• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About porthos

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3,747 profile views
  1. Dennis Pontificates

    Could be Rich Devos (Jr). He is the owner of Windquest, Max Z86 that sails out of a club in Holland, MI. I think his brother, Doug, is also an owner. Regardless, the DeVos family has a long sailing tradition. But Connor was clearly referencing Rich, Jr., whose wife, Betsy (from her own billionaire family) is the US Ed Sec.
  2. Live Racing Thread

    From the DOG: "The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may, by mutual consent, make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the ten months' notice may be waived." (Emphasis added.) The intentions of the drafter are best determined by the language used.
  3. Live Racing Thread

    More specifically, the raised part of SBTJ's rear beam, right where there is a sharp corner.
  4. BAR is a dangerous Motherfucker thread

    That damage came from SBTJ's rear beam, not a grinding pedestal. The video posted above (particularly the last angle) makes that clear.
  5. Live Racing Thread

    Does that information get to the skippers? In other words, would they know if there was an overlap as the entered the circle?
  6. Live Racing Thread

    Great race. Today has confirmed that these boats can shrink a lead or give one up very quickly.
  7. Live Racing Thread

    Understood. Thought someone had asked for it earlier.
  8. Live Racing Thread

    Just showed the delta between OR v FR (2:11) and NZ v FR (2:33).
  9. How to watch live races?

    I have SlingTV and switched my subscription to the Blue package last night, which has NBC Sports. I looked at the schedule and confirmed that the races are on starting tomorrow. It is $25/month and you can cancel anytime, so it can be a cost-effective way to get NBC Sports without having to get an expensive cable package. Moreover, the quality of SlingTV currently is good. It had some buffering issues about a year ago but is rock solid now. You'll need a box of some kind (AppleTV, Roku, Xbox, etc.) to watch it on your television, but you can also download the SlingTV app on your phone or computer and watch everything there. For an extra $5/month, you can add a DVR function if you cannot watch the races live (and they may be available on demand anyway after the airing live -- the NBC Sport channel on SlingTV has a couple of races from AC34 available to watch on demand). tl;dr: SlingTV should be a good option for watching in the US.
  10. Oracle Team USA 2013

    Is this your considered legal opinion?!?!LOL...You've signed a confidential settlement exit contract with your employer under which they will pay you (for argument's sake) $1,000,000 in exchange for which you readily agree not to divulge anything you know to any other party, under penalty of forfeiture of the $1,000,000 PLUS specified damages in multiple of zeros after the $ sign. You now claim that it is your legal opinion that breaking an NDA is perfectly acceptable to you after willingly signing the contract?? You have some very selective morality in your life. It's all very well mouthing off on ACA about what you would do until it's your $$$ and potential liberty on the line... You show your total ignorance by invoking whistleblower legislation again proving just how dangerous a little knowledge is.... I believe that you are completely wrong on this. The employment contracts and NDA's between Oracle and their staff were made under US law and it is my belief that under US law, it is illegal to to use an NDA to stop whistleblowing. I know for absolute certainty that companies have been fined by the SEC for attempting to silence whistleblowers using contracts of employment and NDA's. Maybe Porthos can confirm this the position on this. You are correct that under US law (federal and state) a signatory to a non-disclosure agreement may disclose wrongdoing to law enforcement, a court, or regulating agency without violating the NDA. In other words, the law carves out an exception to every NDA for disclosing wrongful conduct to the appropriate authorities. Most NDA's include such language (allowing that disclosure) because it will be enforced anyway. Moreover, under whistleblower statutes, the employer cannot take any adverse employment action against an employee (such as firing them, docking pay, downgrading their job, etc.) for reporting employer wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities. That in all likelihood has no applicability here. If a former Oracle employee has an NDA, he or she would not have protection for disclosing any wrongdoing by Oracle to a competitor. The one possible exception would be if an Oracle employee (former or current) disclosed wrongdoing to the sailing body that had jurisdiction over the event. That gets a little more complicated but I don't think anyone is claiming that happened here. A broader issue is at work here, and that is the notion that contracts are somehow "ethical". They are not. Contracts are merely a way of structuring a relationship between two or more parties. Drafted properly, all parties know what will happen in the relationship if a given even occurs. In Indio's example, if an employer paid an employee an amount of money to sign an NDA, the contract should also identify what would happen in the event that the employee discloses information contrary to the NDA restrictions. Typically, the employee has to give the money back, must cease any further disclosures, and may be responsible for any damages the employer sustains as a result of the disclosure. Parties to a contract may choose for many reasons to engage in certain conduct that under a contract carries a penalty. For example, an employer may choose to fire an employee that has a contract and in so doing be forced to pay the severance mandated by the contract because the company believes it is in its best long-term interests to do so. Similarly, an employee may choose to disclose something that is prohibited by the NDA in his or her contract and accept the penalties for doing so. Perhaps the employee believes it is in his or her best interests to do so (say, by gaining employment with a competitor or being able to take clients to a new employer). Certainly, the ex-employee may feel obligated to disclose wrongdoing to his new employer so as to clear his conscience, If that were the case, however, I would counsel the employee to provide the information to the appropriate authority rather than to a competitor. But there is nothing "unethical" about breaking a contract. Happens all the time for legitimate reasons. Those reasons may carry with them certain consequences, but there is nothing metaphysical about it.
  11. Oracle Team USA 2013

    no intent??? what about larry's big fat bonus? what about win the race? what world do you not live in where disabled athletes hold their piss until it hurts like shit so they can win? No proof? I don't have proof they cheated, but i sure as F**** did not "photoshop" the vid i ripped from Jack Griffin. It wasn't just a "gate blowing in the wind" as scassani so eloquently puts it. Why don't you rebut his reply? Want more video? Ya? Na? Your biggest rebuttal being there were so many of them they couldn't have installed a system that was right outside what the MC was aware of? Better try harder TC is not giving you a hard time, Barfy -- he's trying to give me one. Trying.
  12. Oracle Team USA 2013

    You bear the burden of proof as the party making the claim. Simply because nobody has objected doesn't mean you've offered sufficient proof. In your words, you cannot and should not conclude that your claim passes the test of reason simply because nobody else has offered anything contrary. Edit: I should say more about that to make clear what I mean. I've had cases against my clients dismissed without putting on any evidence of my own simply because the evidence offered by the opposing side is insufficient for a reasonable jury to reach any sort of conclusion one way or the other. In other words, the party making the claim has the burden to show that a given set of events and facts reasonably leads to a particular conclusion. If the evidence first presented does not allow such a reasonable conclusion, the other side doesn't have to say anything. If the evidence first presented has substantial holes in it, the case ends. And there are some holes. For example, what you have posted so far (from what I have seen and I may have missed something, so if I did correct me) is a couple of videos of board movement and a brief video of Jimmy at the helm where he didn't appear to be pushing buttons. Nowhere does it appear that those videos show the exact same period of time. In other words, there is no evidence that the video of Jimmy not pushing buttons lines up with the board movement videos. Maybe he just wasn't pushing buttons at that time. Show me synchronized videos side by side of board movement on the one hand and Jimmy on the other where his hands are clearly in view and there is no way they are providing input into the system. Then you'll have something. Then something (or someone) else must be controlling the boards. You have also shown rapid board movement and concluded that such rapid board movement could not have occurred with human input as it was too fast. At least that is how I took your assertion. Again, correct me if I am mistaken. If that is the case, however, the next question is this: is it possible for a human push a button multiple times in a second? Absolutely. And if he can use both hands (and there are multiple button on the wheel), Jimmy could probably provide input at least six times a second if needed. That is legal conduct that would explain what you are seeing. I'm not saying that is what happened, but it has to be disproven in order to conclude definitively that Jimmy did not provide the input for the board movement from the helm. Finally, and others have raised this point, I have yet to see anything definitive that rapid board movement like that would actually be a benefit. That analysis certainly is above my pay grade. But I have read everything here and have yet to see a proof I can understand that rapid board movement would actually be beneficial. The answer to that, of course, may be that I am too dumb to understand it. But I do not think that a single flap on an airplane wing and a foil under load are the same thing. Those are the holes I see so far.
  13. Oracle Team USA 2013

    Barfy, you have done an admirable job making your case. One of the reasons I love coming here is to learn from people much smarter than I am. That said, you are seeing facts you can't explain -- movement of certain pieces of the boat -- and jumping to a conclusion -- that movement must have been caused by an illegal system (i.e., one with no input from the helm) Tech's post is a good example of that. Which is a very human response, btw. I see it all the time in my line of work. People's experiences, and particularly memories, are partial mosaics. They frequently have some but not all of the pieces, so they fill in the missing pieces and complete the mosaic with "assumed" facts that make the overall picture make sense to them. In other words, our biases and the lenses through which we view the world shape the complete pictures that we see. And, frankly, that is a lot of what is happening here. People who don't like Oracle fill in the missing facts and assume they cheated. But that doesn't mean that's what actually happened. The best you can say at this point is that the question remains open. That's it, nothing else. Is it possible Oracle snowed the MC and IJ and everybody? It is. But in order for that to be true, Oracle must have had a different system on its boat that it showed to the MC (and also the one ETNZ showed to the MC). In other words, Oracle must have deliberately misled a whole bunch of people. That would be one helluva conspiracy. The problem, however, is that there just isn't any other indicia of fraud that you would expect to find had it occurred, as I indicated earlier. Moreover, we've had four years for that fraud to unravel and it hasn't happened. If Oracle have managed to keep that conspiracy quiet all these years, sailing is only the second best thing they do. Certainly some will say "well, Oracle cheated in the past, so they must have now." But that is the easy way out and is a poor substitute for actual fact-finding. In a court of law, you'd never be able to introduce that evidence because it is rank speculation and entirely unreliable. Show me facts and not conclusions. Let me end this post where I began it: your detective work is impressive -- truly. It raises a bunch of interesting questions. But it doesn't answer them yet.
  14. Oracle Team USA 2013

    Thank you for your considered response from the legal perspective, and I admit that I've been expecting Clean to tap me on the shoulder after receiving a cease-and-desist email from OR's legal reps. Nice to see you again. You and scassani are my favourite legal beagles in ACA I admit that I emailed ETNZ to appeal the MC decision on PI49 and subsequent decisions - including the procedural rejection of an ETNZ application - but they may have had more pressing matters to attend to. The failure by omission by the MC enabled OR to get away with a control system which, imo, was illegal under the Class Rules and it's on that basis I accuse them of cheating. Proving them is, as you correctly point out, and entirely different matter. I suspect that there would be 4-5 people max within the OR team who knew about the cheat system, and I'd expect they'd all be tightly NDA'ed. Maybe in time we'll get some info leaking out from within... Your assumption that Grant Dalton would have blabbed to one and all that they lost because of the alleged cheating is a galaxy away from who GD is. He's smart enough to know that any claims of being beaten by cheaters (without solid proof which probably ended up at the bottom of SF harbour within minutes of the last race) would serve no purpose for ETNZ. GD privately might air his suspicions to close confidants, but he accepts that they did not react fast enough to address issues they should have, so he probably blames his own internal systems and personnel. This may be surmised from the departure of some key personnel from the AC34 unsuccessful campaign. I think there is enough circumstantial inconsistencies in the data and technical information available, and in their almost-miraculous upwind foiling abilities to draw a conclusion at variance with yours. And of course they have form in the cheating department... If anyone gives you any legal shine stateside for expressing your opinion, you have a free lawyer at your disposal.
  15. Oracle Team USA 2013

    I have no idea what the videos show. To me, it's a bunch of shit I don't understand moving around. But for (1) and (2) to be correct, would not the system installed on the boat (and used in those videos) have to be something other than what both Oracle and ETNZ presented to the MC and the IJ (finally remembered what the name was)? Because that system (to my understanding) drives off inputs from the helm. I will also say that people will see what they want to see. If you think Oracle are a bunch of pig-fuckers and then see something in a video that doesn't make sense, you are more inclined to believe it is something nefarious. In other words, unexplained movement of the gantry/foil/box/fuckall in a video becomes prima facie "robotic," "computer driven," and cheating.