International 14 Worlds

Thanks KS

This is EXACTLY what I was looking for when I posted my original question.

Reading the speculation as to what did/may/should have happened has been entertaining but perhaps it should now continue on the other thread.

Stefan, re  "Courts run by professional judges frequently make mistakes. The idea that because an IJ comes to a decision, that makes it unquestionably correct, seems more than a little naive to me."

I'm all too aware that the courts often make the wrong decision; I'm not naive, it's my profession and I think they stuff it up all too often.

However, I also know that press reports of court decisions very, very, very rarely contain all the correct information and therefore second-guessing decisions based on a very brief jury statement and press reports and  (which in this case have only included info from one side to the protest) is not a good game. We do NOT have all the info that went to the jury, we have NOT heard from one side in the press, so IMHO we don't have the necessary information to analyse, dissect and attack the reasoning of the jury as to the facts.

When we want to attack a court's decision, it is normally done with full study of all relevant precedents; if we want to attack their findings as to evidence it normally demands at least a full study of all transcripts, statements, documents etc. Without that (which we don't have here) we're second-guessing without full  evidence. It's one thing to attack a decision when we have the evidence, it's another to attack a decision when we have less evidence than the jury did.

Re Jingoism -

I think the British have the best dinghy sailors around (I've said so in Y & Y forums) and one of the best dinghy scenes and many/most of the British sailors I;ve met are great guys. But surely, a British sailor must look inwards for unconscious bias when examining a question like this - just as an Aussie, a Kiwi, a Frenchman, an American must do.

The first post in these threads was from Rick, who says "I started this thread to create debate, my first posting dosn't say who I think was stiched up, it could have been the Aus boat."

But that post called the decision "funny". We can safely assume it didn't mean it was "funny ha ha"; no-one was laughing; which in normal vernacular leaves only "funny/peculiar", implying that it was incorrect.
 
Rick's second post call the decision "well fishy" and 'convenient for the Aussies" and assumed they had "followed" Barker (when it later transpired that was not the case).

This, and other examples of the widespread desire to attack the decision with the insufficient info available,  lead me to think that there was some bias underlying some posts; just as we all would have perceived bias in posts of Australian sailors if Irwin/Perry had lost the protest. There's plenty of research to indicate that humans have a very biased view towards their "team".

Maybe; perhaps probably; I came to the decision that nationalism was involved without knowing all the facts. But that seems fitting in a way; in this case none of us know all the facts but that hasn''t stopped lots of criticism of the jury.....



Edited by Chris 249

CHris,

We are all entitled to our opinions and unlike many I put my name to mine. This forum is here to share views - just because we don't have all the facts dosn't mean we can discuss what is in the open. The IJ didn't have all the facts either just what they established. The only ones who really know the truth ar the sailors.

I think this decsion was wrong and that's not because it resulted in a Aussie boat winning but in that it drew conclusions with the benefit of hindsight and implied pre arranged cheating and I don't believe that happened knowing some of the people involved.

Yes we all no doubt have national bias but based on what I have seen I think this is "fishy" and was a nice "get out of jail" option for the winners. Of all the postings (including the ones that were only on the forum for a short time before they were removed for foul language) I would say that most national bias has been demonstrated by people from the southern hemi-sphere but hey - I am biased of course - as are you ...

Also, if you knew me you'd also know that I enjoy a good argument and often take to baiting people to get the ball rolling - it seems to have worked ...

regards

Rick

 

On the subject of rule 69 surely there could be no action due to a lack of evidence with a high enough standard of proof:

It would need something like a witness saying:
"I saw them counting boats that had finished - afetr a short discussion hey tacked and broke the cover at teh finish thay sailed across to their team mate and said - got him for you mate!"

Clearly unlikely - but surely closer to the conclusive evidence required of RRS 2 - and the even higher standards of proof for 69.

 

Think it was a Worlds but not sure - someone else mentioned on the other thread that Percy had been sailed out of second when Loof took him further back than required to improve his own score.  There was no allegation of team-racing but the reading of case 78 above implies that there might have been a case to answer nevertheless!

My point is that only A actually knows whether it is intended to improve A's score - or someone elses, when circumstances are as they are in the Barker case.  So if this IJ decision was taken as case law we would have a game change if A's actions could also improve C's positions.  Effectively the tactic would be v high risk if more than one boat's position could be improved and especially if any connection between A and C could be construed or implied, whether supported by evidence of dinners to discuss tactics or not.

Also interesting - surely A should have the right to put some extra places in the bag?  Especially as nothing is ever certain on a last beat.

But we are in agreement here - the current case law is fine.  What we may or may not disagree over is the use it has been put to by this IJ who effectively made a decision based on circumstantial evidence and a subjective assessmant of the situation made with hindsight to say that Barker and Co, the boat A in this situation, were not attempting to improve their own position , and were not in a position to do so.

I also find it interesting because I have been in the boat A situation with a great deal to achieve in a sailback situation if I wanted to take second in a Nats.  I gave it my best shot and failed by 3 places - had another boat benefitted from my actions I could presumably have been protested if this IJ's decision is used as a guide.  But had I been successful I would by performance have proved my case.  That is no way for the case law to lead us.