I14 Worlds Stitch-up

Originally posted by Bruce Starbuck I'll try again: I don't like the way the protest committee included the following as "facts found":

What's the problem. They were given as evidence, they are facts, they were found. They need to be included in the report of the IJ. Its quite obvious that the IJ didn't consider them to suggest that there was a conspiracy, otherwise there would have been a DSQ of both boats and rule 69 hearings.

If the evidence had been presented, and accepted, and not included in the PC write up, your alter ego on the other side would be complaining about cover ups. All that evidence suggests to me is that they consider that 1516 was well aware of where 1513 and 631 had to finish respective to each other for 1513 to win.

I'll say it again, there doesn't have to have been a grand unsportsmanlike conspiracy for rule 2 to kick in. AIUI all there has to be is, for 1516 on the spur of the moment, to be thinking, OK, thanks to this shift we're not going to pull them back to 26th, but if we hold the cover a bit longer our mates will win it. And the fact that they peeled off and broke the cover when their mates had "won" it is, I think, good enough for the rules with all the other facts found.



Edited by JimC

I'll try again:

I don't like the way the protest committee included the following as "facts found":

2.Some members of GBR 1516 and GBR 1513 attended a dinner the previous night stated by the protestee as a "Team meeting at which points options and tactics for the following day were discussed".

3. GBR 1516 and GBR 1513 are both owned by the boat builder who also paid for the airfares and accommodation of the crews of both these boats.

What relevance does this have, unless the aim of the jury was to incinuate that the brit crews cheated? They may as well include the fact that the chairman of the IJ is Australian, as is the protestor. That has exactly the same amount of relevance (hopefully none) as the above "facts".

 

2.I don't like the way the protest committee included the following "facts found" in their protest decision:

 

 

Some members of GBR 1516 and GBR 1513 attended a dinner the previous night stated by the protestee as a “Team meeting at which points options and tactics for the following day were discussed”.

 

3. GBR 1516 and GBR 1513 are both owned by the boat builder who also paid for the airfares and accommodation of the crews of both these boats.

 

 

By including these statements, they are incinuating that cheating took place. Not a very professional thing to do in this situation. Why not say "The chairman of the IJ is Australian, as is the protestor."

 

That's just as relevant as who had dinner with whom the night before. The Jury should be looking at what happened on the water, not drawing conclusions from who had dinner where the night before.

What are the ramifications of a rule 2 disqualification?

Could they get a ban?

Rick

It also occurs it me that its by no means impossible that 1516 originally intended to try and sail AUS down to 26th. But when that had obviously failed there was yet the chance to just hold them back a bit longer and help your mate out. The temptation to do that would be very great. And that's a rule 2 breach...

It needn't have been a deliberate ploy from the start, just a last minute "Oh well we can at least". And bearing in mind we are talking about decent people in a friendly class someting spur of the moment like that seems far more likely than a grand conspiracy.