Eligibility to be a British Championship medallist

[LostAgain]

From BO Website:
A jury was asked to determine the eligibility of someone who does not hold British Citizenship at the 2011 British Sprint Championships. The relevant Competition Rule is:

1.4.2 Competitors are eligible to be British Championships medallists provided that on the day of the competition they are National Members of British Orienteering and either hold or are eligible to hold a British passport (Previously, the equivalent Rule required competitors to hold a British passport or to have been resident for 3 out of the previous 6 months.)

It is clear that the present Rule has been interpreted inconsistently at this year's British Night, Sprint and Middle Champs. The protest about the Sprint race is therefore potentially relevant to those races and to the forthcoming British Long and Relay Champs. It should be noted that, whether the jury's decision is to uphold or reject the protest, the decision cannot resolve the question of eligibility because the Rule as it stands is, unfortunately, flawed.

The Rule requires competitors and organisers to make a judgement about whether or not someone might meet the requirements for a passport and that is certainly not something that individual organisers should be asked to do.

The jury's conclusion is that:


•It is not possible to determine the competitor's eligibility by the application of this Rule
•Since we accept the shortcomings of the Rule, we are taking advantage of Rule 1.5.1 and invoking the "spirit of fairness and good fellowship "
•The competitor should be reinstated for the 2011 British Sprint Champs and receive a medal (which will displace someone else out of the medal position)
•The same approach should be applied to the 2011 British Long and Relay Championships; competitors will be eligible for medals if they have not declared themselves ineligible under Rule 1.4.2
•British Orienteering need to review this Rule as a matter of urgency, in time for the 2012 Championships. The jury recommend that a decision of principle is made about who should be eligible for the British Champs medals (there is one view that the races should be simply for British Citizens and another that it is right to include, for example, long-term residents). Whatever is decided should have a way of determining eligibility that does not require organisers to interpret the Rules or leave competitors unclear about their status.

DISCUSS

[LostAgain]

Graeme, the heavies will be round later to reclaim your medal!

[Scott]

It's an interesting one. The rule as it stands is almost* exactly equivalent to "Competitors are eligible to be British Championships medallists provided that on the day of the competition they are National Members of British Orienteering and British citizens". So the question then is how somebody can be expected to prove that they have British citizenship without a British passport, in a way that doesn't require organisers to make complex judgements (note that under the current rule you have to actually have British citizenship - merely being eligible for British citizenship is emphatically not the same as being eligible for a British passport).

On the other hand, it seems to me that introducing a residency alternative would make it infinitely harder for organisers to check

*and I am going to go out on a limb an assume that there are very few BOT citizens, British subjects, British Protected Persons etc involved in orienteering in the UK.

[Arnold]

a few things from me

- clearly I'm biased as I was affected by this
- Graeme will keep his medal (I'm sure he's over the moon) as it was someone else who made the protest, and it wasn't to get the medal but merely to discuss the principle
- I don't agree with Scott that under the current rule you need to be a British Citizen - it depends how you interpret it. Yes, to be eligible for a British passport you need to be a British Citizen. But what if you're eligible to be a British Citizen? It's arguing semantics
- I think the Jury is right that BOF need to decide whether they want long term residents to be eligible or not, and if the answer is yes then make it simple and say "X years of residency" rather than citizenship etc. Trust people to be honest and peer pressure will do the trick otherwise
- now whether long term residents should be eligible you can guess my view...the two people caught out this year have both been here a while, and are actively involved doing planning/controlling...and all the other countries I know have some sort of residency rule (usually 2 or 3 years)...and the rule before was 3 months' residency so seems a pretty hefty shift...and so on

[LostAgain]

- now whether long term residents should be eligible you can guess my view...the two people caught out this year have both been here a while, and are actively involved doing planning/controlling...and all the other countries I know have some sort of residency rule (usually 2 or 3 years)...and the rule before was 3 months' residency so seems a pretty hefty shift...and so on

Why should BO recognise anyone other than someone of actual British Citizenship as British Champion?
Anyone can enter, and potentially win. However, the Trophy for British Champion on all courses surley should only be awarded to someone of actual British Citizenship.

I would preclude even those entitled to apply but haven't actually done so.
There are other major events eg. JK which are open to all.

[awk]

- I don't agree with Scott that under the current rule you need to be a British Citizen - it depends how you interpret it. Yes, to be eligible for a British passport you need to be a British Citizen. But what if you're eligible to be a British Citizen? It's arguing semantics

To be eligible for a British passport requires British citizenship, not just eligibility for citizenship. There is more than a semantic difference.

[cbg]

- now whether long term residents should be eligible you can guess my view...the two people caught out this year have both been here a while, and are actively involved doing planning/controlling...and all the other countries I know have some sort of residency rule (usually 2 or 3 years)...and the rule before was 3 months' residency so seems a pretty hefty shift...and so on

Why should BO recognise anyone other than someone of actual British Citizenship as British Champion?
Anyone can enter, and potentially win. However, the Trophy for British Champion on all courses surley should only be awarded to someone of actual British Citizenship.

I would preclude even those entitled to apply but haven't actually done so.
There are other major events eg. JK which are open to all.

All those who are eligible to represent GBR in WOC should be eligible to be British Champion. IOF must have some rules, like other international sports bodies, so take them as a lead (for all adult age groups, not sure about children), even if that involves grandparents.

[LostAgain]

All those who are eligible to represent GBR in WOC should be eligible to be British Champion. IOF must have some rules, like other international sports bodies, so take them as a lead (for all adult age groups, not sure about children), even if that involves grandparents.

Seems reasonable.

[Scott]

All those who are eligible to represent GBR in WOC should be eligible to be British Champion.

The IOF rules are pretty simple: "Competitors who are representing a Federation shall have full passport-holding citizenship of the country of that Federation." The problem arises when you've got someone who is a British citizen but doesn't have a passport - how do they prove their citizenship? I could definitely imagine this being an issue with young juniors, who may never have needed a passport. Presumably it isn't such a problem at WOC, where all but the home nation athletes will have needed a passport to get there in the first place.

I should add that I don't really have much of an opinion on what the rules should be, but I would agree with the jury that it needs to be something that is simple and easy for organisers to apply.

[jab]

Oldest child was British Champion aged 8, and didn't have (had never needed) a passport. Given the price of passports, I wouldn't have been chuffed to have had to buy a passport to guarantee his eligibility.

[SJC]

Arnold wrote:- I don't agree with Scott that under the current rule you need to be a British Citizen - it depends how you interpret it. Yes, to be eligible for a British passport you need to be a British Citizen. But what if you're eligible to be a British Citizen? It's arguing semantics


To be eligible for a British passport requires British citizenship, not just eligibility for citizenship. There is more than a semantic difference.

If a person is eligible for British citizenship; and someone with British citizenship is eligible for a British passport then the person in question is eligible for a British passport.
it isn't semantics but simple logic.

[awk]

If a person is eligible for British citizenship; and someone with British citizenship is eligible for a British passport then the person in question is eligible for a British passport.
it isn't semantics but simple logic.

I disagree. if your second premise had read "and someone who is eligible to be a British citizen is eligible for a British passport", your argument would have been valid (indeed, sound), but it doesn't. Being eligible to be something (in this case, a citizen) is not the same as actually being one.

[Adventure Racer]

Oldest child was British Champion aged 8, and didn't have (had never needed) a passport. Given the price of passports, I wouldn't have been chuffed to have had to buy a passport to guarantee his eligibility.

Though if asked to present evidence of eligibility, presenting the the evidence required to get a passport should suffice, and I don't suppose that evidence is terribly hard to produce for most people.

[Gross]

People with 2 passports?

Post Scottish referendum????

[SJC]

if your second premise had read "and someone who is eligible to be a British citizen is eligible for a British passport", your argument would have been valid

Logic - "if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C".

If you are eligible for British citizenship then you are ultimately eligible for a British passport.