[Phantom Menace]

If this topic has already made the rounds, I apologize. But, after a cursory search, I found no threads. The following article appeared in today's local Annapolis paper regarding Olympic hopeful Farrah Hall being robbed of her olympic spot because of what appears on the surface to be a bogus redress hearing. Read for yourselves. (Link)

Strange sequence takes Broadneck grad from thrill of victory to agony of redress

Anyone who has ever mounted an Olympic campaign in the sport of sailing knows how difficult it can be.
Lack of funding, minimal support and the fact the United States gets just one representative per class make the odds of earning an Olympic berth extremely long.

Annapolis resident Farrah Hall overcame all those obstacles to claim the U.S. berth in women's sailboarding… or so she thought. Hall, a 1999 graduate of Broadneck High, won the U.S. Olympic Trials in RS:X class on the water, posting a low score of 29 points after 16 races over eight days.

"It was one of the greatest feelings of my life. Knowing that I had accomplished something I worked so hard for was very satisfying. I was extremely happy," said Hall, who secured the title by placing first in the final two races of the trials.

However, while Hall was calling family and friends with the good news, runner-up Nancy Rios was filing a request for redress that ultimately changed the final results. Rios claimed that a collision at the start of the 16th and final race caused her to finish fourth and a jury agreed. Rios was awarded second place for Race 16 and the two-point improvement vaulted her past Hall into overall victory.

Hall, who was completely unaware of the redress hearing, was pulled out of a shower and brought to the jury room to hear the final decision along with Rios. Chairman Larry White told both competitors the jury thought Rios' performance had been significantly hampered by the collision and that redress was warranted.

In such cases, competitors are awarded a placement based on their average score for the regatta up until that point. Rios had a second place average and that is why she received that result for Race 16.

"I was stunned, speechless. One minute I was waiting for the awards ceremony to start, the next I was being told I was no longer the winner," Hall said. "It all seemed like a bad dream."

As it turns out, Hall had the right to request redress for herself within a half hour of hearing the decision and did not do so. It wasn't until 24 hours later, after collecting her wits and talking with several experts, that she filed a formal request with the Olympic Sailing Committee.

"I don't have a lot of experience with protest situations and in the confusion of the moment it was hard to think clearly," Hall said.

White, the jury chairman, rejected Hall's request for redress on the grounds it was not filed in a timely manner and there was insufficient evidence to warrant an additional review of the incident.

Dean Brenner, chairman of US Sailing's Olympic Sailing Committee, said a section of the Sailing Instructions for the Olympic Trials clearly spelled out the time limit for protests and appeals.

"It was always our intention to have closure and finality at the end of these trials. If we did not, we would open ourselves up to appeal after appeal and we would never know our Olympic Team," Brenner wrote to Hall in an e-mail. "If we ignore that time limit now, we are changing our process and violating our own written and approved rules. For many reasons, that would not be fair to all involved and it would not be appropriate."

All agree the situation is unfortunate and a result of a strange sequence of events. It all began at the start of Race 16 when Monica Wilson attempted to cross Hall on port tack. Since Hall was on starboard and had right of way, she called foul. Wilson, realizing she was in the wrong, performed a pair of penalty circles and in the process collided with Rios.

This is where the incident gets hazy and is left to interpretation. Rios claims she was stopped dead in the water and forced to drop her sail as a result of the collision with Wilson. Furthermore, Rios said her sail sustained a 10-inch tear that hampered her performance the remainder of the race.

In seeking redress, Rios argued the time lost at the start and the damage to the sail caused her to finish fourth in the final race. However, Rios finished fourth in three others races during the trials, all of which were held in similar heavy air conditions as Race 16.

"Our results were fairly consistent throughout the regatta. I usually won the heavy air races and Nancy tended to win the light air races," Hall said. "It wasn't abnormal that Nancy would have a bad finish in heavy air."

Of course, the crucial question involves whether the brief collision and subsequent tear in the sail were the sole reasons for Rios' result. Hall thought Rios recovered quickly and had ample opportunity to make up any lost ground over the four legs of the windward-leeward course.

"Nancy was the second person away from the crash and when I looked back she was up to speed and planing," said Hall, pointing out that she also was slowed down by Wilson.

Brenner said members of the jury "inspected and validated" that Rios sustained severe damage to her sail.

"In the jury's opinion, there was legitimate damage that significantly affected Nancy's performance," Brenner said. "All the members of the jury felt terrible about what was transpiring, but I can assure you that everything was done by the book."

Peter Wells, the United States representative in men's boardsailing at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, witnessed the incident and was stunned to learn afterward that Rios had her placement improved by two points.

"I was very surprised the jury gave Nancy redress based on damage. I watched her sail the rest of the first leg and did not notice any reduction in her performance," said Wells, who was working as a coach at the RS:X trials and was involved in an equally controversial jury ruling on the men's side.

Numerous sailing experts interviewed for this article said standard procedure is for a protest to be filed against a competitor who allegedly committed a foul and for a hearing to be held in which multiple witnesses are called. If the jury determines that a foul occurred and subsequently affected the performance of another competitor, then redress is in order.

It is important to note that Wilson, the competitor who caused the incident, was not protested and thus not penalized. Sailing experts said the decision to award redress without first establishing that a foul occurred and penalizing the offending party does not follow normal procedure.

Because the jury went directly to a redress hearing, none of the parties involved or affected - namely Hall and Wilson - were called as witnesses. Instead, the decision to award redress was based solely on testimony provided by Rios and two members of the jury who witnessed the collision.

"In my opinion, this jury knew very little about the sport of boardsailing and made no effort to call in experts when ruling on incidents it did not fully understand," Wells said. "I felt there was a rush to judgment in both the men's and women's cases that came up during the trials. I think the jury did all the competitors a disservice by not performing a complete and proper investigation of each incident. The fact they did not call any witnesses in either case is mind-boggling."

Hall said she will appeal the decision to the United States Olympic Committee, but realizes the chances of regaining her lost berth are slim.

"I feel as though I was victorious on the water and had it taken away from me by a jury sitting in a room," Hall said. "I don't know if justice will be done, but I am going to make sure my side of the story is heard."

[jazzdog]

That is truly fucked up, my heart goes out to this young lady.

[Area51]

Yep, this sickens me. Feels a bit political, doesn't it??

[SimonN]

How is this crappy officials? Based on everything written, redress seems to have been the only way the jury could go. It is all very weel bringing up witnesses after the event who didn't say anything to the jury, but the jury can only decide based on the evidence they have. Simple fact is, Rios was damaged, it was not her fault and as such, the jury felt she should get average points. And they are right that Hall cannot claim redress past the time limit.

As for Hall, while I feel sorry for her, how weak can you get with a "I didn't know I could do that" type of comment. This is her "job" and she doesn't know the rules? For that reason alone, I feel less sorry for her than I might otherwise have done.

Finally, where was her coach? Somebody should have been there looking after her.

[krispy kreme]

I'm waiting for Wabbiteer to come on and provide a synopsis for you Simon.

[mustang__1]

Whilst i think this is an absolute shitty situation, the onus is on her for not staying up to date on the protests etc and not filing the redress within the time limit. That is where the fuckup was IMO. As to whether or not RIos needed redress i cant say because i wasnt there, but Hall should have been there incase a situation like this happened so that she could have had a say in this etc.

[SimonN]

To be fair, having reread the item, it isn't clear whether the fouling boat did turns. It doesn't change anything, but I was hasty to slam the article.

Knowing the rules is part of the game. Back in 1998, at the first 49er worlds, a member of the GBR team failed to qualify for funding because they didn't know the rules. To qualify for squad funding, you needed to be in the top 20. Gold fleet was top 20 only and this particular person had finished the qualifying round in 21st. The results were posted and they went to bed pretty unhappy. Next day, about 30 minutes before we launched for the split fleet racing, I was reading the sailing instructions and spotted that they had been written with a mistake regarding tie breaks. They had applied what they meant to say but not what was actually said and nobody had spotted this. It was too late, but it certainly taught me to know the rules and read and learn all sailing instructions before racing begins.

(the postscript to the above story is that at the next worlds, the same helm came 21st after the qualifiers again! I guess it was meant to be!)

[seagreen]

it seems to me like a pretty awkward balance of the Trials being settled on the water and in the protest room.
while it appears to me that Hall dominated the actual racing, she should have been ready for something like this to happen, especially knowing that an incident had occured on the water, involving a viable competitor

i don't suppose there would be any possibility of having another race, or best of 3 series? i realize the costs, time commitment involved, but i think Fair Sailing applies here

[Step Up]

SimonN, on Oct 24 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

How is this crappy officials? Based on everything written, redress seems to have been the only way the jury could go. It is all very weel bringing up witnesses after the event who didn't say anything to the jury, but the jury can only decide based on the evidence they have. Simple fact is, Rios was damaged, it was not her fault and as such, the jury felt she should get average points. And they are right that Hall cannot claim redress past the time limit.

As for Hall, while I feel sorry for her, how weak can you get with a "I didn't know I could do that" type of comment. This is her "job" and she doesn't know the rules? For that reason alone, I feel less sorry for her than I might otherwise have done.

Finally, where was her coach? Somebody should have been there looking after her.

Lets start with where was her coach....who was paying for that ..US Sailing (dream the fuck on)...this chick did it all on her own..and made it! Didn't have funds for a coach.

Next the I didn't know I could do that ...well that is just the same as the judges that hide behind the old I didn't know that what I decided would change the scores...or the real fun one...I can only go with what I see writen on this form....

So to the real problem...Jury is out playing god...hiding behind what is writen on paper..
If they were sailors (I hope they have sailed recently, but we know they have not)
They would have realized the play that Rios put them in and shut her fucking aftermarket play to go to the games.

You think Rios did not know what she was going into the room to attempt?? Wrong...she knows (means I hope the us medal count looses one)

Great job Chief Judge Larry White....nice job ..you and your jury just got snowed...

[WhiteLightnin']

SimonN- Go back to AC anarchy


This is manipulation of the sport and done very smoothly. The Jury should never have allowed the redress with the proper protest first. I don't know who is in who's pocket, but it stinks. At the very least the Jury should have brought in the individuals and witnesses. Is there any oversight at these events. When Judges Fuck Up like this in regular racing it goes before US sailing for review, any Olympic equivalent???
This is a black eye for the Olympic program, they have to realize that, don't they??

WL

[dirkdigler]

I don't believe that a protest has to be filed in order for a redress hearing to be held.
What about the case of one sailor rescuing another (Larry Lemoux in the Seoul games I think) A sailor can get redress w/o a protest being filed or hearing being held in some circumstances.


However,
Bad luck happed to Rios and she shifted that bad luck off of herself and on to Hall.

The jury really should have let Hall know about any hearing that would impact her prior to commencing that hearing and allowed her time to prepare. It doesn't seem fair that Hall had no chance to prepare a defense to a decision that would impact her.

[wabbiteer]

SeaGreen, on Oct 24 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

...while it appears to me that Hall dominated the actual racing..

I'm not convinced that's a fair statement.

Rios had seven bullets, Hall had six. There was only one point between the two, no matter how you look at it (either 28 to 29 or 29 to 30). That's hardly "domination" by Hall. I don't think hyperbole is going to help anyone here.

http://www.abyc.org/...007_Trials9.htm

[wabbiteer]

krispy kreme, on Oct 24 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

I'm waiting for Wabbiteer to come on and provide a synopsis for you Simon.

I'm not sure you're going to like it.

First let me say that I have no dog in this fight.

In practical terms, to give Rios redress the jury had to have found that the request for redress met the conditions:

Quote

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

(b) injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

Given that, it's hard to see how the outcome would have changed even if Hall had filed another request for redress on time. What would be Hall's grounds for asking for redress? That the jury committed an "improper action or omission" in giving Rios redress? Could she have proved that Wilson didn't break a rule of Part 2 (doubtful)? Could she have proved that there wasn't damage to Rios' sail (doubtful). The best she could have done is try to prove that Rios' score was not made significantly worse, but that might be hard if a whole passel of people saw Rios drop her sail at the start.

If you turn the situation upside down, and the outcome was that Rios was NOT granted redress, there would have been an opposite news story complaining how unfair it was that Rios' Olympic hopes were dashed by another sailor colliding with her and tearing her sail and the jury DENYING redress. I wasn't there, so I don't know what transpired in the room, but it's important to remember that the article was written by Hall's hometown paper, so I think it's fair to imagine there might be a little hometown bias. Sailors are smart people. Smart people know that you have to take everything you read with a grain of salt.

If you're going to blame Rios for asking for redress (which is she is within her rights to request) you could just as easily blame Hall for hailing protest to a board that was more than 10 points behind her in the standings (which she is within her rights to hail) getting that board to do turns into another competitor. But at the end of the day, rather than blaming Rios or Hall, its important to remember that this entire situation was created by another sailor (Wilson) trying to stick her board in where she didn't belong.

[SimonN]

I don't know if there has been a fix up or not. Maybe some of you have knowledge of that, but you still miss the whole point. Hall had the right to counter claim and she didn't.

What is more of a suprise is the standard of knowledge on here regarding the rules.

1. You do not need a protest to claim redress. If the offending party has done turns, in most cases there would be no need for a protest, because fault doesn't need to be apportioned. The only time there is a protest after turns is if there has been serious avoidable damage. Under the circumstances, I don't think that applies.

2. Hall does not need to be told of the redress hearing and has no right to speak at that hearing. The correct preceedure is for the hearing to happen and if she feels she has been prejudiced by the redress, she needs to seek redress. I might be wrong, but I suspect that is why she was summoned to hear the result of the redress hearing. At that point, she could and should have applied for redress herself. There is nothing that anybody could have done to stop her doing so.

The problem was that she didn't know that she could claim redress herself. By the time she tried, the only chance she would have had was if she could prove that she had new information that wasn't available at the time. This is why in rejecting the late request for redress, the Jury states that there is insufficient evidence to allow for the case to be heard late. Even a witness like Peter Wells doesn't count, because he would have been available on the day if Hall had asked around.

What is even more of a shame is that I believe that Hall had every right and chance at getting redress.

3. In granting redress, the jury had, IMO, little option but to give average points. To have looked at the past results could have been misleading, as Wilson was one of the people who had beaten Rios in the races she had come 4th in and Wilson was at the back doing turns (she finished 5th).

Even if this was a fit up, knowing the rules should have saved Hall. Unless people know better, it seems to me that if they were trying to stitch her up, then they would not have invited her to hear the jury's findings.

I have been with people immediately after they have been told that they have not been selected for the Olympics and had to share the pain, more than once! I have a slight idea what Hall must be going through and my heart really does go out to her. In 2003 I was with Bryony Shaw (GBR boardsailor) when she was told she wasn't going to Athens and she was unconsolable. However, she picked herself up and look at her now, selected for China. I hope that Hall manages to do the same.

[SimonN]

wabbiteer, on Oct 25 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

....................... it's hard to see how the outcome would have changed even if Hall had filed another request for redress on time. What would be Hall's grounds for asking for redress? That the jury committed an "improper action or omission" in giving Rios redress? Could she have proved that Wilson didn't break a rule of Part 2 (doubtful)? Could she have proved that there wasn't damage to Rios' sail (doubtful). The best she could have done is try to prove that Rios' score was not made significantly worse, but that might be hard if a whole passel of people saw Rios drop her sail at the start.

While we are on the same page with everything else, if I had been Hall I would have gone around to find as many people as possible, such as Peter Wells, to give evidence that it didn't effect Rios's speed. So long as they hadn't given evidence at the original hearing, that should have been sufficient to get the case reviewed. If there is one credible witness, maybe there were more. I would alos have liked to have seen whether the race officer had taken times for the legs. Bottom line is, in the same way as Rios used the system, Hall should have done too.

[glug]

Sounds like the right girl got the spot anyway, given the light conditions expected in China:

"Our results were fairly consistent throughout the regatta. I usually won the heavy air races and Nancy tended to win the light air races," Hall said. "It wasn't abnormal that Nancy would have a bad finish in heavy air."

[vmg]

glug, on Oct 25 2007, 08:48 AM, said:

Sounds like the right girl got the spot anyway, given the light conditions expected in China:

"Our results were fairly consistent throughout the regatta. I usually won the heavy air races and Nancy tended to win the light air races," Hall said. "It wasn't abnormal that Nancy would have a bad finish in heavy air."

i was just going to post the same Glug - the jury knew what they were doing. its quite often the case that the organising authority know who they want to win in these events.

[Gone To Plaid]

SimonN, on Oct 25 2007, 06:19 AM, said:

1. You do not need a protest to claim redress. If the offending party has done turns, in most cases there would be no need for a protest, because fault doesn't need to be apportioned. The only time there is a protest after turns is if there has been serious avoidable damage. Under the circumstances, I don't think that applies.

LEARN THE RULES MATE!!!!

Rule 62 specifically states that to get redress, you must show that:
a boat's score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by
( B ) injury or physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 or of a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear;

The ONLY way to show that the boat is breaking a rule of Part 2 is to have a PROTEST. The protest is this case would have been for breaking Rule 42.2, 2-Turns Penalty. Because no PROTEST happened in this situation, the redress is HIGHLY questionable.

[PeterHuston]

For all of you non-USA types here - the Federal legislation that empowers the US Olympic Cmte to pick our Olympic team, which also empowers them to name our National Governing Bodies - which in this case is US Sailing - has all of this authority because of the "Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act" (Again, for you non-USA Types, Ted Stevens is a US Senator, the Act is named after him).

One of the key points in the Stevens Act is the requirement under Section 220522 "Eligibility Requirements", which requires National Governing Bodies to have in place an arbitration system.

US Olympic Sailing Committee Chairman Dean Brenner flat out says in a quote in this article that there was no right of appeal or arbitration.

Something tells me that will be a key point of discussion for Ms. Hall with the US Olympic Committee.

[spectator]

PeterHuston, on Oct 25 2007, 03:35 AM, said:

For all of you non-USA types here - the Federal legislation that empowers the US Olympic Cmte to pick our Olympic team, which also empowers them to name our National Governing Bodies - which in this case is US Sailing - has all of this authority because of the "Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act" (Again, for you non-USA Types, Ted Stevens is a US Senator, the Act is named after him).

One of the key points in the Stevens Act is the requirement under Section 220522 "Eligibility Requirements", which requires National Governing Bodies to have in place an arbitration system.

US Olympic Sailing Committee Chairman Dean Brenner flat out says in a quote in this article that there was no right of appeal or arbitration.

Something tells me that will be a key point of discussion for Ms. Hall with the US Olympic Committee.

I think most have lost faith in Dean Brenner and the direction he had taken US Olympic Sailing. I believe we can be better served with a new director and a new attitude. I don't think it can get much worse but at the same time be careful what you wish for.

As I was an aspiring Olympic hopeful, I can tell you US Sailing gave zero, if not negative benefit to me and I received much more help and better attitude from foreign teams and there coaches that we compete against. It's pretty sad when it comes down to that.

If you wanted to keep a good & positive attitude while campaigning, it was best to steer clear of US Sailing otherwise the politics, bureaucracy and demeaning attitude would bring you down.

I could on how to improve US Sailing and better support for our sailors but this is not the thread for it.

[OceanBien]

One aspect is the significance of having a coach.
If you're at the top of the game the resource of having a coach to help with advice can help even the most experienced sailor. Miss Hall could have benefited from good advice when there was still time to settle the dispute at the event.
The appeal should be interesting.

[us7070]

wabbiteer, on Oct 25 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

I'm not sure you're going to like it.

First let me say that I have no dog in this fight.

In practical terms, to give Rios redress the jury had to have found that the request for redress met the conditions:
Given that, it's hard to see how the outcome would have changed even if Hall had filed another request for redress on time. What would be Hall's grounds for asking for redress?

Hall won the race, right...?

I figured they were talking about Hall being crossed by the port tacker, (before p began penalty circles), but if Hall ended up winning the race..., no redress.

I've heard redress requests as PC member at events that are at least regionally significant - nothing like as significant as this event - and I really don't like awarding the redress unless I have to.

I think the "out" for the PC - which I am happy to take - is the word "significantly" in the phrase "made significantly worse" referring to the finish position of the petitioner.

I'm not sure there was a convincing case here that the petitioner's finish was made significantly worse. The incident happened at the start (plenty of time to recover), and she still finished 4th - not too shabby.

When I'm on PC, I'm much more likely to grant redress for things that happen later in the race, or that end up in DNF, or a _really_ crappy finish.

I think the committee here was a little too compliant - but not completely out of line. If we don't want this to happen, we need to change the rules.

It's a pretty slippery slope - giving redress for minor starting-line incidents will encourage redress requests, and committees will have a lot of long nights...

By the way, I race windsurfers, and dropping a sail at the start, is not something you can't come back from - it sucks, no question about it - but it's not like capsizing a 470. And, it's not like having to drop the sail on the last beat..., I probably would award redress for that.

[sailman]

SimonN, on Oct 25 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

How is this crappy officials? Based on everything written, redress seems to have been the only way the jury could go. It is all very weel bringing up witnesses after the event who didn't say anything to the jury, but the jury can only decide based on the evidence they have. Simple fact is, Rios was damaged, it was not her fault and as such, the jury felt she should get average points. And they are right that Hall cannot claim redress past the time limit.

As for Hall, while I feel sorry for her, how weak can you get with a "I didn't know I could do that" type of comment. This is her "job" and she doesn't know the rules? For that reason alone, I feel less sorry for her than I might otherwise have done.

Finally, where was her coach? Somebody should have been there looking after her.

I have to agree, what was wrong with the officiating? All the rules were followed, she did not know her rights and did not bother to ask about them for a whole day. Did she have a coach? How could she possibly seek redress based on another competitors problem? Yeah, it sucks that she did not make the cut but the rules were followed.

Will Museler

[spectator]

SimonN, on Oct 24 2007, 11:19 PM, said:

I don't know if there has been a fix up or not. Maybe some of you have knowledge of that, but you still miss the whole point. Hall had the right to counter claim and she didn't.

What is more of a suprise is the standard of knowledge on here regarding the rules.

1. You do not need a protest to claim redress. If the offending party has done turns, in most cases there would be no need for a protest, because fault doesn't need to be apportioned. The only time there is a protest after turns is if there has been serious avoidable damage. Under the circumstances, I don't think that applies.

2. Hall does not need to be told of the redress hearing and has no right to speak at that hearing. The correct preceedure is for the hearing to happen and if she feels she has been prejudiced by the redress, she needs to seek redress. I might be wrong, but I suspect that is why she was summoned to hear the result of the redress hearing. At that point, she could and should have applied for redress herself. There is nothing that anybody could have done to stop her doing so.

The problem was that she didn't know that she could claim redress herself. By the time she tried, the only chance she would have had was if she could prove that she had new information that wasn't available at the time. This is why in rejecting the late request for redress, the Jury states that there is insufficient evidence to allow for the case to be heard late. Even a witness like Peter Wells doesn't count, because he would have been available on the day if Hall had asked around.

What is even more of a shame is that I believe that Hall had every right and chance at getting redress.

3. In granting redress, the jury had, IMO, little option but to give average points. To have looked at the past results could have been misleading, as Wilson was one of the people who had beaten Rios in the races she had come 4th in and Wilson was at the back doing turns (she finished 5th).

Even if this was a fit up, knowing the rules should have saved Hall. Unless people know better, it seems to me that if they were trying to stitch her up, then they would not have invited her to hear the jury's findings.

I have been with people immediately after they have been told that they have not been selected for the Olympics and had to share the pain, more than once! I have a slight idea what Hall must be going through and my heart really does go out to her. In 2003 I was with Bryony Shaw (GBR boardsailor) when she was told she wasn't going to Athens and she was unconsolable. However, she picked herself up and look at her now, selected for China. I hope that Hall manages to do the same.

Everything that Simon has written is correct, it's harsh but correct.

At the same time there others points in this issue that he has not touched that do bear questioning and validity. Peter Wells is a very experienced windsurfer but more importantly he's also very experienced about the rules & judging and has been a P.R.O. and a sailing administrator. I would characterize him as a very powerful witness in such an issue and more creditable than the usual judges they bring in for these events.
While I do not know who the judges were at this event in general, the judges they bring to these events rarely have much knowledge or personal experience in the class there judging however they are usually very experienced in the general concept of the racing and have many miles being a judge.

Something similar happened last weekend in Formula 1, it was the last race (Brazil) of the season and the top 3 were very close in title points but the leader dogged it finishing 7th and ended up loosing the title (by 1 point) but afterwords the inspectors found fuel irregularities in 4,5,6th cars, if they are thrown out, the overall title would be given to the other driver. The cars were not thrown out but it's up for appeal (still pending). The driver who lost the title did say he would not deserve the title if the results were changed because he did not win it on the road. I think that statement can be said here as well.

Last thing, a jury is only going to judge & rule on what evidence is shown before them and will most likely stick to the rule book like super glue whether they like to or not. Knowing the rules & being informed on land and on the water is a powerful tool to winning regattas, having said that I deeply feel for Hall as this issue was pretty much beyond her control but the effect on her was catastrophic and perhaps unfair. I hope this can be resolved.

[Emu]

Gone To Plaid, on Oct 25 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

The ONLY way to show that the boat is breaking a rule of Part 2 is to have a PROTEST. The protest is this case would have been for breaking Rule 42.2, 2-Turns Penalty. Because no PROTEST happened in this situation, the redress is HIGHLY questionable.

The story doesn't say what happend between Wilson and Rios on the 2nd foul. Wilson might have acknowledged breaking 42.2 by doing another set of turns. That would keep the redress request from getting kicked immediately.