Arbitrator Carol Roberts has laid out her reasoning for denying the appeal of a lifetime ban given to Cambridge gymnastics coach Elvira Saadi by Gymnastics Canada in regards to the findings of "maltreatment and abuse" of athletes.
The 17-page document, obtained by CambridgeToday, goes into specific detail about the complaints, subsequent appeal and why it was denied.
The now 72-year-old Saadi was given a 10-year suspension from coaching, judging, officiating, content development, volunteering and membership on Gymnastics Canada’s committees or boards for violations including that she routinely weighed athletes and made negative comments about their weight in order to "motivate" them and tried to manipulate her athlete’s energy level, weight, eating and drinking habits by restricting their food and water intake and encouraging the use of supplements, at times as an alternative to food.
Gymnastics Canada also concluded Saadi had trouble keeping her emotions in check, was known to instill fear and used her power of authority to threaten athletes ambitions of the Olympics and medals, among other complaints.
The investigative report found 16 different violations of five policies and 11 categories of maltreatment in a 13 year period.
In total, the investigator found over 100 violations of various policies, including under the Abuse, Maltreatment and Discrimination Policy, the Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy, and the Safe Sport Policy and that "those violations had a detrimental effect on the physical and mental health of the athlete complainants."
When the 10-year ban is complete, Saadi can return to coaching coaches only, with strict guidelines that she not interact with athletes.
Among Saadi's issues within her appeal were that the Gymnastics Canada proceedings were "unfair" and she was “acquiesced” to the committee proceedings using the investigation report as an agreed statement of facts due to her limited resources and a “strained command” of English.
She also felt the sanctions imposed were not reasonable based on facts within the investigation report and under the law.
In turn, she asked that the sanctions be removed and replaced with a suspension of no more than five years, including time served, and that Gymnastics Canada pay her legal costs.
The affected parties sought a lifetime ban, which Saadi said was unreasonable given the fact it had never been given to a coach for non-sexual related offences.
By appealing the decision as unreasonable, Saadi sought that the panel decision be rescinded, which Roberts refused to do.
While she admitted the sanctions were higher than what has previously been handed out in other cases, Roberts took the side of the panel.
"I cannot agree it was unreasonable or manifestly wrong," the report read.
Saadi also argued of a lack of procedural fairness as her conduct was being reviewed at the same time Gymnastics Canada was a defendant in a class proceeding for maltreatment brought forth by registered participants.
But per Gymnastics Canada procedures, the three person disciplinary committee is made up of a chair that isn't a registered participant of the organization and every attempt is made to ensure the committee has no ties to anyone involved or the case itself.
According to Gymnastics Canada policies, members of the panel in charge of deciding allegations of maltreatment are not members, employees, directors or contractors of GymCan and play no part in policy making.
"I am not able to agree with Ms. Saadi’s argument that a reasonably informed person would perceive that the Panel would find in GymCan’s favour simply because there was some overlap in the issues before it and the issues in the class action proceeding or that the Panel would be ‘tempted to cast blame’ on Ms. Saadi to absolve GymCan of responsibility for damages alleged in the class action proceeding," Roberts said in the response.
"I find that a reasonably informed person would conclude that Ms. Saadi would be given a fair hearing by the Panel given its independent and ad hoc nature."
Roberts did find that Gymnastics Canada breached a policy by paying a member of the affected parties counsel to serve as an Athlete Advocate to represent them before the panel, which individuals are entitled to. However, she found it didn't impact her right to a fair hearing.
In the end, Roberts denied the appeal based on the investigation's findings and agreed the sanctions were appropriate.
"In conclusion, I find that the Panel’s decision was well reasoned and based on the facts and law before it," Roberts' response read.
"I find that it fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes and decline to interfere with it."
