In a unique case, Richard Davenport, a former British junior athlete of the year, now aged 24, has claimed that David Farrow, his former coach, ignored his complaints of back pain and was over-controlling, causing him to require extensive surgery and jeopardising his athletics career.

The hearing ended on Friday, with Mr Justice Owen reserving his judgement.

One senior athletics figure, who spoke to insidethegames on condition of anonymity, fears that if the judge rules in favour of Davenport, then the sport will struggle to attract volunteer coaches in future.

"Who is going to want to stand trackside, come rain or shine, all through the year to coach up-and-coming athletes, at in your own time and at your own expense, if years later one of your athletes can sue you for tens of thousands of pounds?" said the worried official.

This case is not the first time that Farrow has been involved in controversy.

In 2007, Farrow, from Cheltenham, was stripped of his UK Athletics coaching licence after he was found to have abused his position of trust with a senior athlete.

However, because the incident with Davenport occurred before the licence suspension, Farrow’s legal costs are being met by UK Athletics' insurers.

In the High Court in London last week, Farrow’s lawyers dismissed the sprinter's case against their client as a "drip drip of minor peccadilloes".

Key to the case is a period from November 2004 to May 2005, when Davenport, who was then 19, says he first began to suffer chronic back pain, but that Farrow did not ensure that he consult a doctor.

Medical evidence given at the hearing suggests that Davenport’s condition was probably caused by an inherited weakness, rather than over-training.

Testimony on behalf of Farrow was given by Davenport's training partner at the time, Ryan Preddy, who said that his friend never complained of any back pain.

Rob Whittingham, the editor of the British Athletics Annual, testified that at a track meeting in Manchester in January 2005, he had been introduced to Davenport’s mother by Farrow.

"She told me that she considered Richard to be lazy and lack self-motivation, and that his achievements had only been possible because of David Farrow."

Statistician Whittingham also said that between January and March 2005, Davenport had raced 12 times at distances ranging from 300 to 1,500 metres, running close to or setting personal bests on every occasion.

"It’s most unlikely that someone with chronic back pain could compete at this level for months at a time," he said.

In his own testimony, Farrow said that evidence given by another of his former star junior athletes, distance runner Emily Pidgeon, that the coach was “overbearing”, was untrue.

Davenport’s lawyer, Jonathan Hand, referred Farrow to claims in testimony by Pidgeon that the coach "went on about the fact that Richard was lazy and that there was nothing wrong with him".

"No, that’s not right," Farrow said when giving evidence.

Farrow denies all liability in the case, insisting he has no recollection of his charge complaining of serious back pain during the relevant period, and that he always acted in what he believed to be Davenport’s best interests.

In remarks on them final day of the week-long hearing, Timothy Meakin, Farrow’s lawyer, told Mr Justice Owen: "Not one of these witnesses said he was informed about Mr Davenport's back issues at any time.

"When one puts that evidence into high focus, it really undermines his case."


Related stories
February 2010: Top British athlete claims in High Court career was ruined by coach