Archived

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

Editor

not certified.

Recommended Posts

Graham McKenzie is a lawyer from New Zealand who has been a member of the Jury for the last three America’s Cups. Prior to that, he seems to have no real significant history in yacht racing. McKenzie has been non-responsive to repeated requests for comment on this article.

 

The ISAF Judges Manual is very specific about conflict of interest saying, “A conflict of interest exists when an ISAF Race Official has, or reasonably appears to have, a personal or financial interest which could affect the officials ability to be impartial”. McKenzie is a member of the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron, who as the world knows was one of the two competing clubs in the last America’s Cup. How is being a member of one of the two competing clubs in the America’s Cup not a conflict of interest for a member of the America’s Cup Jury? Why does McKenzie get a pass from the ISAF Executive Committee on this?

 

McKenzie and Bryan Willis were the two members of the AC 34 Jury who also acted as the investigators of the Oracle Team USA AC 45 measurement issue in early August of ‘13. Prior to the commencement of the hearing Willis and McKenzie interviewed more than 12 Oracle team members. Then McKenzie and Willis interviewed Lee Ann LaFrance, who was hired by Oracle Racing USA to perform an internal investigation into the AC 45 measurement discrepancies. McKenzie and Willis then gave this information from their interviews of the team members and LeFrance to the other three members of the Jury, without disclosing to the defense attorneys they interviewed LeFrance or the fact they had taken notes. Both McKenzie and Willis then assumed their roles on the Jury. Willis and McKenzie refused to allow themselves to be cross-examined by the sailor’s attorneys. As we know, the result of that hearing was a 2 point penalty for the team, disqualification from the Cup for Dirk de Ridder, and penalties for other sailors. However, Simeon Tienpont, who helped to place lead in the king post, got no penalty at all. These facts are important because the AC 34 Jury operated, or at least was supposed to have, under the US Federal Arbitration Act and New York Convention of 1958.

 

During the de Ridder Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing, held at CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland during October of ‘14, McKenzie said he wanted to refer to his notes. De Ridder’s lawyers asked, “What notes?” McKenzie replied about the notes he took from his never before disclosed interview of LeFrance. Yet 14 months after the AC 45 hearing, this was the first de Ridder or his lawyers had ever heard that Willis and McKenzie had interviewed LeFrance in their roles as investigators prior to the AC 45 measurement hearing. LeFrance may well have information that changes the facts of the case upon which the decision to impose penalties on de Ridder, and other sailors, was based, particularly because her investigation was not complete.

 

Just prior to the hearing at CAS, on September 19th McKenzie wrote an email to OTUSA team member Matt Mitchell, who had been penalized by the AC 34 Jury. In that email McKenzie offered to help Mitchell get a more favorable treatment from the ISAF Disciplinary Commission if he testified on behalf of ISAF. Copied on that email from McKenzie were ISAF in-house counsel Jon Napier, former Alinghi General Counsel Hamish Ross (who was also ACRM counsel) and Brad Butterworth. McKenzie is not a member of the ISAF Disciplinary Commission, but he is a member of the Review Board, so exactly how he would have accomplished helping Mitchell in the Disciplinary Commission hearing is a bit of mystery. As of this writing, more than 16 months after the initial penalty, Mitchell still awaits his fate from the ISAF Disciplinary Commission.

 

Perhaps most disappointing, if not worrisome, is that during the ISAF Executive Committee meeting in New York on September 6, 2104 the Executive said the following, per the minutes of their meeting in 3(B) i) DECISION: “The Executive Committee were unanimous in their agreement on how to proceed with regards to the CAS appeal”. Given the sequence of dates here, does this mean the Executive Committee approved of McKenzie’s attempt to sway the testimony of Matt Mitchell in return for a lesser penalty from the Disciplinary Commission?

 

The CAS ruling on de Ridder shows all these facts. CAS in a split 2-1 vote reduced de Ridder’s penalty from the initial draconian five years imposed by the ISAF Disciplinary Commission, that panel led by Charlie Manzoni, to 18 months. Manzoni declined to comment for this article as to why he feels the penalty his panel imposed on de Ridder was so seriously reduced, or what he might have learned from the CAS ruling so as to not overreach in the future.

 

After the CAS ruling was announced, former ISAF President Paul Henderson filed a formal Regulation 35 complaint with the ISAF Acting CEO Helen Fry.

 

By way of credentials, you might want to read the qualifications of the members of the Jury for the 34th America’s Cup. Do you see anything missing from McKenzie’s bio? Virtually everyone else I know missed one big thing, until last week, when a reporter in New Zealand revealed that McKenzie is not a certified ISAF Judge.

 

McKenzie’s America’s Cup 32 Jury bio shows his sailing experience to be:

Graham McKenzie is a partner in the legal firm of Bell Gully in New Zealand. He obtained an LLB at Victoria University of Wellington and an LLM at Warwick University, England. He is a Notary Public. He is a corporate Barrister and Solicitor with his experience including advising a range of industry sectors including the aircraft, construction, dairy, food and technology, yachting and wine industries. McKenzie is a director of several public companies. He is Deputy Chairman of St Kentigern Trust Board (an education trust) and a Trustee of the Bruce McLaren Trust (a charitable trust). McKenzie lives in Auckland with his wife and two children. He also has two adult children living in England and Australia. When he has the time he sails mainly around Auckland in a number of different sailboats.

 

So, the sum total of McKenzie’s sailing experience prior to his first America’s Cup as a Jury member was sailing around Auckland in a number of different boats. Isn’t that sort of like someone who has been on figure skates a couple of times suddenly being a referee in the NHL’s Stanley Cup?

 

After it was revealed that McKenzie was not an ISAF Certified Judge, then going back further and putting the pieces together on McKenzie’s non-compliance with the ISAF Regulation which requires a member of a Major Event Jury to be “Fully Trained”, and learning that McKenzie has absolutely no certification anywhere as a Race Official, Henderson filed an amended complaint against McKenzie. A check of the database for ISAF, YNZ and RNZYS shows no mention of McKenzie as a certified judge.

 

ISAF Regulation 25.8 requires that members of an international jury who are appointed or approved by ISAF for Major Events (of which the America’s Cup is one) must be “fully trained” and qualified for that event. Unfortunately, like too many of the ISAF Regulations, there is grey area here for someone like McKenzie, because he will no doubt argue in his defense that the Regulation does not specify “ISAF Certified Judges”, and instead “fully trained” is open for interpretation. “Fully Trained” will become the new “having” as this case heads to, mostly likely, CAS.

 

Last week, I asked David Tillett, who was the Chair of the AC 34 Jury, if he thought McKenzie had violated any regulations. Tillett believes that having McKenzie on the AC 34 Jury broke no Regulations. Currently, Tillett is a member of the ISAF Council, is a member of the Disciplinary Commission, and Review Board. McKenzie is a member of the Ethics Commission, Constitution Committee and Review Board. As members of the Review Board, McKenzie and Tillett are obligated to know, uphold and enforce all the ISAF Regulations, Manuals and Constitution.

 

About the same time I was having an email exchange with Tillett, Henderson was also asking Tillett questions. Tillett responded to Henderson’s comments with this; “I am comfortable with the Procedural Fairness, and leave it for ISAF to decide on your complaint. I think there are matters as the rules stand [and have for decades] that need considering in the light of CAS comments, and I am confident that will be considered and addressed.”

 

So, there you have it. The Chairman of the AC 34 Jury was comfortable with the fact that he ran a hearing which was procedurally fair, in spite of the fact he allowed in the interview of the Oracle in-house investigator, never told the defendants or their attorneys about that interview, allowed in hearsay evidence, never allowed whoever made the statements which resulted in that hearsay evidence to be cross examined while working under, at least in theory was supposed to work under, the US Federal Arbitration Act and New York rules of procedure. Per the ISAF Jury Manual in Section K13 “on the whole hearsay evidence should be disregarded”. Tillett got away with it inside ISAF, so far, and skated to some degree at CAS, though admits CAS has a point about ISAF needing to fix some rules. But will he, McKenzie and the rest of the AC 34 Jury be so lucky inside ISAF this time, or again at CAS if ISAF dismisses Henderson’s complaints, or in a US court, if it ever gets there? For the record, Tillett asked me to include my response to him, and to be fair I will. I told him I found him to be un fucking believable. I also told him I would waste no further electrons communicating with him. Obviously, as a lawyer, Tillett is just going into the full “deny everything” mode.

 

When Henderson was asked why he filed these Regulation 35 reports, a report that almost never happens, he said “I have talked to many litigation lawyers on this and they cannot believe it. We must remember ISAF are defending McKenzie by saying he was appointed to the AC34 Jury and nobody complained. When he was appointed the Challenger had not been chosen and what happened in the 45's really in no way effected this selection. The 45's was really a training session like the PGA having a Pro-Am on a par 3 course and then in the Masters suspending the golfer for 5 years because he used an illegal club in the preliminary event. There were so many countries involved it would have been difficult to find any IJ who did not have a nationality Conflict of Interest in the 45’s but ISAF must appoint a trained and experienced IJ, not just a lawyer, for the America’s Cup. Even taking away the prizes and trophies in the 45's for whatever reason maybe defensible. Once the Challenger was selected and once it became ETNZ against OTUSA and penalties were to be applied based on the 45's that impacted the AC34 competition, then the strict ISAF Rules and Regs had to be applied including but not limited to Conflict of Interest. “Hearsay” was just as important, plus all the other issues CAS points out. For whatever reason “personal or financial interests real or perceived” were ignored. That is where the Rule 35 comes into play and the Jury members must declare it and recuse themselves or go to ISAF and get a written dispensation as per ISAF Regs. McKenzie has so many Conflict of Interest issues as to be unquestioned. I believe both Willis and Josje also have a Conflict of Interest issues and should have asked for a written ISAF position, Willis because he was once hired by RNZYS COR/D and Josje because she belongs to Dirk's YC. This was such an important issue at the highest profile of Sailing that the Chair should have demanded an independent panel. Doerr is a pawn in this but Tillett as Chair should have demanded that Conflict of Interest be applied.”

 

McKenzie and the rest of the AC 34 Jury may try to argue that the AC34 Protocol gives McKenzie specifically the right to ignore the Conflict of Interest requirement in the ISAF Regulations, and to also ignore the requirement to be “fully trained”. However, there is at least one other document that supersedes the Protocol, and within that document nothing gives the right for the Protocol to displace the ISAF Regulations. Further, the Regulations make no provision for waivers in any form of the requirements for Race Officials to ignore any of the Regulations. Additionally, upon becoming a member of a committee, commission or race officer, everyone must sign an ISAF document saying they agree to abide by all the Regulations. There is nothing in that document which gives the right to any exceptional exclusions of any Regulation.

 

So here’s a questions for all the national and ISAF certified Judges: after spending years learning the sport, all the nuances of the rules, spending countless hours in protest hearings, at seminars, and sitting for and passing exams for the purpose of becoming certified, how do you feel about McKenzie doing none of that and yet being well paid to be a member of the America’s Cup jury, while having his actions as a non-certified sailing judge defended by the Chairman of the Jury? What makes Graham McKenzie so special that he, especially as a member of the Review Board, Constitution Committee, and Ethics Commission, does not need to abide by exactly the same standards of qualification as every other ISAF Certified Judge?

 

If these men who have these positions of power and influence and who have the responsibility to uphold the ISAF rules and Regulations by which we all play the sport feel that the Regulations do not apply to them, then what do we have? Is it just Anarchy?

 

Peter Huston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed! ;-) anarchy it is - but maybe he was installed for a reason..who pulls Mckenzie's strings...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the sort of shit the NYYC used to do when they held the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is interesting. None of this passes the smell test. It adds credence to the argument that the ISAF is just a self-perpetuating institution primarily for the benefit of its officers, etc. and their pals -- and not for sailors or the sport.

 

And SA is the first place this scandal (in this amount of detail) has appeared in the sailing press! Incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should ISAF be any different to e.g. FIFA or F1?

 

It's all about money and power in the hands of the few.

 

It goes with the turf unfortunately and is indicative of the big sports these days with the megastars being offshore tax entities in their own right, tax avoidance being legal. Who do you think drafts the tax legislation the politicos sign off on FFS?

 

Conflict of interest, yes, do you really think they give a shite? No!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a fair amount of questioning around the value that ISAF and many of the national bodies bring to the table for quite a while. The really scary thing about this situation is the potential impingement of a persons right to earn a living. That is not something for a governing body - that is something for the courts.

 

The next place this lands is in the suit for damages against ISAF by the impacted parties - particularly DDR.

 

The politics and BS do nothing for the sport.

 

The modification of the boats is clearly a no-no. The penalty for that should have been disqualification from the events that the boats were used in (and to their credit, OTUSA did fall on their sword once the facts were made clear.) That's how it is supposed to work in our sport - at least from what has been passed down to me from the old salts and mentors that I have been blessed to know while a sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum let me ponder this a bit here...

 

Involves professional sailors - I don't care.

Involves lawyers - I don't care.

Involves a cheat - I don't care.

Involves America's Cup - I don't care.

 

Has no impact on weekend warrior sailors - check - I really, really don't care.

 

OK, so to summarize, I don't care to the 6th power!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you have to suffer this over here too. Peter has been beating the drum on Oracle's behalf on the America's Cup forum for years - a paid shill is what it looks like.

There is an awful lot that he has not included in the little exposition above - but it's all about smear with Pete, he let's no inconvenient fact stand in the way of his master's goals.

Just the emphasis has changed along the way: nothing happened, it didn't matter, ridiculous punishment, "save DdR", CAS will redeem Oracle's sailors, "sailor's rights", the officials are to blame.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he act in a negligent or incompetent way? Does not appear so.

 

Did his belonging to a club affect his decisions? Does not appear so.

 

Does the defense have a right to every piece of information? Perhaps, but would the inclusion or exclusion have made a difference...no

 

The sailors broke the rules. Penalties were imposed. Later they were reduced because the initial penalty was felt to be too severe. Ok...so? They still broke the rules.

So while I see your circumstantial argument, and on the face of things it does not "look" good...most of the arguments you use are suspect at best. I was surprised to not see that you didn't find it strange that he was from New Zealand...which of course would imply that he had a bias.

Sounds like looking for fault for the sake of looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailors get punished when they break the rules...as they should.

 

What happens when Jury members break the rules? Rules don't apply to a jury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, both the Editor and PH are shit stirring by distorting the facts. Hear are the things you should know.

 

1. The protocol for AC34 specifically covered MKenzie's "conflict of interest" because of membership of RNZYS. Remember, OR/GGYC wrote the protocol. The relevent clause in the protocol states

 

"(Jury members) may be a resident or citizen of any country, including a country of a yacht club participating in the Event and/or a member of a yacht club participating in the Event."

 

The reason why ISAF approved MKenzie's appointment is because they were asked to by ACRM. The selection of jurors was made in consultation with the OR/GGYC. Bottom line - MKenzie was there because OR wanted him on the jury.

 

2. Despite PH is trying to make out it has no relevence, MKenzie is a very experienced AC juror, having been on the IJ for AC32 and AC33. He has more proven experience as an AC juror than most and was a logical choice for the jury. If he didn't have the right experience, why would he be selected for a 3rd AC in a row? In addition, it is illogocal that PH attacks MKenzie for lack of experience in the sport when he pinned his hopes for DdR on a hearing at CAS, where the judges had zero experience of the sport.

 

3. At the beginning of the AC45 investigation, MKenzie offered to stand aside, clearly declaring his membership of RNZYS. If either OR as a team and the individual members had raised any objection at all, he would have stood aside.

 

4. The LeFrance notes that get PH so hot and bothered need to be considered in the light of MKenzie's conclusions about the accusations they contained. MKenzie concluded that they were "unfounded and unproven". Maybe some of the stuff in the notes was useful, but it had no bearing on the conclusions the IJ reached.

 

5. It needs to be made clear that MKenzie had nothing to do with the length of ban ISAF gave DdR. He was on the jury that found that DdR was a cheat and that excluded him from the AC. The CAS verdict in no way critisised the IJ's findings that DdR was a cheat or that he was thrown out of the Cup. In fact, they upheld his ban from the sport that ISAF imposed, although they reduced it.

 

Anybody who has read the case in detail will also note that CAS did not make major critisisms of ISAF's processes although they observed that there are areas which could be improved on. So ISAF and its processes aren't perfect, but if you look at many of the CAS rulings in other sports, it is hard to find a sport that is perfect.

 

Underlying all of this is a simple fact. 3 different bodies, including one totally independent of sailing, have reviewed the evidence and concluded that DdR is a cheat. PH and his mate Paul Henderson are trying to prove irregularities in process as a way of getting a proven cheat off the hook. And while I agree that changes need to be made to process, they are not sufficient to invalidate the verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum let me ponder this a bit here...

 

Involves professional sailors - I don't care.

Involves lawyers - I don't care.

Involves a cheat - I don't care.

Involves America's Cup - I don't care.

 

Has no impact on weekend warrior sailors - check - I really, really don't care.

 

OK, so to summarize, I don't care to the 6th power!

 

+1. Bugger me someone involved in the AC might have a conflict of interest, well I never......

 

Not sure who's the biggest arse PH or the ED for posting PH on the front page...

 

Now back to ***********...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if PH (alkaline) is gainfully employed in some manner? How the hell does he have the time to write such lengthy piffle unless perhaps someone croaked and he inherited? I can't believe that Paul Henderson is involved with him in such navel gazing or anything else. Henderson I have met but before SA I had never heard of PH ( acidic) or his other incarnation. It boggles the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum let me ponder this a bit here...

 

Involves professional sailors - I don't care.

Involves lawyers - I don't care.

Involves a cheat - I don't care.

Involves America's Cup - I don't care.

 

Has no impact on weekend warrior sailors - check - I really, really don't care.

 

OK, so to summarize, I don't care to the 6th power!

 

the correct response is

 

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graham McKenzie's bio (as per PH original post) states he is a partner with Bell Gully.

 

With conflict of interest in mind I've been trying to determine who ETNZ and RNZYS legal council is. I haven't managed to work that one out yet, but the Bell Gully website does not list him as a partner anyway .... whatever that means

 

http://www.bellgully.co.nz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hum let me ponder this a bit here...

 

Involves professional sailors - I don't care.

Involves lawyers - I don't care.

Involves a cheat - I don't care.

Involves America's Cup - I don't care.

 

Has no impact on weekend warrior sailors - check - I really, really don't care.

 

OK, so to summarize, I don't care to the 6th power!

 

the correct response is

 

Meh

 

Yeah, thought it was happening in Bermuda, the home waters of the GGYC.

Too funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter is gainfully employed. He reminds me of 60 Minutes, you wouldn't want him showing up on your door unannounced. Most people just want to jump on their boat and go out for a race. They don't want to get involved in the hierachy of the sport. They don't want to look in the corners to see if things are fair and square. When things fall off the tracks, he laps it up.

 

Hall

DeRidder

McKenzie

 

I just wouldn't want to be on the other side of an issue if Peter was across the table from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's remember that there are "the rules", and there are "best practices,," which may be a standard more stringent than the rules require. Typically, a judge is not considered to be biased because of membership in a club or other entity. As we have seen in this case the protocol provided specifically that this would not be grounds to object to a judge. Also, everyone know that MacKenzie was a Kiwi, and everyone knew or should have known that he was a member of RNZYS. Also we need to keep in mind that the individuals involved were represented by counsel, who should have been well-versed in the applicable rules, regulations and legal standards. As set forth above, there were evidently no objections to introduction of any of the evidence adduced by MacKenzie's investigation. We should also keep in mind that deRidder worked for Oracle, and presumably he knew that the results of Oracle's in-house investigation had been disclosed to MacKenzie at some point in time.

 

If you have read the report, it is fairly damning. The panel determined that deRidder was likely aware of the changes to the AC45's, and that he knew or was responsible for knowing that the changes broke the class rules. Of course, a number of other Oracle team members were also penalized by bans or other penalties. In addition, CAS reduced deRidder's penalty. I'm not clear exactly what Paul Henderson is trying to accomplish by his appeal, but as a former ISAF president, I expect he may be seeking to have the 5 year penalty reinstated. Good luck on that.

 

For the foregoing reasons, this is decidedly a proverbial tempest in a (very small) teapot. Nonetheless, it might be helpful to have some of the conflict of interest issues clarified before things move ahead for the next AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PH is claiming there is conflict as per Isaf rules, which should overrule what was decided in the protocol.

 

I guess he did not read the prot properly where it is clearly specified that the prot supersedes Isaf rules.

 

13. RULES
13.1. The Event shall be governed by:
( a ) the Deed of Gift;
( b ) this Protocol;
( c ) the AC72 Class Rule, except for regattas that do not use the AC72 Class Rule, the
AC45 Class Rule; and
(d) the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing (America’s Cup Edition) (“RRSAC”).

 

So, basically he has it all wrong.

 

First posts from Huston could be entertaining, this is pretty much a summary of posts that were refuted when published.

So, how can Tempesta publish this crap on the FP ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graham McKenzie's bio (as per PH original post) states he is a partner with Bell Gully.

 

With conflict of interest in mind I've been trying to determine who ETNZ and RNZYS legal council is. I haven't managed to work that one out yet, but the Bell Gully website does not list him as a partner anyway .... whatever that means

 

http://www.bellgully.co.nz

 

For a long time it was John Lusk who was a partner at Russell McVeagh and later Harmos Horton Lusk . Not sure if that's still the case but I note that Greg Horton became a director of the revamped ETNZ so I suspect there is still some connection there. I lived in NZ for a while when I was seconded there for business, and while the legal/business community is a small one I don't think there's any conflict with GM's (or former?) partnership and ETNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know ISAF is dysfunctional in many ways, but this is just about the most counter productive approach to do anything about it.

Everything is wrong here:

The Event:
The AC has always been operated on special terms. The AC jury (http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/Jury/about-the-jury.pdf) combines the role of a conventional IJ and that of arbitration tribunal "to resolve disputes other than those that are resolved by the Umpires on the race course". There is therefore a need for expertise outside of the usual realm of IJs, such as commercial conflicts, which is a reasonable reason for ISAF to appoint, at ACRM's request, at least one member with this kind of expertise. Even if said member is not a ISAF certified judge.

The Case:
A clear and deliberate violation of OD rules, not some "AC 45 measurement discrepancies.", by the team representing the event's organizers. The team principals refused to take any responsibility for these actions rejecting all responsibility on individual team members. Not even close to the David against Goliath scenario PH portrays.

The Tone and Style of the "article"
Innuendo, smilies and silly comparisons (NFL referees don't need to have credentials as hockey players) completely drown the argument, and the final "plea" to certified judges brings the whole thing down to the level of very very bad commedia dell' arte.

The Publication
A new thread created by "Editor" with a piece signed Peter Huston with no link or reference to the Amerca's Cup Anarchy threads where these questions have been debated. The casual FP reader has no idea that PH's presentation of the case has been vigorously contradicted elsewhere than on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PH reminds me of a manager I once had, who would ask you a question publicly in a team meeting, and if he didn't like the answer ask it again. I never did work out what this was supposed to achieve other than generate friction and irritation. It made for fairly dramatic team meetings though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sailors get punished when they break the rules...as they should.

 

What happens when Jury members break the rules? Rules don't apply to a jury?

Shades of the Phuket Kings Cup several years ago when Mark Pryke (Aust) laid the marks and was also a member of the protest committee. When Frank Pongs maxi Jelik who was so far in front, the final rounding mark had not been laid and as he wasted time looking for the mark, he duly protested the committee. Of course seeing it was the committee's fault they threw out the protest !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who took the air out of the balls, thats the question. Or maybe the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I encourage anyone to go and read through P.Hustons numerous posts in AC anarchy,

read the replies by others who take time to research their answers, and make your own mind up.

In the AC thread it seems there has been at least one poster who appears to have been copy and pasting from more than likely PR persons, and passing it off as their own opinion.

 

PH on the front page? You are getting played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PH is claiming there is conflict as per Isaf rules, which should overrule what was decided in the protocol.

 

I guess he did not read the prot properly where it is clearly specified that the prot supersedes Isaf rules.

 

13. RULES

13.1. The Event shall be governed by:

( a ) the Deed of Gift;

( b ) this Protocol;

( c ) the AC72 Class Rule, except for regattas that do not use the AC72 Class Rule, the

AC45 Class Rule; and

(d) the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing (America’s Cup Edition) (“RRSAC”).

 

So, basically he has it all wrong.

 

First posts from Huston could be entertaining, this is pretty much a summary of posts that were refuted when published.

So, how can Tempesta publish this crap on the FP ?

 

A list of rules that apply does not mean the first supersedes the others. They all must be read to apply. When one of these sets of rules conflicts with another, you have a problem -- unless somewhere it states what rule applies in the case of conflicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PH is claiming there is conflict as per Isaf rules, which should overrule what was decided in the protocol.

 

I guess he did not read the prot properly where it is clearly specified that the prot supersedes Isaf rules.

 

13. RULES

13.1. The Event shall be governed by:

( a ) the Deed of Gift;

( b ) this Protocol;

( c ) the AC72 Class Rule, except for regattas that do not use the AC72 Class Rule, the

AC45 Class Rule; and

(d) the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing (America’s Cup Edition) (“RRSAC”).

 

So, basically he has it all wrong.

 

First posts from Huston could be entertaining, this is pretty much a summary of posts that were refuted when published.

So, how can Tempesta publish this crap on the FP ?

 

A list of rules that apply does not mean the first supersedes the others. They all must be read to apply. When one of these sets of rules conflicts with another, you have a problem -- unless somewhere it states what rule applies in the case of conflicts.

 

IIRC the protocol does; the rules apply in exactly the order above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PH is claiming there is conflict as per Isaf rules, which should overrule what was decided in the protocol.

 

I guess he did not read the prot properly where it is clearly specified that the prot supersedes Isaf rules.

 

13. RULES

13.1. The Event shall be governed by:

( a ) the Deed of Gift;

( b ) this Protocol;

( c ) the AC72 Class Rule, except for regattas that do not use the AC72 Class Rule, the

AC45 Class Rule; and

(d) the ISAF Racing Rules of Sailing (America’s Cup Edition) (“RRSAC”).

 

So, basically he has it all wrong.

 

First posts from Huston could be entertaining, this is pretty much a summary of posts that were refuted when published.

So, how can Tempesta publish this crap on the FP ?

 

A list of rules that apply does not mean the first supersedes the others. They all must be read to apply. When one of these sets of rules conflicts with another, you have a problem -- unless somewhere it states what rule applies in the case of conflicts.

Again, read the Protocol that PH did not read or pretends not to know:

 

13.2 Unless otherwise provided, the documents referred to in Article 13.1 shall have

precedence in the order the documents are listed. Any conflict between the provisions of

such documents shall be resolved in favor of the document first listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PH is not only wrong regarding the rules, he is also wrong regarding the certification of Jury member:

 

(iii) Jury members may be removed by the agreement of GGYC, the Challenger
of Record and a majority of the Competitor Forum, in consultation with ISAF.

 

If one IJ member did not qualify why would GGYC and the CoR did not ask to remove this person ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites