Evidence query

[oldmanswife]

having watched a thoroughly interesting show on BBC 3 called the antisocial network this evening, it was clear that the authorities are having a very hard time convicting internet trolls who target RIP pages because they cannot prove who is behind the vile postings; a lack of evidence.

after a controversial happening at a recent orienteering event, I was wondering if someone in the know about rules etc could provide an overview of how a jury works following a complaint - mainly, what evidence do they have to go by? can the evidence just be the word of one person? or does there have to be more than one testimony to make it valid? it seems from the discussion that the complaint was made by someone who was not on the course at all so how did they even know the wall had been crossed? even though I cite this as a recent example, I am more interested in the complaints procedure as a whole and how 'hard' the evidence must be in order for a complaint to be upheld, hence the new thread.

[Simon E]

It's worth starting with some extracts from Rule 9.

9. COMPLAINTS, PROTESTS AND APPEALS
9.1 Complaints
9.1.1 Any competitor or official may lodge a ‘complaint’ with regard to any competitor or any aspect of the organisation or planning thought to have materially contravened these Rules or other instructions issued by the Organiser.
9.1.2 A complaint shall be made to the Organiser either orally or in writing.
9.1.4 The Organiser is the adjudicator of a complaint. The Organiser may need to consult other members of the organising team before reaching a decision.

9.3 Protests
9.3.1 A ‘protest’ can be made against the decision made by the Organiser with regard to a complaint, or if the Organiser fails to address the complaint in a timely manner.
9.3.2 A protest shall be made to the Controller, in writing.
9.3.5 On receipt of a protest the Controller shall notify the Organiser. If they agree with the protest they shall take the appropriate action. If either the Controller or the Organiser does not agree with the protest they shall convene the Jury or, in the case of a written protest made after the event, notify the Jury members of the protest together with any other relevant information.
9.3.6 The Jury shall deal with any protest referred to them in the appropriate manner.

9.4 Appeals
9.4.1 An ‘appeal’ can be made against the Jury’s decision with regard to a protest.

That should mean that before a jury is called there are already written details of the complaint itself, and the organiser's reason for rejecting it. After that it's just a matter of dealing with things "in the appropriate manner".

In most cases you'd end up talking to the complainant/organiser/planner/controller/other event official/other competitor to get clarification of the written details. It may be necessary to visit a particular part of a map to look at a control site or the mapping. You also need copies of the Rules, Guidelines and any written final details for reference.

With respect to the original post I can't think of any cases I have been involved in where there was a straight "you did this"/"oh no I didn't" argument.

Protests nearly always come down to judgement decisions where both sides have a credible point of view. The 2003 Rules still included a requirement for a protest fee: that was intended to deter trivial protests whcih had been a problem at some stage in the distant past. A jury has to take as objective a view as possible based on the information available and rule 1.5.1

1.5.1 The spirit of fairness and good fellowship shall be the guiding principle in all aspects of the sport, including the interpretation of these Rules.

[Gross]

Protests nearly always come down to judgement decisions where both sides have a credible point of view

Not always

I put a totally pointless protest in at the World Cup Relay in Japan. Stephen Palmer had mispunched & by rights the team should have been pulled.... but Stan had come from Sweden specifically to run the relay... by protesting he was able to get out & compete... he was last leg so as soon as he was running the protest was withdrawn

There is more to protests etc than the obvious sometimes!

[graeme]

So to recap.

1. Complain to organiser
2. Protest to jury
3. Appeal to BO/Assoc./Club depending on event level.

and for a level four event, the protest jury would typically not be decided ahead of time. So it will be the most experienced, sane and disinterested people the organiser can find. Any appeal goes back to the organising club.

As Simon says, it normally comes down to 1.5.1. Indeed, most of the Grade 1 controller's course involved discussing how much freedom 1.5.1 gives you (answer: lots).

[NeilC]

and for a level four event, the protest jury would typically not be decided ahead of time. So it will be the most experienced, sane and disinterested people the organiser can find. Any appeal goes back to the organising club.

So for the BUCS incident the final outcome for the Oxford team could be decided by the Cambridge committee. Tasty.

[graeme]

And had it happened last year, it would have been the EUOC committee.
(except that the controller had the good sense to make it level C last year ...)

[mharky]

what evidence do they have to go by? can the evidence just be the word of one person? or does there have to be more than one testimony to make it valid?

Valid point. One could simply deny that any infringement was made, and claim that any eye witnesses produced are lying. Unless there's photographic evidence, it's hard to prove that it's not a big conspiracy...

[benjw]

So for the BUCS incident the final outcome for the Oxford team could be decided by the Cambridge committee. Tasty.

I don't know if I should name them, but prior to the event there were five suitable people (none of whom were students) who we knew would be there on the day and could be called upon if needed for a jury.

In my opinion it seems like a lot of administration effort to get an event upgraded to a C, and in this case without much change (if any) in the quality of the event.