I14 Worlds Stitch-up
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Dinghy classes
Forum Name: Dinghy development
Forum Discription: The latest moves in the dinghy market
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=466
Printed Date: 13 Aug 25 at 2:10pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: I14 Worlds Stitch-up
Posted By: Guest
Subject: I14 Worlds Stitch-up
Date Posted: 19 Feb 05 at 11:09pm
|
It will be interesting to hear the full story but on the face of it this seems like a funny outcome. http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/Business/productsbusiness/productFlash.htm - http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/Business/productsbusiness/ productFlash.htm Morrison lost the worlds through someone elses actions; seems very convienient for the aussie boat to sail round with Richardson and then protest ... regards, Rick |
Replies:
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 12:14am
|
from the link :
Would be interesting to find out what GBR1516 was charged with, if they broke the rules, they get binned, but how could you move AUS631 up to 10th(up 4 places). Don't understand this at all. ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 12:15am
|
Agreed - looks well fishy Rick PS How do you put a hyperlink in your signature? ------------- |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 6:44am
|
AIUI what seems to have happened was that the second RMW team boat slowed down halfway up last beat, went and found the AUS boat and slapped a real tight team racing cover on them. They claimed they were doing this because if they managed to really take the AUS boat far enough down the fleet they could get an overall place off them. The Aussies claimed they were doing it because if the UK boat got them down to 14th or worst their team mates would win the Championships.
The Aussies protested (inter alia) under Rule 2, because you're not allowed to team race. Ruile two reads. "2 FAIR SAILING A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat’s series score." The jury decided that they found it hard to believe that the UK boat sailing the Aus down the fleet was doing it to try and get an overall place off them because (1) they'd have had to slow them down by 8 minutes with only 9 minutes of the race left to do it and (2) there was someone ahead of them that they could (and they did) lose an overall place to while they were doing it so actually gain nothing. So the UK boat copped a DND - Disqualification none discardable. Controversial but not a totally unreasonable decision I think. OK, so now we come to the redress claim. Rule 62.1 reads in part:- 62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by [snip] (d) a boat against which a penalty has been imposed under rule 2[snip] Given the jury had just found that the Aus boat had been sailed down the fleet illegally in breach of rule 2 then it was the correct decision to give them some kind of redress. They made a time/place estimate rather than give average points, which would have done the Aussies rather more good. That part of it is pretty much uncontroversial. It seems pretty certain that at that stage the only way the AUS guys could lose first overall was if someone sailed them down the fleet - and they then got sailed down the fleet by the winners' team mates who had stopped and waited for them in order to do it, and probably lost a place overall by doing so. It certainly would have looked suspicious! |
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 9:00am
remove xxx'x Currently I17 Spi [URLxxx=http://tinyurl.com/6kxxj] For sale[/xxxURL] ------------- Wanna learn to Ski - PM me.. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 3:37pm
Isn't it strange.....every time a Pom gets blown, then it's due a nasty rotten foreign type cheating and getting the protest committee to believe their story. Amazing..... Don't you think that perhaps a jury there at the time had more information and evidence on which to base their decision than you do? |
Posted By: Much FWB
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 5:29pm
|
If that is what Al and Ian were doing in the final race then does a Rule 2
disqualification act as sufficient penalty or is there a case for opening a rule 69 hearing? Case 34: Hindering another boat may be a breach of rule 2 and the basis for action under Rule 69.1 I'm not sure of any other case where a Rule 2 protest has been won without a Part 2 rule being broken - Opens up quite a can of worms with regard IJs powers to influence boat tactics when part 2 rules are not being broken. Floodgates could well be opened here. Case 78: A boat does not break rule 2 by slowing another boats progress in a race, provided that this tactic is intended to benefit her own series result and that in using it she does not intentionally break a rule. That is where Ian's comment of saying that if they'd succeeded in dropping the Aussies down to 26 or whatever then they would not have been lobbed, despite the fact it may also have benefitted Steve and Ben. The Jury had to be convinced that at the time it was happening, Al and Ian were slowing the Bazzas down in order for the others to win. It isn't enough that the Jury, with the benefit of hindsight, considered their actions to have brought about this result. If the brits were trying to slow them down by nine minutes, and failed, but their intentions at the time were to try and slow them down by nine minutes, then the Jury is acting outside its scope and the decision is wrong. |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 7:01pm
|
Chris 249 - I'm not Aussie bashing just saying that it is a funny outcome. None of us have all the facts it's just speculation but as the above post states no rules in part 2 seem to have been broken so it is a very VERY subjective call for the Jury. Depsite both boats being TEAM RMW I don't believe there was any team racing going on ... It will be interesting to hear the full story if it ever comes out ... Rick ------------- |
Posted By: Contender443
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 7:06pm
|
Read the other posts about this on the forum section for racing rules. The jury thought they were cheating and reading the evidence it looks like they were. there was also a witness to this incident - a Brit in the form of Paul Brotherton. Sorry to say it but this looks like a professional foul as stated in that thread. ------------- Bonnie Lass Contender 1764 |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 7:09pm
|
Just read a resonably detailed report "on another site" with quotes from Barker. Looks a very subjective decision to me ... Rick ------------- |
Posted By: bigwavedave
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 7:16pm
|
What is the other site? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Contender443
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 7:21pm
|
I assume they can appeal against the Jury decision? It would be good to hear the other side but at the moment we have the findings / conclusion of the protest committee. ------------- Bonnie Lass Contender 1764 |
Posted By: IanW
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 8:46pm
|
http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/PROTEST.doc - http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/PROTEST.doc Here is a detailed acount of the protest I am with the Aussie's on this one could this be the end to Woffies check book approach to the 14. Reminds me of an F1 season. |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 8:51pm
|
The other website is The Daily Sail - report by Brotherton and quotes from Barker. Whatever happened everyone lost out; Irwin and Perry have a paper win; Morrion and Rhodes probaly feel sore about it and Richardson and Barker look the bad guys ... SHame for a big event like this to pan out this way ... Rick ------------- |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 9:03pm
No, you can't appeal against an IJ and it doesn't set any precedents. Having read the protest hearing result I think this finding:- "GBR 1516 ceased its covering tactics when GBR 1513 was in a position to win the series." blows Richardsons claim that they were trying to sail the Aussies down to 24th to get a place themselves a mile wide. You can read http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/PROTEST%20DECISION%20.doc - the protest document here . They had good 3rd party evidence so the findings are probably pretty safe, and on those findings I think they had no choice at all but to call the DND and give redress. When you read the whole protest document the thing is about 10 times more open and shut than the press reports suggest. |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 11:06pm
|
Yes the protest hearing looks pretty clear but Barker disputes the facts found in his quotes - that's the issue. I guess only the sailors will ever know ... Rick ------------- |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:22am
|
Yes, but how many times has someone disputed the facts in a close
port/starboard call? Both sides normally say they are in the right,
normally both are honest and respected, but one of them is always
wrong. So why should the account of the UK crew get any more credence
than the accoounts of two parties in a port/starboard incident? If you're implying that because Barker disputed the facts he must be correct, how could you take that angle? Don't you think that the Aussie crew's account of the facts deserves at least as much credence? If not, why not? What about the fact that evidence was given by Paul Brotherton and by a member of the RC as well? What about the fact that according to the committee, Barker etc had to finish in the top 3 as well as ahead of Irwin and Perry? That does not tally with Barker's defence. Surely he would have brought it up if the committee had made an elementary scoring mistake - but if the committee is correct doesn't that destroy the claim that Barker only had to sail Irwin back down to 28th to move to second? It's a bit like a close port/starboard or tacking just in front of someone AFAIK. You not only have to take into account the facts, but the chances of proving them. And finally, there has an enormous amount of study about the way our memories of incidents are altered by whether we stand to win or lose by them. Even mere allegience to a sport team has been proven to alter the way we see incidents on the field. It's a problem well recognised by lawyers and psychologists and social psychologists; I'm in a legal field and I've probably never seen two people give the same account of an accident. The science is simple and well proven - what Barker now sincerely believes to have occurred may not be the truth. His entire perception (and that of Irwin and Perry, of course) will be shaped unconsciously by what they would like to have happened. In fact, evidence suggests that those who are more insistent that they are right, are re-manufacturing their memories and are therefore more likely to be wrong than someone who leaves their mind open to other interpretations and says "well, I THINK I saw it happen this way....but maybe I'm wrong...." re "paper wins"....it wasn't just a "paper win", any more than people had "paper wins" in the many times they have won championships on protest involving disputed port/starboards, buoy room incidents etc. Evidence says that protest was hailed at first opportunity, therefore the danger should have been clear to Barker etc just like it is when you stick your bow in at a mark. As the world I-14 president (a Seppo) says, "It was a popular result....... Lindsay sailed a masterful regatta – unbelievable to be so far ahead going into the last day after sailing in conditions that saw some races with gusts to 35 and lulls to 5 - all with 50 deg wind shifts – we couldn ‘t figure it out – that’s for sure." When the Aussie cricket team does their normal embarassing antics in the Ashes, I'll have to remember that from the evidence here the Brits no longer worry about fair play and accepting the umpire's verdict either. |
Posted By: Blobby
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 2:02am
|
Didn't the brits invent the phrase "we was robbed"?? To me it appears an open and shut case with the correct verdict. Also, in the long run do we want these actions condoned so that we do get team approaches to world championships and Formula 1 style races with one boat having to finish second to his team mate and being there to act as a blocker to ensure the main man's victory? The 14's have a team racing championship before the individual worlds - that is where this sort of action should happen. |
Posted By: lasercrazee
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 3:32am
|
Great. We finally have an IJ that will stand up and do the right thing. I've been blatantly team raced out of a championship by a competitor's team mates so that he could win. Hard to get off the start line when you have a boat directly in front of you, two above and one below, none of whom give a hoot if they will be OCS or thrown out. Even if you protest the boats which are covering you they will get thrown out but their team mate is in the clear (air). Everybody understands that one on one in a deciding race i.e. Ainslie/Scheidt, Foerster/Rogers is OK but I for one am strongly against team racing in fleets. |
Posted By: Mark Nicholson
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 9:13am
|
I was wondering the same thing, how could Irwin be given 10th? Thanks to the wonders of text messaging, my suspicions were confirmed. The report didn't explain very well, but it seems that Irwin had climbed to 10th on the final beat but alleged that Richardson baulked him, causing him to drop to 14th. The supposition being that Richardson was helping his RMW mate out. I'm sure there'll be two sides to this story, but either way the jury upheld Lindsay's claim. I'll doubtless find out more from Barker in the pub! Both Lindsay and Stevie sailed a brilliant series, bringing it down to the wire, so either would have been worthy winners. Mad Jack
|
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 9:44am
|
Seems this thread has degenerated into a Aussie v Brit slanging match ... All I was saying was that this was an unacceptabe outcome to a big event. If you look at the points at; http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/SW190205.htm - http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/SW190205.htm Had Richardson/Barker puched them down to 24th they would have beaten them and may have taken 2nd. To do this they pushed them away from the fleet to the expected unfavoured side of the course, this turned out to be the favoured side and resulted in them both taking places of the fleet. As far as I can see from what I have read both sides of the story were believeable - which means that the championship was decided by 3 blokes in a room. Anyone who has spent any serious time with IJ's in cases like this will know it's 50:50 on the outcome ... Not a great way to settle a championships. Rick
------------- |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 10:11am
|
> had Richardson/Barker puched them down to 24th they would have beaten them and may have taken 2nd. To do Have you read the protest hearing document? According to the facts found they stopped the cover well short of the line and exactly at the point to give the other UK boat the result. Had they been trying to take the Aussies down to 24th why would they have stopped the cover then? If you were doing that you'd keep on just as long as you can, hope to catch the other boat in a foul and so on. The Aussies might have capsized on a hasty tack or anything to take them down. The fact that they gave up the match racing at exactly the place required for their team mates to win makes it pretty straightforward. And there were excellent third party witnesses that was the case. With those facts found I don't see what else the IJ could do. Once you read the protest hearing documentation as opposed to the 3rd party reports its really quite straightforward - much more so than I was expecting when I read them. |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 10:22am
|
JimC - I have read all the reports and documents, but I wasn't there so I'll never know. As I said only the sailors will ever know ... Rick
------------- |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 10:27am
|
If you read Barker's comments on The Daily Sail, you might be less sure. I've summarised them on the other thread here. On balance though, I still support the IJ. Team racing tactics would ruin fleet racing and need to be stamped on. |
Posted By: Much FWB
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 10:51am
|
This is from the "revised" version of the protest transcript.
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. 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? |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:01am
|
Agreed team racing has no place in fleet racing. But what was this - a boat trying to protect a place overall or someone helping a mate? Impossible for anyone to tell except Richardson and Barker. Personally I think this is a pretty big decision of the IJ to reach ... Rick
------------- |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:11am
|
Because they were pushed to what everyone expected to be the "wrong" side of a very long beat, which turned out to the be "right" one. Barker's argument is that if the "wrong" side had been unfavoured as most of the fleet expected, he might indeed have taken the Aussies down to 26th or worse. |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:15am
|
Is it? They are a protest committee, not a court of law. Protest decisions are made on the balance of probabilities all the time. "Reasonable doubt" is a defence in law but not in front of a protest committee. It is only a sailboat race albeit, in this case, quite an important one. |
Posted By: Much FWB
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:17am
|
Indeed so - The jury then decided that with hindsight and based on the
finishing times of the relevant boats that tactic wasn't going to work. They based a decision on information that was and can only have been available after the act and not at the critical decision times of the sailors. It was information that the sailors didn't have at the time and I think its a very dangerous thing for the Jury to do. I can envisage a CAS case could be brought out of this one for a breach of due process, (it has happened for a lot less in the past) Unless of course, Al and Ian accept it. |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:21am
|
Lost me there. What is CAS and what "due process" do you think the IJ breached? |
Posted By: Much FWB
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:26am
|
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. |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:45am
|
Only in the Olympics I think. Normally there is no appeal from an IJ decision. That is the whole point of an event paying the not inconsiderable sums involved in having one. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:24pm
|
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. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:31pm
|
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. To accept the Brit story (as posted on the Daily Sail) you've got to believe that just by complete coincidence they just happened to decide that they weren't going to be able to sail the Australians down to 26th and give up the covering exercise exactly at the right time to help out their buddies. If they'd stopped covering one place sooner, so that the other Brit boat didn't win that would have put them in the clear, similarly if they'd kept on every last second all the way to the finish and taken the Australians some more places down that might have given them some credibility too. But I don't swallow that as a coincidence, and I don't believe any reasonable PC would. Sure by the time the parties get in the room they may have persuaded themselves their motivation was different, that's a very common phenomenum! To talk about winning it in the room only is ridiculous, I'm sure there are very many Championshiops where PC decisions have affected the results. If not we wouldn't need them. As it is though there is no doubt in my mind at all that there was an attempted "stitch up" to rob the rightful champions , and the IJ foiled it. Well done the IJ! |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:48pm
|
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 ------------- |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:56pm
|
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.
|
Posted By: Much FWB
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:59pm
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. |
Posted By: sargethesailor
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 6:28pm
However Rule 2 binds the PC/IJ somewhat more than the normal standard of proof with the phrase "A boat may only be penalized under this rule if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated". When I read the facts found I see some fairly hefty jumps of logic, which have been previously discussed. They do not,to me, add up to "clearly established". I would suggest that there was an imperative to give redress in the interests of a "fair" result. As already commented PCs/IJs write facts found to support their conclusions. To do so required a Rule 2 DNE. One can not know the reaction of Steve Morrison at this remove, but in all honesty the result is probably fair - from what I read it seems the Aussies would have closed the gap enough to win. If Ian Barker and Co genuinely did not team race then they can feel extremely aggrieved at what is a signifcant slur. If they did then fair enough - but my own feeling is that the IJ's facts found don't sufficiently support their conclusion in the context of standards of proof for Rule 2, and the other issues which go with that for the protestee.
|
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 7:10pm
|
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 - http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/Business/productsbusiness/ productBoard.htm
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 8:00am
|
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. |
Posted By: Blobby
Date Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 9:02am
|
I don't see this as a grand conspiracy scenario. If it were, surely either one or other of the RMW boats would have been trying to sail the Aussie boat down the fleet from the start of the race rather than just as a last resort on the last beat? Having said that, a spur of the moment last minute breach of rule 2 is still a breach and the outcome was correct. |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 1:39pm
|
What are the ramifications of a rule 2 disqualification? Could they get a ban? Rick ------------- |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 1:44pm
No. It would have to be a Rule 69 for that as I understand it. |
Posted By: Bruce Starbuck
Date Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 9:30pm
|
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. |
Posted By: Bruce Starbuck
Date Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 9:34pm
| Er...? |
Posted By: Bruce Starbuck
Date Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 9:41pm
|
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".
|
Posted By: Blobby
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 12:46am
|
Point 3 is valid - it gives a reason for one boat acting to the benefit of the other. If the boats were owned by their crews and they had paid all their own costs, it would make the defence of the "I was trying to push them down to 28th" position much easier. Point 2 is debatable. It may be a fact that they went to dinner together but unless the Aussies were at the dinner, how would they know what was discussed? |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 7:59am
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. |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 9:38am
|
If the IJ beilieved that this was team racing by one to help another how can they not consider this a gross breach of sportsmanship and hence a rule 69 issue? I can't really see how they can reach one decision without following it through to the final step. Team racing in fleet racing is a "very naughty" and should be considered bad sportsmanship. Seems they did enough to give the event to 631 without ruffleing too many feathers ... Rick ------------- |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 11:59am
|
[QUOTE=Bruce Starbuck] 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". 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?
|
Posted By: IanW
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 12:16pm
|
Chris chill don't tar us all with the same brush I am British and
personally having read posts here and on SA I think that the Jury
probably got it about right. In fact they possibly should have gone a
bit further but in a class where protest are not a common ocurance they
probably decided that a rule 69 situation was best left well alone. Dont worry though we will level it up at some cricket match in the summmer  |
Posted By: CJ..
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 12:41pm
|
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! |
Posted By: Matt Jackson
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 1:04pm
Can we keep phrases like 'the poms' and 'Frogs' (meaning the entire British and French nations) out of these fora? It hardly helps anyones arguments over impartiality to use such phrases. I'm proud to British but I'm not proud of everything my countrymen do! I have known the majority of a pub filled with Kiwis support Australia when they played England - I guess pricklyness is a relative thing where England is involved. Also having dinner together does not imply a conspiracy - just a relationship which is already known about because I expect they train together. The last Worlds I went to I shared acommodation with a fellow Sailing Club member but this wouldn't imply we were team racing. ------------- Laser 203001, Harrier (H+) 36 |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 1:09pm
|
Yah, I should chill out. Apologies all round. Forums are where I get my assertiveness training..... I could comment on some more of he above, but I've raved more than enough already!  And yes, I DO hope you guys get the Ashes if our team keeps on behaving in an unsporting manner.  |
Posted By: Dave S
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 1:44pm
From where I was sitting (about a boat length away) the Aussies had a cracking start, in fact I half expected them to be OCS. I think we were the only boat in a position to stitch them up at that stage (which we didn't!) What happened on the first beat was that most of the fleet went left (which we all thought was the correct call) but going right paid in trumps. Most of the front-runners (including Lindsay, Flossie and at least one of the RMW boats) were totally down the pan at the first mark, whereas a reasonable proportion of the boats who were further up (including us) had got there by being forced to tack out and go right after messing up the start. The front runners showed us just how good they are by sailing back up through the fleet in conditions where everyone tends to go exactly the same speed and it's notoriously hard to get past other boats... Dave |
Posted By: CJ..
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 1:58pm
I sit corrected. My remark was more of a tongue-in-cheek dig..... :) |
Posted By: 505 CW
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 4:53pm
|
Well done Ian....!
I guess that everyone who wasn't there probably is grasping at straws (I wasn't, and am as unclear as everyone else). The Jury seem to have taken a "ruffle as few feathers" approach, while giving what they deemed to be the right result (that's what I think that they are there to do). I am just delighted that an International regatta has come down to a decision taken during a last night "tactics session". My personal experience of these sessions (I seem to half-remember such a session during the 49er Worlds at Bandol in 1998) is that: A dinner occurred; at this dinner most of the Brits consumed extreme amounts of beverage; a certain Mr Barker - resident of GBR - seemed to sail better after aforementioned session...! ------------- Charlie 505. |
Posted By: Brian
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 5:00pm
|
there are t-shirts available in nz.
"i support the All Blacks, and anyone playing australia" but hey, come one the umm.... oceanians or something! conspiracies eh? imagine if it was italians now, Sweden 2-2 Denmark anyone?  ------------- |
Posted By: Bruce Starbuck
Date Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 8:42pm
|
No.
No.
No.
No.
No I don't. I think they probably did.
No I don't. Your mind-reading abilities are first-class by the way!
Yes I did.
No I don't!
I was questioning the inclusion of facts such as where someone had dinner the previous evening on a protest finding, that's all. It's highly unusual. The relevance of making the comparison with the Aussie jury chairman was mainly to try and wind up Chris249. Tee hee! P.S. Sorry about spelling "insinuate" wrongly. |
Posted By: Chris 249
Date Posted: 24 Feb 05 at 12:59am
|
Well, it worked! I hadn't been able to sail much for a week or so (old windsurfing wounds) but I finally got out last night for a delightful race and I'm much less aggro now |
Posted By: Blobby
Date Posted: 24 Feb 05 at 3:06am
| Know the feeling... |
Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 26 Feb 05 at 11:00am
|
There is a press release from RMW "on another website" stating that there were no team orders and that Richardson/Barker are taking action to clear their names. Seems there is more to hear on this ... Rick ------------- |
Posted By: sargethesailor
Date Posted: 26 Feb 05 at 6:31pm
|
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! |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 Feb 05 at 1:06pm
I shall be amused to see how they think thay can do that. The Jury didn't find there were team orders and there is no appeal from an IJ decision. Be a far more sporting attitude to say something on the lines of "We can confirm that there were definitely no team orders. However we do understand how the jury came to their decision in the light of the evidence. Therefore we accept their decision and congratulate Irwin on a well deserved Worlds Championship win." |
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 27 Feb 05 at 2:15pm
|
If you look at what MuchFWB has to say http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=466&PN=1&TPN=4 - 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. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 27 Feb 05 at 2:46pm
Excellent witnesses said in the hearing that they broke cover at the appropriate time. No-one's saying it was a deliberate pre-planned plot. |
Posted By: sargethesailor
Date Posted: 27 Feb 05 at 8:01pm
|
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?
|
Posted By: Stefan Lloyd
Date Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 8:46am
|
18th I believe. On that basis, sailing them down to 26th would seem quite possible. The subsequent wind-shift favouring the left benefited them. |