August 3, 2004

Susan Haywood Qualifies for the Olympics

Race report sent in via email letting us know the good news:

HAYWOOD WINS OLYMPIC SPOT BY ONE POINT!

Susan Haywood's ninth place finish at the Marathon World Championships on Sunday was just good enough to put her one UCI point ahead of Mary McConneloug, who finished 24th.

UCI Points on July 12th:
Susan Haywood 1370 + 119 (for ninth place) = 1489
Mary McConneloug 1411 + 77 (for 24th place) = 1488

Whoever said truth is stranger than fiction certainly could have been talking about the points race for possession of the U.S. women's sole Olympic mountain bike spot. In a crazy see-saw battle that started back in Vancouver, Canada on July 13th, 2003 at the Grouse Mountain World Cup and continued through over 20 different countries, contained two World Championships and ended with a brutal, grueling six hour marathon, Susan Haywood prevailed by a single point.

On the steep 1000 foot climb out of Bad Goisern, just after the Marathon's start, Haywood did not have the legs to stay with the lead group and lost sight of Mcconneloug. But Haywood passed McConneloug on the next descent where Mary was stopped, apparently to adjust her rain-coat. This would be the last time during the race that they would be in contact, racing against the insanely steep terrain and cold, wet Austrian weather instead of each other.

Both women suffered on this course but never gave up. Haywood overtook the Italian Anna Ferrari, whose wheels had stopped rolling, clogged with mud, just before the finish, picking up four crucial UCI points. McConneloug overtook four competitors coming into the finish, including Jimena Florit, but finished 15 places back and over 24 minutes behind Haywood.

Haywood is the only U.S. mountain bike athlete, man or woman, to score a top ten finish in either of the most recent cross-country or Marathon World Championships. These are the events that ultimately, albeit slightly, outweighed McConneloug's more recent successes at the 2004 World Cups.

But the story took on a bizarre set of twists and turns at the finish line Sunday in Bad Goisern, Austria. Apparently a technical glitch- most likely a bad transponder - had the initial results wrong, giving McConneloug 23rd place and setting up the bizarre situation of a UCI point tie. Later, in the official results, 21st place was awarded to the previously unrecorded Czech Jana Severova, pushing everyone behind her back one spot, which moved McConneloug into 24th.

In February 2004,on the island of Cyprus, McConneloug and Haywood along with Jeremiah Bishop and Michael Broderick drank a toast to each other, knowing that at least one of them was likely to go to the Olympics. Sunday night, after the Marathon both Haywood and McConneloug went out to dinner together with Broderick thinking they were tied in points, toasted each other again with champagne and went to bed not knowing what was going to happen.

Strangely enough, it is likely that both of these great competitors are not yet aware that things have now changed. According to USA Cycling's Olympic qualifying procedures, Haywood will be the one heading to Athens in August.

Congratulations go out to Susan Haywood!

This is a bittersweet ending to a race that should have sent three U.S. women to Athens. Obviously, former World Champion Alison Dunlap should be representing us in Greece. This is in addition to McConneloug, whose silver medal in Calgary last weekend proves she can pull off a big result.

While USA Cycling has stated that they will count the "missing points" from the 2003 Sandpoint, ID NORBA Nationals, they have not been able to explain the reason why these points were never recorded by the UCI. This is the same situation with the 2003 E2 short-tracks at Big Bear, Snowshoe or Mt. Snow, which also appear on the UCI calendar. These lost points were not counted by the UCI and directly contributed to the loss of our Olympic starting spots.

The promoters of these events paid big money to host a UCI category event. When both the UCI and USA Cycling were repeatedly contacted regarding these points, they have ignored the requests for information or replied that they did not know what happened. They don't seem to care. Hmm............ did the results accidentally get misplaced or was it the sanctioning fee?

Hopefully the truth will come out and we will not make the same mistakes before the 2008 Olympics.

Then there were explanations in the press about the 15 points that the UCI never received:

The following is an excerpt from a Velonews July 14 article with a quote from Andy Lee-USA Cycling:

There is also a matter of 15 points for Haywood's third-place finish at the 2003 NORBA NCS short-track at Sandpoint, Idaho, which Lee said "will be recognized by USA Cycling in terms of Olympic selection and added to the official UCI rankings as of July 12, 2004."

In another article from another publication:

The UCI calculation – which, if published on July 12, would have shown Haywood 14 points behind McConneloug – doesn't include the disputed 15 points because those results were not forwarded to its offices.

So it seems that Susan Haywood earned the 15 points at the Sandpoint, Idaho UCI sanctioned E2 race yet did not receive CREDIT for them because: "due to a clerical error on both USA Cycling’s part as well as the UCI chief commissaire at that race, these points were never received by the UCI."

Mary McConneloug files an appeal

Mary McConneloug files an appeal to override USA Cycling's decision to send Susan Haywood to the Olympics and brings the matter to the American Arbitration Association. There were claims in the press that Mary was never told the 15 points were being added to Sue Haywood's UCI rankings since they were never received by the UCI from USA Cycling. It was stated that McConneloug thought she needed only a 24th-place finish in Austria (Marathon World Championships) to earn an Olympic spot.

Article IX, § 2, the portion of the constitution governing eligibility disputes, reads as follows:

"[If] the controversy is not settled to the athlete's satisfaction, the athlete may submit to any regional office of the American Arbitration Association for binding arbitration, a claim against such USOC member documenting the alleged denial [of the right to compete] not later than six months after the date of denial. The Association, however (upon request by the athlete in question), is authorized, upon forty-eight hours' notice to the parties concerned, and to the USOC, to hear and decide the matter under such procedures as the Association deems appropriate, if the Association determines that it is necessary to expedite such arbitration in order to resolve a matter relating to a competition which is so scheduled that compliance with regular procedures would not be likely to produce a sufficiently early decision by the Association to do justice to the affected parties."

In view of the nature of these disputes, the Expedited Procedures contained in the Commercial Arbitration Rules are used. Where an athlete requests expedition, the AAA is authorized to expedite the process based on the criteria enumerated in the constitution section quoted above.

In eligibility cases, a single arbitrator is directly appointed by the AAA without submission of a list. The arbitrator usually has legal experience, due to the fact that these cases involve findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attorneys, retired judges, senior law partners, or individuals familiar with the particular sport are generally used.

The parties in eligibility disputes are the involved athlete and the National Governing Body of the involved sport. A coach or a trainer may also demand arbitration. The USOC is not a party, although the constitution requires that the USOC receive notices concerning arbitration under its constitution.

The bylaws require that the award include "findings of fact and conclusions of law."

Mary Responds in Ridezine.com:

The last two weeks have been filled with a complete spectrum of emotions. Riding the Olympic nomination roller-coaster has certainly been tough; but, I have been remained focused on my training and racing, while at the same time living in my mobile home-away-from-home -— all of which has left me little ability or time to communicate with everyone to whom I wish to reply. For this last part, I apologize. I’d like to begin by expressing my delight and gratitude for the opportunity to represent the United States in the women's cross-country mountain bike race at the 2004 Summer Olympic Games. Words fail to describe what an amazing honor this is for me. The circumstances of my selection to the Olympics have been widely publicized, so I’ll be brief in addressing this. What I wish most to say about it is how sorry I am that Sue Haywood has had to bear the brunt of USA Cycling’s errors. She is a true champion, and it was with no malice that I pursued the right to have USA Cycling’s decision evaluated in an impartial review process. The main issue at hand was whether USA Cycling must communicate to all riders it's plans to adjust the standard for making the Olympic team at a point in time when those riders still have a chance to change strategy--not when it is too late to do anything about it. I sought this with the desire that USA Cycling be held accountable to set clear expectations and stick by them, and that they be forced to look long and hard at their procedures in such a way that all competitive cyclists would ultimately benefit in the future. I wanted to help ensure that no one would ever again have to endure the confusion, exhaustion, and incredible disappointment that the Olympic selection process had become. In the words of the arbitrator’s decision, “… all athletes will benefit if this decision leads to USA Cycling and other national governing bodies issuing clearer, more transparent procedures that allow athletes to compete on a level and open playing field.” This was precisely my hope in pursuing the review. I am focused on Athens now and have dedicated myself to preparing for this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. My success in the World Cup this year has helped fuel my confidence in the strength of body and mind and my ability to earn an Olympic medal for the United States. I welcome and embrace this challenge and unique privilege.

Sincerely, Mary McConneloug

Susan Haywood’s Statement

On Friday July 16, 2004 I was chosen to represent the United States at the Olympic Games in Women’s Mountain Biking. I had earned the most UCI points (from the cycling world’s governing body) of any U.S. woman mountain biker and had won what many of us were calling the “crazy points chase”.

I made phone calls to people close to me, my parents, my coach, my good friends and teammates. It was a feeling of great pride knowing that my sole goal for the year was achieved.

No one has disputed that I earned the 15 points at the Sandpoint, Idaho UCI sanctioned E2 race. And I believe that the race promoters followed proper procedure. Yet due to a clerical error on both USA Cycling’s part as well as the UCI chief commissaire at that race, these points were never received by the UCI.

I repeatedly received assurances from USA Cycling’s Chief Operating Officer, Steve Johnson and the National Mountain Bike Coach, Matt Cramer as far back as April that these points would count toward my points total. I believed them and based my racing schedule around their word. If I had known those 15 points were not going to count, I could have adjusted my race schedule to make them up.

Even though I was named to the team and had gained the most points in one year with the deadline of July 12, 2004 , my nomination was denied by a very last minute arbitration which “awarded” the spot to Mary McConneloug.

According to the decision of an independent arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association, “It is unfortunate that Ms. Haywood has to bear the burden of USA Cycling’s errors. While, Ms. Haywood sadly bears the brunt of this …she and all other athletes will benefit if this decision leads USA Cycling and other national governing bodies issuing clearer, more transparent procedures that allow athletes to compete on a level and open playing field.”

When I signed up for my racing license, I didn’t expect to have to ‘bear a burden of errors’, mistakes and poor leadership for an organization that receives $6 million dollars every four years to field Olympic cycling teams. I expect an organization with that responsibility to conduct itself professionally by doing its job and keeping its word.

All the athletes involved in this year’s bid for the Olympics have acted with courage and integrity. I don’t feel USA Cycling has done this. I trusted them and they violated that trust.

Certainly, to be denied my Olympic spot due to a clerical error is unfair.

This is not sour grapes towards Mary McConneloug. Mary and I have always and will continue to maintain the highest level of sportsmanlike behavior that is expected of Olympians. I applaud the U.S. Woman Mountain Bikers who, despite being ranked number one in the world with two in the top three and two more in the top 15, have received only one Olympic spot. But that’s another story.

Thanks go out to all who have supported me this year and throughout these stressful last weeks. Ride on!

Susan Haywood

One last chance to have her points credited, promises kept, and original selection honored

Friday, August 6 2004 Susan Haywood has a hearing in Federal court in Denver, CO. If the judge grants it there will be another arbitration. If not............... game over and she loses her chance to go to the Olympics.

All those with a sense of fairness cannot imagine that someone could lose their once in a lifetime opportunity due to a technical error. Our hearts go out to Ms. Haywood who we believe has played by the rules and is a victim of very bad circumstances. We close this article wishing her the best and congratulating her on a great year of racing.

Susan Haywood Interview with mountainbikeRACER.com August 3, 2004:

First I would like to say congratulations on qualifying for the 2004 Olympics by winning the most number of UCI sanctioned races within the given time frame for Olympic selection and being chosen by USA Cycling to represent the USA. It seems hard to believe that a clerical error at one race is keeping you out of the Olympics this year. Looking back, what would you have done differently if you knew you were not going to receive credit for the Sandpoint, Idaho UCI sanctioned E2 race?

Well, its really simple. If I had known that those 15 points were not going to count then, I would have done one more E2 race. That is something that was totally in my control to do as opposed to simply trying harder in another race.

I guess Mary McConneloug had no idea that you were so close in points before the Marathon World Championships in Bad Goisern, Austria when you beat her by 24 minutes becoming the first American (man or women) to finish in the top ten? Did you ever discuss your points with her before the race?

I really didn't know what Mary knew about points. After the race she believed that she and I were tied in points.

Do you think the reason that there are not more starting spots for American women in the 2004 Olympics is because the points for the 2003 E2 short-tracks at Sandpoint, Big Bear, Snowshoe and Mt. Snow, which also appeared on the UCI calendar were never counted?

There were many race points that weren't counted from last year. This certainly didn't help the U.S. riders chances for accumulating points towards Olympic spots. The other reasons are lack of involvement by USA Cycling in the US. National Mountain Bike Team. Also, the riders didn't accumulate enough points throughout the year, especially with Alison Dunlap being hurt. Also ignorance of the special provision that took spots away from nations with two riders.

Do you agree with Mary that "The main issue at hand was whether USA Cycling must communicate to all riders its plans to adjust the standard for making the Olympic team at a point in time when those riders still have a chance to change strategy--not when it is too late to do anything about it?"

Well those are Mary's lawyers words, I believe. USA Cycling did communicate those ideas to the riders. I don't know why Mary didn't know about the missing points. I certainly agree that if USA Cycling knew those points weren't going to count that they should of told us riders.

What improvements could USA Cycling make in the future to make the selection process more fair?

First of all being more active and in touch with mountain biking. If they did this then the proper way to pick an Olympic team would be more apparent. Secondly, learn from the past and listen to people who have the knowledge and experience in selecting Olympic teams. Thirdly, be fair, honest, thorough and not political.

What do you think your chances are of overturning the AAA ruling and winning back the points that are rightfully yours?

The chances are very slim. I have to know that I did everything in my power to get to Athens. I don't want to every be a quitter especially when I know that I deserve to go.

Best of luck with your appeal and congratulations on a great year of racing. Thanks for the interview.

Susan Haywood loses final Appeal

August 6, 2004 - Denver, Co - Federal Court judge Phillip Figa ruled against another arbitration hearing.
Game over.

So much for "justice" in this whole sordid affair. In mountainbikeRACER.com's opinion Susan Haywood won the correct number of points without a doubt. Case closed. How this "mistake" in crediting her points is allowed to stand is beyond reasoning. A sad day for the sport of mountainbike racing.