I14 Worlds Stitch-up

Court of Arbitration for sport: Athletes can request clarification on a
decision by umpires/referees when they feel that the rules by which
decisions are made are not in accordance with legal guidlines and
principles.

It's the only course of appeal available from an IJ decision.

Re "7.GBR 1516 stated their covering tactics on the last leg of race seven was
to force AUS631 “5 or 6 positions down” on the basis of the finishing
times this represented almost an additional four minutes......Does this not represent a case of the Jury using the benefit of hindsight in
order to penalise a decision made in the heat of the moment where no
part 2 rules were broken? Can they do that? I can't find any precedent for
it."

Sorry, but where is the hindsight??? The jury seem to have been using the times to illustrate how far-fetched they felt it was for 1516's actions to really be trying to push AUS 631 back so far. Even out there on the course at the time, surely it would have been obvious to 1516 that they would have had almost no chance of pushing 631 back all the way to 26th, given the way the fleet had obviously stretched out.
 
"They've also added the fact that 1516 could beat the Aussies not only by
finishing higher than third, but also by pushing them down to 26th. They
were 18th when they started covering, but just happened to have gone to
the favoured side of the course so both boats ended up actually gaining......Here's another point, if the Aussies were slowed down by three minutes
up the final beat, how did they pull up from 18th to 14th?"

Hang on, Lindsay had been picking the shifts brilliantly (according to the world I 14 president, a Seppo) for the regatta. Why was his decision to go left something that "just happened"????

Surely your point is rather hurt by the fact that the 1516 crew never tried to say they hadn't slowed 631 down. "If the Aussies were slowed down by three minutes up the final beat, how did they pull up from 18th to 14th" was never in any doubt....Barker admitted they slowed 631 down and obviously the observers agreed (as in the Daily Sail report). It's pretty easy to be slowed down by 3 minutes and still gain.....if you had hit a side that was advantaged by 5 minutes or so. I've seen something similar happen in teams racing, when a boat that's getting slammed and held back still hits the right side and gets past other boats.

The other point remains....was it just a coincidence that as soon as 631 had been pushed one place away from the world title, 1516 released the cover? That's one hell of a coincidence, that the time that 1516 finally gives up their forlorn attempt to drive 631 back by 8 or 9 minutes was synchronised to the time that 631 lost the world title to a boat owned by the same team.

Had they been team racing to allow them to finish just 14th would have been pretty stupid as one or more of the top 13 could have been disqualifed for any number of reasons giving them the win. So how could they have know at that point it was a winning result for the other RMW boat?

My take on them releasing the cover actually supports the position that they were not team racing but fighting for their own result which had obviosly failed as they approached the finish.

Rick

Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd Originally posted by JimC The crucial thing has to be why they stopped covering when they did. As soon as I read this finding "GBR 1516 ceased its covering tactics when GBR 1513 was in a position to win the series." I stopped having any doubgts the IJ was right. How could anyone, IJ included, know exactly when GBR1513 was in a position to win? The IJ's protest report is, understandably, written in a way to support the conclusion they came to. GBR1516 could well have broken off covering once it was clear that the left had paid and putting the AUS boat into 26th place was a lost cause. I think the IJ did the right thing, but on the balance of probabilities and the need to stamp on possible team racing tactics, not on 100% proven fact.

With you on that Stefan.

On the Court of Arbitration For Sport. You can appeal to it from any event
where the right of appeal is denied by either Rule 70 or with the presence
of an IJ, but, you can only appeal the process by which a decision was
made, not the decision itself.

It is an interesting point Sarge makes on the standard of proof for rule 2.

Protest documents can now be found at http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/Business/productsbusiness/ productBoard.htm