Not just five years on. This spike is due to new information25 November 2010
BMAF sent me the contents of minutes of the BMAF 5 November 2006 and 7 March 2007 meetings, under a subject access request. I was really disgusted to learn that:
1. Unknown to me, BMAF Team Manager Maurice Doogan had told the BMAF delegates in camera a complete cock-and-bull story that he had problems and disputes with me prior to Linz. BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas and the BMAF delegates unquestioning accepted my chum Doogan’s version as explaining and exonerating his conduct at Linz. And I now understand that these lies (of which I knew nothing until now and have had no chance of answering) must have decisively influenced my suspension and poisoned all my subsequent relations with BMAF Committee members, WMA officers and even my fellow BMAF athletes.
2. BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas wrongly told BMAF delegates that Doogan had not broken any IAAF rule at Linz (see below).
3. BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas falsely told the BMAF delegates that I refused to meet him.
4. The meeting minutes disingenuously refer to several matters that had not even happened by the time of the meeting 5 November 2006. The chronology is impossible. The minutes, which the subsequent 7 March 2007 BMAF meeting approved to ‘ratify’ my suspension, were therefore false – completely unsound in every way.
I did notice that the 7 March 2007 BMAF minutes implied a right of appeal to UKA:
21 December 2010
WT (BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas) had to contact UKA re Anthony Treacher when the situation became very unsavoury as Treacher sent emails to everyone he could reach criticizing WMA and BMAF members. Following communication from the Executive, Treacher has now been banned for 12 months subject to any complaints from WMA and IAAF, and any appeal he may make to UKA. It was agreed that there would be no further contact with him on the subject of his suspension. (my underlining).
I accordingly appealed to UKA asking UKA ‘to provide a formal ruling to BMAF as to whether the minutes of the 5 November 2006 BMAF Delegates Meeting were Sound
as grounds for consequent disciplinary measures against me.’25 March 2011
UKA’s response – despite the 7 March 2007 BMAF minutes’ reference to any appeal he may make to UKA - was:
Dear Mr Treacher,
Re: Complaint against the Minutes of the 5 November 2006 BMAF Delegates Meeting
I write further to our recent exchange of correspondence regarding the above matter.
I have now spoken to UK Athletics’ legal adviser regarding the issue of UKA’s jurisdiction in respect of your complaint against the BMAF. They have confirmed that since the BMAF is a separate governing body for masters athletes and is no subject to UKA’s jurisdiction, UKA does not have jurisdiction in this matter.
So - after the now customary official gestation period of three wasted months -another sincere effort to solve this dispute offline came to nothing. The political incompetence of British athletics officers, the sloth and indifference to the truth is incredible. No wonder this business has gone on for 5 years.Back to topic “Is it OK to bypass the Call Room?”f
angio. Don’t be silly. You know full well that the court case concerned my 2008 claim against the BMAF for distress from that notice in Spring 2007 BMAF Masters Athletics Magazine. My 2006 complaint about the BMAF Team Manager breaking the IAAF rules and verbally abusing me has never had its day in court – that is the entire problem. The minutes of the 5 November 2006 BMAF meeting now show that BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas conveniently hid the complaint against his BMAF Team Manager under the rug:
vi. WT (BMAF Chairman/WMA Secretary Winston Thomas) spoken with EH (fellow relay team member Eric Horwill) and the chairman of the SCVAC Arthur Kimber. Treacher said that MD (BMAF Team Manager Maurice Doogan) had broken an IAAF rule. WT had checked it out, this is not so.
But it is so. IAAF 170.18 (see later) mainly applies but incidentally other IAAF rules, for instance:
IAAF 138 Call Room Judges. “The Call Room Chief Judge shall supervise the transit between the warmup area and the competition area to ensure that the athletes after being checked in the Call Room, be present and ready at the competition site for the scheduled start of their event.
British Team Manager Maurice Doogan was not authorized to supervise the transit of an athlete between the Call Room and the competition area.
IAAF 144 Assistance to Athletes talks about the competition area, which “normally also has a physical barrier, is defined for this purpose as the area where the competition is being staged and which has an access restricted to the competing athletes and to personnel authorised in accordance with the relevant Rules and Regulations.”
British Team Manager Maurice Doogan and his GBR athlete were not authorized to access the competition area. Anyway, the main applicable rule is IAAF 170.18:
IAAF 170.18 The composition of a team and the order of running for a relay shall be officially declared no later than one hour before the published first call time for the first heat of each round of the competition. Further alterations must be verified by a medical officer appointed by the Organising Committee and may be made only until the final call time for the particular heat in which the team is competing. If a team does not follow this Rule, it shall be disqualified. (My underlining).
BMAF Team Manager Maurice Doogan attempted to alter the team after final call time. BMAF Chairman/WMA Secretary Winston Thomas was therefore entirely wrong about the application of the IAAF rules to the Linz incident. That also means that my complaint against BMAF Team Manager Maurice Doogan was fully justified and that the BMAF delegates should have taken it seriously.
The truth will out.