I14 Worlds Stitch-up

What are the ramifications of a rule 2 disqualification?

Could they get a ban?

Rick

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.

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".

 

Originally posted by Bruce Starbuck I'll try again: I don't like the way the protest committee included the following as "facts found":

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.



Edited by JimC

[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".

/QUOTE]

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?