Table tennis player casts doubt on Maltese Olympic Committee's reason for his omission from GSSEs

Maltese table tennis player, Andrew Gambina cast doubt on the Maltese Olympic Committee’s (MOC) reasons for his omission from the Games of the Small States of Europe 2023. 

The MOC had previously explained that the reason for his omission revolved around “an act of absolute misbehaviour and disrespect.” In a press statement, the MOC had stated that Gambina’s misbehaviour was due to his refusal “to continue the match unless the assistant umpire was removed after he disagreed with the same umpire’s call. Gambina’s poor attitude brought the match to a halt as he was resolute on not continuing and also sat on the table unless he got his way.”

Responding to MaltaToday’s questions, Gambina stated that it is clear to him that his omission from the GSSEs had nothing to do with disciplinary issues. 

“Firstly, my appeal during the match was in relation to a grave mistake made by the tournament director (referee) where the umpire and assistant umpire officiating the national championship final belonged to the same club as my opponent,” Gambina explained.

The athlete made reference to the International Table Tennis Federation’s (ITTF) handbook, stating that, “An appeal may be made to the referee against a decision of a match official on a question of interpretation of Laws or Regulations, and the decision of the referee shall be final.”

Gambina goes on to state that when the tournament director intervened during the incident, proceeded to change the assistant umpire without speaking to the athlete. Here, Gambina notes that since the tournament director had ultimately decided in his favour, it is difficult to understand why the event was being used against him. 

Finally, he said, a significant violation of conduct would normally be informed to the player in writing by the governing body, which in this case is the MOC. Gambina said that this was not the case, as he had found out about the MOC’s decision through the media.

Furthermore, Gambina states that it is standard protocol to allow him to provide his side of the story before making a conclusion on his behaviour. He concludes that this did not occur in this case because the MOC served as judge, jury, and executioner.