• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

porthos

Members
  • Content count

    655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About porthos

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

3,714 profile views
  1. More specifically, the raised part of SBTJ's rear beam, right where there is a sharp corner.
  2. That damage came from SBTJ's rear beam, not a grinding pedestal. The video posted above (particularly the last angle) makes that clear.
  3. Does that information get to the skippers? In other words, would they know if there was an overlap as the entered the circle?
  4. Great race. Today has confirmed that these boats can shrink a lead or give one up very quickly.
  5. Understood. Thought someone had asked for it earlier.
  6. Just showed the delta between OR v FR (2:11) and NZ v FR (2:33).
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!! Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit. I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt Someone please refresh my memory. My recollection comports with yours that the MC looked at this circuit. More specifically, that ETNZ made some form of protest about it and the MC cleared it, either substantively or procedurally because ETNZ failed to raise a timely protest. Can anyone remind me what happened? Are you saying that OR somehow deceived the MC or that the MC simply made the wrong decision? You are correct on all counts. Interpretation No.49 contained the circuit and posed the following question: "Question: (1) Below is a schematic of a hydraulic arrangement that includes the electrical operation of hydraulic valves. Does this arrangement comply with the Rule 19.2(e)? MC Answer: 1. Yes, provided the electrically-operated hydraulic valves are commercially available and they have been approved by the Measurement Committee for use via an issued interpretation." As you will note, the MC approved the "electrically-operated hydraulic valves". Yet the circuit depicts the hydraulic valves as manually activated: the only electrical activation taking place is in the DC-powered linear actuator (depicted as the orange line in the Legend at the bottom of the circuit). Connection to the hydraulic valve is clearly depicted as mechanical, via their Component X. Did the MC get conned? I think so. The "electrical operation of hydraulic valves" in OR's question (via the electrically-activated linear actuatot) is NOT the same as direct electrical activation of solenoid-operated hydraulic valves which the MC approved!! It's electrically-operating the valves by proxy. Clever wordsmith craftsmanship by OR? I think so. Perfectly legal, and the linear actuators are commercially available to all teams. BUT... Did the MC make the wrong decision? I believe so. They answered and approved a question which was not asked in PI49, and did not question Component X depicted in Grant's youtube simulation as a mechanical device activating plunger-activated valves. The MC should have determined whether Component X as depicted in Grant's simulation was sufficiently proprietary as to make it illegal under Class Rule, or whether it was commercially available to all teams. Imo, the circuit was deliberately mischievous with a few red herrings (Comp X depicted as a "spring") thrown in to obfuscate. I would have designed the system using servo or proportional control valves to provide more accurate constant position adjustments, but I don't believe they had the time to take out the valves already installed and integrate the valve controls into their control system, so they went with a retro-fit using an indexing stepper motor, manually switched on and forgotten. Thanks, Indio. You clearly know more about this from an engineering perspective -- impressively so -- than I ever will. But I do know a bit about fraud, proving it, and the legal process. And here there are significant barriers to proving that any fraud occurred. First, and importantly, due process existed in this case. The AC judicial structure (the MC and whatever body issued the interpretive ruling -- I forget the name) had the chance to consider this issue. Oracle provided a schematic, and the AC authorities had the opportunity to kick the tires on it. If they were sufficiently concerned about your concerns (i.e., the true nature of component x, if I understand your concerns correctly), they had the opportunity to push Oracle for further explanation. They didn't, and you can certainly take issue with that. But the important point is that they had the opportunity to do so, which is a far cry from a scenario under which Oracle installed this system on its AC72 without telling anybody about it. Which leads to the second point. People who commit fraud don't advertise it for obvious reasons. Fraud requires intent -- the person perpetrating the fraud has to intend to deceive someone else. How do you prove intent? Often times by conduct (again, because people committing fraud don't admit it openly). Here, the conduct both within Oracle and without does not lead to the conclusion that fraud existed. If I remember correctly -- and I may not, so please correct me -- Oracle explained in greater detail after AC34 and in a public presentation how the above system worked. If you committed fraud, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to the fact that you did. That is not how fraudsters act. Equally telling, and again to my recollection, nobody outside Oracle generally and, more specifically ETNZ complained after the fact. Perhaps GD simply "moved on" as suggested by someone else. But it would be a powerful fund-raising pitch to say that the only reason ETNZ lost the cup was because Oracle cheated. I can't imagine GD failed to play that card if he thought he had it. He doesn't strike me as someone who engages in half-measures and he certainly hasn't had a problem speaking his mind in the past. Put all of that into a blender and what comes out is the conclusion that Oracle didn't cheat. Certainly not from a legal perspective. The matter was adjudicated and resolved. It's done and dusted. The parties who were aggrieved said nothing. You disagreed with the outcome -- I get that and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have been in the unfortunate position of having to explain to clients that the court just didn't see things our way. It sucks, and they and I may go to our graves still believing that we were right. But it doesn't change the fact that the only people whose opinions matter saw it differently. I'm not sure what the utility is in continuing to wage old battles under those circumstances.
  15. There was a cheating hydraulic circuit which OR publicly posted to the MC: the circuit which I've been posting depicts Component X as a spring which A Class Sailor and many others accept, yet we have had Grant show it in his lecture simulation as a mechanical device to activate the "plunger"-activated directional control valve depicted in the simulation you posted in the OR thread!! Imo, OR (illegally under the Class Rule) used an indexing stepper motor in conjunction with the linear actuator to provide the constant adjustment they achieved over one lay day. If I had to design a retro-fitted cheating circuit, I would have used an indexing stepper motor in the same system configuration depicted in OR's circuit. I have no doubt that Oracle Racing cheated in the AC Match in 2013, using proprietary hydraulic components which they had developed - contrary to the Class Rules at the time. was sufuhcrt Someone please refresh my memory. My recollection comports with yours that the MC looked at this circuit. More specifically, that ETNZ made some form of protest about it and the MC cleared it, either substantively or procedurally because ETNZ failed to raise a timely protest. Can anyone remind me what happened? Are you saying that OR somehow deceived the MC or that the MC simply made the wrong decision?