A second disciplinary case brought forward by Swimming South Africa (SSA) against artistic swimmers Laura Strugnell and Jessica Hayes-Hill has been dismissed by an independent arbitrator.
SSA set up a disciplinary hearing for the athletes’ alleged misconduct at the World Championships in Doha in February this year, which SSA has previously described as “deceitful actioning of training protocol without management approval”.
Despite months of investigation, hearings and court cases, exactly what the “deceitful actioning of training protocol without management approval” was, has yet to be explained.
Read more: Swimming South Africa hits back at pending lawsuit by artistic swimmers, claiming ‘deplorable conduct’
Nonetheless, the hearing in November was dismissed as Strugnell and Hayes-Hill are no longer members of SSA following their decision to take the federation to court — an automatic suspendable offence, according to SSA’s constitution.
In September, the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg found that the artistic swimming pair had been illegitimately barred from participating at the World Championships in Doha.
Read more: Swimming SA in deep water after illegitimately sinking duo’s bid for Olympic qualification
The Doha World Championships doubled up as the Paris 2024 Olympic qualifying event for artistic swimming, meaning that their inability to perform in Doha meant they had no chance of qualifying for the Olympics.
Subsequently, the athletes initiated a legal process against SSA, suing the federation for R7.2-million for damages caused by its illegitimate decision to bar their participation.
Section 19.2 of SSA’s constitution states that “Any members resorting to court/legal action to resolve a dispute will automatically cease to be a member”.
Strugnell and Hayes-Hill therefore relinquished their membership the moment they brought their case against SSA to the High Court.
SSA therefore lacked jurisdiction to discipline the athletes.
Second time
This outcome marks SSA’s second failed attempt to defend its actions against the pair. The first came after an appeal panel found that SSA’s decision to withdraw the athletes from the World Championships was procedurally and substantively unfair.
SSA has yet to mount a defence against the athletes’ pending R7.2-million lawsuit. Because SSA has not filed a defence against the athletes yet — despite being aware of it for the past four months — Strugnell and Hayes-Hill plan to pursue a default judgment, which means the federation would be forced to pay the athletes.
The case will proceed again in the new year as SSA decides its next plan of action. Currently, it seems as though it is throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks in an attempt to discredit the pair.
Another case
The lawfulness of Section 19.2 of SSA’s constitution is currently being argued in a separate case in court.
Read more: Swimming SA prepares for court case against disgruntled parent on legitimacy of its constitution
A disgruntled parent, whose child was not selected for the Junior Diving World Championships at the end of November in Rio de Janeiro, despite qualifying, was suspended after taking SSA to court for its decision.
SSA initially provided no reasoning for the child not being part of the junior diving squad, but after the court processes were initiated, explained that it was “an accident” and the child was promptly added to the squad.The parent, though, remains suspended according to Section 19.2 of SSA’s constitution. The parent is arguing the lawfulness of SSA’s constitution in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg in suspending them and anyone else who wants to initiate legal proceedings against the federation. DM