Archived

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

Editor

new low

Recommended Posts

Apparently, there is no low that some won't stoop to in an attempt to throw me out of a yacht race.



Here's the story: Anarchy was entered in a three-race Winter Series held by the Cortez Racing Association, which in addition to SDYC, I have been a member of for years. I was in Germany for the first race of the series, so I asked good friend and fellow SDYC member Alex Camet to sail the boat in my absence. He did, and to no one's surprise, Anarchy won.



But, to my actual surprise, a full eleven days after the race, I received an e-mail from the CRA protest chair informing the me that the distant third-place boat in our class was protesting us. What heinous crime did Anarchy commit? And one that would warrant a protest to be filed a full eleven days later? Some blatant on the water foul? Perhaps a mark that we hit but didn't do a turn? Maybe a gross equipment violation? Surely it was something substantive and very, very serious, correct?



I'm afraid not. It turns out that Brad Alberts, the owner of "El Sueno", a somewhat sluggish Beneteau 47.7 (a boat that we beat by 10 minutes on a 19 mile race last Sat) thinks that Anarchy should be disqualified because the boat didn't have a CRA member onboard! OMG!!! We should be thrown out of yacht racing for eternity! We are clearly cheaters attempting to subvert the rules! Inform US Sailing immediately!!!!



It's not that it's a chickenshit protest that had nothing to do with the actual racing, it's not that's it's not a total waste of time, it's not that it is almost completely without merit. No, it is that this clown thinks that this is actually a worthwhile pursuit. That this is something that he spent DAYS pursuing and obsessing on. Isn't life way too short to spend one's time on such a trivial and douchey protest?



For those who care, here is the protest. Here are the CRA By-Laws, and here is both the NOR and SI's. If you have a comment, post it here. - ed. And thanks to Middle Class Rut for the title inspiration



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What rule was broken?

 

2 ELIGIBILITY AND ENTRY

  1. 2.1 The regatta is open to all members of organizations affiliated with US Sailing.

  2. 2.2 To be eligible, yachts must have a current Rating Certificate from PHRF San Diego.

    Exceptions are boats racing as a one-design class.

  3. 2.3 All eligible boats will have entered on-line at www.cortezracing.com, no later than 6:00pm on

    Friday, Jan. 29, 2016, for inclusion in all three races.
    All eligible boats must enter on-line at
    www.cortezracing.com, no later than 6:00pm on Friday, Feb. 26, 2016, to be included in Races 2 and 3, and no later than 6:00pm on Friday, March 25, 2016, for Race 3 only.

  4. 2.4 Late entries will only be accepted from CRA members. Late entrants may not check in by radio, but must provide to the R/C, in writing, the owner’s name, DOB and zip code, boat name and type, sail number, class, and RLC and Buoy ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First -- if the protest was not placed within the required time limit and the protested yacht was not notified...the protest is disallowed.

 

Second -- There is no reference to participation being tied to CRA membership. The only restrictions related to CRA membership is the ability to file a later entry.

 

Are they proceeding with the protest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protestor cites Bylaws Sec IV a+b which has to do with paying dues.. irrelevant?

 

NOR says any member of an organization affiliated with a US Sailing qualifies

There is nothing about being a CRA member to enter

 

I'm afraid the douchebag wins this one

 

Sailman - a protest can be accepted past the deadline if the committee feels new information came to light after the deadline

Like weight limits on a J29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the basis of the protest is that the $40 fee for non members was not paid. It would be nice if the protest referenced whatever rule they think was violated. I could not find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protestor cites Bylaws Sec IV a+b which has to do with paying dues.. irrelevant?

 

NOR says any member of an organization affiliated with a US Sailing

 

Nothing about being a CRA member

 

I'm afraid the douchebag wins this one

 

Sailman - a protest can be accepted past the deadline if the committee feels new information came to light after the deadline

 

 

Which douchbag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Protest outside time limit unless PC decide there is good reason to accept - possible but unlikely

2) I cannot find any rule/SI/NoR which has been broken unless the entry was late and even then it is moot whether or not the crew need to be CRA members

3) Has protestor nothing better to do with his time

4) All above assume all facts revealed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Protestor cites Bylaws Sec IV a+b which has to do with paying dues.. irrelevant?

 

NOR says any member of an organization affiliated with a US Sailing

 

Nothing about being a CRA member

 

I'm afraid the douchebag wins this one

 

Sailman - a protest can be accepted past the deadline if the committee feels new information came to light after the deadline

 

Which douchbag?

 

I assume the basis of the protest is that the $40 fee for non members was not paid. It would be nice if the protest referenced whatever rule they think was violated. I could not find it.

I assume the basis of the protest is that the $40 fee for non members was not paid. It would be nice if the protest referenced whatever rule they think was violated. I could not find it.

Do you guys even read this shit? Did you look where the form says 'Rules alleged to have been broken'?

CRA Bylaw IV Parts A and B.

Its on the form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep tempesta has entered the world of get him at all costs. Comes from being a dick and pissing off just about everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protestor cites Bylaws Sec IV a+b which has to do with paying dues.. irrelevant?

 

NOR says any member of an organization affiliated with a US Sailing qualifies

There is nothing about being a CRA member to enter

 

I'm afraid the douchebag wins this one

 

Sailman - a protest can be accepted past the deadline if the committee feels new information came to light after the deadline

Like weight limits on a J29

 

It is a redress hearing 62.2. It is alleged the RC erred in scoring a boat that did not meet the entry requirement which made the boats score significantly worse

 

62.2 A request shall be in writing and identify the reason for making it. If the request is based on an incident in the racing area, it shall be delivered to the race office within the protest time limit or two hours after the incident, whichever is later. Other requests shall be delivered as soon as reasonably possible after learning of the reasons for making the request. The protest committee shall extend the time if there is good reason to do so. No red flag is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Protestor cites Bylaws Sec IV a+b which has to do with paying dues.. irrelevant?

 

NOR says any member of an organization affiliated with a US Sailing

 

Nothing about being a CRA member

 

I'm afraid the douchebag wins this one

 

Sailman - a protest can be accepted past the deadline if the committee feels new information came to light after the deadline

 

Which douchbag?

 

I assume the basis of the protest is that the $40 fee for non members was not paid. It would be nice if the protest referenced whatever rule they think was violated. I could not find it.

I assume the basis of the protest is that the $40 fee for non members was not paid. It would be nice if the protest referenced whatever rule they think was violated. I could not find it.

Do you guys even read this shit? Did you look where the form says 'Rules alleged to have been broken'?

CRA Bylaw IV Parts A and B.

Its on the form

 

Where are the CRA bylaws referenced in the Notice of Race as a rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the CRA bylaws referenced in the Notice of Race as a rule?

 

They are not poopie.

The question is what rule is the protest being based on.

The answer is CRA Bylaw IV A+B

Nobody said it is a relevant rule.

The protest will be disallowed. (In E.B.'s opinion)

There is nothing about CRA crew or owner requirements.. In fact the NOR encourages the opposite.

The NOR invites just about anyone.

www.sailingAnarchy.com is probably 'affiliated' with US Sailing somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protestor cites Bylaws Sec IV a+b which has to do with paying dues.. irrelevant?

 

NOR says any member of an organization affiliated with a US Sailing qualifies

There is nothing about being a CRA member to enter

 

I'm afraid the douchebag wins this one

 

Sailman - a protest can be accepted past the deadline if the committee feels new information came to light after the deadline

Like weight limits on a J29

And you see how that worked out for the DOUCHE BAG from NJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any specific entry or competitor membership requirements must be stated in the NOR. There are none. Only the registered skipper must be a member of any club that is affiliated with US Sailing. There are no additional requirements of the crew. The By Laws of the OA are not a rule, as defined by the RRS, so they do not apply to the racing. Furthermore, the US Prescription to RRS 76.1 states the following:

 

US Sailing prescribes that an organizing authority or race committee shall not reject or cancel the entry of a boat or exclude a competitor eligible under the notice of race and sailing instructions for an arbitrary or capricious reason or for reason of race, color, religion national origin, gender, sexual orientation or age.

 

El Sueno and its owner would be well advised to withdraw the protest and send a letter of apology to the protestee and the OA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWO SIDES

1. Are you pissed when other boats break rules, whether ROW, weight limits, Pro Category, skipping a mark, etc? Did Anarchy break this CRA rule? Is it the right thing to do to withdraw from this race (called "Retired after Finishing)? Don't we all look up to the people who play the game legit?

 

2. If you insist on fighting it, you have a very simple strategy. The protester was required to file the protest within the time limit:

12.PROTESTS:

12.1 RRS 61 is modified to add the additional requirement:

A boat intending to protest shall, upon finishing or retiring, proceed to the R/C boat on station at the finish, report her intentions and the boat(s) being protested, have her protest flag prominently displayed, and obtain R/C acknowledgment.

12.2 Red Protest Flags shall be displayed from the backstay. On yachts without backstays, the protest flag will be displayed in a prominent position on the stern.

12.3 Written protests shall be lodged with a representative of the Race Committee at the post race meeting area within 60 minutes of the R/C Boat docking at the finish of the race day. The Protest Committee may extend this time if there is good reason to do so.

12.4 The parties involved will be listed, in the order of filing, at the post - race meeting area and protests will be heard as soon as practicable. This posting constitutes the notice required by RRS 63.2, Time and Place of the Hearing.

 

His protest already said that he did not fly a red flag, he didn't notify the RC within 60 minutes.

 

The rules do not allow people to go out on a witch hunt after racing, debate it, study it, and draw a conclusion 9 days later. And then pray on the judges to extend the time limit.

 

Practically, look at it this way, if he did fly the red flag on the course, if he did file the protest form within 60 minutes of the docking, he would have complied with the protest filing requirements that would have given him a hearing. In that hearing the judges would ask each member of the Anarchy crew if they were a member of CRA? Each would have said, "No." and the hearing would have been concluded, apparently with a guilty verdict.

 

The protesting boat does not get to think about something, doesn't get to go off and do their own investigation taking 9 days, and then decide to file a protest.

 

So work your best in the pre-hearing, go for the juggernaut that the protest was filed 9 days beyond the filing deadline, explain why there is no reason why the protest time limit should be extended (explain he could have filed the protest on the day of the race as there were no extenuating circumstances, such as a death in the immediate family, or something severe that prevented the protester from doing it within the time limit).

 

I've had similar issues come up and our protest committee disallowed the protest for not filing the protest within the time limit. A couple of times the protesting boats appealed trying to force an time limit extension, and each time the appeals committees affirmed our decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Jesus, what a douchebag move by the protester!

 

At least this time Scot didn't get pushed off the dock.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWO SIDES

1. Are you pissed when other boats break rules, whether ROW, weight limits, Pro Category, skipping a mark, etc? Did Anarchy break this CRA rule? Is it the right thing to do to withdraw from this race (called "Retired after Finishing)? Don't we all look up to the people who play the game legit?

 

2. If you insist on fighting it, you have a very simple strategy. The protester was required to file the protest within the time limit:

12.PROTESTS:

12.1 RRS 61 is modified to add the additional requirement:

A boat intending to protest shall, upon finishing or retiring, proceed to the R/C boat on station at the finish, report her intentions and the boat(s) being protested, have her protest flag prominently displayed, and obtain R/C acknowledgment.

12.2 Red Protest Flags shall be displayed from the backstay. On yachts without backstays, the protest flag will be displayed in a prominent position on the stern.

12.3 Written protests shall be lodged with a representative of the Race Committee at the post race meeting area within 60 minutes of the R/C Boat docking at the finish of the race day. The Protest Committee may extend this time if there is good reason to do so.

12.4 The parties involved will be listed, in the order of filing, at the post - race meeting area and protests will be heard as soon as practicable. This posting constitutes the notice required by RRS 63.2, Time and Place of the Hearing.

 

His protest already said that he did not fly a red flag, he didn't notify the RC within 60 minutes.

 

The rules do not allow people to go out on a witch hunt after racing, debate it, study it, and draw a conclusion 9 days later. And then pray on the judges to extend the time limit.

 

Practically, look at it this way, if he did fly the red flag on the course, if he did file the protest form within 60 minutes of the docking, he would have complied with the protest filing requirements that would have given him a hearing. In that hearing the judges would ask each member of the Anarchy crew if they were a member of CRA? Each would have said, "No." and the hearing would have been concluded, apparently with a guilty verdict.

 

The protesting boat does not get to think about something, doesn't get to go off and do their own investigation taking 9 days, and then decide to file a protest.

 

So work your best in the pre-hearing, go for the juggernaut that the protest was filed 9 days beyond the filing deadline, explain why there is no reason why the protest time limit should be extended (explain he could have filed the protest on the day of the race as there were no extenuating circumstances, such as a death in the immediate family, or something severe that prevented the protester from doing it within the time limit).

 

I've had similar issues come up and our protest committee disallowed the protest for not filing the protest within the time limit. A couple of times the protesting boats appealed trying to force an time limit extension, and each time the appeals committees affirmed our decision.

 

 

WoW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor form to post the protester's home address on the front page.. not cool..

Absolutely agree, I know the editor is the big dick at anarchy, but to post personal gripes on a public forum's frontpage, is abuse of power. So now anyone else happening to race the "mighty anarchy" (and boy are they good, we have been told that at least 15 times!!) will think twice about fouling, protesting, crossing or generally speaking coming even a little bit near this SA boat, for fear of having their personal details being spread across the internet.

bad bad form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Protestor cites Bylaws Sec IV a+b which has to do with paying dues.. irrelevant?

 

NOR says any member of an organization affiliated with a US Sailing qualifies

There is nothing about being a CRA member to enter

 

I'm afraid the douchebag wins this one

 

Sailman - a protest can be accepted past the deadline if the committee feels new information came to light after the deadline

Like weight limits on a J29

And you see how that worked out for the DOUCHE BAG from NJ

I think there is more than one douche bag in NJ. And they are from the same club.

I think it's time for another learning lesson for both of them... maybe AYC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor form to post the protester's home address on the front page.. not cool..

Yeah.. Here is what the toilet looked like in 2009

http://img-paragon.sandicor.com/ParagonImages/Property/Q1/SANDICOR/90010311/16/0/0/cf30e21bb0945a0c6f46ea6d4e09b1f7/1/ff9ea7fe54e087aa1ce4514231f3ba88/90010311-16.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.4 (a) & (d)

 

look it up.

 

would they? don't know, but the clock is ticking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any competitor has the right to file a protest if he believes there has been an infringement of the rules. He doesn't have to be correct. So while maybe a wanker move, he is within his rights.

 

Ed's posting of said competitors address, and calling him a wanker for exercising his rights as a competitor is classless, and unsportsman-like.

 

I believe protest to be groundless, and will get chucked. Ed, you should have just let it go at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Poor form to post the protester's home address on the front page.. not cool..

Absolutely agree, I know the editor is the big dick at anarchy, but to post personal gripes on a public forum's frontpage, is abuse of power. So now anyone else happening to race the "mighty anarchy" (and boy are they good, we have been told that at least 15 times!!) will think twice about fouling, protesting, crossing or generally speaking coming even a little bit near this SA boat, for fear of having their personal details being spread across the internet.

bad bad form.

 

 

The sad part is Scot is using the SA page to initially air the personal issue. He should have just posted in the forums. Scot looks like the Trump of sailing, except the real Trump is a billionaire.

 

I remember Scot telling me he did not want a blog. Well Scot, that's what you have turned SA into.

 

SA = Scot's Ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dick move to be sure there Ed.

 

I wouldn't call it a new low though. Picking on a kid in the whole Money Wins episode was your low point. You're still above the bar on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, there is no low that some won't stoop to in an attempt to throw me out of a yacht race.

 

Here's the story: Anarchy was entered in a three-race Winter Series held by the Cortez Racing Association, which in addition to SDYC, I have been a member of for years. I was in Germany for the first race of the series, so I asked good friend and fellow SDYC member Alex Camet to sail the boat in my absence. He did, and to no one's surprise, Anarchy won.

 

But, to my actual surprise, a full eleven days after the race, I received an e-mail from the CRA protest chair informing the me that the distant third-place boat in our class was protesting us. What heinous crime did Anarchy commit? And one that would warrant a protest to be filed a full eleven days later? Some blatant on the water foul? Perhaps a mark that we hit but didn't do a turn? Maybe a gross equipment violation? Surely it was something substantive and very, very serious, correct?

 

I'm afraid not. It turns out that Brad Alberts, the owner of "El Sueno", a somewhat sluggish Beneteau 47.7 (a boat that we beat by 10 minutes on a 19 mile race last Sat) thinks that Anarchy should be disqualified because the boat didn't have a CRA member onboard! OMG!!! We should be thrown out of yacht racing for eternity! We are clearly cheaters attempting to subvert the rules! Inform US Sailing immediately!!!!

 

It's not that it's a chickenshit protest that had nothing to do with the actual racing, it's not that's it's not a total waste of time, it's not that it is almost completely without merit. No, it is that this clown thinks that this is actually a worthwhile pursuit. That this is something that he spent DAYS pursuing and obsessing on. Isn't life way too short to spend one's time on such a trivial and douchey protest?

 

For those who care, here is the protest. Here are the CRA By-Laws, and here is both the NOR and SI's. If you have a comment, post it here. - ed. And thanks to Middle Class Rut for the title inspiration

So my question to this douche would be,

Would you rather have 1 less boat racing or not?

So if you get checked, does he move up in the standings to the first loser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently, there is no low that some won't stoop to in an attempt to throw me out of a yacht race.

Here's the story: Anarchy was entered in a three-race Winter Series held by the Cortez Racing Association, which in addition to SDYC, I have been a member of for years. I was in Germany for the first race of the series, so I asked good friend and fellow SDYC member Alex Camet to sail the boat in my absence. He did, and to no one's surprise, Anarchy won.

But, to my actual surprise, a full eleven days after the race, I received an e-mail from the CRA protest chair informing the me that the distant third-place boat in our class was protesting us. What heinous crime did Anarchy commit? And one that would warrant a protest to be filed a full eleven days later? Some blatant on the water foul? Perhaps a mark that we hit but didn't do a turn? Maybe a gross equipment violation? Surely it was something substantive and very, very serious, correct?

I'm afraid not. It turns out that Brad Alberts, the owner of "El Sueno", a somewhat sluggish Beneteau 47.7 (a boat that we beat by 10 minutes on a 19 mile race last Sat) thinks that Anarchy should be disqualified because the boat didn't have a CRA member onboard! OMG!!! We should be thrown out of yacht racing for eternity! We are clearly cheaters attempting to subvert the rules! Inform US Sailing immediately!!!!

It's not that it's a chickenshit protest that had nothing to do with the actual racing, it's not that's it's not a total waste of time, it's not that it is almost completely without merit. No, it is that this clown thinks that this is actually a worthwhile pursuit. That this is something that he spent DAYS pursuing and obsessing on. Isn't life way too short to spend one's time on such a trivial and douchey protest?

For those who care, here is the protest. Here are the CRA By-Laws, and here is both the NOR and SI's. If you have a comment, post it here. - ed. And thanks to Middle Class Rut for the title inspiration

 

Was the entry fee of $40 paid as is required for non CRA members to race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see where you had to pay $40 to race, just to register. Then the question might be is are you registering the boat or the skipper. If the skipper, then do they do separate scoring every time the skipper changes? If they score the boat, and the boat was registered by a member... I personally find it unclear or as was said above, the instructions are mute on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

TWO SIDES

1. Are you pissed when other boats break rules, whether ROW, weight limits, Pro Category, skipping a mark, etc? Did Anarchy break this CRA rule? Is it the right thing to do to withdraw from this race (called "Retired after Finishing)? Don't we all look up to the people who play the game legit?

 

2. If you insist on fighting it, you have a very simple strategy. The protester was required to file the protest within the time limit:

12.PROTESTS:

12.1 RRS 61 is modified to add the additional requirement:

A boat intending to protest shall, upon finishing or retiring, proceed to the R/C boat on station at the finish, report her intentions and the boat(s) being protested, have her protest flag prominently displayed, and obtain R/C acknowledgment.

12.2 Red Protest Flags shall be displayed from the backstay. On yachts without backstays, the protest flag will be displayed in a prominent position on the stern.

12.3 Written protests shall be lodged with a representative of the Race Committee at the post race meeting area within 60 minutes of the R/C Boat docking at the finish of the race day. The Protest Committee may extend this time if there is good reason to do so.

12.4 The parties involved will be listed, in the order of filing, at the post - race meeting area and protests will be heard as soon as practicable. This posting constitutes the notice required by RRS 63.2, Time and Place of the Hearing.

 

His protest already said that he did not fly a red flag, he didn't notify the RC within 60 minutes.

 

The rules do not allow people to go out on a witch hunt after racing, debate it, study it, and draw a conclusion 9 days later. And then pray on the judges to extend the time limit.

 

Practically, look at it this way, if he did fly the red flag on the course, if he did file the protest form within 60 minutes of the docking, he would have complied with the protest filing requirements that would have given him a hearing. In that hearing the judges would ask each member of the Anarchy crew if they were a member of CRA? Each would have said, "No." and the hearing would have been concluded, apparently with a guilty verdict.

 

The protesting boat does not get to think about something, doesn't get to go off and do their own investigation taking 9 days, and then decide to file a protest.

 

So work your best in the pre-hearing, go for the juggernaut that the protest was filed 9 days beyond the filing deadline, explain why there is no reason why the protest time limit should be extended (explain he could have filed the protest on the day of the race as there were no extenuating circumstances, such as a death in the immediate family, or something severe that prevented the protester from doing it within the time limit).

 

I've had similar issues come up and our protest committee disallowed the protest for not filing the protest within the time limit. A couple of times the protesting boats appealed trying to force an time limit extension, and each time the appeals committees affirmed our decision.

 

 

WoW

 

 

We are to uphold the rights of both parties as judges. Just like in a court of law, there are "statute's of limitations" or time limits by which a lawsuit must be filed by. Do you know what the #1 lawsuit against lawyers is? Having missed a filing deadline not giving their client their day in court. People just don't understand how critical it is to get a protest filed immediately. You can always withdraw it (with the PC's permission) if you learn you were wrong before the hearing comes up.

 

Many protests get tossed because people sit at the bar and talk about it, talk with other boats about it, look into the details of it, and finally get the gumption up to fill out a one page form and turn it in, hours, days, or weeks later. What the protester needs to do is disclose when he first thought there might be a problem, did someone tell him about it? When did that occur? How long did he sit on this "thought" before he filed the protest? He could get the time limit extended if from the moment it came to his attention (on the race course? At the bar? Did someone call him on the phone 9 days later bringing it to his attention?), until the protest was filed was less than 60 minutes. He'll have to prove this. Then he would have a shot at having the time limit extended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any competitor has the right to file a protest if he believes there has been an infringement of the rules. He doesn't have to be correct. So while maybe a wanker move, he is within his rights.

 

Ed's posting of said competitors address, and calling him a wanker for exercising his rights as a competitor is classless, and unsportsman-like.

 

I believe protest to be groundless, and will get chucked. Ed, you should have just let it go at that.

Agreed. Edit: that protest form should have been redacted by Tempesta to remove the address and phone number.

 

Seems to me that Tempesta has just opened himself up to a rule 69 protest.

 

Rule 69 - Allegations of Gross Misconduct

69.1. Action by a Protest Committee

 

(a) When a protest committee, from its own observation or a report received from any source, believes that a competitor may have committed a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or may have brought the sport into disrepute, it may

call a hearing. The protest committee shall promptly inform the competitor in writing of the alleged misconduct and of the time and place of the hearing. If the competitor provides good reason for being unable to attend the hearing, the protest committee shall reschedule it.

 

(B) A protest committee of at least three members shall conduct the hearing, following the procedures in rules 63.2, 63.3(a), 63.4 and 63.6. If it decides that the competitor committed the alleged misconduct it shall either

(1) warn the competitor or

(2) impose a penalty by excluding the competitor and, when appropriate, disqualifying a boat, from a race or the remaining races or all races of the series, or by taking other action within its jurisdiction. A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boats series score.

 

© The protest committee shall promptly report a penalty, but not a warning, to the national authorities of the venue, of the com- petitor and of the boat owner. If the protest committee is an international jury appointed by the ISAF under rule 89.2(B), it

shall send a copy of the report to the ISAF.

 

(d) If the competitor does not provide good reason for being unable to attend the hearing and does not come to it, the protest committee may conduct it without the competitor present. If the committee does so and penalizes the competitor, it shall

include in the report it makes under rule 69.1© the facts found, the decision and the reasons for it.

 

(e) If the protest committee chooses not to conduct the hearing without the competitor present or if the hearing cannot be scheduled for a time and place when it would be reasonable for the competitor to attend, the protest committee shall collect all available information and, if the allegation seems justified, make a report to the relevant national authorities. If the protest committee is an international jury appointed by the ISAF under rule 89.2(B), it shall send a copy of the report to the ISAF.

 

(f) When the protest committee has left the event and a report alleging misconduct is received, the race committee or organizing authority may appoint a new protest committee to proceed under this rule.

 

69.2. Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF

 

(a) When a national authority or the ISAF receives a report alleging a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, a report alleging conduct that has brought the sport into disrepute, or a report required by rule 69.1© or 69.1(e), it may conduct an investigation and, when appropriate, shall conduct a hearing. It may then take any disciplinary action within its jurisdiction it considers appropriate against the competitor or

boat, or other person involved, including suspending eligibility, permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event held within its jurisdiction, and suspending ISAF eligibility under ISAF Regulation 19.

 

(B) The national authority of a competitor shall also suspend the ISAF eligibility of the competitor as required in ISAF Regulation 19.

 

© The national authority shall promptly report a suspension of eligibility under rule 69.2(a) to the ISAF, and to the national authorities of the person or the owner of the boat suspended if they are not members of the suspending national authority.

 

69.3. Subsequent Action by the ISAF

Upon receipt of a report required by rule 69.2© or ISAF Regulation 19, or following its own action under rule 69.2(a), the ISAF shall inform all national authorities, which may also suspend eligibility for events held within their jurisdiction. The ISAF Executive Committee shall suspend the competitors ISAF eligibility as required in ISAF

Regulation 19 if the competitors national authority does not do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Poor form to post the protester's home address on the front page.. not cool..

Absolutely agree, I know the editor is the big dick at anarchy, but to post personal gripes on a public forum's frontpage, is abuse of power. So now anyone else happening to race the "mighty anarchy" (and boy are they good, we have been told that at least 15 times!!) will think twice about fouling, protesting, crossing or generally speaking coming even a little bit near this SA boat, for fear of having their personal details being spread across the internet.

bad bad form.

 

Hyperbole. Maybe you should look up the definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Douche move on the part of the protester, and on the RC for accepting the protest. Gotta wonder, with you being the good guy you are and all, why anyone would want to do anything to aggravate ya like this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Douche move on the part of the protester, and on the RC for accepting the protest. Gotta wonder, with you being the good guy you are and all, why anyone would want to do anything to aggravate ya like this....

 

Quite often, sarcasm, does not translate well to the written word. This is an excellent exception!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

TWO SIDES

1. Are you pissed when other boats break rules, whether ROW, weight limits, Pro Category, skipping a mark, etc? Did Anarchy break this CRA rule? Is it the right thing to do to withdraw from this race (called "Retired after Finishing)? Don't we all look up to the people who play the game legit?

 

2. If you insist on fighting it, you have a very simple strategy. The protester was required to file the protest within the time limit:

12.PROTESTS:

12.1 RRS 61 is modified to add the additional requirement:

A boat intending to protest shall, upon finishing or retiring, proceed to the R/C boat on station at the finish, report her intentions and the boat(s) being protested, have her protest flag prominently displayed, and obtain R/C acknowledgment.

12.2 Red Protest Flags shall be displayed from the backstay. On yachts without backstays, the protest flag will be displayed in a prominent position on the stern.

12.3 Written protests shall be lodged with a representative of the Race Committee at the post race meeting area within 60 minutes of the R/C Boat docking at the finish of the race day. The Protest Committee may extend this time if there is good reason to do so.

12.4 The parties involved will be listed, in the order of filing, at the post - race meeting area and protests will be heard as soon as practicable. This posting constitutes the notice required by RRS 63.2, Time and Place of the Hearing.

 

His protest already said that he did not fly a red flag, he didn't notify the RC within 60 minutes.

 

The rules do not allow people to go out on a witch hunt after racing, debate it, study it, and draw a conclusion 9 days later. And then pray on the judges to extend the time limit.

 

Practically, look at it this way, if he did fly the red flag on the course, if he did file the protest form within 60 minutes of the docking, he would have complied with the protest filing requirements that would have given him a hearing. In that hearing the judges would ask each member of the Anarchy crew if they were a member of CRA? Each would have said, "No." and the hearing would have been concluded, apparently with a guilty verdict.

 

The protesting boat does not get to think about something, doesn't get to go off and do their own investigation taking 9 days, and then decide to file a protest.

 

So work your best in the pre-hearing, go for the juggernaut that the protest was filed 9 days beyond the filing deadline, explain why there is no reason why the protest time limit should be extended (explain he could have filed the protest on the day of the race as there were no extenuating circumstances, such as a death in the immediate family, or something severe that prevented the protester from doing it within the time limit).

 

I've had similar issues come up and our protest committee disallowed the protest for not filing the protest within the time limit. A couple of times the protesting boats appealed trying to force an time limit extension, and each time the appeals committees affirmed our decision.

 

WoW

 

We are to uphold the rights of both parties as judges. Just like in a court of law, there are "statute's of limitations" or time limits by which a lawsuit must be filed by. Do you know what the #1 lawsuit against lawyers is? Having missed a filing deadline not giving their client their day in court. People just don't understand how critical it is to get a protest filed immediately. You can always withdraw it (with the PC's permission) if you learn you were wrong before the hearing comes up.

 

Many protests get tossed because people sit at the bar and talk about it, talk with other boats about it, look into the details of it, and finally get the gumption up to fill out a one page form and turn it in, hours, days, or weeks later. What the protester needs to do is disclose when he first thought there might be a problem, did someone tell him about it? When did that occur? How long did he sit on this "thought" before he filed the protest? He could get the time limit extended if from the moment it came to his attention (on the race course? At the bar? Did someone call him on the phone 9 days later bringing it to his attention?), until the protest was filed was less than 60 minutes. He'll have to prove this. Then he would have a shot at having the time limit extended.

 

Please shut the fuck up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, there is no low that some won't stoop to in an attempt to throw me out of a yacht race.

Here's the story: Anarchy was entered in a three-race Winter Series held by the Cortez Racing Association, which in addition to SDYC, I have been a member of for years. I was in Germany for the first race of the series, so I asked good friend and fellow SDYC member Alex Camet to sail the boat in my absence. He did, and to no one's surprise, Anarchy won.

But, to my actual surprise, a full eleven days after the race, I received an e-mail from the CRA protest chair informing the me that the distant third-place boat in our class was protesting us. What heinous crime did Anarchy commit? And one that would warrant a protest to be filed a full eleven days later? Some blatant on the water foul? Perhaps a mark that we hit but didn't do a turn? Maybe a gross equipment violation? Surely it was something substantive and very, very serious, correct?

I'm afraid not. It turns out that Brad Alberts, the owner of "El Sueno", a somewhat sluggish Beneteau 47.7 (a boat that we beat by 10 minutes on a 19 mile race last Sat) thinks that Anarchy should be disqualified because the boat didn't have a CRA member onboard! OMG!!! We should be thrown out of yacht racing for eternity! We are clearly cheaters attempting to subvert the rules! Inform US Sailing immediately!!!!

It's not that it's a chickenshit protest that had nothing to do with the actual racing, it's not that's it's not a total waste of time, it's not that it is almost completely without merit. No, it is that this clown thinks that this is actually a worthwhile pursuit. That this is something that he spent DAYS pursuing and obsessing on. Isn't life way too short to spend one's time on such a trivial and douchey protest?

For those who care, here is the protest. Here are the CRA By-Laws, and here is both the NOR and SI's. If you have a comment, post it here. - ed. And thanks to Middle Class Rut for the

 

Ooh, thug life-

You badass thug you- frosted hair matters!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got charged with this CRA BS in the past. They either want the entry or membership fees.

 

B.A. is either Commodore, SC or JSC of CRA. If B.A. questioned the membership of the crew (skipper/helmsman not required), he should of filed immediately to ask the question. Instead this smells of a CRA BoD action and B.A. volunteered to file.

 

Hopefully CRA Protest Chair will quash this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Any competitor has the right to file a protest if he believes there has been an infringement of the rules. He doesn't have to be correct. So while maybe a wanker move, he is within his rights.

 

Ed's posting of said competitors address, and calling him a wanker for exercising his rights as a competitor is classless, and unsportsman-like.

 

I believe protest to be groundless, and will get chucked. Ed, you should have just let it go at that.

 

Agreed.

 

Seems to me that Tempesta has just opened himself up to a rule 69 protest.

 

Rule 69 - Allegations of Gross Misconduct

69.1. Action by a Protest Committee

(a) When a protest committee, from its own observation or a report received from any source, believes that a competitor may have committed a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or may have brought the sport into disrepute, it may

call a hearing. The protest committee shall promptly inform the competitor in writing of the alleged misconduct and of the time and place of the hearing. If the competitor provides good reason for being unable to attend the hearing, the protest committee shall reschedule it.

 

( B) A protest committee of at least three members shall conduct the hearing, following the procedures in rules 63.2, 63.3(a), 63.4 and 63.6. If it decides that the competitor committed the alleged misconduct it shall either

(1) warn the competitor or

(2) impose a penalty by excluding the competitor and, when appropriate, disqualifying a boat, from a race or the remaining races or all races of the series, or by taking other action within its jurisdiction. A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat’s series score.

 

© The protest committee shall promptly report a penalty, but not a warning, to the national authorities of the venue, of the com- petitor and of the boat owner. If the protest committee is an international jury appointed by the ISAF under rule 89.2( B), it

shall send a copy of the report to the ISAF.

 

(d) If the competitor does not provide good reason for being unable to attend the hearing and does not come to it, the protest committee may conduct it without the competitor present. If the committee does so and penalizes the competitor, it shall

include in the report it makes under rule 69.1© the facts found, the decision and the reasons for it.

 

(e) If the protest committee chooses not to conduct the hearing without the competitor present or if the hearing cannot be scheduled for a time and place when it would be reasonable for the competitor to attend, the protest committee shall collect all available information and, if the allegation seems justified, make a report to the relevant national authorities. If the protest committee is an international jury appointed by the ISAF under rule 89.2( B), it shall send a copy of the report to the ISAF.

 

(f) When the protest committee has left the event and a report alleging misconduct is received, the race committee or organizing authority may appoint a new protest committee to proceed under this rule.

 

69.2. Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF

(a) When a national authority or the ISAF receives a report alleging a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, a report alleging conduct that has brought the sport into disrepute, or a report required by rule 69.1© or 69.1(e), it may conduct an investigation and, when appropriate, shall conduct a hearing. It may then take any disciplinary action within its jurisdiction it considers appropriate against the competitor or

boat, or other person involved, including suspending eligibility, permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event held within its jurisdiction, and suspending ISAF eligibility under ISAF Regulation 19.

 

( B) The national authority of a competitor shall also suspend the ISAF eligibility of the competitor as required in ISAF Regulation 19.

 

© The national authority shall promptly report a suspension of eligibility under rule 69.2(a) to the ISAF, and to the national authorities of the person or the owner of the boat suspended if they are not members of the suspending national authority.

 

69.3. Subsequent Action by the ISAF

Upon receipt of a report required by rule 69.2© or ISAF Regulation 19, or following its own action under rule 69.2(a), the ISAF shall inform all national authorities, which may also suspend eligibility for events held within their jurisdiction. The ISAF Executive Committee shall suspend the competitor’s ISAF eligibility as required in ISAF

Regulation 19 if the competitor’s national authority does not do so.

 

Please tell me why posting a document with somebody's name and address on the internet is "unsportsmanlike behavior"? Do you remember the day when everybody had this thing in their house called a phone book? You know, this thing that everybody received from the phone company that listed almost everybody's name and phone number and address. WTF, anyone could google the boat name and probably find out the owners name and address rather quickly. A sailboat race is a rather public event. A protest is usually public knowledge within the club. What is the big deal, is there some reasonable expectation of privacy being violated here? I sincerely doubt it. Folks here are always happy to call out douche bag behavior until the douche bag being called out is being called out by, in the eyes of many here, an even bigger douche bag. All of you douche bag sea lawyers and real lawyers need to have a great big cup of HTFU and STFU. This is Scot's playground, he started it and he can run it by his rules. If you don't like that, go to Sailnet or somewhere else, I hear they really love douche bags over in those other sailing forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got charged with this CRA BS in the past. They either want the entry or membership fees.

 

B.A. is either Commodore, SC or JSC of CRA. If B.A. questioned the membership of the crew (skipper/helmsman not required), he should of filed immediately to ask the question. Instead this smells of a CRA BoD action and B.A. volunteered to file.

 

Hopefully CRA Protest Chair will quash this.

Can we get Mr. Clean to call him and get to the bottom of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we wonder why the sport continues in decline...

EXACTLY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any competitor has the right to file a protest if he believes there has been an infringement of the rules. He doesn't have to be correct. So while maybe a wanker move, he is within his rights.

 

Ed's posting of said competitors address, and calling him a wanker for exercising his rights as a competitor is classless, and unsportsman-like.

 

I believe protest to be groundless, and will get chucked. Ed, you should have just let it go at that.

Fuck me, why am I even reading this thread!?

 

Question:

If somebody files a protest knowing it is not valid and just doing it to piss with the other guy then would that not be the protester violating rule 69?

 

Maybe said protester is just pissed the Ed's "potato chip boat" beat his "proper yacht"?

 

And just to stir the pot:

Ed, Stop bragging about beating up on the lead mines. Or beat that 47.7 in 25kts then you did something. Otherwise, as said above, do well in a OD class and then brag.

47.7 Guy, Grow up you are taking PHRF racing WAY too serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup - race OD and then brag.., otherwise it's meaningless.., no matter what rule

 

i have no real objection to racing under ratings or handicaps, but there is no reason to get as worked up over it as people do

 

when it comes to this kind of racing.., what happens off the water is as important as what happens on the water - and a protest (or is it a redress request?) on a procedural or technical matter is really no different than trying to game the rating process - "the continuation of racing by other means"..,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought this thread was going to be about some weather system approaching Southern California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Poor form to post the protester's home address on the front page.. not cool..

Absolutely agree, I know the editor is the big dick at anarchy, but to post personal gripes on a public forum's frontpage, is abuse of power. So now anyone else happening to race the "mighty anarchy" (and boy are they good, we have been told that at least 15 times!!) will think twice about fouling, protesting, crossing or generally speaking coming even a little bit near this SA boat, for fear of having their personal details being spread across the internet.

bad bad form.

 

 

The sad part is Scot is using the SA page to initially air the personal issue. He should have just posted in the forums. Scot looks like the Trump of sailing, except the real Trump is a billionaire.

 

I remember Scot telling me he did not want a blog. Well Scot, that's what you have turned SA into.

 

SA = Scot's Ass

 

It appears there is more more to the issue. Anarchy with the gp 26 did not win so he bought a faster boat with a gift rating. It has won every race entered this year it appears even without the captain onboard. Racing against non sprit boats in a huge class and bragging about it on his own website. I suggest he go race one design with other 32's we will be happy to hear about the wins in the competitive class

 

Although he is provisionally rated 33 in PHRF locally, he is racing with a rating of 21 (assigned by CRA) for this series, apparently more in line with what M32s rate in other venues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key to this actually is in the bylaws right where the protest indicates. The question becomes if the $40 was paid or not. CRA membership entitles someone to "...the right to skipper a vessel (one) in all CRA events and the right to enter into all activities schedule by CRA for which the Member may qualify under general CRA class..." Skipper means that the member will be on the boat, not simply entering the boat in a race.

By not being on the boat the entry is subject to the $40 fee. It would also be considered a different entry from a scoring perspective (for the series scoring).
Of course only a dick would actually protest this...but one ahole protesting another ahole...well that is just sailing lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key to this actually is in the bylaws right where the protest indicates. The question becomes if the $40 was paid or not. CRA membership entitles someone to "...the right to skipper a vessel (one) in all CRA events and the right to enter into all activities schedule by CRA for which the Member may qualify under general CRA class..." Skipper means that the member will be on the boat, not simply entering the boat in a race.

 

By not being on the boat the entry is subject to the $40 fee. It would also be considered a different entry from a scoring perspective (for the series scoring).

 

Of course only a dick would actually protest this...but one ahole protesting another ahole...well that is just sailing lately.

Where does it say the Bylaws of the CRA will govern the regatta? You don't even have to be a member of the CRA to enter the regatta.

And it's irrelevant, but it says the fee can be waived by the Board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please shut the fuck up

 

 

As usual in protests/redress, people prefer to get emotional, rather than look at the steps towards resolution and outcome.

 

And give me an example of when someone was protested that they weren't pissed, aggravated, annoyed (again emotional)? So Scooter is mouthing off, not the first time I have seen a protestee getting the shorts in a knot. Watching this thread is like reading a Kardashian diary. No substance, all emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these guys is a well known fuckstick who constantly whines about rules and looks for ways to protest people. The other owns a sailing website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scot Tempesta is one part Kardashian and one part John Kilroy. One part seeks attention for doing nothing and the other part fucks up any class he gets involved in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any competitor has the right to file a protest if he believes there has been an infringement of the rules. He doesn't have to be correct. So while maybe a wanker move, he is within his rights.

 

Ed's posting of said competitors address, and calling him a wanker for exercising his rights as a competitor is classless, and unsportsman-like.

 

I believe protest to be groundless, and will get chucked. Ed, you should have just let it go at that.

I don't think so. The NOR and SI are extensions of the RRS, so a competitor is subject to protest for not honoring those documents; however, neither NOR nor SI say anything about having to be a member of CRA; therefore, how on god's green earth do you get protested for the bylaws of a club? That would mean every club you race at could protest you for some breach of club etiquette, which has fukoll to do with racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing better than reading from the haters how this is somehow my fault.

 

As for posting a couple of articles about winning a race or two, big deal. Im not saying we're great, im just stoked about the boat and how much fun we're having. You know about fun, right? It's the reason we even do this at all.

 

As for Craig Leweck posting as "Messenger ", why are you such a gutless pussy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing better than reading from the haters how this is somehow my fault.

 

As for posting a couple of articles about winning a race or two, big deal. Im not saying we're great, im just stoked about the boat and how much fun we're having. You know about fun, right? It's the reason we even do this at all.

 

As for Craig Leweck posting as "Messenger ", why are you such a gutless pussy?

All that post up with alias's are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRA membership waives the entrance fee. So for the boat to be entered without paying the fee (as per the NOR) they have to meet the CRA membership rules, which defines what is allowed under the CRA membership section of the bylaws.

The NOR does allow any boat to enter. I could enter my boat. BUT I would have to pay $40 as I am not a CRA member and I would not have had a CRA member using their "rights" to enter the boat.

I think that is the point...by the CRA member not being on the boat, the boat is not eligible for free entrance to the regatta.

So once again...did the boat pay the $40 to enter the regatta?

 

 

The key to this actually is in the bylaws right where the protest indicates. The question becomes if the $40 was paid or not. CRA membership entitles someone to "...the right to skipper a vessel (one) in all CRA events and the right to enter into all activities schedule by CRA for which the Member may qualify under general CRA class..." Skipper means that the member will be on the boat, not simply entering the boat in a race.

By not being on the boat the entry is subject to the $40 fee. It would also be considered a different entry from a scoring perspective (for the series scoring).

Of course only a dick would actually protest this...but one ahole protesting another ahole...well that is just sailing lately.


Where does it say the Bylaws of the CRA will govern the regatta? You don't even have to be a member of the CRA to enter the regatta.
And it's irrelevant, but it says the fee can be waived by the Board.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for posting a couple of articles about winning a race or two, big deal. Im not saying we're great, im just stoked about the boat and how much fun we're having. You know about fun, right? It's the reason we even do this at all.

 

 

....seems contrary to your 'just for fun' attitude that you had pinch-hitters race your boat when you're away,no? :mellow:

 

 

 

Chickenshit protest for sure. Happens all the time in kooky PHRF events.

...yah,,,that's why ed got a nice OD racer right? :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRA membership waives the entrance fee. So for the boat to be entered without paying the fee (as per the NOR) they have to meet the CRA membership rules, which defines what is allowed under the CRA membership section of the bylaws.

 

The NOR does allow any boat to enter. I could enter my boat. BUT I would have to pay $40 as I am not a CRA member and I would not have had a CRA member using their "rights" to enter the boat.

 

I think that is the point...by the CRA member not being on the boat, the boat is not eligible for free entrance to the regatta.

 

So once again...did the boat pay the $40 to enter the regatta?

 

 

 

The key to this actually is in the bylaws right where the protest indicates. The question becomes if the $40 was paid or not. CRA membership entitles someone to "...the right to skipper a vessel (one) in all CRA events and the right to enter into all activities schedule by CRA for which the Member may qualify under general CRA class..." Skipper means that the member will be on the boat, not simply entering the boat in a race.

 

By not being on the boat the entry is subject to the $40 fee. It would also be considered a different entry from a scoring perspective (for the series scoring).

 

Of course only a dick would actually protest this...but one ahole protesting another ahole...well that is just sailing lately.

Where does it say the Bylaws of the CRA will govern the regatta? You don't even have to be a member of the CRA to enter the regatta.

And it's irrelevant, but it says the fee can be waived by the Board.

 

 

You're barking up the wrong mast.

Bylaws are irrelevant. NOR supercedes everything even if they were.

Wether or not the regatta fee was paid is an accounting issue. Maybe there was credit extended. Maybe they havent been invoiced yet.

Who gives a shit? It may change the fee they pay. It doesnt change their eligibility per the NOR. The NOR may as well say members of

NAMBLA dont have to pay. IT DOESNT MATTER!

 

There is nothing that says a member of CRA has to be on the boat. Paid or otherwise.

 

Jesus, I cant believe I'm arguing in favor of our asshole. Its giving me a headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryley. The NOR does state that the entrance fee for non CRA members is $40. The assumption is that the boat is either non-CRA or operating under the rules that are defined by the CRA membership (which is defined in the bylaws). Essentially...either have a CRA member on board operating as the skipper, or pay your $40 and register your boat as whatever you want.

This is really not a new situation (perhaps new here, but this same discussion happens everywhere). Someone wants to sail in "club XYZ's" event, so to do that they either need to pay their fee, or meet the rules of that club's entrance. Many clubs are just fine with guests borrowing club member's boats, others may not be. Really depends on the club and the people involved, but ultimately the rules are set by the NOR, SI, and indirectly the bylaws of the club when membership is required (again to waive the entrance fee, or when club membership is required). In this case it is either $40 to enter OR have a CRA member skippering the boat.

As a note...I have seen this same situation occur when "guest drivers" show up and sail a boat to a win in a club series. Even if that is legal under the eligibility for the series...it can piss people off at the minimum. Probably bad form at the minimum.

 

I really do not have anything to do with this fight...I frankly think the protest is not really appropriate (perhaps "legal"). I also think airing this on SA is also a dick move, and probably violates several aspects of the RRS, items such as due process would be violated by having a one sided discussion about what really is a legally binding process (as the Hall verdict proved to US Sailing). Scot would have been better served not allowing any discussion, or presenting it in a neutral way (vs the way it was presented). But that is not his way, and he probably has not learned from the past.

 

 

Any competitor has the right to file a protest if he believes there has been an infringement of the rules. He doesn't have to be correct. So while maybe a wanker move, he is within his rights.

 

Ed's posting of said competitors address, and calling him a wanker for exercising his rights as a competitor is classless, and unsportsman-like.

 

I believe protest to be groundless, and will get chucked. Ed, you should have just let it go at that.

I don't think so. The NOR and SI are extensions of the RRS, so a competitor is subject to protest for not honoring those documents; however, neither NOR nor SI say anything about having to be a member of CRA; therefore, how on god's green earth do you get protested for the bylaws of a club? That would mean every club you race at could protest you for some breach of club etiquette, which has fukoll to do with racing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame on them for protesting such a stupid rule.

 

Shame on you for having a whinge about it on the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I am not barking up the wrong mast lol. The NOR defines the "eligibility for the event", and non payment of required fees is not a simple accounting matter, it does determine if you are part of the event or not. If you do not pay, or meet the financial obligation under the NOR, then you are not part of the event. Also as per the NOR, no "waiving of the fee" exists, you are either a CRA member or not...if not you must pay your $40. CRA membership is defined by the CRA bylaws, and those bylaws become part of the regatta when CRA membership is required. The word "skipper" is key there, and you cannot skipper a boat in a race without being on that boat (long since defined by sailing cases).

This really is an important issue as a racer to understand. The NOR is not "wishy washy", it is essentially a legal document that you must obey, and the regatta must obey. People who run regattas are very careful on this process, and mistakes can and have ruined major regattas for people.

So again I will say it one more time. The results of this protest really hinge on if the boat entrance paid their $40 or not. If they did then protest dismissed. IF they did not, then the committee will have to determine if the entry met the requirement of CRA membership or not. Based on the reading I see as per the bylaws, they did not since the CRA member of record was not on board operating as the skipper as per IV.2.A of the CRA bylaws.

 

There really is no gray here...of course this is a protest hearing at a club level, so there are lots of shades of everything.

 

 


You're barking up the wrong mast.
Bylaws are irrelevant. NOR supercedes everything even if they were.
Wether or not the regatta fee was paid is an accounting issue. Maybe there was credit extended. Maybe they havent been invoiced yet.
Who gives a shit? It may change the fee they pay. It doesnt change their eligibility per the NOR. The NOR may as well say members of
NAMBLA dont have to pay. IT DOESNT MATTER!

There is nothing that says a member of CRA has to be on the boat. Paid or otherwise.

Jesus, I cant believe I'm arguing in favor of our asshole. Its giving me a headache.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hdglightning - from this link: http://www.regattanetwork.com/clubmgmt/applet_registrant_list.php?regatta_id=11816&custom_report_id=2

 

It appears he's registered. 2.3 and 2.4 of the NOR indicate the criteria under which a boat is registered. At least as far as regattanetwork is concerned, the boat was registered. Seems pretty cut and dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ryley. The NOR does state that the entrance fee for non CRA members is $40. The assumption is that the boat is either non-CRA or operating under the rules that are defined by the CRA membership (which is defined in the bylaws). Essentially...either have a CRA member on board operating as the skipper, or pay your $40 and register your boat as whatever you want.

 

This is really not a new situation (perhaps new here, but this same discussion happens everywhere). Someone wants to sail in "club XYZ's" event, so to do that they either need to pay their fee, or meet the rules of that club's entrance. Many clubs are just fine with guests borrowing club member's boats, others may not be. Really depends on the club and the people involved, but ultimately the rules are set by the NOR, SI, and indirectly the bylaws of the club when membership is required (again to waive the entrance fee, or when club membership is required). In this case it is either $40 to enter OR have a CRA member skippering the boat.

 

As a note...I have seen this same situation occur when "guest drivers" show up and sail a boat to a win in a club series. Even if that is legal under the eligibility for the series...it can piss people off at the minimum. Probably bad form at the minimum.

 

I really do not have anything to do with this fight...I frankly think the protest is not really appropriate (perhaps "legal"). I also think airing this on SA is also a dick move, and probably violates several aspects of the RRS, items such as due process would be violated by having a one sided discussion about what really is a legally binding process (as the Hall verdict proved to US Sailing). Scot would have been better served not allowing any discussion, or presenting it in a neutral way (vs the way it was presented). But that is not his way, and he probably has not learned from the past.

 

 

Any competitor has the right to file a protest if he believes there has been an infringement of the rules. He doesn't have to be correct. So while maybe a wanker move, he is within his rights.

 

Ed's posting of said competitors address, and calling him a wanker for exercising his rights as a competitor is classless, and unsportsman-like.

 

I believe protest to be groundless, and will get chucked. Ed, you should have just let it go at that.

I don't think so. The NOR and SI are extensions of the RRS, so a competitor is subject to protest for not honoring those documents; however, neither NOR nor SI say anything about having to be a member of CRA; therefore, how on god's green earth do you get protested for the bylaws of a club? That would mean every club you race at could protest you for some breach of club etiquette, which has fukoll to do with racing.

 

 

 

a dick move? holding a fucking waste of time protest up to the light makes me a dick? fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryley,

Registration does not mean he is meeting the NOR. Far from cut and dry. He could modify his boat for example and no longer be in spec for his PHRF rating...the registration would not "waive" that. Just like part 3 of the NOR under "FEES" would not be skipped just because his registration is on the website.

The NOR and SI's are to be followed by both the regatta and the competitors. A mistake by one does not exonerate the other from upholding their requirement.

As an example. Lets say I belong to club XYZ which last year was a member in good standing of US Sailing. BUT...outside of my control club XYZ did not pay their dues to US Sailing, and as a result is not "affiliated with US Sailing". I might not have known this, totally outside of my control. But...according to 2.1 I am no longer eligible to enter this race. Yep it sucks, and 99.99% of the time no one would care, no one would protest, and no one would not accept my $40....but I would be wrong even though it had nothing to do with me.

Sadly regattas have been won and lost by small things like this. It sucks. IT is stupid. It does not change the reality that this buy got beat on the water. But that all does not matter...what matters is if the entrance was done proper to the NOR and SI, and that the boat/entrance conformed to these. People don't realize how important the fine print is, both from a competitor and a race committee/host.

 

hdglightning - from this link: http://www.regattanetwork.com/clubmgmt/applet_registrant_list.php?regatta_id=11816&custom_report_id=2

 

It appears he's registered. 2.3 and 2.4 of the NOR indicate the criteria under which a boat is registered. At least as far as regattanetwork is concerned, the boat was registered. Seems pretty cut and dry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, being a dick makes you a dick. Do you still get invited to sail on Mile High Klub?

 

 

Do these pants make my ass look aft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both of you are being a dick yes. You can tell me to fuck off all you want. That does not change the fact that a) he is an asshole for protesting your boat for a BS situation (even if he is right...) and you were an asshole for posting this to the front page of SA in the manner you did.

Regardless...did you or Alex pay the $40? Quite simple if you ask me. If yes...then case closed. If no...then frankly you are going to have to defend yourself in the protest. It sucks, but other option is to drop out OR ask for "forgiveness" to the club and see if they will enter Alex separate for that race. You won't get credit, but many will allow it. There are better ways than trying to bully a bully back.

 

 

 



 

a dick move? holding a fucking waste of time protest up to the light makes me a dick? fuck off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ryley,

Registration does not mean he is meeting the NOR. Far from cut and dry. He could modify his boat for example and no longer be in spec for his PHRF rating...the registration would not "waive" that. Just like part 3 of the NOR under "FEES" would not be skipped just because his registration is on the website.

 

The NOR and SI's are to be followed by both the regatta and the competitors. A mistake by one does not exonerate the other from upholding their requirement.

 

As an example. Lets say I belong to club XYZ which last year was a member in good standing of US Sailing. BUT...outside of my control club XYZ did not pay their dues to US Sailing, and as a result is not "affiliated with US Sailing". I might not have known this, totally outside of my control. But...according to 2.1 I am no longer eligible to enter this race. Yep it sucks, and 99.99% of the time no one would care, no one would protest, and no one would not accept my $40....but I would be wrong even though it had nothing to do with me.

 

Sadly regattas have been won and lost by small things like this. It sucks. IT is stupid. It does not change the reality that this buy got beat on the water. But that all does not matter...what matters is if the entrance was done proper to the NOR and SI, and that the boat/entrance conformed to these. People don't realize how important the fine print is, both from a competitor and a race committee/host.

 

hdglightning - from this link: http://www.regattanetwork.com/clubmgmt/applet_registrant_list.php?regatta_id=11816&custom_report_id=2

 

It appears he's registered. 2.3 and 2.4 of the NOR indicate the criteria under which a boat is registered. At least as far as regattanetwork is concerned, the boat was registered. Seems pretty cut and dry.

 

 

So which is it? Scot doesn't belong to a us sailing club? his registration was late? he modified his boat? What's pretty clear is two things - first, you have a dog in this fight. second, the evidence points to a properly-registered boat and the by-laws posted on the protest form don't apply. The ONLY way those bylaws apply is if Scot registered late, he's not a CRA member in good standing, and they accepted his late registration in violation of their own NOR. Otherwise, there's nothing to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ryley,

Registration does not mean he is meeting the NOR. Far from cut and dry. He could modify his boat for example and no longer be in spec for his PHRF rating...the registration would not "waive" that. Just like part 3 of the NOR under "FEES" would not be skipped just because his registration is on the website.

 

The NOR and SI's are to be followed by both the regatta and the competitors. A mistake by one does not exonerate the other from upholding their requirement.

 

As an example. Lets say I belong to club XYZ which last year was a member in good standing of US Sailing. BUT...outside of my control club XYZ did not pay their dues to US Sailing, and as a result is not "affiliated with US Sailing". I might not have known this, totally outside of my control. But...according to 2.1 I am no longer eligible to enter this race. Yep it sucks, and 99.99% of the time no one would care, no one would protest, and no one would not accept my $40....but I would be wrong even though it had nothing to do with me.

 

Sadly regattas have been won and lost by small things like this. It sucks. IT is stupid. It does not change the reality that this buy got beat on the water. But that all does not matter...what matters is if the entrance was done proper to the NOR and SI, and that the boat/entrance conformed to these. People don't realize how important the fine print is, both from a competitor and a race committee/host.

 

hdglightning - from this link: http://www.regattanetwork.com/clubmgmt/applet_registrant_list.php?regatta_id=11816&custom_report_id=2

 

It appears he's registered. 2.3 and 2.4 of the NOR indicate the criteria under which a boat is registered. At least as far as regattanetwork is concerned, the boat was registered. Seems pretty cut and dry.

 

 

So which is it? Scot doesn't belong to a us sailing club? his registration was late? he modified his boat? What's pretty clear is two things - first, you have a dog in this fight. second, the evidence points to a properly-registered boat and the by-laws posted on the protest form don't apply. The ONLY way those bylaws apply is if Scot registered late, he's not a CRA member in good standing, and they accepted his late registration in violation of their own NOR. Otherwise, there's nothing to see here.

 

you hit it right - he clearly has a dog in this and there is nothing to see here. but good christ almighty, fucks like this are always looking to create an issue when there really isn't one at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryley.

I used the sailing club as an example of how you can violate the NOR. Sorry...I confused the topic.

My "dog" in this fight is that a friend of mine got screwed years ago because a bunch of idiots did not follow the NOR and SI's. Cost her a bunch, and while vindicated later, that really meant little overall. So I do respond to this stuff because I feel that it is important for all people to realize that the NOR is important to understand, and the nuances involved can get you tossed from a race...even days later.

As to your comment. No, the bylaws do apply not just if he is late. The WHOLE NOR has to be followed, not just eligibility. So 3 (Fee) is as important as eligibility. Both refer to CRA membership, so in both cases the bylaws of the club can come into play if the member is operating outside of his allowed membership. In this case the bylaws read (I admit they read this to me) that the member can enter races for free as a skipper. Skipper as per prior cases indicates a position on the boat, and as such by not being on the boat provides an opening for protest.

The PC could read this entirely different I do admit that.

There is nothing indicating a late registration, so that section does not apply at all.

The reality of this is actually quite simple. As a disclaimer...I don't know Scot. I know he was at a regatta I was at once...simply don't remember ever meeting him. Met Clean a bunch, and he is what he is (not good or bad...just Clean). But from what I understand Scot is a polarizing figure and most hate him or love him...not much in between. I enjoy SA for what it is...but again it is SA. BUT for 99% of us this protest would never have occurred. People might even have been happy the boat still got out with the crew, and would have welcomed the competition. But Scot is the 1% not the 99%...and as a result some other jerk decided to piss him off. Perhaps just another bully, perhaps just an asshole, perhaps just someone reacting to Scot. I don't know, nor do I care. Ultimately Scot probably has no one to blame for this waste of time outside of himself...because if he was a bit less of a polarizing figure then this guy would have never considered the protest. Don't know...perhaps it is just karma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grin, if 40 $ is the issue, how many posts & clicks are required to get that poor Ed what he needs ? ;)

 

kerrist, rules, rules, rules ... we don't need no stinkin' rules !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I do...perhaps I don't. Does not really matter. You wanted comments to the post, I posted and defended my view, which is that the entry is invalid. So that result is against you...suck it up. Take the info I gave and perhaps come up with a defense against it. Or not. Or call me a fuck and say I am creating an issue. Though I would point out that it is fucks like you who created this issue to begin with by posting it on the front page lol

I really don't care.

 

 

 


you hit it right - he clearly has a dog in this and there is nothing to see here. but good christ almighty, fucks like this are always looking to create an issue when there really isn't one at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty laughable, really. Scot brought it up and apparently wants all the little Anarchists to fall in line and pat him on the back and say, "yeah, Scot, sucks to be you, we support you, bro!"

 

Ever read this forum, Ed? You should know by now that ANY RULES QUESTION ENDS IN ACRIMONIOUS ANARCHY.

 

Deal wit it.

 

(btw, I agree with ya, HdG)

 

Y'all have a nice day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps I do...perhaps I don't. Does not really matter. You wanted comments to the post, I posted and defended my view, which is that the entry is invalid. So that result is against you...suck it up. Take the info I gave and perhaps come up with a defense against it. Or not. Or call me a fuck and say I am creating an issue. Though I would point out that it is fucks like you who created this issue to begin with by posting it on the front page lol

 

I really don't care.

 

 

 

you hit it right - he clearly has a dog in this and there is nothing to see here. but good christ almighty, fucks like this are always looking to create an issue when there really isn't one at all.

 

 

 

funny, it sure seems like you care a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty laughable, really. Scot brought it up and apparently wants all the little Anarchists to fall in line and pat him on the back and say, "yeah, Scot, sucks to be you, we support you, bro!"

 

Ever read this forum, Ed? You should know by now that ANY RULES QUESTION ENDS IN ACRIMONIOUS ANARCHY.

 

Deal wit it.

 

(btw, I agree with ya, HdG)

 

Y'all have a nice day!

 

i don't want anybody to do anything. just posted it for y'all to see. as for you a-hole, you don't think i know that a whole bunch of y'all are gonna hate when it comes to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hdg,

in my area, if you register for a race or a series and your entry is rejected, you don't show up as registered. the fact that he shows up on the official registration site as registered seems to indicate that his registration was valid.

 

but whatever.. I have absolutely NO dog in this fight. If someone is protesting him just because they think he's a dick then everyone's gonna get protested eventually. If it were me I'd be protesting his rating, not his entry, but that's a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for posting a couple of articles about winning a race or two, big deal. Im not saying we're great, im just stoked about the boat and how much fun we're having. You know about fun, right? It's the reason we even do this at all.

 

 

....seems contrary to your 'just for fun' attitude that you had pinch-hitters race your boat when you're away,no? :mellow:

 

 

Pinch hitters going out to get a number rather than a letters score, maybe.

 

 

However, sometimes owners let others drive when they're not there, so the rest of the crew who aren't away can still go sailing, as it's a nice thing to do (assuming you trust the sub).

 

Which one it was here, I can't say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit like the time I got protested in the CYCA Winter series by the boat that came second for not having the division flag on my backstay.

 

I had it on the shroud because my boat didn't have a backstay !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, it was a lame protest. That alone should disqualify the DB from a favorable review at hearing. I've heard negative stories about this guy from third parties in the SD fleet before although I don't know him personally. Most skippers I've sailed with go out of their way to avoid protests, certainly more so than maybe twenty years ago. But, there's always the 10%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure Brad has two requirements for his crew:

 

1 - They are required to buy (from him) a crew t-shirt to wear while racing

2 - they are required to buy (from him) the sandwich which they eat for lunch while racing (he makes them at home)

 

/wish I were kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure Brad has two requirements for his crew:

 

1 - They are required to buy (from him) a crew t-shirt to wear while racing

2 - they are required to buy (from him) the sandwich which they eat for lunch while racing (he makes them at home)

 

/wish I were kidding.

For awhile there is seemed he was requiring his female crew to slob on his knob too while his long term girlfriend plead ignorance to the whole situation. At some point he had paid for some lady from the mid-west to move to SD, then dropped her later on with no money to move home. He is an all around grade-A douche. But so it the Ed. So maybe these two are destined to be best friends after the protest hearing. They can find some common douchebag ground in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Protest

This is a protest by a boat alleging that another boat broke a rule (see Protest Form para 2 line 1). It is not a request for redress. Even if the protestee was found to have broken a rule, no boat would be entitled to redress.

 

The protest appears to be misconceived, but a boat is absolutely within her rights to misunderstand the rules and their application when protesting. It should require very clear and ample evidence that an unmeritorious protest was made for an improper purpose before a protest committee finds that rule 2 or rule 69 is broken by a boat delivering a protest.

 

Validity

The protest concerns an incident, at a clearly stated time: '12:00 at first warning signal'. Thus the incident is an incident in the racing area, but arguably, it was not possible for the protesting boat to 'see' the incident, so the requirement to hail 'protest' and display a red flag in rule 61.1( a ) do not apply, and the remaining obligation of that rule is to 'inform the other boat [of the intention to protest] at the first reasonable opportunity'.

 

It is reasonable to suppose that the intention to protest was not formed until after boats came ashore, thus the requirements of SI 12.1 to report the intention to the race committee vessel, likewise does not apply.

 

According to the Protest Form, at the time that form was filled out (presumably shortly before the protest was delivered 11 days after the event) the protestee had not yet been informed of the intention to protest because the protesting boat was 'waiting for information'.

 

Evidently, at some time before she completed the Protest Form, the protesting boat had sufficient information to form an intent to protest. From that time until the time she completed the Protest Form she made no attempt to inform the protestee of the intention to protest. During that time, there was, in all liklihood, ample reasonable opportunity to at least attempt to inform the protestee.

 

It appears that the protesting boat has not informed the protestee of the intention to protest at the first reasonable opportunity as required by rule 61.1( a ), and for this reason the protest is invalid.

 

The Protest Time Limit for the race was 60 minutes after the race committee vessel docked on the day of the race. The Protest Form was clearly delivered after the Protest Time Limit.

 

As discussed above, however, arguably, the incident was not 'observed in the racing area' and the requirement to deliver the Protest Form within the Protest Time Limit, stated in rule 61.3 does not apply. Two constructions of rule 61.3 are available in this case:

  1. Time for delivery of a written protest is 'at large': the written protest may be delivered at any time, without being invalid.
  2. Time for delivery of a written protest is, by necessary inference 'within a reasonable time' after forming an intent to protest.

Within a reasonable time appears to be the better construction.

 

In determining a reasonable time, the protest committee would consider what information the protesting boat needed to obtain to substantiate her written protest. Given the obligation of the protest committee to obtain evidence, without requiring parties to hand it to them on a platter, the protesting boat is not entitled to time to obtain complete and perfect evidence.

 

A finding about reasonable time will depend on evidence and argument presented to the protest committee, but I am inclined to think that 11 days exceeds any reasonable time, and the protest is invalid because the written protest is delivered too late.

 

In summary the protest is invalid because:

  1. the protesting boat has failed to inform the protestee of her intention to protest as required by rule 61.1( a ); and
  2. possibly: the Protest Form has been delivered too late.

On reaching this conclusion the protest committee should close the hearing in accordance with rule 63.5.

 

Merits of the Allegations

 

Supposing the protest did proceed to a hearing, resolution would depend on the application of the rules and the construction of some documents.

 

The RRS

 

The RRS relevantly make two provisions:

  1. About who may enter a boat in a race: rule 75.1( a ) provides that this may be 'a member of a club affiliated to a MNA'; and\
  2. About who must be on board a boat while racing: rule 46 provides that 'A boat shall have on board a person in charge designated by the member or organisation that entered the boat. See rule 75.'

The rule 46 requirement about the person in charge makes no conditions about that person other than that he or she shall be designated by the member that entered the boat.

 

The two rules address two wholly different functions: entering in a race (or series) and being in charge of a boat while racing.

 

The CRA By-Laws

The CRA By-Laws, Article IV Section 2 A confers on Regular Members 'the right to skipper a vessel (one) in all CRA events'.

 

CRA By-Laws Article IV Section 2 B contains prohibitions as follows 'Associate Members, who are not Members of an SDAYC affiliated yacht club, may not skipper yachts in an Association event more than two (2) days per year. Associate Members may not skipper yachts as a CRA yacht in events other than those sponsored by the Association'.

 

The term 'skipper' (whatever that may mean) is not elsewhere mentioned in the By-Laws.

 

It is not possible to infer, from the granting of a right to skipper a boat in CRA Races, some converse prohibition that boats in CRA events may only be skippered by CRA Members.

 

All the moreso, as the reference to 'an SDAYC affiliated yacht club' in Section 2 B indicates an intention that persons other than CRA Members may skipper boats in CRA events.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the CRA By-Laws are not enumerated in the NOR or SI as documents governing the event, and thus do NOT govern the event (rules J1.1(3), J 2.1(2)).

 

NOR

 

NOR 2 ELIGIBILITY AND ENTRY provides '2.1 The regatta is open to all members of organizations affiliated with US Sailing' SI 3.2 is identical.

 

NOR 3 3 FEES provides '$40 Registration fee for non-CRA members. No charge for CRA members'.

 

The NOR Eligibility and Fees clauses are separate It cannot be inferred that payment of fees is a condition of eligibility.

 

These provisions address eligibility to enter a boat in the event. In no way do they refer to the eligibility of persons to be on board, in charge or otherwise of boats once entered.

 

NOR 3.3 does not expressly create an obligation to pay the Registration fee, much less to pay it by any particular time.

  • NOR 3.3 would certainly provide good grounds for the CRA to reject or cancel the entry of a boat provided that they did so before the start of the first race in the series as required by rule 76.1.
  • But if an Organising Authority accepts a non-member's entry without payment, once the first race starts, they are in difficulties. They might have to go to rule 69, which would have to be based on a very plain refusal to pay the entry fees, to get rid of a non-paying competitor.
  • NOR 3.3 might be construed to contain the necessary inference that non-CRA members who enter boats shall pay the Registration Fee within a reasonable time, and that after such a reasonable time, boats could be found, in a valid protest to have broken NOR 3.3 and disqualified from a relevant race.

The NOR makes no provisions about the eligibility of persons to be on board, in charge or otherwise, of boats once entered.

 

SI

SI 3.2 provides that 'The entry fee for this regatta is $40 for non-CRA members. No charge for CRA members'.

 

The same comments apply to this as to the corresponding NOR provisions.

 

The SI make no provisions about the eligibility of persons to be on board, in charge or otherwise, of boats once entered.

 

Summary

None of the rules applicable to the race restrict who may be on board, in charge or otherwise of any boats whose entry in the race or series has been accepted, beyond the requirement in rule 46 that the person in charge shall be designated by the member who entered the boat.

 

The CRA By-Laws do not govern the event and in any case do not effectively restrict who may 'skipper', be in charge of, or other wise be on board a boat in a CRA event.

 

Conclusion

 

Even if the protest proceeded to a hearing, it does not demonstrate that any rule has been broken.

 

If the CRA, contrary to the intention evinced in NOR 2.1 wants to exclude non-Members or restrict their participation in CRA races, then they need to look to their race documentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites