It seems that Bruce Kirby has at last applied a blow torch
Having been through the almost 150 pages of documents presented to the US Federal Court, over a long wet weekend here in the UK, I will not be the least surprised if ISAF decides its needs to back away from its previous position. The 1992 ISAF plaque agreement is so simple even this non-lawyer can understand it. And the 1983 original agreement with the IYRU is too.
It would not be hard to imagine in the next week a direction from ISAF to the ILCA to stop issuing plaques to LP.
If that happens then we are in a new world.
Its been proven many times over that One Design racing does not have to be in the fastest boat, it has to be in a uniform boat, so that the very best sailor emerges from the pack.
We have 200k+ of a 1969 design, so it has critical mass. I sat on Nothe Hill in Weymouth and I saw young Australian Tom Slingsby win Gold.
The best sailor emerged from the pack.
As a Laser sailor I was in awe.
Right now the class needs to move forward, I don't care if its called a Laser or a Torch, if the class insignia is upside down (thanks Torrid)
I just want to go sailing, I want to be able to buy a new boat, buy parts and I want to know that the class is run by honourable people and by builders who pay their design royalties to the guy who designed it.. And yes I want a cheaper legal sail
Am I alone??
This is a total distortion of what happened. GS was not a builder. They happen to own a company that build Lasers, but they are a holding company. But that misses the point. All GS asked the ILCA to do was to uphold its rules and contractual obligations. Instead, the ILCA decided to change the class rules and ignore contractual obligations. The next point is that after the BKI were sold back to BK, it was not a builder asking the ILCA to comply with its own rules and obligations. While this is a case of the rules being used in a contractual dispute, that dispute is exactly why the rules were written in that way. What the ILCA has done is to say that it was happy to give protection to parties in the agreements while it wasn't needed, but as soon as it was needed and events happened that were the very reason for the writing of the rules and agreements, they didn't want to provide that protection any more!
As for your comment about the class association not taking sides, they actually admit that they have, so your point is totally invalid! Worse still, they have taken sides with a builder at the expense of its members in geographies that aren't covered by that builder. We now have a situation, which they were warned about, where it is likely that you cannot buy a class legal Laser in something like 2/3rds of the world. That may only represent a minority of the sailors, but it shows the claim that it was done to protect supply is, at best, misguided.
And none of what you say detracts from the proven facts that in proposing the rule change, the ILCA was both misleading and economical with the truth in the way it presented the arguments to the class members. It is that simple fact that blows your arguments out of the water. Add to that the likelihood that the rule change was actually railroaded in an unconstitutional manner, and it is very hard to see how your arguments stack up.
Or are you suggesting that the end justifies the means and that the ILCA deliberately mislead the membership for its own good?