FEI News: Reaction on FEI press release suspension IDRC

Background
The background to this is that the Dressage Committee (DC) decided not to recommend the IDRC’s representative (me) on the DC. Kyra Kyrklund, IDRC President, asked Frank Kemperman and Trond Asmyr who the DC had recommended and they said it was confidential. Their recommendation only came out when we saw the Annexes to the FEI General Assembly and the reason was only disclosed when our lawyers requested full disclosure. The DC in fact decided to recommend Luis Lucio on the basis that there was already a GBR member on the DC and they did not want to have two DC members from the same NF. It seems to have escaped their attention that:

* neither Luis Lucio nor Maria Ines were actually members of the IDRC at the cut-off date for   applications to the DC and so were not eligible to stand and therefore appointment of either of these riders to the DC would have been an invalid and unlawful appointment;

* neither of them were elected by riders to represent the interests of riders; and

* the only eligible candidate under the FEI’s own rules and regulations was the candidate nominate by the IDRC.

If they had told us that there was now a rule stating “no more than one member per NF” (it isn’t a rule it is a recommendation by the Dressage Task Force and in fact there have been many occasions when a Technical Committee has had more than one representative from the same NF) then we would have proposed another rider.

We have proposed that Kyra Kyrklund, President of the IDRC, will represent riders on the Dressage Committee but the FEI has not responded to that.

So, far from the IDRC attempting to manipulate its rules to suit a situation, it is quite clear that it is the FEI who have manipulated the situation to refrain from appointing a candidate who was validly nominated under FEI rules.

One could even go further to state that the FEI may also be in breach of its own regulations by postponing indefinitely the appointment of an Athlete member of the DC. Article 6.5.2 (iii) of the Internal Regulations of the FEI states:

Where an applicable international Athletes’ and/or Organizers’ association is recognized by the FEI for the given Discipline, these [ the relevant Discipline Committee] shall include one member (provided there is a qualified Candidate) from each such association, though s/he may not serve as Chair or Deputy Chair during his/her term in this capacity.

By refusing to appoint an Athlete member (even where one has been validly nominated by the IDRC) the FEI is in breach of its own Regulations. This is made even more serious where the decision to postpone constitution of a lawful DC is taken in an Olympic year.

The current issue
From what they write below, the FEI’s main issue now seems to be that the removed riders should have the right to an appeal from the decision of the IDRC General Assembly.

The fact is that the IDRC Board also thinks that this is reasonable and we intend to change our Statutes so that all members have the right to an appeal. No one thought that we would ever remove a member, and Maria and Luis are caught in the middle here, so we had no appeal process for this. This is purely an oversight not a decision. Incidentally, the IDRC Statutes in their original form (without the right for appeal) were approved by the FEI as part of the process of appointing the IDRC as an Associate Member of the FEI.

If this were the FEI’s main concern then they would have jumped at our suggestion that we redraft our Statutes so that members do have that right. Why have they not even responded to this?

What is the real issue?
2012_Logo IDRCDDIt appears to me that the FEI just wants to win. It appears that the DC does not want a strong riders representative body. It is also apparent to me that it is crucial that riders stick to their rights and stand-up for what they know to be important. Riders have almost no rights and a weak IDRC with no representative on the DC means they would, in effect, be toothless – to the detriment of the sport.

This whole issue begs the question – just whose interests are being best served by this action of the FEI?