Hillarysworld

And she said the IOC doesn't come under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Supreme Court or the Charter.

"The IOC made a decision that discriminates against the plaintiffs," said Fenlon. "Only the IOC can alleviate that discrimination by including an Olympic ski-jumping event for women in the 2010 Games. There will be little solace to the plaintiffs in my finding that they have been discriminated against; there is no remedy available to them in this Court."

Fenlon's 42-page ruling says that the 15 ski-jumpers will be denied the opportunity to compete "for no reason other than their sex."

"VANOC cannot be held to be in breach of the Charter in relation to decisions that it cannot control. VANOC did not make the decision to exclude women's ski jumping from the 2010 Games," she said. "VANOC did not support that decision. VANOC does not have the power to remedy it."

The judge rejected a claim that Vancouver 2010's day-to-day business was under government control.

And while there is significant government funding for the Olympics, that doesn't amount to control over the organizing committee's finances, she said.

However, the judge also ruled that when planning, organizing, financing and staging the Games, Vancouver 2010 is subject to the Charter of Rights.

"I acknowledge that there is something distasteful about a Canadian governmental activity subject to the Charter being delivered in a way that puts into effect a discriminatory decision made by others, but it is VANOC's conduct that is challenged here," she added.

"It must be remembered that, in addition to not having control of the impugned decision, VANOC supported inclusion of women's ski jumping and remains ready and willing to host such an event should the IOC change its decision."

Fenlon said that male ski jumpers were allowed to compete by the IOC because it was a traditional Olympic sport.

She said that had both men and women had to meet IOC criteria for new sports, both would have been excluded.

"I am satisfied that the differential treatment of the plaintiffs resulting from the application of the Olympic Charter Rules that grandfather men's ski jumping, while requiring women's ski jumping events to meet the criteria for inclusion of new events, discriminates against the plaintiffs in a substantive sense," she said. "This finding, however, does not equate to a breach of s. 15 of the Charter because the Charter does not apply to either the IOC or the rules under the Olympic Charter."

“We are disappointed that the women’s right to participate in 2010 has not been recognized by the court,” the ski jumpers’ lawyer Ross Clark said. “But we respect the court’s opinion and we believe we had a fair hearing. We accept the judge’s ruling, but we also need time to consider whether we will appeal.”

Deedee Corradini, president of Women Ski Jumping-USA, said it’s terribly disappointing, but the experience and effort was important. “No one wanted to go to court over this, but we had no choice,” she explained. “We did everything possible, followed the rules, grew the sport, held world championships and the IOC remained opposed to including women in ski jumping. We won’t give up until women’s ski jumping is in the Olympics, but it’s unfortunate this legal effort failed and they won’t be in 2010.”

Katie Willis, a highly ranked Canadian ski jumper and one of the plaintiffs, said she was very distressed by the news. “It’s awful that we lost, but I’m glad we tried,” Willis said. “We needed to try every possible avenue to get into the Olympics and when my Canadian teammates and I were frustrated with the Canadian government’s lack of effort with the IOC, we had no choice but to join the lawsuit.”

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/2010wintergames/Women+jumpers+lose+court+Vancouver+2010+inclusion/1778962/story.html