LTA in court

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: LTA in court

TMH · Futures qualifying

EddietheEagle wrote:
Stoute has no ATP ranking and is languishing somewhere in the hundreds as an ITF junior. As a rule of thumb, if you're not ATP top 300 by the time you're eighteen, you're going nowhere other than possibly life as a lowly journeyman if you're that committed to the lifestyle.

This current case looks like an appeal against an earlier court decision. How he got his case accepted, I don't know. Appeals are nowadays only supposed to be heard if there is a realistic chance of success and this young man has none. Maybe judges lose their perspective once race gets mentioned.

I seriously hope this is tongue-in-cheek.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

EddietheEagle wrote:
Stoute has no ATP ranking and is languishing somewhere in the hundreds as an ITF junior. As a rule of thumb, if you're not ATP top 300 by the time you're eighteen, you're going nowhere other than possibly life as a lowly journeyman if you're that committed to the lifestyle.

This current case looks like an appeal against an earlier court decision. How he got his case accepted, I don't know. Appeals are nowadays only supposed to be heard if there is a realistic chance of success and this young man has none. Maybe judges lose their perspective once race gets mentioned.

The 'top 300 by 18' comment is wrong, as commented above.

However, re the case and what I read, the case was NOT decided last year and then appealed. It was 'thrown out' last year because the papers were not filed in time or correctly.

Hence, nothing substantive was decided i.e. the merits of the case weren't considered. Hence, they are asking to be allowed a second attempt. This hasn't been granted. But it is no comment on the judges and being overly racially sensitive. Stoute's lawyers are arguing that Isaac shoudln't lose his case on an admin technicality.

This seems pretty fair enough (although there are rules for filing papers and if you get them wrong, you waste a lot of time and money and you shouldn't automatically be allowed to go on).

Also, you can;t say he has no 'chance of success'. There may be a grain of truth in it. Or several grains. Hence, the need for an independent decision.

And his ranking now and his future potential now is irrelevant. It's a historical claim (as most legal claims are). The Stoutes will claim that he would have been far higher IF he'd had the funding/support that he was 'entitled' to, if using a level playing field, three years' back (or whenever). And that is impossible to prove but can only be decided really by looking at what the criteria were three years' ago, who got funding, where they are now etc.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Tuesday 8th of April 2014 08:26:48 AM

RJA · Hall of fame

I would imagine that this court case is/was laughable. All the LTA would have need to do is produce their "matrix" for each of the year to show why Stoute was not being funded.

EddietheEagle · County player

I said it was a rule of thumb, not a cast iron law. It applies to those with realistic ambitions of making the ATP top 100. If you want to base your career on challengers or futures even, as some do, that's fair enough but no way should a tennis federation be wasting its money on you. Some juniors (or their parents) have been living in cloud cuckoo land. If Stoate were that talented he'd have stuck out a mile by now.

I thought their was something odd about the court case. To get his case accepted now he will have to provide even more convincing argument that it has a chance of success. In my view it doesn't.

PaulM · Tennis legend

RJA wrote:
I would imagine that this court case is/was laughable. All the LTA would have need to do is produce their "matrix" for each of the year to show why Stoute was not being funded.

Presumably this is straight forward enough to check? Matrix criteria, certainly for the past few years, has been made public.

I think one of the arguments being suggested is that white players who don't/didn't meet matrix criteria were/are still being funded ahead of Isaac (not clear whether or not they think Isaac met/meets the matrix criteria) and that decision was based on race.

I'm not close enough to the matrix funding for the younger age groups, but for what was Team Ageon and the very high level performance players I'm not really aware of them exercising discretion to bring people in who didn't otherwise meet the criteria, unless there were injury issues as a mitigating factor, which would be fair enough. Certainly at times the system seemed to kick people when they were down (players at times who had had a rough year, dropped down the rankings, and then found a massive chunk, if not all, of their funding being cut).

The story about him sleeping in a car is sad but not really the fault of the LTA. The tour is littered with thousands of players with stories about struggling to get by financially. So whilst I have sympathy for someone chasing their dream without the necessary funds to do so, it's not a unique case in that respect and people can't expect national associations to be handing out money to everyone wanting to chase the dream. The problem there is the fact that there is no prize money in junior events and prize money in ITF tournaments (particularly on the women's side where there aren't even really £15ks which help slightly) is abysmal and leaves players having to cut corners.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

EddietheEagle wrote:
I said it was a rule of thumb, not a cast iron law. It applies to those with realistic ambitions of making the ATP top 100. If you want to base your career on challengers or futures even, as some do, that's fair enough but no way should a tennis federation be wasting its money on you. Some juniors (or their parents) have been living in cloud cuckoo land. If Stoate were that talented he'd have stuck out a mile by now.

I thought their was something odd about the court case. To get his case accepted now he will have to provide even more convincing argument that it has a chance of success. In my view it doesn't.

But, as said before, the case is not about where Isaac is now and whether he has any chance of making it, or not, now.

It's about where he was 3 years' ago. And where similar GB players were and whether they got funding or not.

It's like judicial review - it's not the actual decision that is challenged but the decision-making process.

Stoute does not have to show that, as a general policy based on his tennis and tennis potential, he SHOULD have got funding. He has to show that the decision process by the LTA was unfair i.e. that other players who were maybe equally lacking in long-term potential DID get funding.

As PaulM says in reply to RJA, the matrix should be available (i.e. even if it's not public information, it has to be made available to the court) and if Isaac qualified according to that and did not get funding the LTA will have to justify why. Which they may well be able to do. No idea.

NB I'm not even sure if the Court of Appeal are going to decide the merits of the case or whether they are simply going to rule on whether he is allowed to bring a case, having already misfiled first time; if the latter, it will be just kicked back down to the High Court for a new case to be heard.

PaulM · Tennis legend

I think it's the latter CD. I read it as being an appeal against the decision to strike out the case on a technicality, but I could be wrong. I don't think they had the substantive hearing, certainly it wouldn't make any sense for that to be in the Court of Appeal if it hasn't been heard at all before now.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

PaulM wrote:
I think it's the latter CD. I read it as being an appeal against the decision to strike out the case on a technicality, but I could be wrong. I don't think they had the substantive hearing, certainly it wouldn't make any sense for that to be in the Court of Appeal if it hasn't been heard at all before now.

Thanks. That would have been my understanding of it too. But wasn't A1 sure. Your description sounds spot on though and convincing smile So this thing will drag on even longer (assuming he gets leave to bring the case again). . . . .

EddietheEagle · County player

If it were a matter for judicial review i.e questioning of the procedure, then he ought to have applied for judicial review. I gather (or more accurately I guess) he tried to bring a case directly and got it thrown out for whatever reason.

I do not think you are correct in asserting what the LTA are obliged to do. Sports federations operate under a presumption of freedom and discretion in how they go about making their decisions. Courts of law are notoriously reluctant to interfere in the decisions of sports federations, and rightly so.

Stoate might have more chance going to the CAS, particularly if their is an arbitration agreement in place regarding LTA funding decisions. Either way he has little or no chance of getting his case accepted.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

What I meant is that the tests for racial discrimination are rather like judicial review i.e. it is not a question of whether Isaac was rightfully or wrongfully rejected for funding as a tennis player but whether his case was viewed differently because of his race.

And I'm not saying that the LTA were right or wrong i.e. did or didn't.

But it is also not right to say that sports' federations have a lot of discretion and therefore the courts will be very unlikely to review their decisions.

They have discretion but that has to be used within the law and the law forbids all racial discrimination. Therefore, it is the courts' duty to review decisions which may be illegal because they used race as one of the grounds. The matrix system was introduced for the very purpose of making decisions more objective and transparent, because of other insinuations that it was a bit of a closed club and too subjective. And if the substantive case is heard the LTA will most certainly be forced to justify their decision if Stoute can show evidence that other, lower-ranked, white players were given funding and he wasn't. The LTA's justification may well be 100% kosher and if their funding guidelines give wide discretion then that will help them but they won't be able to say simply 'because that's what we decided'.

NB I'm not saying anything about the Stoute's chances of being allowed to bring the case. The Court of Appeal may well chuck it out. After all, the Stoutes filed the papers too late and/or incorrectly. As I said, this wastes a lot of time and money and courts hate it, quite rightly. If you bring a case, get things submitted on time or ask for an extension. But this has nothing to do with whether Isaac has a claim or not.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Tuesday 8th of April 2014 02:53:20 PM

TMH · Futures qualifying

EddietheEagle wrote:
I said it was a rule of thumb, not a cast iron law. It applies to those with realistic ambitions of making the ATP top 100. If you want to base your career on challengers or futures even, as some do, that's fair enough but no way should a tennis federation be wasting its money on you. Some juniors (or their parents) have been living in cloud cuckoo land. If Stoate were that talented he'd have stuck out a mile by now.

I thought their was something odd about the court case. To get his case accepted now he will have to provide even more convincing argument that it has a chance of success. In my view it doesn't.

What a load of tosh. Hundreds (probably thousands) of players have made the top 100 having not been in or anywhere near the top 300 at the age of 18.

Some random examples from the current ATP top 100 (with their CH when they turned 19):

#19 Kevin Anderson (CH 18) - CH of 658 @ 18
#33 Benoit Paire (CH 24) - CH of 578 @18
#37 Ivan Dodig (CH 29) - CH of 933 @ 18
#44 Roberto Bautista Agut (=CH) - CH of 822 @ 18
#52 Ivo Karlovic (CH 14) - CH of 1298 @ 18
#67 Jiri Vesely (=CH) - CH of 477 @ 18
#78 Martin Klizan (CH 26) - CH of 342 @ 18
#96 Daniel Brands (CH 51) - CH of 519 @ 18

(That's just clicking random names in the top 100 - the only one I happened to click who did meet your 'rule of thumb' was Kohlschreiber).

I could go on. At a guess (and I don't have the time to back it up, so it is merely a guess), I'd say the majority of the top 100 hadn't broken the top 300 (or even IN the 300s) by the time they turned 19, and the same goes for the vast majority of those who have ever broken the top 100.

I could agree with you (to an extent) if we were talking about ever winning a grand slam or breaking the top 10/15, but top 100? Absolute tosh.

-- Edited by TMH on Wednesday 9th of April 2014 03:17:03 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Excellent 'research' TMH !

Some people have SUCH a problem getting their head round the idea that the Becker/Chang/Graf/Hingis etc. era of tennis has completely changed and that, at the top, it is not a sport for youngsters any more but confirmed players in their late twenties. And players are breaking into the top 100 later and later. Which is only going to continue.

And by 'some people' I include those professionals with funding and policy decisions to make. So well done again. And hope the powers that be (from all over) read it.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, as TMH indicates this top 300 thing by 18 just does not apply generally for top 100 players, but certainly there is such a correlation much more with players at the very top of the rankings and Slam winners, again "to an extent" as TMH surmised.

8 of the current top 10 were top 300 before their 19th birthday, indeed 6 of them before their 18th birthday, with Gasquet winning that contest ( but not so far the big later contests ), being 15 !

The exceptions are Ferrer, who was 19 and most notably, with the route he came, Isner who was 22 and indeed wasn't ranked in singles until he was 20.

I can't be bothered to go systematically beyond the current top 10, but I am pretty sure there is likely to be a fairly rapidly diminishing correlation with being top 300 by 18 as one goes down the top 100.

I wonder what real study has been done into this, not necessarily with these precise criteria. As has been said, it will no doubt have changed over time, with the average age of top players and when they broke through getting older.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Problem is that the LTA still base their matrix on the idea that you should be breaking through very young.