I14 Worlds Stitch-up

I sit corrected.

My remark was more of a tongue-in-cheek dig..... :)

Bruce,

I don't think it's relevant that the head of the jury was an Aussie.  Unless we have overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we have to put our trust in the integrity of jurys!

Chris249,

Calm down....let's not bring nationalities into this.  I think what I'm struggling with is seeing facts like that on a protest form!  Normally the facts relate to the incident on the water, but I guess this is a different situation since we're talking about fair sailing.

I'm not sure if these facts (and they are facts, that can't be disputed) should have been taken into account.  How often would they have normally had dinner together during the week?  If they hadn't both been sponsored by RMW would they have "got away with it"?

To me the situation of series points was far from straight forward!  If they really wanted to screw the Aussies they would have done it pre-start.  In fact it looks like the Aussie pair needed no help screwing up their start.

Unless you were there and saw what happened it's difficult to comment, however the fact that Richardson/Barker had some grounds for their actions (they had a chance to beat the Aussies themselves) makes the jury's decision at least questionable!  I wouldn't suggest that the jury cheated, but often jurys make errors!

Anyway, what's done is done.  It's a shame for something like this to hang over the event and question the validity of the results, but I guess that was always going to happen once the protests were lodged!

So Bruce, do you think the jury was making those facts up, and Barker chose not to mention it? Did the jury just sit down and think "hmmm, how can we make our decision sound good". Do you think there was no such dinner and the jury just invented it? Do you think there was no such discussion, and that the jury just invented the talk of points, and Barker didn't mention that no such dinner took place? Do you think the jury made up the fact that the two boats with RMW on them were sponsored by the same company?

You ask "What relevance does this have, unless the aim of the jury was to incinuate that the brit crews cheated?"

Oh c'mon....there's no "incinuation" that the Brit crew cheated...it's a lot more than insinuation, it's a fact as found by a protest committee. Of course it's more an an insinuation. What did you want them to do, after they found those to be the facts...say "we think the brits cheated but we won't say why"?

If it was a pair of French boats, sponsored by say Hobie Cat France, and they had a meeting over win the previous day, would you say "oh no, they couldn't have cheated". Well, the Poms have repeatedly claimed in print such things about other nationalities....now the boot is on the other foot suddenly there's a rush to change the way people adduce motive from facts.

Yes, the head of the jury was an Aussie. The jury also included one or more Kiwis (kiwi/Aussie sporting relations are notoriously prickly...saying a Kiwi voted for the Aussie is like saying a Frog sided with a pom because the countries are neighbours) and people from other countries. One Aussie, about 6 jury members....do the maths.

This is interesting....you have motive and opportunity for the Poms to have sailed the way they did, yet you reject that they could have cheated.

You have NO motive for the rest of the jury to have come to the decision they did, yet you believe that imply that they gave a decision in bad faith and then concocted reasons for it. Nice one.

You claim that the jury are at fault for ascribing motives to the Poms, yet you go on to ascribe motives to the jury's actions in listing the Pom's meeting before the last race.

What relevance does your post have, unless its aim is to insinuate that the jury cheated in coming to its decision?