|
AUSTRALIAN BRIDGE FEDERATION INC. NEWSLETTER Opinion In March this year, a high profile player in the U.S. was suspended for more than 18 months after allegations were made that he had fiddled deals in at least one ACBL tournament. Bridge administrators at all levels should take some interest in the aftermath of this action, for the player in question is launching a seven figure damages suit claiming that he has lost his livelihood as a bridge professional as a result of a wrongful act by the disciplinary tribunal. If you want the gory details, they are documented on eBridge news pages on the Internet. If the case goes to court, the processes which underpin disciplinary matters will be subject to scrutiny by a court of law. If any of these processes is found to be questionable during the litigation, then it will open up an ugly can of worms for all sponsoring bodies. The ACBL may well be forced to demonstrate that their disciplinary hearings and procedures are faultless or face the prospect of having a court of law rule that they have acted improperly on the matter. The warning that this sounds for bridge administrators at all levels is self-evident: any procedures relating to disciplinary matters and the sanctioning rights of the bodies in question will have to be bullet-proof in order to protect clubs, associations and federations from adverse scrutiny by a court in the event of civil action. Although civil action on matters of jurisdiction and power are not unprecedented in Australia, no sponsoring body has yet faced a threat to its powers of the magnitude of the case which may unfold in America. We should observe with interest, and learn from the experience. David Lusk
| |||||||
