Archived

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

PeterHuston

Matt Mitchell talks

Recommended Posts

Doesn't expect ISAF to do anything with his protest against Tienport. No Matt, because neither regulation 35 nor rule 69 allows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that. The situations as to Mitchell and Henderson are different.

Neither of them are "protests". That process is defined by RRS 60 and 61. What they are doing is reporting misconduct under ISAF regulation 35.

Curiously enough, regulation 35 has no requirement of standing. I expect that will be rectified in due course. Meanwhile however what Henderson is doing (I presume) is filing a report as defined by 35.4.b

( B) a report alleging a breach of ISAF Regulation 35.3 (misconduct by an ISAF Representative or ISAF Race Official);

 

and that now goes ahead for an initial review process, which is mandatory. It may then be rejected or referred to the Disciplinary Commission.

 

Mitchell on the other had is (again, I presume) filing a report as defined by 35.3.a

 

a report under RRS 69.3(a) alleging a breach of RRS 69.1(a) (gross misconduct) by a competitor;

 

But RRS 69 defines a process that can only be initiated by a Protest Committee (the IJ being a form of PC). You sometimes hear a sailor say then will protest someone else under rule 69 but that is spherical objects because a competitor cannot initiate the process. Since the IJ did not refer Tienport to ISAF or his MNA, there is no rule 69.3 a process in play against him and nothing in the rules or regulations permits Mitchell to initiate one. Mitchell's report is a dead duck.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling the truth is the worst thing anyone can do. The cost of telling the truth is righteous bot pointless sadly. Matt Mitchell is more than likely telling the truth and more than likely a bunch of people are not, many "high profile" people are now too old to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't wait for this to go to "real" court.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




For other uses, see Collusion (disambiguation).

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[3]


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for fuck's sake does no one have the cock and balls to post under their existing accounts?

 

WTF are you scared of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Tillett (ACIJ Jury Chairman 34th Americas Cup):

  • Failed to uphold the policies of ISAF, its objectives, Rules and Regulations in that he failed to represent and protect the interests of any member of the federation (ISAF objective (h));

  • Failed to provide the leadership expected of a person with the responsibility in his capacity as Jury Chairman;

  • Failed to uphold fundamental principles of justice in his capacity as ACIJ Jury Chairman;

  • Failed to adhere to the Agreement dated 4th August 2011 between International Sailing Federation (ISAF) and Americas Cup Race Management (ACRM) - clause 5(e):

  • Failed to advise the parties to the hearing of the impending implementation of the Disciplinary Commission (DC) and its effect on the parties while being a member of the committee that orchestrated an entirely new disciplinary process. The DC was approved on August 27 2013. The hearings took place August 26 & 27 2013 - no notification of the change was made, while in full knowledge that the new DC process would have substantial affect to any party found guilty of a breach;

  • Failed to oversee and ensure that all Competitors were treated equally;

  • Failed to oversee and ensure that the standard of Proof was applied correctly, in that the “Comfortable Satisfaction” test requiring the Jury to take into consideration the “seriousness of the alleged breach” and the required criteria to substantiate the findings of the ACIJ in AC case 31 namely failing to demonstrate that “Intent”, a fundamental to a gross breach of sportsmanship was established;

  • Failed to disclose evidence that was material to those charged with an alleged Rule 69 Disciplinary offences;

  • Failed to establish “intent”, a fundamental to a gross breach of sportsmanship; and

PRESS RELEASE 5 5 February 2015

Was a party to the decision to remove Grant Simmer GM from the list of witnesses without disclosing the removal formally to the other parties involved in the case. Grant Simmer has a reputation for speaking only the truth and his surreptitious removal is gravely concerning considering his knowledge of the internal workings of OTUSA and in particular the inquiry conducted by Ms Lee Ann La France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Graham McKenzie, an ISAF representative in the capacity of an International Judge and a member of the 34th Americas Cup International Jury did by the following actions commit a gross breach of ISAF regulation 35.3 (a) and consequently brought the sport of sailing into disrepute, in that:

Mr. McKenzie did not hold ISAF certification as an ISAF International Judge and as such misrepresented himself to be a properly appointed ISAF official,

Furthermore, while holding this appointment while not properly certified:

  • Failed to uphold the policies of ISAF, its objectives, Rules and Regulations in that he failed to represent and protect the interests of any member of the federation (ISAF objective (h));

  • Failed to treat all competitors equally;

  • Failed to apply the “comfortable satisfaction” standard correctly

    in accordance with the International Jury Manual;

  • Failed to disclose evidence that was material to those charged with an alleged Rule 69 Disciplinary offence;

  • Failed to establish “intent”, a fundamental to a gross breach of sportsmanship;

  • Performed the role of investigator and then participated in the hearing of AC case 31 in the capacity of ACIJ member;

  • Participated in actions in an attempt to “pervert the course of Justice” by acting in an intimidating and or threatening manner in the capacity of a representative of ISAF; and

  • Was a party to the decision to remove Grant Simmer GM from the list of witnesses without disclosing the removal formally to the other parties involved in the case. Grant Simmer has a reputation for speaking only the truth and his surreptitious removal is gravely concerning considering his knowledge of the internal workings of OTUSA and in particular the inquiry conducted by Ms Lee Ann LaFrance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McKenzie and Tillett are the only 2 members of the ISAF Ethics and Betting & Anti-Corruption Codes work party!!!

 

Mckenzie is also a member of the Ethics Commission

 

McKenzie "Participated in actions in an attempt to “pervert the course of Justice” by acting in an intimidating and or threatening manner in the capacity of a representative of ISAF"

 

WTF...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ...sure, that sounds bad - but did you read Matt's comments regarding that accusation in the newspaper articles. I certainly couldn't make any sense of it, or see exactly how he got from his phone conversation to..

 

“pervert the course of Justice” by acting in an intimidating and or threatening manner in the capacity of a representative of ISAF"

 

maybe I missed something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less than two weeks before the CAS hearing, McKenzie emailed Mitchell and said, "This is the time for you to step forward and tell the whole truth, which you know never emerged in the Jury case in San Francisco. You got caught up in something that was never of your making."

McKenzie mentioned speaking with Jon Napier, ISAF's in-house counsel, "and he commented that he was sure if you did come forward your pending proceedings before ISAF would be considered favorably."

Citing tight time limits, McKenzie said ISAF wanted a signed statement within three days from Mitchell, whose case before ISAF's Disciplinary Commission was pending.

"He's trying to get something else going on," Mitchell said. "That's the crime of it. That's the disgrace of it, that I spent the whole time trying to tell the truth and he intimates that there's another version. Well hang on, the last time I checked, that was blackmail."

In an email to the AP, de Ridder said: "It is very hard to read McKenzie's email in any other way then blackmail."

 

Withholding Matt's Disciplinairy findings for months and then to offer him a reduced penalty in exchange for a rushed statement to help ISAF during the CAS procedings is Blackmail. Jon Napier is the in-house lawyer dealing with all these cases but is NOT a member of the DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep read all that...and? It shows what IYO?

 

Is there a threat? Intimidation? Perversion? :rolleyes:

 

Here's a question for you, given your Kiwihood. Now it's Kiwi sailor v Kiwi Jury member. What's your take on what McKenzie did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for fuck's sake does no one have the cock and balls to post under their existing accounts?

 

WTF are you scared of?

cloak and dagger revisited

 

funny though to see he who condemns anonymous posters like the pox, diarreah and siphylis all in one ... he alligns himself with them, quite telling that is B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep read all that...and? It shows what IYO?

 

Is there a threat? Intimidation? Perversion? :rolleyes:

 

Here's a question for you, given your Kiwihood. Now it's Kiwi sailor v Kiwi Jury member. What's your take on what McKenzie did?

 

 

Sorry but I don't play this silly game. Questions and slurs is what you do - it's sad and certainly not worthy of a reasoned response.

 

Make a clear statement on what you know and what you think about it and then??

 

Facts pHater - Kiwi 'athlete', remember, v the entire Jury, OTUSA and one of his former team mates - OK. Some adviser you are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Check out all the sock puppets. Haha. Babylon must fall!

 

I'm glad a certain cantankerous Canuck isn't afraid to poke 'em in the eye...

 

This entire situation has had a foul smell and fall guys since the beginning. What's the hope of the true 'truth' coming out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Better

 

 

"We've since learned, or got evidence of stuff going on before the hearing where the Team might have done stuff. You know......" ??

 

"I was traded for Simeon effectively"

 

"...engineered the witness list"

 

All comes back to the team - in the first instance anyway. So who will suffer the most if this drags on?

 

Not a good look - to put it mildly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Less than two weeks before the CAS hearing, McKenzie emailed Mitchell and said, "This is the time for you to step forward and tell the whole truth, which you know never emerged in the Jury case in San Francisco. You got caught up in something that was never of your making."

McKenzie mentioned speaking with Jon Napier, ISAF's in-house counsel, "and he commented that he was sure if you did come forward your pending proceedings before ISAF would be considered favorably."

Citing tight time limits, McKenzie said ISAF wanted a signed statement within three days from Mitchell, whose case before ISAF's Disciplinary Commission was pending.

"He's trying to get something else going on," Mitchell said. "That's the crime of it. That's the disgrace of it, that I spent the whole time trying to tell the truth and he intimates that there's another version. Well hang on, the last time I checked, that was blackmail."

In an email to the AP, de Ridder said: "It is very hard to read McKenzie's email in any other way then blackmail."

 

Withholding Matt's Disciplinairy findings for months and then to offer him a reduced penalty in exchange for a rushed statement to help ISAF during the CAS procedings is Blackmail. Jon Napier is the in-house lawyer dealing with all these cases but is NOT a member of the DC.

PH, since when is proposing a reduced sentence for telling the truth considered blackmail ?

All is pointing to one issue, the team has been lying so much that members rat on each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So... there is a lot that Matt doesn't say in that interview?

 

What does he infer?

 

Kyle penalty - the warning was ok

Matt penalty - not gulity

Dirk penalty - purposely didn't comment either way

Simeon no penalty - should have been banned?

 

Matt also seems to infer that 'Team Oracle' colluded with the jury to limit the damage to their AC chances by cutting a deal for Simeon and others?

 

More like the jury had to make a lame decision on the bullshit put in front of them.

 

Good luck putting a jury together for the next AC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yep read all that...and? It shows what IYO?

 

Is there a threat? Intimidation? Perversion? :rolleyes:

 

Here's a question for you, given your Kiwihood. Now it's Kiwi sailor v Kiwi Jury member. What's your take on what McKenzie did?

 

 

Sorry but I don't play this silly game. Questions and slurs is what you do - it's sad and certainly not worthy of a reasoned response.

 

Make a clear statement on what you know and what you think about it and then??

 

Facts pHater - Kiwi 'athlete', remember, v the entire Jury, OTUSA and one of his former team mates - OK. Some adviser you are!

 

 

Yes, your "reasoned response" has been to always hide behind a screen name and scream HERBIE.

 

I asked you one specific question, given that you live in NZL, Matt is a Kiwi and so is McKenzie. There are multiple issues in play, stuff that went on before the hearing, then during the hearing, and then issues which were created just prior to the CAS hearing by McKenzie.

 

Again - whose side are you on when it comes to McKenzie's email to Matt just days prior to the CAS hearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor disgruntled employee management by Coutts, publicly stabbing someone in the back by claiming to be stabbed in the back himself is not very classy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Poor disgruntled employee management by Coutts, publicly stabbing someone in the back by claiming to be stabbed in the back himself is not very classy.

So what do you suggest as an alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something for nothing the only other time there has been a major deal in terms of cheating was in 1987 with I Punkt. The main protagonist is a high profile sailor as we speak. And Clean thanks for passing on the message.....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like the jury had to make a lame decision on the bullshit put in front of them.

 

 

Yep. IJ faced with stonewalling and lies, something had to be done and done quickly so the main event could go ahead. Not much sympathy expressed for their predicament.

 

18 months later MM is finally articulating what he doesn't like about it. Well, it's a bit late and he's no explanation for the delay.

 

I do however feel somewhat different about this versus DdR. It is hard to rationalise how ST escaped penalty, without going down the conspiracy theory route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Poor disgruntled employee management by Coutts, publicly stabbing someone in the back by claiming to be stabbed in the back himself is not very classy.

So what do you suggest as an alternative?

 

Telling the truth and taking responsibility as the leader of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Withholding Matt's Disciplinairy findings for months and then to offer him a reduced penalty in exchange for a rushed statement to help ISAF during the CAS procedings is Blackmail.

 

Tosh. It's the kind of process that goes on on an industrial scale in US courts, also in British courts and I imagine many other places that are considered to have fair judicial systems. Including Kiwistan

 

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/report/R66/R66-9_.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something for nothing the only other time there has been a major deal in terms of cheating was in 1987 with I Punkt. The main protagonist is a high profile sailor as we speak. And Clean thanks for passing on the message.....................

Details?

 

You were there weren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://rbsailing.blogspot.ch/2013/08/i-punkt-admirals-cup-1985-and-1987.html

 

I-Punkt was disqualified from the 1987 Admiral's Cup for using illegal water ballasts in the Fastnet Race. Andrew Cape (navigator on I-Punkt) became the "main protagonist" of the hearings because without his testimony there would have been no case. He wasn't offered immunity in exchange for his testimony.

 

See the link for details.

 

Don't understand why the "truth tellers" are never able to give a clear argument. Guess they like to think of themselves as an elite club being "in the know" and who want to keep it that way making mysteries out of everything. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Withholding Matt's Disciplinairy findings for months and then to offer him a reduced penalty in exchange for a rushed statement to help ISAF during the CAS procedings is Blackmail.

 

Tosh. It's the kind of process that goes on on an industrial scale in US courts, also in British courts and I imagine many other places that are considered to have fair judicial systems. Including Kiwistan

 

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/report/R66/R66-9_.html

The only thing they have on DdR is one boat builder saying he thinks he remembers, blablabla, so Matt is supposed to say something incriminatiny against DdR, to help himself, he refuses, because there was nothing negative to say, and he would have essentially been lying. So, nice try ISAF, it didn't work. Then after over a year, they dropped all charges. Sounds like they are they are not wanting to dig themselves in deeper. I think that is called mitigating risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Poor disgruntled employee management by Coutts, publicly stabbing someone in the back by claiming to be stabbed in the back himself is not very classy.

So what do you suggest as an alternative?

 

Telling the truth and taking responsibility as the leader of the team.

Yes, that would be great, So Sir Russell, let's see those notes from the "secret meeting"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor disgruntled employee management by Coutts, publicly stabbing someone in the back by claiming to be stabbed in the back himself is not very classy.

So what do you suggest as an alternative?

Telling the truth and taking responsibility as the leader of the team.

Yes, that would be great, So Sir Russell, let's see those notes from the "secret meeting"

Just after the squadron of pigs fly past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yep read all that...and? It shows what IYO?

 

Is there a threat? Intimidation? Perversion? :rolleyes:

 

Here's a question for you, given your Kiwihood. Now it's Kiwi sailor v Kiwi Jury member. What's your take on what McKenzie did?

 

 

Sorry but I don't play this silly game. Questions and slurs is what you do - it's sad and certainly not worthy of a reasoned response.

 

Make a clear statement on what you know and what you think about it and then??

 

Facts pHater - Kiwi 'athlete', remember, v the entire Jury, OTUSA and one of his former team mates - OK. Some adviser you are!

 

 

Yes, your "reasoned response" has been to always hide behind a screen name and scream HERBIE.

 

I asked you one specific question, given that you live in NZL, Matt is a Kiwi and so is McKenzie. There are multiple issues in play, stuff that went on before the hearing, then during the hearing, and then issues which were created just prior to the CAS hearing by McKenzie.

 

Again - whose side are you on when it comes to McKenzie's email to Matt just days prior to the CAS hearing?

 

Once again you have got your facts wrong. Once again you ask a loaded question as if we have all the information laid out clearly rather than a bunch of slurs and self-serving testimony.

 

What 'email' - trot it out or take a hike.

 

Here's a question for you councillor; plea bargaining - wasn't that invented by lazy septic prosecutors?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor disgruntled employee management by Coutts, publicly stabbing someone in the back by claiming to be stabbed in the back himself is not very classy.

So what do you suggest as an alternative?

Telling the truth and taking responsibility as the leader of the team.

Yes, that would be great, So Sir Russell, let's see those notes from the "secret meeting"

Just after the squadron of pigs fly past.

directly after ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be great, So Sir Russell, let's see those notes from the "secret meeting"

And what Matt Mitchell knows about it ?

And how could Isaf have got them ?

Isaf had to solve the case asap in order to let the match happened so had to find some sailors to punish and, knowing they couldn't know everything, punish the team, which they did.

 

What appears now is that the inside covering process in the OR team was even darker than we thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this Mitchell video. It seems like complete gibberish to me. What is he talking about? The only substantial thing I can find in here is that Oracle did not pay his lawyers and Simeon threw him under the bus.

Such a softball interview..

Questions that could be asked..

Did he cheat or not?

Who cheated or ordered the resin fill?

Did they know it was illegal?

Why was the jury given such wildly differing information from people in the same team?

 

I just don't understand why, where Oracle admitted doing it, its now the Jury who are in the dock.. and this is getting painted up to ISAF. It seems to me that, after the cheat, the initial cover up was where this all started to go bad. Was there a lot of time pressure to get this thing resolved at the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, after they managed to hide it for the best part of a week.

It won't be in OTUSA's interest to see this corpse dug up.

Pressure on the jury over the next decision too - no time or energy left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Was there a lot of time pressure to get this thing resolved at the time?

 

Yes. The hearings were bumping up against the planned start of the AC finals. TV schedules, VIPs involved etc etc all impacted if the start was delayed.

 

The interview was weak. Kiwi interviewed by Kiwi, clearly must be innocent and put-upon, that's a given. Some of what Mitchell said was pretty pathetic. This is a highly experienced professional sailor outraged at the thought he might just possibly have been expected to have read the (clear and concise) class rules of the boat he's maintaining. Give us a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

...wow,,whaddaMESS :mellow:

.....it's quite something to see what can happen when a sailor's passion for racing gets them to the bleeding edge,,,,

...and old punter's penchant for a free lunch and backroom deals gets them to the point of corporate 'conundrums' on a rather large scale...it's all rather sickening. <_<

 

....I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seen,in fact have been shafted by** juries who work in such a predetermined manner as Mitchell describes,where the hearing simply seems much like a play,everyone playing their roll,reciting pre-written lines,,usually colluding amongst themselves and a couple of other buddies in the backroom.

 

 

...**...on a much smaller scale in my case,,but blatantly corrupt nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just hope this guy has very alternative career outlined for himself, pretty sure he's going to find a pretty limited sailing future if this doesn't work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, after they managed to hide it for the best part of a week.

It won't be in OTUSA's interest to see this corpse dug up.

Pressure on the jury over the next decision too - no time or energy left.

nav, you are such a chowderhead. As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, "There you go again." The foil control system complied with the rules. Sorry you don't like the rules. Too bad you are too dense to be able to parse english sentences and understand when a sentence is dealing with electrical power rather than power from wind and water.

 

Everyone else: now let's watch nav wind himself up again and tell us that the IJ got their ruling about the foil control system wrong because they were so tired and stressed from the weightgate issue. Go nav, go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand, correct me if I'm wrong please. A rich J70 owner gets the blame when his boat is found illegal at key west. Potential rule 69, we haven't found out yet. The thing is that we know he didn't make the illegal mods himself, he's just the moneybag. Instead, without a doubt one of his hired hands did the work.

 

This guy, Mitchel, was the boat captain and responsible for the AC45. There was a job list, he did his part, others did theirs. Some parts of the job list were illegal. In the end, should the guy who did the work get the blame or the guy who's responsible for the boat? Probably a little of both...

 

If the boat captain is completely innocent, why didn't he stop the work? Why didn't he correct the problem or get it checked with the measurers? After all, it was HIS responsibility. Did he not know it was illegal? Why didn't he know?

 

How is that different than a rich owner who just tells his pros to prepare the boat for a regatta?

 

Sadly, at the end of the day, this is how penalties are passed down. They are passed to whomever is responsible, like in the case of the J70 guy. Not to say Mitchel is wrong, its just how the world works today and the Jury ruled in that direction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure, after they managed to hide it for the best part of a week.

It won't be in OTUSA's interest to see this corpse dug up.

Pressure on the jury over the next decision too - no time or energy left.

nav, you are such a chowderhead. As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, "There you go again." The foil control system complied with the rules. Sorry you don't like the rules.* Too bad you are too dense to be able to parse english sentences and understand when a sentence is dealing with electrical power rather than power from wind and water.

 

Everyone else: now let's watch nav wind himself up again and tell us that the IJ got their ruling about the foil control system wrong because they were so tired and stressed from the weightgate issue. Go nav, go!

 

Yeah yeah, too funny, oh the ironing.

 

You're right of course, Jury decisions are sacrosanct - never to be questioned...

 

 

....so WTF is this and the other dozen threads, appeals, final appeals, cases, complaints, conspiracies, witterings and libels all about then? I'm waiting for pHater and the other OTU$A enablers to point the finger at CAS - who are apparently also part of McKenzies's posse.

 

Get over yourselves, learn to read plain English, abide by the rules, it's sport - but not as we know it.

 

 

*OTUSA wrote those rules with their 2nd last poodle - they stated that there could be no appeal to any other body or court - but I guess that was only meant to apply to the punters?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More like the jury had to make a lame decision on the bullshit put in front of them.

 

 

Yep. IJ faced with stonewalling and lies, something had to be done and done quickly so the main event could go ahead. Not much sympathy expressed for their predicament.

 

18 months later MM is finally articulating what he doesn't like about it. Well, it's a bit late and he's no explanation for the delay.

 

I do however feel somewhat different about this versus DdR. It is hard to rationalise how ST escaped penalty, without going down the conspiracy theory route.

 

 

Did it ever occur to you that the stuff which was under investigation had happened a year prior? So, lies and stonewalling from all concerned? Hardly. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the simple explanation is all that ever really happened - that a boatbuilder just made a bad assumption about something he thought someone else heard?

 

Now you want bring up delays, glad you did. Lets get this out of the way first, you say Matt offers no explanation for the delay. Correct. Last I checked, he's not required to give an anonymous screen name who is an ISAF suck up an explanation.

 

But let's talk about delays. Why did ISAF delay a disciplinary commission hearing against him for all this time, and only recently just dismiss it, with no hearing held? What's your answer for that delay, and then never holding a hearing?

 

You want your answer about his delay, look right there. Then ask why the rules of procedure for the DC have no statutory time requirements for a response by ISAF and neither is there any sort of requirement for that in Reg 35 filings. Someone can file a complaint, and ISAF can literally sit on it for years if they want.

 

And...do you know anything about other cases which were before the DC and also recently were dismissed, after 18 month delays, with no explanation. Do you even know in what class that took place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sad old git - pretty sure I read a report on the decision taken in MM's case. No? It explained the complaint and the decision - so wtf is just dismiss it, with no hearing held and dismissed, after 18 month delays, with no explanation?

 

Wow, your credibility is zero - despite you being an actual person!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yep read all that...and? It shows what IYO?

 

Is there a threat? Intimidation? Perversion? :rolleyes:

 

Here's a question for you, given your Kiwihood. Now it's Kiwi sailor v Kiwi Jury member. What's your take on what McKenzie did?

 

 

Sorry but I don't play this silly game. Questions and slurs is what you do - it's sad and certainly not worthy of a reasoned response.

 

Make a clear statement on what you know and what you think about it and then??

 

Facts pHater - Kiwi 'athlete', remember, v the entire Jury, OTUSA and one of his former team mates - OK. Some adviser you are!

 

 

Yes, your "reasoned response" has been to always hide behind a screen name and scream HERBIE.

 

I asked you one specific question, given that you live in NZL, Matt is a Kiwi and so is McKenzie. There are multiple issues in play, stuff that went on before the hearing, then during the hearing, and then issues which were created just prior to the CAS hearing by McKenzie.

 

Again - whose side are you on when it comes to McKenzie's email to Matt just days prior to the CAS hearing?

 

I personally know neither McKenzie nor Mitchell but seems to me it was totally inappropriate for McKenzie as an IJ member to counsel (threaten?) an individual prior to the CAS hearing.

 

From what we're told it seems very difficult to categorise McKenzie's action as blackmail ....... and then riff on that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sad old git - pretty sure I read a report on the decision taken in MM's case. No? It explained the complaint and the decision - so wtf is just dismiss it, with no hearing held and dismissed, after 18 month delays, with no explanation?

 

Wow, your credibility is zero - despite you being an actual person!

Mitchell himself stated ISAF simply dismissed - and issued no finding. He clearly feels railroaded.

 

I see no reason not to take him at his word. He didn't cheat. The only thing he is guilty of is not spotting bad items on the job list - items that other sailors put there. And still others executed.

 

He also said the only jury to get it right, is Yachting New Zealand. Apparently, that 27 page report is the thing to read if you want an accurate look into the events and investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The foil control system complied with the rules...... understand when a sentence is dealing with electrical power rather than power from wind and water.

Humm,

19.1 Only manual power (the force exerted by crew) or the effect of direct contact with wind

and/or water shall be used for the adjustment of rigging, wing, soft sails, rudders and

daggerboards

 

Was the adjustement direct or indirect with water ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the simple explanation is all that ever really happened - that a boatbuilder just made a bad assumption about something he thought someone else heard?

 

We are not talking about a boatbuilder. Mitchell is a sailor. Sailors are supposed to know the rules and ignorance of the rules is not a defence. Anyone who could be bothered to take 30 minutes to read the AC45 rule would know what was done was illegal. The infraction was not obscure or a grey area, it was clear and simple.

 

In that interview Mitchell described at some length how it was "ridiculous" to expect him to check requests made of him. Well sorry sunbeam but this is where complacency and lack of necessary diligence has led you. If I said yes to every half-baked request made of me I'd have been out of a job years ago. Checking what you are asked to do is part of being a professional.

 

Somewhere in Mitchell's documents is a remark that if there was no intent to cheat, there's no rule 69 breach. I don't see anywhere in rule 69 that requires intent. I doubt the law in NZ generally requires intent. Try "negligence".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He also said the only jury to get it right, is Yachting New Zealand. Apparently, that 27 page report is the thing to read if you want an accurate look into the events and investigation.

Have you in fact read it? I have, more than once. It's a bizarre piece of work.It notes that it isn't the authors' role to critique the jury, then spends 27 pages doing so. It notes that it cannot initiate a new hearing then devotes 27 pages to second-guessing what might be concluded if a new hearing were conducted.

 

Of course as far as DdR is concerned there has since been a de-novo hearing by the CAS and the facts found and overall conclusion were unchanged from the IJ hearings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And...do you know anything about other cases which were before the DC and also recently were dismissed, after 18 month delays, with no explanation. Do you even know in what class that took place?

 

No I don't. Why don't you tell us.

 

 

Now you want bring up delays, glad you did. Lets get this out of the way first, you say Matt offers no explanation for the delay. Correct. Last I checked, he's not required to give an anonymous screen name who is an ISAF suck up an explanation.

 

It was his choice to give a 25 minute interview. Are we not permitted to comment on it?

 

As for ISAF suck up, for someone who appears to follow me like a little shadow from forum to forum, you don't really seem to be paying attention. I've been critical of ISAF a number of times. On the Gazprom deal and more than once on Olympic classes selections, for example. If I'm defensive of anyone, it's the AC34 jury, who faced cheats, liars, a team management with no interest in doing anything except saving their own skins and all with an overwhelming need to deal with the matter before a certain sailing match was due to begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the simple explanation is all that ever really happened - that a boatbuilder just made a bad assumption about something he thought someone else heard?

 

We are not talking about a boatbuilder. Mitchell is a sailor. Sailors are supposed to know the rules and ignorance of the rules is not a defence. Anyone who could be bothered to take 30 minutes to read the AC45 rule would know what was done was illegal. The infraction was not obscure or a grey area, it was clear and simple.

 

In that interview Mitchell described at some length how it was "ridiculous" to expect him to check requests made of him. Well sorry sunbeam but this is where complacency and lack of necessary diligence has led you. If I said yes to every half-baked request made of me I'd have been out of a job years ago. Checking what you are asked to do is part of being a professional.

 

Somewhere in Mitchell's documents is a remark that if there was no intent to cheat, there's no rule 69 breach. I don't see anywhere in rule 69 that requires intent. I doubt the law in NZ generally requires intent. Try "negligence".

Kyle and Simeon are sailors, Simeon was the boatcaptain for OTUSA 5 and AC72 B2, why is it OK for those 2 sailors not to have knowledge of the rules?

 

If this work was on a Joblist for the BAR boat why didn't Slater or Ainsle be held accountable for this....They are paid members of the team.

 

The skipper is in charge of his vessel and crew.

 

Slater is a rules experts for many AC and Volvo teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And...do you know anything about other cases which were before the DC and also recently were dismissed, after 18 month delays, with no explanation. Do you even know in what class that took place?

No I don't. Why don't you tell us.

 

Now you want bring up delays, glad you did. Lets get this out of the way first, you say Matt offers no explanation for the delay. Correct. Last I checked, he's not required to give an anonymous screen name who is an ISAF suck up an explanation.

It was his choice to give a 25 minute interview. Are we not permitted to comment on it?

 

As for ISAF suck up, for someone who appears to follow me like a little shadow from forum to forum, you don't really seem to be paying attention. I've been critical of ISAF a number of times. On the Gazprom deal and more than once on Olympic classes selections, for example. If I'm defensive of anyone, it's the AC34 jury, who faced cheats, liars, a team management with no interest in doing anything except saving their own skins and all with an overwhelming need to deal with the matter before a certain sailing match was due to begin.

your insight is helpful.

 

Some of us are well equipped to rule as judge, jury, and executioner.

 

Others simply desire due process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the simple explanation is all that ever really happened - that a boatbuilder just made a bad assumption about something he thought someone else heard?

We are not talking about a boatbuilder. Mitchell is a sailor. Sailors are supposed to know the rules and ignorance of the rules is not a defence. Anyone who could be bothered to take 30 minutes to read the AC45 rule would know what was done was illegal. The infraction was not obscure or a grey area, it was clear and simple.

 

 

I've sailed with several very talented sailors that are not intimately familiar with some of the intricacies of the rating rules. IRC is a great example, as are the tautness of lifelines and how it is measured for compliance. Try asking around and see how many don't know the details. I'd bet if you gave your crew a 50 question rating rule test few if any would score 100% but the AC sailors could probably sail circles around you.

 

I'm not suggesting ignorance of the rules is acceptable, but the reality of the matter is much different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The foil control system complied with the rules...... understand when a sentence is dealing with electrical power rather than power from wind and water.

Humm,

19.1 Only manual power (the force exerted by crew) or the effect of direct contact with wind

and/or water shall be used for the adjustment of rigging, wing, soft sails, rudders and

daggerboards

 

Was the adjustement direct or indirect with water ?

Tu es pire que nav, mon vieux !

 

What power moved the boards ? Hydraulic power, generated by the crew turning the handles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The foil control system complied with the rules...... understand when a sentence is dealing with electrical power rather than power from wind and water.

Humm,

19.1 Only manual power (the force exerted by crew) or the effect of direct contact with wind

and/or water shall be used for the adjustment of rigging, wing, soft sails, rudders and

daggerboards

 

Was the adjustement direct or indirect with water ?

Tu es pire que nav, mon vieux !

 

What power moved the boards ? Hydraulic power, generated by the crew turning the handles.

Ne fais pas semblant de ne pas comprendre !

I don't speak of the "power" but the "adjustment".

I repeat my question: was the adjustment the effect of direct or indirect contact of the daggerboard with water ?

 

Réfléchis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The foil control system complied with the rules...... understand when a sentence is dealing with electrical power rather than power from wind and water.

Humm,

19.1 Only manual power (the force exerted by crew) or the effect of direct contact with wind

and/or water shall be used for the adjustment of rigging, wing, soft sails, rudders and

daggerboards

 

Was the adjustement direct or indirect with water ?

Tu es pire que nav, mon vieux !

 

What power moved the boards ? Hydraulic power, generated by the crew turning the handles.

Ne fais pas semblant de ne pas comprendre !

I don't speak of the "power" but the "adjustment".

I repeat my question: was the adjustment the effect of direct or indirect contact of the daggerboard with water ?

 

Réfléchis...

 

How about we keep this thread on point, about Matt Mitchell.

 

Please start your own thread over in ImSureTheyHadAHerbieButIStillCantProveItAnarchy.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The foil control system complied with the rules...... understand when a sentence is dealing with electrical power rather than power from wind and water.

Humm,

19.1 Only manual power (the force exerted by crew) or the effect of direct contact with wind

and/or water shall be used for the adjustment of rigging, wing, soft sails, rudders and

daggerboards

 

Was the adjustement direct or indirect with water ?

Tu es pire que nav, mon vieux !

 

What power moved the boards ? Hydraulic power, generated by the crew turning the handles.

Ne fais pas semblant de ne pas comprendre !

I don't speak of the "power" but the "adjustment".

I repeat my question: was the adjustment the effect of direct or indirect contact of the daggerboard with water ?

 

Réfléchis...

 

How about we keep this thread on point, about Matt Mitchell.

 

Please start your own thread over in ImSureTheyHadAHerbieButIStillCantProveItAnarchy.com

mais non, parbleu, la discussion entre ces deux coco's est ainsi intéressante ... ou plutôt rigolo

 

et merde, cessez de jour le flic du forum, 't est déja assez con comme ça connard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ggyc cheater team and ggyc shell corp acea bought the isaf jury

 

how in the hell is ggyc able to avoid and be avoided by any of this guilt riddled defective process

 

since they were directly involved and liable -still -

 

should be interesting as matt et al give us more info - defending his actions and their fubar process -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone want to brief us all on the basics of the case?

 

It is a bit hard to follow with the "he said", "she said" stuff.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He also said the only jury to get it right, is Yachting New Zealand. Apparently, that 27 page report is the thing to read if you want an accurate look into the events and investigation.

Have you in fact read it? I have, more than once. It's a bizarre piece of work.It notes that it isn't the authors' role to critique the jury, then spends 27 pages doing so. It notes that it cannot initiate a new hearing then devotes 27 pages to second-guessing what might be concluded if a new hearing were conducted.

 

Of course as far as DdR is concerned there has since been a de-novo hearing by the CAS and the facts found and overall conclusion were unchanged from the IJ hearings.

 

Yes. I've read the YNZ report. It's interesting you bring this up, and CAS, because both went beyond the bounds of their original scope to bring forward the gross deficiencies of the ISAF appointed jury. The only reason you call it bizarre is because it doesn't conform to the rules of the ISAF Kangaroo court.

 

And it was interesting in the CAS hearing that brought out the fact that the ISAF appointed jury withheld evidence for 14 months, and one of the jurors, who happens to not be certified, tried to tamper with a witness.

 

Why don't you come out from behind your screen name, and put your name to your assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And...do you know anything about other cases which were before the DC and also recently were dismissed, after 18 month delays, with no explanation. Do you even know in what class that took place?

 

No I don't. Why don't you tell us.

 

 

>Now you want bring up delays, glad you did. Lets get this out of the way first, you say Matt offers no explanation for the delay. Correct. Last I checked, he's not required to give an anonymous screen name who is an ISAF suck up an explanation.

 

It was his choice to give a 25 minute interview. Are we not permitted to comment on it?

 

As for ISAF suck up, for someone who appears to follow me like a little shadow from forum to forum, you don't really seem to be paying attention. I've been critical of ISAF a number of times. On the Gazprom deal and more than once on Olympic classes selections, for example. If I'm defensive of anyone, it's the AC34 jury, who faced cheats, liars, a team management with no interest in doing anything except saving their own skins and all with an overwhelming need to deal with the matter before a certain sailing match was due to begin.

 

 

That you don't know in what other class a disciplinary hearing was held in abeyance for 14 months just shows how little you know about the corruption of ISAF, yet you admit to supporting with blind faith in an ISAF appointed Jury that has been proven to withhold evidence for 14 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone want to brief us all on the basics of the case?

 

It is a bit hard to follow with the "he said", "she said" stuff.....

 

How about we put it this way: On one hand you have a Kiwi judge, who isn't certified by ISAF to be a judge, yet who served on an ISAF appointed jury where a requirement was to be "fully trained", that same judge admitted in a CAS hearing to withholding evidence from an accused sailor for 14 months, and who also wrote an email to said sailor days before the hearing, admitted that as a jury they never found all the facts, and, that even though he had no standing to do so, offered to help said sailor get a reduced sentence with the disciplinary commission. Other than that one required appearance before CAS, said non-certified AC 34 jury member isn't giving up any other information.

 

On the other hand, the sailor has been as open with the press as any America's Cup sailor in years.

 

I'm betting on the sailor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long are you going to push this stupid thread and repeat the same shit ?

 

How about we put it this way:

 

1) On one hand you have a Kiwi judge,

Another stupid agument that your repeat ad nauseam, read the protocl, 15.2.e: judge may be a resident or citizen of any country, including a country of a yacht club
participating in the Event
. Now STFU on that idiocy

 

 

2) who isn't certified by ISAF to be a judge,

Where do you read that in 15. 2 ?

 

3) yet who served on an ISAF appointed jury where a requirement was to be "fully trained",

Another stupid argument, he has more than the required experience, and you know it.

 

4) who also wrote an email to said sailor days before the hearing, admitted that as a jury they never found all the facts

Another ridiculous argument, have you ever seen a jury claiming they have all the facts ? they have what they are provided with. Where do you want to go with that stupid point ?

 

5) offered to help said sailor get a reduced sentence with the disciplinary commission

Never seen that in your life ? gow up PH. More incredible is that you consider it blackmail.

 

So, how long do you want to make an idiot of yourself ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How long are you going to push this stupid thread and repeat the same shit ?

 

 

How about we put it this way:

 

1) On one hand you have a Kiwi judge,

Another stupid agument that your repeat ad nauseam, read the protocl, 15.2.e: judge may be a resident or citizen of any country, including a country of a yacht club

participating in the Event. Now STFU on that idiocy

 

 

2) who isn't certified by ISAF to be a judge,

Where do you read that in 15. 2 ?

 

3) yet who served on an ISAF appointed jury where a requirement was to be "fully trained",

Another stupid argument, he has more than the required experience, and you know it.

4) who also wrote an email to said sailor days before the hearing, admitted that as a jury they never found all the facts

Another ridiculous argument, have you ever seen a jury claiming they have all the facts ? they have what they are provided with. Where do you want to go with that stupid point ?

5) offered to help said sailor get a reduced sentence with the disciplinary commission

Never seen that in your life ? gow up PH. More incredible is that you consider it blackmail.

 

So, how long do you want to make an idiot of yourself ?

Not PH who cried blackmail - but Mitchell himself.

 

Pretty sure about that.

 

PH was advising DDR - who has yet to come clean in a "tell all" as Mitchell has.

 

Looks like we have two sailors that feel "done wrong" by the AC jury. But only one has spoken in public so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone want to brief us all on the basics of the case?

 

It is a bit hard to follow with the "he said", "she said" stuff.....

One fact you can apparently hang your hat on: A job list was created, and posted on the boat shed wall, which included an item to "fill the post".

 

Now, if you assume that DDR made the list and Mitchell executed it - then the AC jury's actions would have at least some semblance of merit.

 

Kind of harsh for a screw up - but at least some merit.

 

However, we are told that DDR did no such thing. And, Matt Mitchell is very credible when he denies it.

 

So, what was the jury's motivation - and rational.

 

Will we ever know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long are you going to push this stupid thread and repeat the same shit ?

 

How about we put it this way:

 

1) On one hand you have a Kiwi judge,

Another stupid agument that your repeat ad nauseam, read the protocl, 15.2.e: judge may be a resident or citizen of any country, including a country of a yacht club

participating in the Event. Now STFU on that idiocy

 

 

2) who isn't certified by ISAF to be a judge,

Where do you read that in 15. 2 ?

 

3) yet who served on an ISAF appointed jury where a requirement was to be "fully trained",

Another stupid argument, he has more than the required experience, and you know it.

 

>>

4) who also wrote an email to said sailor days before the hearing, admitted that as a jury they never found all the facts

Another ridiculous argument, have you ever seen a jury claiming they have all the facts ? they have what they are provided with. Where do you want to go with that stupid point ?

 

5) offered to help said sailor get a reduced sentence with the disciplinary commission

Never seen that in your life ? gow up PH. More incredible is that you consider it blackmail.

 

So, how long do you want to make an idiot of yourself ?

 

 

I'm not going to respond to you point by point, what you need to understand, which you seem incapable of grasping, is that the protocol is not the be-all end-all. There are requirements within the ISAF Regulations which define the requirements for a Major Event. There are requirements for members of ISAF committees and commissions of which McKenzie is a part which no race document can nullify. There is another controlling document called the ISAF-ACRM agreement. I suspect you have not read that.

 

Moreover, McKenzie is not fully qualified to sit on a sailing jury where there are matters of boat building in play. He has no obvious evidence of any racing. He admits in his own bio that his sailing is just casually around Auckland. Given that he has no racing experience, he would have no way of knowing what questions to ask, and what is or isn't relevant information.

 

How long are you going to keep denying the proven fact that McKenzie and the rest of the Jury withheld evidence for 14 months from the accused sailors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet you admit to supporting with blind faith in an ISAF appointed Jury

 

I don't have blind faith in anything. That includes what you say and write.

 

I've said several times there are valid questions to answer regarding Tienport. Does that sound like "blind faith"?

 

It's your constant distortion of what others have to say that has led you to the point that nobody here believes you. If you are just here to troll, as you clearly sometimes do, whatever. If you are actually trying to change anything, it's self-destructive.

 

 

The only reason you call (the YNZ report) bizarre is because it doesn't conform to the rules of the ISAF Kangaroo court.

 

Nope. It's bizarre because it sets out its remit and then spends 27 pages doing precisely the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites