Glenn McCarthy

https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2019/01/fire-at-mount-gay-rum-distillery-burns-150000-gallons-of-alcohol/?fbclid=IwAR2PewwRmii_GSyhG563TwuMXNaCfk_ynMtXTxJzaHXN_ENTCkinK0uo0w0

Instagram, he just erased everyone's IG accounts who are watching that interview.

As you all know the racing rules apply to ALL boats racing, even if they are competing in different events. One of those kids should have yelled "Protest" at the guy, come in and file a protest. (of course the downwind port tack boats have no rights, but the downwind starboard tack boats have rights over the big port tack boat).

Portsmouth numbers.

There've been 183 reversals in 83,000,000 years and there are 7,000,000,000 people on earth today. I'll be able to sleep just fine tonight.

How cool would that be to experience in your lifetime? But damn, I just compensated the compass last summer and created a deviation card for it.

6 years ago in Argentina, 6 minutes into sea trials after a refit which added the top deck (obviously a naval architect not involved), center of gravity changed uupwards.

Not reading anything since I left this thread, just to make a comment that's been sitting in my craw. I am always amused how people think that if one rule doesn't take care of a situation, then some other rule will be the omnibus collect all rule that will get the result they want. Some have suggested a RRS69. Gotta tell you what, this will NEVER happen. Here's why. 1. There's never been any hearing. 2. There has never been anything found (by judges obviously) that a rule has been broken. 3. There has been no finding of guilt. 4. There has been no testimony in a hearing to learn how this may have occurred. Any judge would have to be insane to initiate a RRS69 without a rule having been broken with a result of DSQ or some other penalty. If judges were to initiated a RRS69 hearing in a case like this they open themselves up to a libel, slander, defamation lawsuit. You guys and gals gotta realize, this is over, its in the books, move onto something important in your lives.

5 International Judges have ruled. End of case. This is more like Political Anarchy, I'm out of this thread. Adios.

"He failed to retire as is required." Well, I already explained the RULES to you that he is NOT "required" to retire, that is not a "rule," it is a meer suggestion and I believe that meer suggestion ought to be removed from the book, as it confuses people like you!

As no hearing was done to determine facts, the whole purpose of the hearing is to allow things to be vetted. I'm not making excuses, but what if the people who have the satellites for AIS had some sort of hardware or software malfunction? There has been no opportunity to examine or cross examine something like this. What if their AIS device has a software or hardware malfunction and it appeared on board that it was functioning, only it wasn't. You have presumed that people on board flipped a switch off. Which has not been heard, which has not been cross-examined and has not been proved. You see, this is the whole purpose of a hearing, to get down to the facts. We don't have the facts.

Doesn't do shit in a protest room, UNLESS THE PROTESTOR FOLLOWS THE RULES TOO, which they didn't. You see protests are designed just like our legal system. Each side has to abide by the laws. A protest time limit is exactly like a statute of limitation. Only interested parties can sue in a court of law and have to prove some sort of loss. This protest amplifies this same concept. A/many competitor(s) was/were aggrieved, and all chose not to exercise their rights to protest. You see this all of the time in the newspapers and press about court cases.

Ah my friend, in all protests, there are actually 2 separate hearings. The first hearing is to determine whether the protest is qualified. This is a test to see if the rules were followed in simply getting in front of judges. Was a flag flown, was "protest hailed," was the other party notified, was the protest filed within the time limit, etc. You see, in the case of RC vs. WOXI, the protest did not qualify. As a result it never got to the second hearing where the allegations of a rule violation is debated, and did not get to a point where "Facts Found" were determined. The reality is, there were no "Facts Found" in this case. Many protests never get heard due to the first hearing flicking the case.

Because you'll never find any protest committee writing on a protest form in the findings, under the section "Rules Applicable" - "A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play." The protest committee has to find an actual fact that a rule has been broken, not some "concept" which is not an actual fact. If you ever filled out a protest form as a judge, we really rely upon the Facts Found (section) as we write them, putting down something like this: 1. Race 1, 1/2/2019 at approximately 10:15 am. 2. Boat A was on starboard tack heading upwind. 3. Boat B was on port tack heading upwind. 4. Boat B went to duck Boat A, when their mainsheet jammed and rounded up. 5. Boat B t-boned Boat A amidships. [While most would be satisfied with the Facts Found at this point, there are other rules to consider so more facts have to be written.] 6. Boat A had no where to go to avoid a collision with Boat B once it was clear Boat B would not clear them. (this relieves Boat A from breaking the rule of avoidance). 7. Boat A had a minor scuff to its topside. (have to know this whether the serious damage rule kicks in) 8. Boat B had no damage. (have to know this whether the serious damage rule kicks in) 9. Boat B took no penalty turn. (need to know this whether a jury penalty will need to apply) 10. Boats A and B finished the race (need to know this to apply a jury penalty) Now you have seen the Facts. The finding would be DSQ based on those facts that show a rule has been broken. And the concept of sportsmanship and fair play was not followed, but the DSQ was based on a rule being broken.

The front page editorial today says WOXI should retire due to the: SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire. Aren't those nice rosie words? Because that is all they are. They are NOT part of the rules. As a result, these words are not "required." Not being required, leaves them as one thing - "optional." Having spent a long time on the Safety at Sea Committee, when the committee didn't have the votes to get an item to be "required," the soft shoe version ended up with vote making the item a "safety recommendation." Guess what, that item was not "required." That item is "optional." Just a meer suggestion of what could be good practice. We had one committee member who vocally stated that we needed to eliminate all "recommendations." They didn't make it as a "rule" and should not be there to confuse people on what they HAD to do. Eventually, he won the day and a set of safety rules now exists with no "recommendations." I researched the Sportsmanship and the Rules a few years back trying to understand what they really mean, even contacting Rob Overton who was head of the US Sailing Racing Rules Committee at the time. He confirmed that it was not "Rule." As we saw, the rules applied did not allow the Race Committee to file this protest, a competitor who observed the infraction was the one who needed to belly up and didn't. The rules apply equally to the protestor as well as to the protestee. If the Sportsmanship and the Rules were a "rule," then it would become the omnibus rule that catches almost everything that falls outside of the rules, like this case. Which explains why it is not a rule!