Pandora's Box 9.1
OK, the BMAF committee members and my dirty weekend at Birmingham 5-6 July 2008, what happend? In short, it was a catastrophe. I had cracked a rib falling over two hurdles in the 300m hurdles in the Swedish nationals a week previously (could not get my leg over). At Birmingham I still won the LJ but scratched the 200m and 400m and my cracked rib 100m and TJ results cannot be discussed in polite company.
As to talking to BMAF Committee members at Birmingham, I managed a few but it was a truly unedifying experience. I patted my chum the BMAF Team Manager on the back. I attended the BMAF AGM and managed to shake the unenthusiastic hands (damp sheep comes to mind) of the BMAF Chairman, BMAF Secretary and other BMAF committee members: My main purpose was to check what the BMAF President, Chairman, Secretary and the Committee members actually look like - I was curious as to whether they looked normal.
Birmingham confirmed my worse fears about the BMAF committee. The majority were not even informed about my complaint about the BMAF Team Manager and if they were informed they did not care anyway. The audience at the AGM were not informed or interested either.
There is much I could say about the AGM and in particular my surprise at the way Winston Thomas' cited my case in his Chairman's Report. But instead, in the interests of being forward looking and constructive, I will cite a tidbit from Bridget Cushen's Secretary's Report to the AGM:
Quote:
"The volume of correspondence has been somewhat greater this year as sadly a suspended athlete has complained to UK, Sport, UKA, Sports Councils, several international organisations and affiliates, and to the Information Commissioner's Office making allegations about BMAF and its Executive necessitating a great deal of time consuming research."
Indeed Bridget. And you might consider re-phrasing the actual report to be taken to the minutes as follows:
Quote:
"Sadly, the BMAF problems with this athlete are entirely of our own making. Or should I confess "my own making" because as BMAF Secretary I have handled all aspects of this matter from the very outset. Our BMAF Team Manager at Linz broke the rules concerning the M65 4x200m relay and verbally abused an athlete for refusing to cheat. That athlete did nothing wrong at Linz and indeed defended the IAAF rules. The athlete made a legitimate complaint against the BMAF Team Manager, a complaint which other BMAF officers and I ignored and neglected for a considerable number of months. We considered giving the athlete an apology and then we ignored him and wonder why he is angry. Finally we instead brought trumped up charges against the athlete. We suspended the athlete for his dissent under the dubious ""bringing the sport into disrepute" clause. We did not allow the athlete due hearing and appeal contrary to the guidelines of our national governing body, UK Athletics. We processed the suspension without informing or convening the BMAF Council.
And now this latest complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. It is entirely typical of our BMAF self-inflicted problems. We posted an insulting notice setting out the athlete's full date of birth in the BMAF Masters Athletics magazine warning that he was ineligible to compete - with only six months of the athlete's suspension to elapse. Now, when we are subject to a complaint, we deliberately and misleadingly informed a British governmental organisation the Information Commissioner's Office that we are the national governing body. And furthermore that it was necessary to set out full date of birth in order to identify this masters athlete (who was then 68 years of old, had an unusual name and lived in Sweden anyway) on the rationale that master athletes do enter younger age category competitions. Thus "forgetting" that we had only suspended the athlete from masters competitions under the auspices of BMAF.
Obviously then, we BMAF officers are not the brightest stars on the athletics firmament. Our volunteer secretariat and administration is also too short-handed to respond promptly and correctly. Our BMAF misfortunes are aggravated because we do not have our own Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures. Had the BMAF been a masters committee within the British national governing body UK Athletics, we would have been able to avail ourselves of the UKA infrastructure, including the UKA complaint and disciplinary procedures. Then all our problems relating to this athlete and my attendant extra workload simply would not have arisen.
So the BMAF must get its house in order. Failing that, if we cannot service our paying athletes correctly, we should bite the bullet and consider applying to join our national governing body as a masters committee within UKA"
That Bridget is what you could have told the 2008 BMAF AGM.
Actually I am very concerned that BMAF has not drawn the obvious lessons from all this. The constructive part here Bridget is that I already worked on a draft Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures for the BMAF a year ago. But I came up against the brickwall of not knowing to whom a BMAF athlete (or officer) could turn to for a hearing or appeal against a BMAF decision, because it certainly is not UKA. In good faith, I volunteer my services again to draft those very necessary BMAF Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures - provided someone from BMAF, UKA, or WMA gives me guidelines as to the hearing and appeal body. Any takers?