I14 Worlds Stitch-up

Good.

I should hope so.  Lot's of discussion on the rules bit thread about the facts found and the conclusions the jury drew.  Personally for the "conclusive evidence" required by rule 2 I believe it needed a witness to be able to say something like "they were counting the number of boats which had finished, discussed the situation and broke the cover".  Otherwise they are merely inferring intent.  No wonder there has been no rule 69 - there is no way the required standard of proof for that has been achieved!

If you look at what MuchFWB has to say http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4 66&PN=1&TPN=4 it appears there is a limited appeals route for an IJ decision. This was news to me, but at the last Olympics there was in fact an appeal heard against an IJ decision, albeit unsuccessfully.

Jim,

What I'm getting at is that there is nothing in the evidence that conclusively proves that they were not doing it for their own benefit.

My point is that the sort of fact found which I mention and you quote would be far more conclusive and appropriate to support what is a big call.

On the question of more "sporting behaviour" there motivation might just be related to more than the spoiling of their own good name, and also reinstating the on the water winner.

I would love to know - and was surprised that it wasn't in the facts found - in what position the Aussies rounded the leeward mark.  Does anyone know?  Clearly they had some work to do?