• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

~Stingray~

Jury Decision

413 posts in this topic

RN 189 (rudder changes to class rule) is ordered withdrawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read and understand every word before posting....... HA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is clear, ETNZ and Luna Rossa wins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they'd done anything else it would have been very disappointing - and only 23 pages to hash through it. Now can we go racing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad-but now lets see some racing......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody post a brief review of the jury decision please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8(B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can I infer that AR can use their original rule-compliant rudders? If so, then I'm good with it. Only thing I did not want to see happen was for the requirements for length and area, which would make AR's originals unusable, and they would end up with the boot. Now, hopefully they can use their originals, immediately, and modify their new rudders to make them asymmetrical in time for the LV Semis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

 

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

 

Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?

ETNZ would concede trainer wheels for AR to keep them in the event and safe from PC et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the dispensation involve?

 

I think ETNZ meant they'd like to go with the recommendations they'd agreed and AR would have dispensation not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?

ETNZ would concede trainer wheels for AR to keep them in the event and safe from PC et al.

 

Ah, I had never hear they had requested that. Good for them. Not sure if they thought it had any chance of being approved, but still, good on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

 

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?

 

No, just the recommendation regarding the rudder wings/length etc. The others are agreed to by all parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

 

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?

 

No, just the recommendation regarding the rudder wings/length etc. The others are agreed to by all parties.

 

And the extra 100KG is also out. That may now be the biggest hurdle for AR, as they can comply with the rudders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A doozy. Thanks for the post Stingray.

Will read and inwardly digest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the 100kg too?

How much does PC weigh?
Do you want your answer in kilograms, pounds, stones or bacon sandwiches? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

* Regatta Notice 188, which did not deal with the Class Rule, is upheld.

* Regatta Notice 189, which has the effect of changing the Class Rule, is ordered by the Jury to be withdrawn.

* The Class Rule as it stood prior to RN 189 is now back in effect.

* The Jury does not see the Marine Permit as a binding law that overrides the consent-of-all-teams requirement for Class Rule changes.

* The "Event Sponsor" must now tell the USCG that there will be a difference in the event.

* The Jury believes that all teams are entitled to chime in to the USCG about the change -- not just GGYC.

* (My commentary: It will be interesting to see what the USCG does if they get mixed feedback, but the Jury decision summarizes USCG testimony in a way that seems like they have said in many ways that they don't really get into the business of vessel design issues.)

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

* The Jury didn't give AR a pass on the new rules, as they did not see clear authority to do so.

* The Jury did offer mediation services (my speculation: perhaps to deal with AR issue).

* The Jury "specifically reminds" all competitors to comply with the rule prohibiting acts that tarnish the reputation of the Cup and noted that (unnamed) competitors had made "inflammatory" comments. But no finding was made as to whether these comments crossed the line and were sanctionable.

* The Jury was invited to use its own authority to change the Class Rule, in the absence of the RD having the authority. The Jury seems to believe that it is not sufficiently clear that the Jury could have done this, so they declined to do so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news from the IJ

 

I just hope IM can take it in his stride and not pull the pin on the whole game

Also, I hope PC and AR don't quit. I felt sorry for guys like NO who are desperate to be out there racing and pulling all stops to get the boat going. They'll be hugely disappointed if all their efforts are for nothing.

 

I hope all competitors can follow ETNZ’s lead and collectively grant AR a dispensation to race with non-protocol legal rudders. Something that was outside the IJ's power to allow, but surely ok via unanimous agreement.

 

It would be a sporting gesture amid the acrimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we are back to where we should have been 3+ weeks ago...get the teams in a room and decide what changes they can ALL agree to, then change them. yeah! Now we see how IM handles the slap on the wrists (on in the face). Does he now say the regatta isn't safe like he threatened to do and force the CG to rescind the permit, or does he concede that these weren't required for a safe regatta? Would that get him fired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JN075 Case AC24/25 Decision 11 July 2013

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

There are no legal "old style winglets" - there's a tiny, afaik untested asymmetrical elevator stabilizer without a convenient trim tab (I suppose AoA adjustment range via rudder rake is more limited). Am waiting for alert poster eric e's graphic manipulation to know if it's even 0.22 m2 , as claimed by TS. The only thing going for it is it's orange! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news from the IJ

 

I just hope IM can take it in his stride and not pull the pin on the whole game

Also, I hope PC and AR don't quit. I felt sorry for guys like NO who are desperate to be out there racing and pulling all stops to get the boat going. They'll be hugely disappointed if all their efforts are for nothing.

 

I hope all competitors can follow ETNZ’s lead and collectively grant AR a dispensation to race with non-protocol legal rudders. Something that was outside the IJ's power to allow, but surely ok via unanimous agreement.

 

It would be a sporting gesture amid the acrimony.

 

THAT would be a GREAT move! It seems like it should be a relatively obvious solution at this point. The teams could all go unanimous consent on the 35 rules, then give AR life. It would absolutely allow for the event to go on in the best possible form, retain the rules, and maximize safety.

 

The only thing I had been opposed to was changing the rules with moving goal-posts, which would have precluded AR from racing while actually complying with two separate sets of rules. But if the teams could account for that, and mutually consent to such a solution, then everyone wins but OR, and I'm fine with that, even though I'm an OR supporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

JN075 Case AC24/25 Decision 11 July 2013

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

There are no legal "old style winglets" - there's a tiny, afaik untested asymmetrical elevator stabilizer without a convenient trim tab (I suppose AoA adjustment range via rudder rake is more limited). Am waiting for alert poster eric e's graphic manipulation to know if it's even 0.22 m2 , as claimed by TS. The only thing going for it is it's orange! :D

stabilizers, whatever you say, it'll still be veeery interesting don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone just give an actual summary ....

I tried, see above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

 

 

If RC is correct, it will not phase them as they have foiled using class legal rudders without a performance drop

If PC is correct, then OR will only lose 0.00x kts of boat speed by changing to protocol legal rudders.

If SA posters are correct OR will immediately return to B1 - floppy submarine status

 

Sounds like a new "place your bets on the effects" thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is called a shot gun approach

 

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 (B). The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

 

 

If RC is correct, it will not phase them as they have foiled using class legal rudders without a performance drop

If PC is correct, then OR will only lose 0.00x kts of boat speed by changing to protocol legal rudders.

If SA posters are correct OR will immediately return to B1 - floppy submarine status

 

Sounds like a new "place your bets on the effects" thread...

According to the guys in the Oracle thread they have never sailed with legal elevators. Why would they start now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant Dalton says it is OK with him if AR sails however they need to. But not OR!

 

http://www.vsail.info/2013/07/11/statement-from-grant-dalton-regarding-decision-of-americas-cup-international-jury/

 

 

Good statement from GD. Again, my biggest issue was always forcing AR out by making them comply with some rules but not letting them have other opportunity that was allowed them through the recommendations. But this solution, by GD, assuming they can secure unanimous consent, would solve that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think this is called a shot gun approach

 

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 ( B). The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."

paging stingray. clean up required in aisle 42,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

 

Yes, it's interesting that, in some ways, the Jury has called the bluff of the Event Sponsors. They now face the task of swallowing their past claims and informing the USCG that the event will go forward on the old rules. Of course, it sounds like their communication to the Coast Guard will also include "oh, by the way, AR thinks the event is now unsafe and we kinda agree, but ENTZ and LR are fine with it." Will have to be one of the strangest MEP amendments Sector SF has yet received!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if and a big if....

 

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

 

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if and a big if....

 

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

 

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.

 

The solution to that would be having a sunset clause that requires them to be fully compliant by either the LV finals, or the AC, itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if and a big if....

 

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

 

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.

the answer is simple they can compete but not score if they use the big stabilizers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.

I don't know why ACRM and ACEA based a large part of the argument on needing to change the Class Rules in order to satisfy the MEP, and then called a witness from the CG who said, we don't impose design regulations on event participants.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the ETNZ legal team did a good job of anticipating and debunking arguments put forward by ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTSUA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all surprised that the USCG have said they don't dictate design rules - there have been many posts on SA saying virtually the same thing (hey SWS, looks like my "vibe" was correct after-all :P ).

 

Anyway, a good result from the IJ and let's get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.

more than a PRO for StFYC...check your history. But that's not really relevant in this overall discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant Dalton says it is OK with him if AR sails however they need to. But not OR!

 

http://www.vsail.info/2013/07/11/statement-from-grant-dalton-regarding-decision-of-americas-cup-international-jury/

 

Of course, what's wrong with this? It's not like he's saying that AR can race and score points... I think the principle is a sporting one. As said above - 'let them compete but they must comply to win'.

 

I'm sure they'd apply the same principle to the actual AC - "sure OTUSA can defend with any design they want, however if it doesn't comply with the Class Rules they can't score any points". ;)

 

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Well he did make a very significant professional error in judgement that obviously exceeded his authority and cost many competitors a lot of money, some of it totally wasted.

 

I'm not suggesting is name is "mud" but equally, those that criticised his actions (not his person) were entirely justified.

 

I'm sure he had good intentions but he exercised them incorrectly and when you're in a position of significant influence and do this it's called professional negligence.

 

He made a very, very serious mistake and should be held to account for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was IM thinking? It's all about liability and giving the ~appearance~ of caring about safety, is my guess.

 

So he needed to develop a process, any process, even a stupid process, to show the judge when it goes to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been too busy to read everything and try to figure this one out yet:

 

Are we sure that rudder-elevators revert to having no minimum size, as in the original Design Rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

(cue in Lou Reed)

And the Alinghi Friends go

"BO FD BO FD BO FD FD BO ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

 

 

No.

 

IM just got spanked - completely.

There is some reconciliation talk from the teams (eg GD) but IM has been found acting beyond his jurisdiction

Peter Lester has just said on TV NZ that he thinks IM should resign, but does not think he will.

There is also the question of who would replace him.

 

Despite the reconciliation talk, IM has lost the confidence of LR and TNZ. The honorable thing to do (after putting this regatta into turmoil) would be to step down.

 

However, that is the decision of IM only. Meanwhile we all move on and watch LR on the race course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been too busy to read everything and try to figure this one out yet:

 

Are we sure that rudder-elevators revert to having no minimum size, as in the original Design Rule?

 

cleaned up in aisle 42 yet? :lol:

do you think IM/GGYC will now stop the regatta as they threatened? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

I would be first to apologise and agree with the IJ's summation of IM being "experienced and impartial".

 

For me (and most except for the "witch hunt in Salem" crowd) the dispute was not about his integrity but his proces

Despite being a great & honourable guy, we wouldn't have had this whole IJ palaver if he hadn't overstepped his mandate and tried to ram through Class Rule changes without consent.

 

Again, his intent was honourable, a guy (and a friend) died "on his watch"as RD, no one could blame him for wanting to go super safe,

but via the efforts to alter the class rule, he neglected his other responsibility to ensure a fair competition IMO.

 

Regardless, I am happy that the IJ have cemented his integrity into the Public Record as it shouldn't be in question.

 

Now, let's go racing Iain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

 

 

No.

 

IM just got spanked - completely.

There is some reconciliation talk from the teams (eg GD) but IM has been found acting beyond his jurisdiction

Peter Lester has just said on TV NZ that he thinks IM should resign, but does not think he will.

There is also the question of who would replace him.

 

Despite the reconciliation talk, IM has lost the confidence of LR and TNZ. The honorable thing to do (after putting this regatta into turmoil) would be to step down.

 

However, that is the decision of IM only. Meanwhile we all move on and watch LR on the race course.

 

 

No. The point was that a lot of people around here were claiming IM was in the bag with OR. That concept was refuted by the IJ, as well as GD, MS, et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Grant Dalton says it is OK with him if AR sails however they need to. But not OR!

 

http://www.vsail.info/2013/07/11/statement-from-grant-dalton-regarding-decision-of-americas-cup-international-jury/

 

Of course, what's wrong with this? It's not like he's saying that AR can race and score points... I think the principle is a sporting one. As said above - 'let them compete but they must comply to win'.

 

I'm sure they'd apply the same principle to the actual AC - "sure OTUSA can defend with any design they want, however if it doesn't comply with the Class Rules they can't score any points". ;)

 

 

>

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Well he did make a very significant professional error in judgement that obviously exceeded his authority and cost many competitors a lot of money, some of it totally wasted.

 

I'm not suggesting is name is "mud" but equally, those that criticised his actions (not his person) were entirely justified.

 

I'm sure he had good intentions but he exercised them incorrectly and when you're in a position of significant influence and do this it's called professional negligence.

 

He made a very, very serious mistake and should be held to account for that.

 

 

Significant error in judgement is one thing, but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR. Straight up character assasination. It was uncalled for and simply wrong.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was only ever this outcome. Sanity is alive at the AC after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Sure, whatever. Am reminded of the French "it's worse than a crime, it's a mistake". Fall on his sword?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Sure, whatever. Am reminded of the French "it's worse than a crime, it's a mistake". Fall on his sword?

 

Didn't figure you to be cool with the mob that attacked IM's character. Learned something else new today.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what authority or expertise does the IJ have in judging IM's character. What evidence one way or the other did they consider in making a judgement on IM's impartiality. I didn't see any evidence or arguments put forth by the teams nor was the IJ asked to pass judgement on this issue. I read that section as a total throw away line by the IJ to try their best to be nice to a friend they were slapping the wrist of and try to give him an opportunity to continue. I personally don't think IM, was on the take or anything to that effect. I think he was just trying to do his best and got carried away with his own power, but honestly, why did the IJ feel the need to state this and what evidence did they base that on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

 

Check yourself, there, tiger. From what I recall, the "stars & stripes" contingent have defended IM's integrity, stated that OR has not been cheating, and called for a decision that did not end up precluding at team from racing simply by following the rules they knew and those that had been proposed. I do not remember anyone saying that the rules should not revert back to the original protocol, but some of us did warn that doing so may end up causing problems with securing full approval for the regatta. We have still yet to see how that will work out. The other thing many of us were in agreement was that the rules should not include some, but not others, and in so doing, preclude AR from racing, just for having follows the rules they knew and the proposed rules. From what I can see, that has not happened, as it appears, with the way things now stand, AR can race with their original rudders.

 

So before you act like an ass, think a little about what has actually been said an how the ruling was actually presented.

 

The question, now, is how will things go with the teams trying to agree with each other to really enhance safety.

 

By the way, OR has not been cheating, they only provided their opinion of what would be safest, and have always proclaimed they can and will comply with whatever the rules are by the time they actually race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ibsalin - I think the IJ made those statements because of the unsubstantiated character assassinations;

 

Significant error in judgement is one thing, but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR. Straight up character assasination. It was uncalled for and simply wrong.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Accepted without objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

 

Actually, I think the worst would have been if the IJ had done the split, having the new rudder length / elevator area requirements without the permissive max beam stipulation. That would have scratched AR. I believe the current decision, with the new pressure of getting something agreed-upon so things can progress, provides the avenue for new mutual consent that will allow all of the teams to move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

 

Check yourself, there, tiger. From what I recall, the "stars & stripes" contingent have defended IM's integrity, stated that OR has not been cheating, and called for a decision that did not end up precluding at team from racing simply by following the rules they knew and those that had been proposed. I do not remember anyone saying that the rules should not revert back to the original protocol, but some of us did warn that doing so may end up causing problems with securing full approval for the regatta. We have still yet to see how that will work out. The other thing many of us were in agreement was that the rules should not include some, but not others, and in so doing, preclude AR from racing, just for having follows the rules they knew and the proposed rules. From what I can see, that has not happened, as it appears, with the way things now stand, AR can race with their original rudders.

 

Edit: You're both wrong I'm afraid. (actually, I'm not sure that Daniel is saying anything different than I am... -_-)

 

The "'stars & stripes' contingent" (nice) were neither entirely impartial nor were they entirely bias.

 

There were two or three that were apparently just too stupid to understand and continued to express irrational views but once you've eliminated those statistical outliers then for the most part I saw typical partisan support which you can't hold against anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR statement:

 

"We respect the decision of the America’s Cup Jury," said Grant Simmer, ORACLE TEAM USA General Manager. “We continue to support the Regatta Director and we believe all teams have benefited from his review. We don’t have an issue complying with the Class Rule, and we will be ready to race under the rules affirmed by the Jury.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ Brilliant move from the AC management. Stingray do you confirm the idea of the CG came from TE ?

 

They will now have to go back to the USCG and propose a lower offer accepted by all the competitors at the risk of cancelling the event.... Well, brilliant move...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

 

Check yourself, there, tiger. From what I recall, the "stars & stripes" contingent have defended IM's integrity, stated that OR has not been cheating, and called for a decision that did not end up precluding at team from racing simply by following the rules they knew and those that had been proposed. I do not remember anyone saying that the rules should not revert back to the original protocol, but some of us did warn that doing so may end up causing problems with securing full approval for the regatta. We have still yet to see how that will work out. The other thing many of us were in agreement was that the rules should not include some, but not others, and in so doing, preclude AR from racing, just for having follows the rules they knew and the proposed rules. From what I can see, that has not happened, as it appears, with the way things now stand, AR can race with their original rudders.

 

So before you act like an ass, think a little about what has actually been said an how the ruling was actually presented.

 

The question, now, is how will things go with the teams trying to agree with each other to really enhance safety.

 

By the way, OR has not been cheating, they only provided their opinion of what would be safest, and have always proclaimed they can and will comply with whatever the rules are by the time they actually race.

No pontificating necessary and for my part it was not an attack on IM's character, he meant well, but got it wrong, two had shown that those changes were not fundamental to safety and were justified (now vindicated) in questioning the validity of those decisions and allowing a dangerous precedent to be set. That's all it was about.

I meant only a very limited few headinSFfogtightunderpantedindividuals, apologies for being too general

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

I'd like to see his reaction B4 I decide exactly what I think of IM - if its a big hissy fit and attempts to cancel the regatta then not so good. Applogise for the chaos and just get on with it (or resign) then maybe just unwise. I think with AR if you change the class rule for them they need to be able to run with it for the comp. It's a risk for ETNZ and LR but so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

IM's judgement was flawed, autocratic and his saying he doesn't know Larry Ellison has the dull thud of a not all together true and defensive statement.

 

I wish him well and hope he stays in the job as I think he will learn something about process from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

 

Actually, I think the worst would have been if the IJ had done the split, having the new rudder length / elevator area requirements without the permissive max beam stipulation. That would have scratched AR. I believe the current decision, with the new pressure of getting something agreed-upon so things can progress, provides the avenue for new mutual consent that will allow all of the teams to move forward.

 

But that was never subject of the protest. Why invent it? The Jury never had any reason to rule on that or decide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was only ever this outcome. Sanity is alive at the AC after all.

Sanity was always just a gossamer sheet away, just not on these pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

I'd like to see his reaction B4 I decide exactly what I think of IM - if its a big hissy fit and attempts to cancel the regatta then not so good. Applogise for the chaos and just get on with it (or resign) then maybe just unwise. I think with AR if you change the class rule for them they need to be able to run with it for the comp. It's a risk for ETNZ and LR but so be it.

 

IM is not going to, nor should he, apologize. All he should do is his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR.

 

Nonsense. Only an handful of flag-waving Kiwis ever said that.

 

Whether the changes would have favoured OR and whether that was IM's motivation are two different questions entirely. Whether IM's motives were impure or whether his judgement has been poor are two different propositions entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think this is called a shot gun approach

 

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 ( B). The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."

paging stingray. clean up required in aisle 42,

 

I think the PR people are still drafting what he needs to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

 

Actually, I think the worst would have been if the IJ had done the split, having the new rudder length / elevator area requirements without the permissive max beam stipulation. That would have scratched AR. I believe the current decision, with the new pressure of getting something agreed-upon so things can progress, provides the avenue for new mutual consent that will allow all of the teams to move forward.

 

But that was never subject of the protest. Why invent it? The Jury never had any reason to rule on that or decide it.

 

I certainly did not invent it. ETNZ and LR both supported the longer rudders and elevators (along with OR and AR), but did not support the symmetry/max-beam clauses. The concern would be, in this rather uncommon situation, that the implication was that the length/area clauses had mutual consent, and would be supported by the IJ. The IJ understood the timing issue, with racing already started, and I could see them seeing the case where those two components, that did have universal support, could be considered to have had mutual consent, and decided that they were now part of the rule. Had that happened, then it would have had the impact of what I was concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR.

 

Nonsense. Only an handful of flag-waving Kiwis ever said that.

 

Whether the changes would have favoured OR and whether that was IM's motivation are two different questions entirely. Whether IM's motives were impure or whether his judgement has been poor are two different propositions entirely.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

That is so true! Same with Oracle-the lynch mob tried to besmirch the good name of Murray, Coutts and a few others. They should apologize...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ Brilliant move from the AC management. Stingray do you confirm the idea of the CG came from TE ?

That is not what I ever meant to imply, so feel free to not keep posting it so pointlessly.

 

TE may have supported the submission to the CG given the circumstances at the time; may even have supported it strongly; may still feel it was correct. But I don't know that to be the case.

 

Regardless where TE may have been on it, I myself think that IM has and will continue to do what ~he~ thinks is best for the safety of the event. And that creates a continuing problem, because two teams refused to back his recommendations, despite being unable to properly explain why.

 

Oh well. Fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually, I think the worst would have been if the IJ had done the split, having the new rudder length / elevator area requirements without the permissive max beam stipulation. That would have scratched AR. I believe the current decision, with the new pressure of getting something agreed-upon so things can progress, provides the avenue for new mutual consent that will allow all of the teams to move forward.

But that was never subject of the protest. Why invent it? The Jury never had any reason to rule on that or decide it.

 

I certainly did not invent it. ETNZ and LR both supported the longer rudders and elevators (along with OR and AR), but did not support the symmetry/max-beam clauses. The concern would be, in this rather uncommon situation, that the implication was that the length/area clauses had mutual consent, and would be supported by the IJ. The IJ understood the timing issue, with racing already started, and I could see them seeing the case where those two components, that did have universal support, could be considered to have had mutual consent, and decided that they were now part of the rule. Had that happened, then it would have had the impact of what I was concerned about.

 

The protest was not about this scenario, and the Jury rules only on the issues that are protested.

 

Of course, if there is mutual consent, the class rule can be changed. But (!) Artemis has a vote in the mutual consent like the other teams, so they can refute any class rule change as well. The issue you see was never there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hoping for a "well that de-escalated quickly" result...

 

-The IJ ruling is seen as just a "procedural clarification"

- Iain has a group hug with the teams who declare they still respect him and they submit a revised application to CG for amended MEP.

- The goodwill (love-in) continues and unanimously agreed concessions are made to ensure Artemis can race.

- The racing continues as safely and spectacularly as the first two "races" have shown.

- All in all bridges are mended, fences are fixed and no-one including IM is materially disadvantaged.

 

It would be nice to prove that there's enough goodwill that the AC can recover from a vested interest dust up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wethog

I don't believe that 'most' did suggest him to be in bed with OR, and those that said that did not get wide support - the problem for most was simply there was not agreement on proposals from all. On the other hand Wethog, I wonder if those that slandered GDs character, and then inferred that the handshake of people in the Southern Hemisphere could not be trusted, will be similarly quick to step up to the plate and apologise?

Cheers

 

 

Grant Dalton says it is OK with him if AR sails however they need to. But not OR!

http://www.vsail.info/2013/07/11/statement-from-grant-dalton-regarding-decision-of-americas-cup-international-jury/

 

Of course, what's wrong with this? It's not like he's saying that AR can race and score points... I think the principle is a sporting one. As said above - 'let them compete but they must comply to win'.

 

I'm sure they'd apply the same principle to the actual AC - "sure OTUSA can defend with any design they want, however if it doesn't comply with the Class Rules they can't score any points". ;)

 

 


>>

 

 



After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Well he did make a very significant professional error in judgement that obviously exceeded his authority and cost many competitors a lot of money, some of it totally wasted.

 

I'm not suggesting is name is "mud" but equally, those that criticised his actions (not his person) were entirely justified.

 

I'm sure he had good intentions but he exercised them incorrectly and when you're in a position of significant influence and do this it's called professional negligence.

 

He made a very, very serious mistake and should be held to account for that.

 

 

Significant error in judgement is one thing, but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR. Straight up character assasination. It was uncalled for and simply wrong.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jury verdict is a bit anti-climactic really. The most surprising aspect of the decision is the exposure of how bad and inaccurate the legal advice Murray received from the GGYC legal poodles which convinced him to try to force through Class Rule changes he had no authority to do. The ETNZ legal eagles methodically dissected all the legal authorities cited by GGYC/ACEA/ACRM and effectively imposed their interpretations on the Jury who, in a word, agreed with them - including the olive branch of a special dispensation to allow AR to "pariticipate"!! As for ACEA, the Jury effectively switched off when they made their submission. And OR's submission did not match all the bravado BS in their publicity campaign pushing the "safety" party line: in fact their presentation was only marginally more topical than ACEA's.

 

Murray must be feeling a bit bruised in the realisation that he has been played and tossed under the bus by his employers...no wonder these folks on the left look a bit uptight.

GMR_AC34JulyD8_1285-780x519.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of NZ sourced media did portray Murray as bribed and a cheat; some here still do.

 

Wethog

I don't believe that 'most' did suggest him to be in bed with OR

 

 

Murray must be feeling a bit bruised in the realisation that he has been played and tossed under the bus by his employers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait for GD to get his hat handed to him, legally, without any excuses. Seems he is still looking for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that creates a continuing problem, because two teams refused to back his recommendations, despite being unable to properly explain why.

 

You need to read the decision as you obviously have not.

 

Once you've read it, if you have any doubts then you should ask questions to obtain clarity.

 

If you follow this procedure then you'll stop making a twit of yourself. It's obvious to even the most casual observer that you're struggling with the intricacies of this matter (across multiple threads) and the best advice here would be to ask questions rather than make statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read Indio's comment as an accusation of cheating one bit. It reads that IM has been given the task of doing the safety recommendations without having the requisite corporate and organisational support to do so from his employers - his employers are not OR. Lets face it - the ruling hardly supported the decision making process that got us to this place.

A lot of NZ sourced media did portray Murray as bribed and a cheat; some here still do.

 

Wethog

I don't believe that 'most' did suggest him to be in bed with OR

 

 

>

Murray must be feeling a bit bruised in the realisation that he has been played and tossed under the bus by his employers...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re IM

 

I think IM meant well but the stress of the situation became too great. This decision actually benefits IM because he will never be accused of not creating a safe environment for the sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of NZ sourced media did portray Murray as bribed and a cheat; some here still do.

 

 

Wethog

I don't believe that 'most' did suggest him to be in bed with OR

Murray must be feeling a bit bruised in the realisation that he has been played and tossed under the bus by his employers...

 

Have to disagree with your interpretation there SR

 

To me both of those comments infer that others were trying to use IM to further their cause, not that IM was complicit in doing so.

 

Whether it was the intent of OR to gain advantages, or a pure safety initiative will be a new chapter for Bob Fishers book, but hopefully, at least for this Cup, of historic interest only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites