Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

ATMARTINSBURG

SUSAN HAYWOOD,

Plaintiff,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-78

(J udge Bailey)
USA CYCLING, INC, a
non-resident corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ] UDGMENT
ON BEHALF OF SUSAN HAYWOOD

I. Introduction

On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the
Motion for Partial Summary] udgmenton Behalf of Susan Haywood [Doc. 44] filed August
17, 2007. On August 31, 2007, the defendant, USA Cycling, Inc., filed its response in
opposition [Doc, 46]. The plaintiff then filed a reply memorandum on September 11, 2007
[Doc, 47], On March 5, 2008, this civil action was reassigned to District j udge J ohn
Preston Bailey [Doc. 54]. Having been fully briefed, the motion is now ripe for adjudication.
Forthe reasons stated below, the motion [Doc. 44] is GRANTED.

II. Statement of Facts and Procedural History

The Union Cyciiste Intematinale, ("UCI") is the worldwide governing bodyforcycling
and serves as the association for national cycling federations. The defendant, USA
Cycling, Inc. ("USA Cycling") is a member of UCI and is the UCI-recognized "national
federation" governing the sport of cycling in the United States. As such, USA Cycling is the

1

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 2 of 9

official cycling organization recognized by the United States Olympic Committee and is
responsible for identifying, training, and selecting cyclists to represent the United States in
the Olympic Games, The plaintiff, Susan Haywood, is a world-class mountain bike racer
that USA Cycling nominated to be the sole female representative forthe United States in
the mountain bike event at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece. Shortly after
receiving this nomination, her closest competitor, Mary McConneloug, filed a Demand for
Arbitration claiming that she should be the nominee as opposed to Haywood because USA
Cycling did not have the authority under the Selection Criteria to include fifteen (15) UCI
points Haywood earned forthe NORBA National Short Track Cross Country event, which
took place on J uly 25, 2003, at Sand Point, Idaho ("the Sandpoint Race").

The 2004 Selection Criteria forthe female mountain bike competitorwas as follows;
Women's Cross Country

(a) Start Positions: Maximum of 3 start positions

(b) Automatic Nomination Criteria (in order of priority):

(i) Any athlete placing in the top-three (3) atthe 2003 Worid Mountain Bike
Championships, Lugano, SU I, August 31— September?, 2003 provided that
athlete continues to demonstrate the ability to perform at a similar level
based on performances in international UCI Worid Cup competition during
the 2004 calendar year,

(ii) The top ranked rider on the UCI Mountain Bike rankings on J uly 12, 2004.

That year, no competitor qualified for automatic nomination under criterion (1) by

placing in the top three (3) atthe Worid Championships. Therefore, the Olympic nomination

under criterion (ii) would be awarded to the cyclist with the highest UCI Mountain Bike

2

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 3 of 9

points tally,

Stephen] ohnson, the current Chief Executive Officer of USA Cycling authored the
Selection Criteria to be used in selecting members to the United States Olympic Team in
the cycling disciplines forthe 2004 Olympics. Using this criteria, USA Cycling selected
Susan Haywood to represent the United States at the Olympic Games. lndoingso,USA
Cycling adjusted the UCI rankings as of J uly 12, 2004, to account for the J uly, 2003,
SandpointRace. USA Cycling's decision to nominate Plaintiff Haywood was based on the
fact that on J uly 12, 2004, according to USA Cycling's calculations, IMs. Haywood had
1,489 points. This tally included the fifteen (15) points from the Sandpoint Race. The
second place finisher, Mary McConnelough, finished with 1,488 points.

On J uly 17th, 2004, Ms, IMcConnelough filed a demand for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association challenging USA Cycling's point calculation because on
J uly 12th 2004, the official UCI Mountain Bike ranking showed Ms, McConnelough in the
lead with 1,488 points versus Susan Haywood's 1,474 points.

The UCI Cycling Regulations, Part IV Mountain Bike Races, Chapter X, Regulation
10.11 relating to the transmission of race results, states as follows:

10.11 National Federations and organisers are required, immediately
following any race, to transmit to the UCI offices by fax, the complete results
on results sheets supplied in advance by the UCI. These must be signed by
the UCI Chief Commissaire in attendance at the event. Should such
information notbe transmitted as indicated, the UCI Management Committee
may exclude it from the UCI International Calendar, notwithstanding any
other penalties provided for in the regulations.

3

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 4 of 9

Underthis regulation, the UCI could not include the Sandpoint Race points in the
UCI Point Caiculation because USA Cycling felled to submit the results in the same
calendar year in which Haywood's race occurred. UCI attempted to solicit these results
from USA Cycling before this deadline, indeed, on October 10, 2003, the UCI sent a fax
message to Mr. J im Ochowicz, who was President of USA Cycling, inc., in which it listed
numerous races including the Sandpoint Race for which they had not received race results,
The resuits of the Sandpoint Race, however, were not timely submitted to UCi per its
October 2003 request,

The time by which USA Cycling was to report the race results to UCI expired on
December 31, 2003; USA Cycling did not ask the UCI to include the Sandpoint resuits until
early 2004, Using the point total calculated by the UCI and not the point totai calculated
by USA Cyciing, the Arbitrator declared that Ms. IMcConnelough wouid representthe United
States In the Women's Cross Country Mountain Bike Race at the 2004 Summer Olympics.

III. Applicable Law
A. SummaryJ udgment Standard

Under Fed. R. Civ, P. 56(c}, summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on fiie, together with the affidavits,
if any, show there is no genuine issue as to materiai fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law," The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial
burden of showing the absence of any issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
All U.S, 317 (1986). However, as the United States Supreme Court noted in Anderson
V. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All U.S, 242, 248 (1986), Rule 56(c) itself provides that "a party
opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment 'may not rest upon mere

4

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 5 of 9

allegations or denials of [the] pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue fortrial.'" 'The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining
whether there is the need for a trial-whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual
issues that properly can be resoived only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably
be resolved in favor of either party." Id. at 250 (See also Charbonnages de France v.
Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir.1979} (summary judgment "should be granted only in
those cases where it is perfectiy clearthat no issue of fact is involved and inquiry into the
fects is notdesirabie to clarify the application of the law") (quoting Stsvens v. Howard D.
JohnsonCo.. 181 F,2d 390, 394 (4th Cir.1950)).

Further, in reviewing the supported underlying facts, all inferences must be viewed
in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,
Ltd. V. Zenith Radio Corp.. 475 U.S. 574 (1986).
B. Negligence

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has held that:
[i]n order to establish a prima facie case of negligence in West Virginia, it
must be shown that the defendant has been guilty of some act or omission
in violation of a duty owed to the plaintiff. No action for negligence wiil iie
without a duty broken."

Syipt, 3,A/fcens V. DeBow, 208W,Va,486, 541S.E.2d 576(2000).
Further, the West Virginia Supreme Court has held:
The determination of whether a defendant in a particular case owes a duty
to the plaintiff is not a factual question for the jury; rather the determination
of whether a plaintiff is owed at duty of care by a defendant must be rendered

5

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 6 of 9

by the court as a matter of law. Id. at Syl. pt. 5, (citations omitted),

IV. Discussion

Tlie Constitution of the UCI created a dutyforUSA Cycling, as a national federation,
to timely transmit Susan Haywood's race results to UCI. That Constitution specifies that
national federation members "shall comply with the Constitution and Regulations of the
UCI, as well as all decisions taken in accordance therewith, Likewise, they shall have the
Constitution, Regulations and decisions of UCI complied with by all persons concemed,"
Regulation 10.11 ("the Regulation"), which the UCI Constitution '1ncorporate[s] in[to] the
corresponding regulations of the federations," states that "National Federations ... are
required, immediately following any race, to transmit to the UCI offices by fax, the complete
results on results sheets supplied in advance bythe UCI."

USA Cycling argues that an unwritten understanding of the reporting responsibility
had been put in place and that it was not even aware of Regulation 10.11, Indeed, the
defendant argues that the duty to report the race results was placed on the UCI
Commissaire, This Court, however, is not concerned with the alleged "concurrent" duty,
as such would not relieve USA Cycling of its own duty to Ms. Haywood. See Chandler v.
Ntn'l R.R. Passenger Co tp., 882 F.Supp. 533 (1995),

This Court finds the plain language of Regulation 10.11 clearly bestows a duty upon
on "National Federations and organisers . , .to transmit [the race results] to the UCI offices
by fax." Furthemiore, the only responsibility the Regulation placed on the UCI
Commissaire attending the event was to sign the result sheets. Finally, to avoid any
confusion as to whose duty it was to report the results, UCI even sent USA Cycling a letter
dated October 10, 2003, which requested the race results.

6

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 7 of 9

It is also noteworthy, although not determinative, that representatives of USA
Cycling, including its Technical Director, Shawn Ferrell, (who has been disclosed as an
expert witness on rule issues by USA Cycling), have admitted that the regulation at issue
presented an affirmative duty and obligation upon USA Cycling to transmit results to the
UCI.

Next, USA Cycling was "guilty of . . . [an] omission In violation of a duty owed to the
plaintifT' when It failed to transmit her Sandpoint Race results. Aikens v. DeBow, 208
W.Va.486, 541 S.E.2d 576. The Regulation explicltlywarns that "[sjhould such information
not be transmitted as indicated, the UCI Management Committee may exclude it from the
UCI International Calendar, notwithstanding any other penalties provided for in the
regulations."

USA Cycling, the UCI-recognized national federation for the United States, never
submitted the finish results for the J uly 25, 2003, Short Track Cross Country event at
Sandpoint Race.

In response, UCI alerted USA Cycling that it had neglected to transmit the Sandpoint
Race results for the plaintiff, UCI sent a facsimile on October 10, 2003, to USA Cycling
President, J im Ochowicz, which stated:

"...the reason we contact you, as some events have still not been entered on
to the UCI points' [sic] allocation ranking system. That ranking will be of
prime importance forthe numberone criterion ofthatquotas' [sic] calculation
to participate in the next Olympic Games In Athens, Out of regard for athletes
having taken part In those events and in orderto obtain a correct ranking on
31 December 2003, we allow ourselves to insist so that we can receive, as

7

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 8 of 9

soon as possible the results of the events mentioned in the table below . . ."
Again, USA Cycling failed to transmit the results.

Because no female cyclist met the Automatic Criteria set forth in the 2004 Selection
Criteria, the US Olympic Nominee was to be the top-ranked rider on the UCI mountain bike
rankings as of J uly 12, 2004. Haywood should have been that rider, accumulating 1489
points, including fifteen (15) points from the Sandpoint Race; the second place finisher,
MaryMcConneiough, finished with 1488 points. Unfortunately, the UCI could not include
the Sandpoint Race results in the UCI Point Calculation because USA Cycling failed to
submit Haywood's results in the same calendar year in which that race occurred. The
reporting time expired on December 31, 2003, and USA Cycling did not ask the UCI to
include the Sandpoint results until early 2004. Using the point total calculated by the UCI
and not the point total calculated by USA Cycling, the Arbitrator had no choice but to
declare that Ms. McConnelough would be the United States' representative for the
Women's Cross Country Mountain Bike Race at the 2004 Summer Olympics. As a result
of USA Cycling's neglect, Susan Haywood was not allowed to participate at the Olympic
Games.

V. Conclusion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant and having
resolved all conflicts in the evidence in its favor, the Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law as to the issues of duty and ultimate liability, There exists
no genuine issue of material fact, and, as a matter of law, this Court holds that US A Cycling
owed Susan Haywood a duty to timely submit her Sandpoint Race results to UCI. Further,
it breached this duty by failing to make these submissions. Accordingly, it is the opinion

Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB Document 55 Filed 03/1 8/2008 Page 9 of 9

of this Courttliatthe (VJotion for Partial Summary] udgmentcn Behalf of Susan Haywood
[Doc. 44] should be, and Is, hereby GRANTED,

It Is so ORDERED.

The Cleric is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein,

DATED; March 18, 2008.