2021 SAAL Annual General Meeting Details

Stewards Report

13. 550mMens -heat 3 -Oliver Burge -Zscores primary +2.29 1up1down +2.65 -Disqualified. This decision was appealed. Race day appeals committee upheld the appeal with a condition. Oliver ran 2nd in the final -Zscores primary +2.55 1up1down +2.90 -penalised 100% of prize money in accordance with the appeals committee ruling.

So was Burge disqualified after his heat and deemed to have cheated, then on appeal was reinstated into the final field with a condition of forfeiting 100% of prizemoney.Was he ever going to be able to keep the sash if he won.Did his forfeited money go to the 3rd place getter or did the saal line their coffers with it .Then this all gets taken to the AGM is again voted down by committee and officials who all made the decisions in the first place.
Surely I havent got all this right

So its alleged he was allowed to run with a condition. What would be appropriate is for the Chief Steward to outline what this or these conditions were.
Its obviously not clear to the Burge's, otherwise why has it been asked at the AGM?
So yes the SAAL have pocketed the prize money and its not the only money they still have from that race.
Like I have said, its got to be one or the other. You cant keep the young guy as 2nd but keep the prize money, either give it to him or DQ him and move 3rd, 4th etc up one place and give them the correct prize money.
The fence sitting SAAL dont want a dq but dont want to pass the correct prize money on either.

Its not alleged , its what is in the Chief Stewards report posted on saal .I have copied and pasted

So as I understand , a motion was put up at the AGM regarding a decision made by the Appeals Committee.
But in a vote at the AGM it was overturned.
Have I got that right ?
If that is the case, most of those people voting to overturn the motion would have a conflict of interest, was their conflict of interest declared.
Wether you were an opposition coach , athlete , member of appeals committee . management committee or official I think indirectly there is a conflict of interest.
If this has happened I can understand how Ian wouldnt be happy.
Im all for a diplomatic process and from what I have heard and not 100% Ive got it all right I dont think its very diplomatic.

Isnt this for the appeals committee to have sorted by now?

The "condition" is that he forfeits any prize money but not the placing? Seems to me to be an odd ruling.

There's not much diplomatic process with this lot, its make it up as you go or after the fact, if and/or when they choose.

Its certainly dumb founding that you can be told you are able to run in the final , but prior to you running, you get told that any money you win will be forfeited.
You are either disqualified for your heat run or you are not.
Guess we have seen the last of the Burge family in the saal and who can blame them , just like the lad who won the Bay 70m , all being forced out of the sport.

Hi Top Sport
Just wondering who is on the raceday appeals committe.
As per the rules
4.7 Appeal of Handicap Appeals Committee The Handicap Appeals Committee shall consist of five members and shall be appointed by the Management Committee. The duties of this Handicap Appeals Committee will be to hear appeals from athletes dissatisfied with their handicap. Each appeal shall be heard by three internally appointed members. The Chief Steward shall be consulted prior to any such appointment.
4.8 Appointment of Investigation Committee An Investigation Committee shall consist of three members and shall be appointed by the Management Committee as required, not necessarily formed from members of the Management Committee, to investigate and adjudicate on matters referred to it.
4.10 Disciplinary Committee A Disciplinary Committee shall consist of three members and shall be appointed by the Management Committee as required, not necessarily formed from members of the Management Committee, to investigate alleged breaches of these Rules or the S.A.A.L’s Codes of Conduct and adjudicate on them.
Is there such a committee as an appeals committee as referred to in the stewards report.
If a so called Appeals committee ruled on Olivers case as stewards report , Im not completely sure all is okay .
The only Appeals committee I can find is the Handicap appeals committee and I would not think they had the power to adjudicate on disqualification.

Going by the constitution you have shown it appears that the appeals committee hears appeals from athletes dissatisfied with their handicap, no mention on ruling a potential DQ race day.
When I heard Olivers DQ I was on the other side of Glenelg Oval so I couldnt see what was happening shortly after.
I know someone will be able to tell me.
Are 3 of the 5 called onto the oval to discuss the appeal? Were 3 of them there at the time, are 3 of the 5 there at all times during a meet just for this possibility? If so who were the 3 called to rule on this?

HANDICAP APPEALS COMMITTEE
Bernie Tippins, Andrew Camilleri, Dr Peter Noblet, Tim Johnson and Karen Paparella have been appointed to the Handicap Appeals Committee for the upcoming season. The League is appreciative of these five former runners who are willing to assist in this role.
As you have alluded to T.S these former runners are there to hear handicap appeals.
Im still trying to chase down the Appeals Committee which the Chief Steward refers to in his report
13.   550mMens -heat 3 -Oliver Burge -Zscores primary +2.29 1up1down +2.65 -Disqualified. This decision was appealed.  Race day appeals committee upheld the appeal with a condition.  Oliver ran 2nd in the final -Zscores primary +2.55 1up1down +2.90 -penalised 100% of prize money in accordance with the appeals committee ruling.
So so so so many committees I dont think the Chief knows which is which