The Chief Executive
English Ski Council
Area Library Building
Queensway Mall
The Cornbow
Halesowen
West Midlands  B63 4AJ

24th July 1999

Dear Sirs

As the manager of Alex Heath, I am registering our official appeal against the decision taken at the 2nd European Artificial Ski Championships on July 18th 1999, at High Wycombe.

While we have extremely grave concerns, we would, nevertheless, like to commend John Shaw and Sally Woods from LSERSA for an otherwise excellently organised Championships, which clearly involved an enormous amount of hard work. Our problem is with the Technical Delegate of the race and the other race officials, not with LSERSA.

The fact that I initially had to e-mail my appeal to you is an indication of a biased decision that was made as a result of the Belgian Team Captain's protest. When I made my intention clear, that I wanted to appeal, I was not accommodated by the officials, but told that I would have to send my appeal within 24 hours to you. They would not take it at the venue. This contravenes the regulation in the ESC's own manual, where it clearly states, in paragraph A.6 addendum to FIS rule 647, that the appeal is to be made within 24 hours to the race organisers in writing. Furthermore, no proper address was provided for the lodging of my appeal, only an e-mail address, which had to be used since the address in the rule book is without a valid postcode; use of this address would therefore have prejudiced delivery of the appeal on time.

Once I was able to find the proper postcode for the ESC, I duly forwarded a cheque in the sum of £10, as stated in the official Rule Book, sections A.4 and A.6, rather than the £20 we were told verbally at the event.

As far as the protest is concerned, here are the details:

1. We believe that the officials conducted aspects of their duties in an incorrect and/or unprofessional and/or irregular and/or inconsistent and/or unfair manner, particularly with regard to a protest by the Belgian team following the race at Wycombe Summit on Sunday 18th July 1999, which led to the wrongful disqualification of Alexander Heath.
2. Having been announced as the winner of the race, after protocol had been posted, Alex was disqualified even though:

i) No gate judge had marked him as incorrectly passing any gate.

ii) Protocol was posted without Alex Heath being included, therefore acknowledging his position as winner.

iii) The only evidence presented by the protesting Belgians was a single amateur video recording of low definition and with a low number of frames per minute, shot directly from the front, on a high zoom ratio and with considerable foreshortening.

iv) This video was viewed by members of the jury without the facility of frame advance; only the ability to 'play' and attempt to press 'pause' at required frames.

v) The TD noted that they had viewed the video approximately 60 times; itself an obvious indication, to any unbiased observer, that the evidence was unclear.

vi) In disqualifying Alex, the TD admitted that "none of these things are clear cut".

The principle followed by FIS, in cases of doubt, is "It is better that a fault goes unpunished than unfairly punished".

The gate officials had not registered an incident. The one directly concerned was questioned and upheld his earlier statement that there had been NO infraction of the rules. At least one other, with a clear view, from a different angle also stated that there had been, in their experienced opinion, NO incident to question the proper completion of the race.

vii) The frames of the video that were available to view show only the following:

a) One that shows the highly angulated tip of Alex's ski close to a gate pole, with no ability, due to the foreshortening, of telling how close it is to the pole, nor whether it is in the process of moving closer to, further from or remaining at the same relative distance to the pole.

b) One that shows the tip of Alex's ski already past the pole and the pole still vertical. Surely a strong indication that the tip did not hit the pole.

We were advised, verbally, that the Belgians had protested that Alex's ski tip had gone over the gate. Clearly it did not.

c) One that shows the pole flattened, with the tip and boot already past the gate, from which no conclusions can be drawn at all, least of all which part of Alex's body actually made contact with the pole.

3. Regarding the conduct of the protest and associated meetings:

i) Some time after protocol had been posted, it was announced that there was a protest, but it was never announced or advised that this involved anyone other than those names posted in protocol.

ii) Approximately an hour passed before, prompted by an announcement that the jury were involved in an international incident, an enquiry by Alex's manager discovered that Alex was involved.

By this time, there was no opportunity for Alex to call as witness anybody that had left the ski centre. One such person was Martin Bell, but the TD informed us that evidence from Martin by telephone would not be accepted. We believe that Martin Bell should have been acceptable to the jury as an expert witness, not only because of his considerable experience, but because he had been standing in an appropriate position with respect to the course. Having stated his opinion before leaving the venue, we believe that had he been able to give evidence he would have exonerated Alex.

iii) We were then invited by the TD to attend what he called an informal meeting. It was clear that the Belgians had already spent a great deal of time with the full jury, though it was not clear whether, at that time, they had yet entered a written protest with the required fee.

The meeting to which we were invited included the TD and the Referee, but not the Chief of Race. It was during this meeting that we were shown the Belgian video and advised that they had watched it 60 times. We were invited to respond and then dismissed from the meeting.

Shortly afterwards we were recalled to a meeting with the same two officials, who informed us that they were upholding the Belgian protest. It was during this meeting that the TD said it was "not clear cut". We requested that expert witnesses, who had watched the race be allowed to make a statement on our behalf. These witnesses were Martin Bell, denied, as mentioned above and Malcolm Erskine, who had also watched the alleged incident from a proper vantage point and had stated that there was no 'straddle'; in fact his first reaction, when told that Alex's run was being questioned was to exclaim, "Bullshit".

Malcolm Erskine was not allowed, by the jury, to state his case based on his own visual observation of the actual event, but was ordered to make a technical observation of the low resolution, shadowed, handy-cam, amateur footage, that could not be viewed frame-by-frame, nor from different angles, least of all the angle from which Malcolm was there to give evidence.

Malcolm Erskine was not called by us to be an expert witness in video film interpretation, nor did he purport to be so, though it appears that this is what the jury asked him to be. Even so, after his meeting with the jury, Malcolm agreed that the video could be interpreted in more than one way, including Alex skiing the gate correctly.

iv)    At no time did Alex have the opportunity to address, or present evidence, to a full jury that included the Chief of Race, even though the Chief of Race was party to the decision to disqualify him. At no time was the principle of benefit of doubt awarded to Alex Heath, by the jury. When we informed the TD, Mr Mike Creasor, that there was video evidence available by the Carlton TV Film crew, who had filmed the event, we were told that they were not interested in delaying the departure of the Belgian team while waiting on the evidence of the professional footage from the film crew.

v)    At no time was this inquiry brought to a formal inquiry and, when we requested this, we were told that, "You have done what a manager should do to defend his athlete, but there is nothing more to discuss". It has been noted by several independent, seasoned observers and at least one independent official, that the juror has "always tried to get Alex Heath banned or disqualified from the championships, because he didn't like him."

4. Supporting facts of evidence as to the incorrect, unprofessional, irregular, inconsistent or unfair practices carried out by or condoned by the officials of this race are:

i)   It was only when the Official Results of the race were published that we actually found out, by virtue of a scribbled pen note, added to the printed sheet, at which number gate Alex had been disqualified. Nobody had had the courtesy to mention that in the earlier discussions.

ii) Racers were allowed to ski in the race on slalom skis which were above the FIS safety height regulations. At least one of the national team managers expressed concern at this.

iii) They took no action to disqualify a racer (Matthew Aitkenhead) who, in the 1st run, advised the gate official himself that he had 'straddled' (ie not correctly passed through) one of his gates.

iv) They awarded 1st prize Junior II and 3rd prize overall to a skier (Blair Aitken) who committed more than one illegal activity in the 1st run of the race:

a) He failed to correctly pass through ('straddled') a gate in the upper part of the course; this was not only clear to the general spectators in the area, but to his own countrymen who were heard to remark that they had now lost their best skier. This is also clear to see on video of the incident.

b) He failed to obey clear signals from the gate judges to stop racing, as the previous racer was lying prone just across the finish line and receiving aid from another. The signals are clear to see on video, including one official running back out of the way, as this skier charged past.

c) Intending to ask for a re-run, which request was subsequently announced, he passed straight across the finish line, endangering the fallen skier and helper, instead of correctly passing to the side of the finish line.

We were led to believe that the re-run was refused on the basis that, since he had straddled a gate, he would be disqualified anyway, but then he was not disqualified.

We therefore most strongly object to the decision and ask that an immediate investigation be launched not only specifically to the incident in question, but to the entire handling of the situation. We feel that a title, fairly contested and won by Alex Heath was taken away in a most incorrect fashion, for reasons that were certainly not available as evidence.

The ESC should be aware of the seriousness of handling such things in the manner stated, as there are financial implications and we have to reserve our right to seek legal recourse.

We believe that Alexander should be reinstated as the rightful overall winner of the race; alternatively that the race be declared null and void.

In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very sad day for the status of Alpine ski racing. This affair has certainly highlighted a number of grave concerns that must be addressed for the future of ski racing and its survival in this country. It is no wonder, in my personal opinion, as a sports promoter, that skiing is not taken seriously by the media, or the public, in this country, when situations like this occur. The incident has left a foul taste in my mouth. When I look at the work I do to promote the best sport in the world, it is because of the athletes such as Alexander Heath and the other 200 entrants at the Championships, that I gain my enthusiasm for the many hours and days that I put in. Equally, it is situations like this that will put any businessman looking to invest in the sport completely off the idea.

I urge you to take this matter very seriously, as I am sure you will, for the future of the sport in this country may well depend on those of you investigating this appeal.


Yours faithfully

Nicholas von Herberstein
Director