a fundamental component of justice and is considered a crucial civil right. It ensures fair treatment and legal procedures in all government actions that could deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. In the U.S., this right is enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is a federal law that allows individuals to seek remedies when their constitutional or federal rights, (e.g., when an individual is deprived of their rights by a person acting “under color of” state law, such as their right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
[ii] Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 can improve American sports by providing a pathway for athletes to challenge unconstitutional actions by state-affiliated sports organizations. While it primarily applies to public officials and entities, it can be used to address issues such as due process violations, discrimination, and suppression of free speech.
[1] https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/30-rule-2-and-rule-69
[3] https://www.sailingresources.org.au/rules-hub/disciplinary-misconduct-rrs-69
[4] https://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/WS-Misconduct-Hearing-Checklist_03.2022.pdf
[5] https://www.facebook.com/groups/dragonflite95usa/posts/1391324004337487/
[6] https://sailzing.com/racing-rules-of-sailing-2021-2024-what-is-fair-sailing/
[7] https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/27215RacingRulesofSailingNewCaseRule2andRule69-[19399].pdf