• 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.

theworm13

Members
  • Content count

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About theworm13

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. While true that conduct does not have to rise to a rule 69 to lead to an exclusion, the defensibly of the exclusion has to be based upon a non-arbitrary event. A hearing or administrative "event" would allow the exclusion to not be arbitrary in nature. Without documentation of some sort, then the exclusion will be difficult to defend. This is the missing piece that of course the Ed won't point to. What happened to create the situation? IF nothing, then he is doing everyone a disservice by not requesting redress and fighting the exclusion. If he did something, then man up and post what happened. It can be a simple scuffle in the bar, or a set of choice words spoken in anger...while probably still arbitrary in nature and probably not "legal" from that standpoint at least it would be defined. The interesting thing about this though is that the Ed actually could be flirting with a rule 69 "sport in disrepute" by posting this at all (and not taking action if he is wronged). Other sports have similar clauses and have success at CAS in prosecuting people for actions like this. You either accept the ruling OR fight it...doing neither and posting in public (news, website, etc) can quickly be viewed as a negative action, or at least it has in some cases. this is not correct misconduct does not have to rise to the level of RRS 69 to be sufficient to have an entry denied
  2. In this case redress time limits are not the same as protest limits during a race. Granted I suspect that at this point he could not race for this weekend, but the exclusion is for the entire season as well. A hearing can be held, and I suspect that any OA who would hear of this could also open it as well. The question is if Scot cares enough to bother, and if this is nothing more than a bitch session on SA.
  3. Peter, I think this is exactly the point. The letter does 2 things, excludes him from this race AND excludes him from all races in 2017. To do that would require some set of reasons that would have to be defined, or it would definitely fall into the "arbitrary" side of the rule. IMHO while there is no requirement for a hearing or disciplinary action taken, the lack of such creates exactly that...and arbitrary situation. Granted we are only hearing a limited piece of information, and one sided at that!
  4. All clubs essentially need to abide by the RRS and USSailing prescriptions. That includes following their own NOR and eligibility clauses. While it is entirely normal to restrict entry, especially to a competitor who may have been say banned from the club (and club events), to do so without formal proceedings would be problematic. It would allow for discrimination and exclusionary tactics at the individual level...which is in direct violation of US law, USSailing (and ISAF's) regulations, and prob the RRS if we dig into it. But...with Scot there is always something more to the story that is left unsaid. Perhaps a jaunt in the coat room with someone, or some argument that in his mind was nothing...yet looked like the food fight from Animal House. Even so, without some formal action the club would be hard pressed to defend the exclusion from a single race let alone a full year. I hope he takes a complaint to the regional authority, but I suspect it will die on SA.
  5. I get what you are saying. But as a former pro, and one who worked my way up to that position, the bike means a lot less than people think. A $2k investment in bike and wheels, which is WAY less than many pay, puts you 100% on par with the top pro in the world. Now will a $15k Madone help a Tour rider during a mountain stage compared to his peers...yes potentially. But at that point you are not looking at the differences between a pro and a good "corinthian"...you are comparing pro to pro. At that point, like in sailing, that 5 foot advantage on the first leg might be the difference between 1st and 15th. The bike industry will spend hours and hours convincing you that you need the best kit and new gear you can. Ultimately the biggest advantage you can find is having the right pressure in your tires and a well lubed chain! Seriously. The advantages you might think are coming from top end gear or "access to tools" simply are not factors in the end. In fact, I spent years working from Cat 5 to Cat 1 on the track using an old Bianchi track bike...with only 4 sets of gears and no disk/aero wheels. Yes I upgraded eventually...but at that point again I was not racing amateurs I was at that point racing other professionals...and by then the tenth of a second I gained, or the slight weight loss I had with a custom frame, at that point it helped. But like I said...I understand what you are saying/implying. Actually your example does prove a point. There are really 2 very different "pros" in sailing. There are industry professionals who have access to sails and gear at a rate higher than the typical competitor. And then there are professional crew who have excellent experience in racing that they have gained. There are a lot of "pros" who do not fit in either of these categories, yet are considered pros from a classification standpoint. Just because you work at North does not mean either of the above is true.
  6. Hard to compare the situation with sailing to cycling or masters swimming. As someone who has participated in all of these, there simply is no difference. Swimming is simple...there is no advantage to being a coach vs a normal swimmer. It is all about physical performance and time in the pool practicing. The coach will possibly gain more of that, but there is no limitation. You could argue a self employed person would also have an advantage in swimming because they could have more time to train. With cycling it is much easier. There is a rating system (category) that you move up or down (rarely). Yes, everyone gets stuck at cat 3 which is a problem, but again the cat system moves people up if they are successful. It is impossible to "hide" as you will be moved eventually. So a pro can't hide or get "paid" to race...just does not exist. The reality in sailing is that there are 2 groups. True Corinthian sailors and non-Corinthian. The non-Corinthian includes those who "pay to play". Long term for the success of both they really cannot race together, or more correct cannot be "scored" together. The advantages of being a pro sailor vs Corinthian are measurable. Unlike swimming where a 1-2 hour per day commitment will return measurable dividends, most Corinthian sailors might get once per week in the summer and no sailing in the winter. Industry professionals might be out 4-5 days year round. That ability really underscores the differences. I don't think the issue is the pay, but the difference in the ability from even a top Corinthian to a professional (in the industry). I know I have consistently beaten some pros...so it can be done...but the real differentiation is the time allowances to sail (practice) is vastly different. Perhaps sailing should have a classification system like cycling. At some point paid sailing is "allowed" but it really is based on performance and results vs paid/not. A national/international database could be created recording all scores, similar to tennis and cycling, and rating moves based on that rating. Team results would also come into play, so yes sailing with a top notch program would affect everyone's rating on that boat.. Events would have multiple "classes" with 1 start, allowing everyone to compete on their level vs against ones that are classed up.
  7. This is very interesting to me. Foilers have been claimed to be the "future" of sailing. We are continually hearing how much this will change sailing for the better, get more people involved, etc. Yet it raises safety, inadequate skills ("zero volunteer drivers") and injury concerns to a whole new level. If they are that out of control, then I would probably argue that their position as the "future" of the sport is questionable at best. Now addressing the situation itself. THe RIB being there or not does not really matter. The question is did the actions of the sailboat give the "other boat" enough time to react? They could have been an anchored boat, or another race boat, ultimately from the point of responsibility it does not matter in this case. The film is obvious that 2 major course corrections occurred (sharp moves at that), and that the prior course was not on a collision path. So then did the RIB have opportunity/time to move? Not "RRS" time, but real time to react? I don't think that could be reasonable expected considering the speed. Fault - driver of the sailboat 100%. We can argue that the RIB should not have been there. Sure...probably not! But that does not matter once the boat is there. The people on the boat should be able to deal with what is around them, and it is their responsibility to do so. I remember a video of the Melges 30s (I think) blasting through an Opti regatta on that same waters (again I think). They got chastised hard for doing this. No one got hit, but was pretty bad. Would the same responsibility be there if the GC32 blew through the Optis? Or would they be defended and protected as the "kids should have known about foilers"?
  8. Lets see...spend a couple million to make a boat. Sail boat for a bit. Then just scrap it? Nah. He might want to keep it as a trinket to look at, but rich guys don't get rich looking at million dollar depreciating items. They buy art to look at that goes up. Probably just go up for sale and someone will buy it for an insane amount. Just can't see scrapping it unless there is a new hull or mod and are wanting to swap gear.
  9. Perhaps I do...perhaps I don't. Does not really matter. You wanted comments to the post, I posted and defended my view, which is that the entry is invalid. So that result is against you...suck it up. Take the info I gave and perhaps come up with a defense against it. Or not. Or call me a fuck and say I am creating an issue. Though I would point out that it is fucks like you who created this issue to begin with by posting it on the front page lol I really don't care.
  10. Ryley. I used the sailing club as an example of how you can violate the NOR. Sorry...I confused the topic. My "dog" in this fight is that a friend of mine got screwed years ago because a bunch of idiots did not follow the NOR and SI's. Cost her a bunch, and while vindicated later, that really meant little overall. So I do respond to this stuff because I feel that it is important for all people to realize that the NOR is important to understand, and the nuances involved can get you tossed from a race...even days later. As to your comment. No, the bylaws do apply not just if he is late. The WHOLE NOR has to be followed, not just eligibility. So 3 (Fee) is as important as eligibility. Both refer to CRA membership, so in both cases the bylaws of the club can come into play if the member is operating outside of his allowed membership. In this case the bylaws read (I admit they read this to me) that the member can enter races for free as a skipper. Skipper as per prior cases indicates a position on the boat, and as such by not being on the boat provides an opening for protest. The PC could read this entirely different I do admit that. There is nothing indicating a late registration, so that section does not apply at all. The reality of this is actually quite simple. As a disclaimer...I don't know Scot. I know he was at a regatta I was at once...simply don't remember ever meeting him. Met Clean a bunch, and he is what he is (not good or bad...just Clean). But from what I understand Scot is a polarizing figure and most hate him or love him...not much in between. I enjoy SA for what it is...but again it is SA. BUT for 99% of us this protest would never have occurred. People might even have been happy the boat still got out with the crew, and would have welcomed the competition. But Scot is the 1% not the 99%...and as a result some other jerk decided to piss him off. Perhaps just another bully, perhaps just an asshole, perhaps just someone reacting to Scot. I don't know, nor do I care. Ultimately Scot probably has no one to blame for this waste of time outside of himself...because if he was a bit less of a polarizing figure then this guy would have never considered the protest. Don't know...perhaps it is just karma.
  11. I think both of you are being a dick yes. You can tell me to fuck off all you want. That does not change the fact that a) he is an asshole for protesting your boat for a BS situation (even if he is right...) and you were an asshole for posting this to the front page of SA in the manner you did. Regardless...did you or Alex pay the $40? Quite simple if you ask me. If yes...then case closed. If no...then frankly you are going to have to defend yourself in the protest. It sucks, but other option is to drop out OR ask for "forgiveness" to the club and see if they will enter Alex separate for that race. You won't get credit, but many will allow it. There are better ways than trying to bully a bully back.
  12. Ryley, Registration does not mean he is meeting the NOR. Far from cut and dry. He could modify his boat for example and no longer be in spec for his PHRF rating...the registration would not "waive" that. Just like part 3 of the NOR under "FEES" would not be skipped just because his registration is on the website. The NOR and SI's are to be followed by both the regatta and the competitors. A mistake by one does not exonerate the other from upholding their requirement. As an example. Lets say I belong to club XYZ which last year was a member in good standing of US Sailing. BUT...outside of my control club XYZ did not pay their dues to US Sailing, and as a result is not "affiliated with US Sailing". I might not have known this, totally outside of my control. But...according to 2.1 I am no longer eligible to enter this race. Yep it sucks, and 99.99% of the time no one would care, no one would protest, and no one would not accept my $40....but I would be wrong even though it had nothing to do with me. Sadly regattas have been won and lost by small things like this. It sucks. IT is stupid. It does not change the reality that this buy got beat on the water. But that all does not matter...what matters is if the entrance was done proper to the NOR and SI, and that the boat/entrance conformed to these. People don't realize how important the fine print is, both from a competitor and a race committee/host.
  13. Actually I am not barking up the wrong mast lol. The NOR defines the "eligibility for the event", and non payment of required fees is not a simple accounting matter, it does determine if you are part of the event or not. If you do not pay, or meet the financial obligation under the NOR, then you are not part of the event. Also as per the NOR, no "waiving of the fee" exists, you are either a CRA member or not...if not you must pay your $40. CRA membership is defined by the CRA bylaws, and those bylaws become part of the regatta when CRA membership is required. The word "skipper" is key there, and you cannot skipper a boat in a race without being on that boat (long since defined by sailing cases). This really is an important issue as a racer to understand. The NOR is not "wishy washy", it is essentially a legal document that you must obey, and the regatta must obey. People who run regattas are very careful on this process, and mistakes can and have ruined major regattas for people. So again I will say it one more time. The results of this protest really hinge on if the boat entrance paid their $40 or not. If they did then protest dismissed. IF they did not, then the committee will have to determine if the entry met the requirement of CRA membership or not. Based on the reading I see as per the bylaws, they did not since the CRA member of record was not on board operating as the skipper as per IV.2.A of the CRA bylaws. There really is no gray here...of course this is a protest hearing at a club level, so there are lots of shades of everything.
  14. Ryley. The NOR does state that the entrance fee for non CRA members is $40. The assumption is that the boat is either non-CRA or operating under the rules that are defined by the CRA membership (which is defined in the bylaws). Essentially...either have a CRA member on board operating as the skipper, or pay your $40 and register your boat as whatever you want. This is really not a new situation (perhaps new here, but this same discussion happens everywhere). Someone wants to sail in "club XYZ's" event, so to do that they either need to pay their fee, or meet the rules of that club's entrance. Many clubs are just fine with guests borrowing club member's boats, others may not be. Really depends on the club and the people involved, but ultimately the rules are set by the NOR, SI, and indirectly the bylaws of the club when membership is required (again to waive the entrance fee, or when club membership is required). In this case it is either $40 to enter OR have a CRA member skippering the boat. As a note...I have seen this same situation occur when "guest drivers" show up and sail a boat to a win in a club series. Even if that is legal under the eligibility for the series...it can piss people off at the minimum. Probably bad form at the minimum. I really do not have anything to do with this fight...I frankly think the protest is not really appropriate (perhaps "legal"). I also think airing this on SA is also a dick move, and probably violates several aspects of the RRS, items such as due process would be violated by having a one sided discussion about what really is a legally binding process (as the Hall verdict proved to US Sailing). Scot would have been better served not allowing any discussion, or presenting it in a neutral way (vs the way it was presented). But that is not his way, and he probably has not learned from the past. I don't think so. The NOR and SI are extensions of the RRS, so a competitor is subject to protest for not honoring those documents; however, neither NOR nor SI say anything about having to be a member of CRA; therefore, how on god's green earth do you get protested for the bylaws of a club? That would mean every club you race at could protest you for some breach of club etiquette, which has fukoll to do with racing.
  15. CRA membership waives the entrance fee. So for the boat to be entered without paying the fee (as per the NOR) they have to meet the CRA membership rules, which defines what is allowed under the CRA membership section of the bylaws. The NOR does allow any boat to enter. I could enter my boat. BUT I would have to pay $40 as I am not a CRA member and I would not have had a CRA member using their "rights" to enter the boat. I think that is the point...by the CRA member not being on the boat, the boat is not eligible for free entrance to the regatta. So once again...did the boat pay the $40 to enter the regatta? Where does it say the Bylaws of the CRA will govern the regatta? You don't even have to be a member of the CRA to enter the regatta. And it's irrelevant, but it says the fee can be waived by the Board.