Anyone know what rule the Protest Committee used to give redress to the Ausies against Alistair & Ian?

Whilst no-one likes the use of 'Team/Match Racing' tactics in fleet racing, it does happen & obviously won Ben the Gold in Sydney.

The implications of this decision (even though it is only one event) could be extremely significant

I would think this is different to what Ben did in Sydney - he used match racing tactics.

This looks like team racing tactics, this is not on in fleet racing. Getting a friend or friends to hamper another competitor is not sportman like. If this is what happened then they deserve what they get. After all this is what the rules say is it not.

On the other hand it must have been a very difficult thing to prove and I would not like to have been on the protest committee for that one. 

The 'team racing' protest by aussies http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/PROTEST.doc - http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/PROTEST.doc

The redress http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/PROTEST%20No%203.doc - http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/PROTEST%20No%203.do c

Can't believe that anyone could disagree with the Protest Committee. Pretty obvious what was happeneing when Alistair 'sailed back' from 150 mtres ahead

Thought it might have been rule 2 & good to see that it is being implemented

Thanks for the info Harry

was the series 7 races, discard 2 ? (or discard 1)

If discard only one then does this not apply :

As AUS631 is discarding a 27, if they could be sailed down to 29th they would need to count it and then be down the pan ?

And if so was not GBR1516 valid in trying this (all-be-it too late as it was probably (rightly?) seen as an attempt to help GBR1513).

Any one know how many discards were available ?  

Sure I am missing something here ?

Discard 1 by the look of it. The way I read it, that is implicit in the protest committee's report. Also the NOR http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/Int%2014%20NoR.doc - http://www.takapunaboating.org.nz/SMLogo/Int%2014%20NoR.doc  doesn't say anything special about discard, and the default arrangement in RRS Appendix A is one discard. The SIs don't seem to be on the website.

Personally I think GBR1516 was lucky to avoid a rule 69 protest. 

If you have not read the links please do, the reports are so enlightening!

What price the RYA Charter when the pressures of performance to gain sponsorship and RYA funding require our top sailors to resort to such depths

It does seem as though something like the "professional foul" has come to a major sailing event, and that if the need to show a return on their sponsor's money hadn't been involved,  the incident may not have happened.

So if only one discard, could it be seen that GBR1516 could have gone up the leader board if they had forced AUS631 bleow 28th ?

I have a feeling this one will run and run till we can get some first hand accounts......

In which case are you saying they are guilty of nothing but failing to sail the aussies far enough down the fleet to be of benefit to themselves??

Either way it appears clear that they tried to operate as a team and the rules have been successfully applied to demonstrate that this behaviour is unacceptable.  End of Story.

There is an interesting story on this on The Daily Sail with long quotes from both Barker and Bell, the chairman of the jury. Since it is a subscription site, I suppose I had better not quote verbatim. 

Bell says Barker needed to push Irwin/Perry down to 26th to benefit and would have needed to slow them by 8 minutes to do so. Their tactics slowed them by 3 minutes and there was no chance they could have slowed them by 8. Therefore it was team racing.

Barker says they pushed Irwin/Perry to the left hand of the course, which along with most of the fleet they expected to be non-favoured. As it turned out, it was the way to go. If the shift had not favoured the left hand side, they say they might have got them to 26th and gained 2nd place in the series for themselves.

I think Barker makes a more plausible case that is was not team racing than the protest report gives them credit for. However if team racing tactics became common in fleet racing, it would ruin the sport. Therefore I think that given that GBR1516's tactics were, at best, open to question, the jury did the right thing.

There are two threads running on this see the other ...

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=466&PN=1 - http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4 66&PN=1

Perhaps we could get these threads merged ... moderator please ...

But by placing the (initial) claose cover they would be pressing for a mistake from Irwin/Perry, one capsize could have lost the extra 5 minutes. 

If they were tring to push them down the fleet FOR THEIR OWN ends, they sohuld have kept the vover on the whole way up the beat.  Thus making they (supposed) intions clear.  By breaking off once the other boat was ina  position to wind was at best silly, and at worst identified what thery were really trying to do.

I would actually like to keep these two threads seperate as (I hope) we are talking about the rules here, the other thread is starting to talk about the people and what happened. 

Copy of my post on the other thread.  I think the Rule 2 bit is highly significant - more on the facts found when I reaccess them.

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. 

[/QUOTE]

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.

Depends on what you mean by neutral. The IJ has made a controversial decision and Bell (chair) now has to stand by and justify that decision. Therefore the evidence he brings forward is the evidence that supports him. The protest document contains very little of what Barker said on the TheDailySail to justify himself. Maybe he didn't say those things during the protest - we don't know.

Thinking about this decision some more, what makes it really unusual as a protest case is that it is all about GBR1516's motivation rather than their behaviour. Normally a protest case is about....this was the geometry of the boats on the water (facts found) and here are the rules that apply. This case is about GBR1516's motivation. They could do exactly the same thing, and depending on why they did it, rule 2 was or was not broken. I don't think protest committees or IJs were really designed to make that kind of decision.

I think the balance of probabilities is that GBR1516 were team racing but I don't see the evidence as conclusive. Barker makes case that had the wind not shifted to favour the left, he may have been able to drive the AUS boat down to 28th. Can the IJ really be sure that he couldn't have. A very good point has been made on the other thread that the evidence standards for a rule 2 violation are higher than for other rules.  "A boat may only be penalized under this rule if it is clearly established (my italics) that these principles have been violated". 

So did the IJ clearly establish that if the wind had not shifted to favour the left, GBR1516 would still have had no chance to drive the AUS boat down to 28th. I'm not certain they did. The protest findings don't really address the question: they look at the finishing timings with the wind shift as it happened. Almost nobody expected the shift. The fleet went right and GBR1516 drove the AUS boat left precisely because it was expected not to be favoured.

The IJ had a very difficult case and I don't envy them. But the more I think about it, the less convinced I am they made the right decision. If the bigger picture, though, is the need to ensure that team tactics stay out of fleet racing, maybe they did the right thing. Tough for the two GBR boats though.

Yup, but if you are trying to forve them down the fleet.  I minute to get the boat back up.  how long to sort out and then start sailing again.  All with another boat waiting for you to get sorted out so they can continue the fight...

In the DS report Barker does say they deliberately drove AUS 631 left. Unfortunately I don't think I ought to quote verbatim here from a subscription site. I agree the DS report isn't particularly satisfactory but it is the only place I've seen when Barker gets his say. 

I was trying not to get personal.  I belive there may have been foul play.  I wanted to discuss the rules.  You are having a go at me for exploring what had happend and why it may have happened.  I have not posted on the other thread becasue I want to talk about the rules.  Most of what you say above has already been discussed before. 

When I was talking about the time, I was hoping to indicate that it may have been possible to delay AUS by enough time.  THe fact that the wind shifted and so improved their positions was mentionned, this may have influenced people (hence my comments about 20/20 hindsite).

All I was trying to say is that it could be possible that Barker was not team racing.  I did not say I disagreed with the decision, I did not say AUS should not have won. 

So are you suggesting that all competitors in a regatta MUST eat alone, not talk to anyone else, or share sponsors for the whole championship so thay cannot be accused of cheating - I hope not.

I want to talk about the rules.

Returning to the rules.

Do people think (as the chair of the PC said) that if barker had attacked at the last mark or even ealier the decision would have been different ?

This is what I was trying to say.  Stefan has put it much better.

Yup, that is why I am interested in this debate.

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.

Yes please

I will read this in detail later

The two GBR boats are not "my team". I've never met the guys, it is unlikely I ever will, and their being British is of zero interest to me. We are not talking an Olympic "Team GBR" here. With a couple of exceptions, I think this discussion has been extremely balanced and I think you are being hyper-sensitive to conclude otherwise.

I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly what happened in the protest room. I find it hard to believe the report we have says it all. So yes it would be nice to have more information to inform this discussion, but we are not going to get it. Your argument seems to be that we should therefore not discuss it. I don't agree. It was, by any standards, a very significant decision for sailing, and it is a legitimate topic for discussion. It is unfortunate that the IJ did not foresee that and make their protest findings document a little more comprehensive.

I don't see the discussion here as an attack on the IJ. It is discussion and questioning. That is not the same thing. It was clearly a difficult case to decide.

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

I justy hope ISAF don't ake this for Case Law.  Cases 78 and 34 established B's rights to be sailed back fairly - and A's responsibility to act only in accordance with rules of part 2 and on the same lap and leg.  34 creates special circumstances where B could get redress without there having been damage.  Case Law derived from this decision would have a very different effect.

What if A has to sail B down 15 places in the fleet  but only achieves 5. Does A infringe RRS2? Probably - but you would think that B would only protest/claim redress if her (B's) position in the series score was worsened.

My view is probably not - as long as the conditions are fulfilled - Surely A only has to think he can do it - because as is pointed out B has no need to alledge the infringement of RRS2 unless A has achieved his aim and therefore there can be no offence! 

At the other end of the scale you have a situation where A's tactics and objectives were clearly impossible to achieve from the outset, were wildly ambitious during the course of the race but were pursued nevertheless causing boat B to drop several places in her overall score, and A's series score did not improve? Is that Fair Sailing?

Yes but thi requires a fairly bizarra set of circumstances!

In the end RRS2 is a shield in the hands of B against attack by A, not a sword.

Agreed

There are really no black and whites in this situation merely varying shades of gray. However sailors need to recognise that if they try to "take out" a competitor then they need to have sound reasons for doing so - in terms of improving their overall score and that if they do not/fail then they may be liable to protest, if upheld they may be disqualified (DNE) for an infringement of RRS2, and their competitor may get redress as a result.

I think that this decision does not introduce grey into the normal boat on boat sail back.  But it has serious implications if there is the chance of another competitor benefitting - as here.  In such a situation (and someone has cited Loof v Percy in Stars  when Percy lost Silver he was sailed back so far) a competitor would have to be very wary of adopting sailback tactics, the right to which are enshrined in the rules - and which I believe should remain so - when putting themselves in jeopardy of a "team-racing RRS2 protest.

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.

KS

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.

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!

I looked at both the Olympics and 2005 Worlds - there was no mention of it in the Y&Y report on the Olympics - which included an interview with Percy, where he blames his performance in the last race on poor cimmunication between him and his crew. He won the last two races in the Star worlds - so can't really blame another boat for that!

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.

While Case 78 does talk about "intent" ("provided that this tactic is intended to benefit her own series result") it follows that this "intention" must have some rational basis, and that once there is  no rational basis for continuing the  tactic (ie that  the boats have reached such a position in the race that A's series result cannot be benefited) then  A becomes increasingly at risk of a protest from  B  - and then it becomes a  matter for the Jury or Protest Committee to decide. If this were not the case, then A could come into the protest room with any old story about her tactics, saying this was her intent and the PC/Jury have to accept this because it was her intent, and that is all that is required. However if this is the case then ISAF should be amending the rules and cases so that it is clear that it is permissible to take out a boat within a fleet race, and leave everyone to do what they will. Imagine the outcry in the last race of the Olympics when a boat with a good shot at a gold medal got sailed off the course by some back marker, just for the hell of it. If you think this is OK then you need to look at Case 34 (the old Silvestri case) where it says in the summary that "hindering another boat may be a breach of RRS2".

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.

Unfortunately PC's and Juries sometimes have to make decisions based on wildly differing evidence. All they can do in this situation is deduce the facts on the balance of probabilities and then make a decison based on the application of the rules to that situation - which maybe to dismiss or disqualify.

If one party thinks the Jury has got wrong - even an International "no appeals" Jury they have the right within a certain time-frame to request a re-opening. So there is some protection against a "wrong decision".  I think you'll find that in instances where the Jury has made a mistake, they will be only too ready to amend their original decision and correct the situation, if that is the appropriate action, and there is new evidence.

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.

It would depend on when you started your tactics and other factors, but when you start the sail-back, you are always at risk of a protest if you get beyond the point of no return - when your tactic was clearly futile but you continued and disadvantaged the other boat in terms of  its series score.

We have all seen match races for fleet championships - but these normally start at the beginning of the race, between the top two boats, which will generally be close to the back of the fleet at the first mark and then start racing through to catch up as many boats as possible and at the same time get as many boats as possible between them and their opponent.

KS

It was me who posted about Percy.

It was the Star worlds in 2003 - Loof nailed Percy who was pretty unhappy at the situation as Loof "overdid it" but he took it on the chin.

Loof only needed to sail Percy to 8th but in the end they finished 27th & 28th which was pretty hard as it let through another boat into silver.

Here is a quote;

“We are a bit disappointed as we didn’t think Freddie [Loof] needed to do as much damage as he did, we both went from first and second to 31st and 32nd.

See

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/default2.asp?section=11&article=12826 - http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/default2.asp?section=11& ;article=12826

Seems to me the situation is very similar.

Rick

Sorry Rick but I have to disagree. This situation is clearly a one on one, more of a match race. This is acceptable to most sailors

The incident at the I14 Worlds is more about team racing in a fleet race which is not acceptable.

Kiwi Spy I have to disagree having been both boat A and boat B in this situation - it is not at all easy to get back!

But in both the Loof and I14 situation both boats were racing against a discard - not looking to achieve a result.

I do not believe Percy could have protested - Loof had proved by performance as you point out,that he was benefitting himself.  There was no allegation of team-racing - so no breach of RRS2 so no chance of redress.

Turn that onit's head and say the right was favoured in the I14 case - they finish say 21st.  Are they team racing?  The IJs logic is weak because they ignore the what if factor, and the fact that the Aussies were in 18th at the leeward mark.

Will be interesting to see how this develops.  I hope we haven't heard the last of it.

Yes and why might you want to sail down a boat you cannot beat? Answer: team racing.

I can assure you that there are heaps of reasons why a boat might try and sail another down the fleet other than "Teams Racing" - which is really "Works Teams Racing" and which doesn't really exist outside of UK.

Most of the time it is the reverse situation where two competitors will fight each other hammer and tong in some regatta because unknown to the rest of the fleet it is an Olympic selection regatta for that country.

KS

If boat A nails boat B then almost certainly some 3rd party (C) will benefit.

This is what happened to Percy and the Aussies.

The question is when does the actions of A to B constitute team racing in favour of C.

If A can argue that their actions were to their own benefit then all is OK.

Seems to me in this case as A failed to achieve their own objectives so the IJ assumed then their actions were for the benefit of C. This was based on the outcome and not on what could have been considered a resonable tactic at the time. Also they threw in some rubbish about dinners and team orders to really dirty the names of those involved.

Had the right paid and the Aussies finished >26th Then they would have justified their actions and the results been very different.

I don't like the fact that the IJ used the outcome to build their position rather than assessing the actions based on the positions at the time the covering started.

Rick

Granted, but the allegation in the case we are talking about was "Works Teams Racing" and the IJ concluded (rightly or not) that it happened. Originally both GBR boats were protested. I am therefore puzzled why you are saying this case is not about team racing.

Was it? wasn't it just Richardson/Barker match racing the Aussies down - where is the proof that it was anything more than that?

Rick

Rick the international jury thought there was enough evidence to say it was team racing. That is why they got penalised.

From what has been said on this forum they were guilty of team racing and they have no appeal - end of story.

Yep - well that is the opinion of the IJ & you but perhaps there are others that think this was a bit of a "stretch".

If it was team racing which is of couse banned why wern't Morrison/Rhodes peanalised for their role - the word team states that there was more than one party involved in this transgression?

Rick

Very good point...

I wonder if anyone has pointed this out ?