So i recently missed out on racing in a event because a Race committee didn't pass on information regards to a specific Visa requirement that they had. I had a look at rule 69 for un sportsmanship  behaviour but the way I have read it is that I can't protest a race committee/race organization.

The reason why I would like some help is that it has cost me over 5k for this event and I only found out on the day before the start of the race giving me no time to get the correct Visa. I had a visa to go to the country on plane or cruise ship but was unable to arrive on a Race boat (I was told by two different immigration offices that what I had was correct prior to the race but unfortunately they was wrong). The race committee knew the type of visa that was required but did not forward this information to the competitors. I am writing to the race committee to request some money back (which will as you probably know won't happen) and to stop this ever happening again. I trained for 8 months for this event so as you can guess I am pretty raw about it.

I appreciate your advise if you have any.

Personally I think the race organisers will take no responsibility at all, in fact I wouldn't be surprised that in the NOR it suggests that all competitors are responsible for their own visas and paperwork.

It probably would have been a damn good idea if they'd given you some warning, but not only is it completely impractical for organisers to give you full and detailed advice about visa requirements, in some countries (such as Australia, NZ and to some extent Germany) they would be committing a criminal act if they did so. Such countries only allow migration advice to be given by qualified people, so they can stop shonks from ripping prospective visitors off. 

It has been a long, long time since I've heard people talking of 'protesting the Race Committee'. That hasn't been an option for a number of the four yearly iterations of the rules. What you can do is request redress, which can apply to an 'act or omission' of the Race Committee. By the sound of it, that would have been the correct way to proceed in this case. Would the Race Committee have a case to answer. To answer that you'd need to have access to all the documentation and hear all the evidence under the correct Protest Jury conditions.

A Rule 69 Protest is something very different and I cannot see how it could be applicable in this case. Are you really implying that there was an intentional breach of  the Rules regarding Gross Misconduct?

D

Blue boy; I was very careful not to infer that it did. BUT - the way to resolve any issue such as this or anything else is via the correct process. This is clearly set out and if the op felt that he had a case, let him try...by following those processes (though the comment about 'protesting the race committee' gives us some hints as to the validity, or not, of the case in question). Trial by forum is not the answer, though it doesn't stop some from trying. Hunt around and there are pages of moans and comments about he/she/they did this, that or the other. The answer is the same. Feel aggrieved? Do something about it.... other than raise moans on here.

D

As others have said, the race committee is not your mummy;  the race committee is not your migration consultant.

You asked for references to rules.  Here are some relevant rules and comments.

The function of the race committee is to conduct races (rule 90.1) and publish sailing instructions (rule 90.2( a )).

Immigration requirements are not connected with the conduct of races.

The organising authority is is required to publish a notice of race that conforms with rule J1.

Rule J1.2 lists matters that shall be included in the notice of race that would help competitors decide whether to attend the event.  None of the listed items refers to migration requirements.

Organising Authorities, race committees and other race officials are not required to comply with sportsmanship, misconduct or manners requirements of rules 2 and 69.  Rule 2 applies only to boats (including crew on board) and their owners (rule 2), and rule 69 applies only to competitors (rule 69.1)

Any complaint about misconduct of a race official could be made to the host club, or with respect to an accredited race official, to the local or national association or (for international race officials) to WS.  Such a complaint would be dealt with by the recipient in accordance with its rules, regulations or by-laws.

The right to protest is established in rule 60.  There is no right to protest any entity except a 'boat'.  Complaints of improper action or omission by an organising authority or race committee may be pursued by means of a request for redress.

Even if you did protest about sportsmanship, you would need to (rule 2):

As far as I can see, neither the organising authority nor the race committee was under any obligation to provide you with immigration advice, and did nothing to mislead you in that respect.

Seemingly you were given incorrect advice by migration authorities who had nothing to do with the organising authority or the race committee.

Jim, you've turned Turtle's posited omission into an action, and them made it differential.  That's a huge difference.

There's no obligation on the organising authority or race committee to provide traffic bulletins, so yes, you can request redress, but you aren't going to get it.

Jim's scenario provides some interesting things to analyse.

First, the traffic advisory would, presumbaly have been given some time before the start of the event, possibly before the race committee was even appointed.

Normally the only way a race committee can communicate with competitors before the start of an event is by publication of the sailing instructions, which, of course, are available to all.  A SI with traffic advice is a damn bad SI.

Unless the information was contained in a document, clearly authorised by the race committee the information would have to have been given by an individual person.

Only if the giving of the information was a 'race committee function', would the person giving the information be included in the 'race committee'(Introduction:  Terminology:  Race Committee), and thus would the giving of the information be an action of the race committee (improper or otherwise).

Given that, I think we have all agreed that neither migration nor traffic advice is a function of the race committee, the one to one advice Jim described would not be an action of the race committee, and thus would not found the giving of redress under that head.

Suppose the SI did, foolishly, publish incorrect traffic information:  that is clearly an action of the race committee and could give rise to redress.  Likewise an official Notice to Competitors.  Note that these documents are available to all competitors:  the one on one nature is not relevant.

OK, suppose then, that incorrect advice about the motorway was given on the phone by 'someone in the sailing office' (or some nerd on the website).  I think it would be fair to say that that was an action, not of the race committee, but of the organising authority (which is a somewhat more nebulous entity than the race committee), and if the information was incorrect, could found the giving of redress.

OK, now let's suppose that the information was accurate but differentially given:  suppose the Asst RO rang up a mate on his mobile and told him there was a holdup on the motorway and enabled the mate to take an alternative route.

Technically the argument rehearsed above that traffic advice is not a function of the race committee, would hold and this would not be an improper action of the race committee.

Suppose, however that it was not the Asst RO, but the club rear commodore (not a member of the race committee) that phoned his mate:  does this get in as an action of the organising authority?

I'm inclined to think that, while imprudent, it's sufficiently distant from the conduct and outcomes of racing that it is not improper:  people phone their friends and talk about traffic jams all the time.  Maybe the outcome, if it came to a redress hearing would depend on the significance of the effect, if any, of the conversation, on the result.

Anyone want to go any further with this?

If so isn't it their responsibility. Trading standards maybe??

If they specifically told you that you would need visa "x" which you then went and got, and actually you needed visa "y" then perhaps your best route is to claim back the cost from them. If they simply said that you needed the correct visa without stipulating which then you probably won't have any claim.

The event organisers have nothing to do with this claim, RRS does not cover it, its purely a matter to be resolved between you and your skipper. As I said though, you may find that he's a bit annoyed with you for not turning up prepared, in a similar way to if you turned up in shorts and flip-flops for an offshore and the boat had to turn back because you got cold.