DarkHorse

J70, cheating and pros

Recommended Posts

are you telling me that Papa John's had a pizza template before the J70s had a keel template? Whoah!

 

papajohnspizzaquality.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Team_GBR said:

I have read some ill informed shit on these forums, but this takes all the awards. I have raced all 4 classes since I first started sailing and this is the first time anybody has suggested they are any form of one design. Maybe Jim is right "only in the US". Take the Moth. Of all classes, I think it has the most open and fewest rules of any class I can think of. You can build both skiffs and scows. I am not sure how anybody could consider using the words "one design" when it comes to the Moth considering how the class ethos is so anti one design. I could go on and explain each of the classes mentioned, but the story is the same.

Actually I have competed in all except the Moth.

That part of my post was describing the boundaries of one design racing. My point is that between the Laser strict SMOD and the development classes, there are a spectrum of classes with different degrees or rules & controls that describe One Design Racing.

The 14s run in the family . My father and uncles have been involved since the 1930s and we have a couple of POW replicas including the big one. In the earlier days they were thought of restricted classes not development classes. Out of the restricted classes came tighter one design rules and then the modern SMOD classes. The Merlin came about because Ranelagh  thought the 14 had got too expensive and they wanted a tighter design rule. They originally ordered identical boats and only later allowed development. Many years later I was sailing 14s at Corinthian and Merlins at Ranelagh.

I started sailing 14s during the late 70s as a kid when the same design was winning POW 10 years after it won its first POW. Then the 80s came roaring in with twin trapezes and rapid evolution and rapid obsolescence. 

I think chaos theory also applies to the so-called one design classes. If the rules permit no change and evolution, a class will wither and eventually shrink. If the pace of change is too fast, chaos takes over and the class shrinks. The most successful, enduring one design classes allow a certain amount of controlled evolution but not too much. For a long time, the 5-0-5 really got this right, allowing rule changes that kept the class modern and relevant. I think they made a mistake not opting for a carbon mast.

I now sail a strict, "as supplied by builder" one design and I love it. But my life in sailing reflects in many ways the progression of one design sailing from restricted classes which tried to introduce more equal racing between similar sized boats, to rule controlled one design (eg 5-0-5) to make racing even more equal, to strict SMOD.  I like where I am now...but I wouldnt have missed those fun years in the development classes where we just tried to be a little more "equal" than the next guy.

Sail fast and have fun....MK

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows if the guy (Carlo) did not think of the opportunity of "killing two birds with one stone"...i.e. repairing the keel after the little damages AND altering the keel shape to get an advantage...you never know with italians (myself being proud of my nationality :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Furkolkjaaf said:

who knows if the guy (Carlo) did not think of the opportunity of "killing two birds with one stone"...i.e. repairing the keel after the little damages AND altering the keel shape to get an advantage...you never know with italians (myself being proud of my nationality :D )

I figure the Italian boat worker just looked at that club foot keel and decided it was wrong and took it upon himself to give it a bella figura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plumber said:

I figure the Italian boat worker just looked at that club foot keel and decided it was wrong and took it upon himself to give it a bella figura

And who can blame him? 

But reading between the lines as more information is seeping out now. Is the problem that keels were reshaped illegally?  or is it that the keels from one builder were perceived to be faster than a keel from another builder?

Carlo makes mention of saying that all he did was remove his damaged keel and replace it with a keel from a J 70 that he had chartered.

Vincenzo mentioned something about taking a keel from a boat built by a legitimate builder and putting it on ML Junior.

Was this not about shaping keels but about swapping keels????  Are some club feet less misshapen than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was swapping keels....then perhaps the "pollice verso" of the spectators of this roman games should pause before condemning the contestants as deliberate cheats.

To be honest I dont even know if swapping keels would be illegal in my class. My first reaction would be I think its okay.....then if pressed I would confess I really dont know....I would have to ask our Technical Committee.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

Vincenzo mentioned something about taking a keel from a boat built by a legitimate builder and putting it on ML Junior.

Swapping was tried only after Junior got disqualified for initial keel as i remember it.

In case of Carlo: Sounds like disqualification by association with Riva shipyard. But could also be an smoke bomb to deflect responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swapping boats, not keels, would solve the problem. That's what happens in one design collegiate racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy when boats are owned by clubs, or like IODs it's a small class and everybody knows everybody else. 

I doubt people would be too keen to hand over their boat to a complete stranger. He crashes and you're the one without a boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Need to have an arrangement where clubs own them or you get the boat of the person who crashed yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to Peter Duncan on his win.

Carlo's letter is pretty interesting to me. Does anyone have the facts to his situation from a 3rd party? If his letter is truthful, then he did nothing wrong, advised the measurement committee of his actions, and his boat never failed measurement, they just declared it illegal under some sort of guilty until proven innocent clause? I'd be taking that decision on up the appeals chain then to CAS frankly, but I'm sure there is more to the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, samc99us said:

Congrats to Peter Duncan on his win.

Carlo's letter is pretty interesting to me. Does anyone have the facts to his situation from a 3rd party? If his letter is truthful, then he did nothing wrong, advised the measurement committee of his actions, and his boat never failed measurement, they just declared it illegal under some sort of guilty until proven innocent clause? I'd be taking that decision on up the appeals chain then to CAS frankly, but I'm sure there is more to the story.

Unfortunately Appeal is not available as they had an International Jury. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, samc99us said:

Congrats to Peter Duncan on his win.

Carlo's letter is pretty interesting to me. Does anyone have the facts to his situation from a 3rd party? If his letter is truthful, then he did nothing wrong, advised the measurement committee of his actions, and his boat never failed measurement, they just declared it illegal under some sort of guilty until proven innocent clause? I'd be taking that decision on up the appeals chain then to CAS frankly, but I'm sure there is more to the story.

That's not what I read.  I read that he replaced his keel just prior to measurement with another boat's.  Why he did that is left open to speculation.  It does, indeed, seem that they threw him out based on suspicions of why he changed out his keel.

I read it a couple times, but the translation simply isn't good enough to parse exactly what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish people would consult J/70 Class Rules, Builder Specifications and J/70 FAQs before defending Carlo's actions.

All are available here, btw: http://www.j70ica.org/class-office-rules

Was Carlo's keel changed by licensed manufacturer or with the approval of the licensed manufacturer and his boat’s Manufacturers Declaration re-issued? Most probably not. The emphasis here is on words 'licensed manufacturer'. The Technical Committee for the event has no saying in this matter, I'm afraid.

From FAQs

Quote

10. What changes and repairs can be made to my boat?
Because the Class’s Rules are “Closed Class Rules”, no changes or repairs are permitted to the boat unless they are specifically permitted. Section C of the Class Rules and the Building Specification describe all the changes or repairs that are permitted. Any other changes or repairs to the hull, hull appendages or rig, must be made by the licensed manufacturer or with the approval of the licensed manufacturer under CR D.2.5, E.2.2 or F.2.3. If you have any questions about a modification or repair, please contact a member of the Class’s Technical Committee. In the event of any modifications or repairs required to be made or approved by the licensed manufacturer, the boat’s Manufacturers Declaration will have to be re-issued.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, elektroj said:

I wish people would consult J/70 Class Rules, Builder Specifications and J/70 FAQs before defending Carlo's actions.

I must of missed people defending him.

Or are you confused by people asking difficult questions like "How can I repair something to its "as molded" shape when there are no templates?" which is not the same thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I must of missed people defending him.

 

I defended him!

Was obviously a personal attack. The regatta sucked, was windy so no boats on the racecourse, 'cause they are poorly designed, constructed. Instead was a witch hunt. I call bull**** on the whole event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/09/2017 at 3:15 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

 And there are a bunch more keels floating around Europe with issues.

Floating, eh? Those much be seriously out of measurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, elektroj said:

The emphasis here is on words 'licensed manufacturer'. The Technical Committee for the event has no saying in this matter, I'm afraid

Its an interesting one. I was tangentially involved in an issue at another class that was having measurement problems, and a culture of not observing a similar provision had grown up in the class, and that seemed to me a factor in some of the problems they were having.

There are pros and cons with having a 'no changes, authorised builder and no measurement' one design rule, and pros and cons with having a purely measurement based rule, but if a class has the first, but gets in the habit of behaving as if it were the second then trouble will often ensue I think. But then there are plenty of posts in this thread that illustrate perfectly how sailors have trouble appreciating the considerable distance between the two styles of rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New development.

http://cdn.sailingscuttlebutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/IJ70CA-Press-release-1252018.pdf

TAMPA, FL USA - The International J/70 Class Association (IJ70CA) Executive Committee (EC) has unanimously agreed to the J/70 Class membership suspensions listed below. The IJ70CA EC authority and process to suspend a membership is described in Section 6 MEMBER SUSPENSION of the IJ70CA Constitution, a copy of which is available on the International J/70 Class website. The J/70 EC has found that the individuals below have been involved, to different degrees, in the “Intentional violation of the Class Rules” and/or “unsportsmanlike conduct” at the 2017 World Championship and/or some extended period prior to the World Championship.

Carlo Alberini owner of hull #949, Class membership is suspended for 12 (twelve) months commencing on 1 December 2017

Claudio Dutto owner of hull #922, has been warned that although the EC did not suspend his membership, he needs to be more diligent that his boat is in compliance with the Rules at all times

Mauro Mocchegiani owner of hull #1088, Class membership is suspended for 4 (four) months commencing on 1 December 2017

Alessandro Molla owner of hull #570, Class membership is suspended for 4 (four) months commencing on 1 December 2017

Achille Onorato owner of hull #1269, Class membership is suspended for 4 (four) months commencing on 1 December 2017

Alessio Querin former owner of hull #922, Class membership is suspended for 24 (twenty four) months commencing on 1 December 2017

Marco Salvi owner of hull #910, Class membership is suspended for 12 (twelve) months commencing on 1 December 2017

Alexey Semenov owner of hull #667, has been warned that although the EC did not suspend his membership, he needs to be more diligent that his boat is in compliance with the Rules at all times

In addition to the suspensions, the following boats have had their Manufacturers Declarations withdrawn and are not permitted to sail in J/70 events until the boats are inspected and corrected by the Licensed Manufacturer.

Hull/sail #949 owned by Carlo Alberini

Hull/sail #1269 owned by Achille Onorato

Hull/sail #570 owned by Alessandro Molla

Hull/sail #910 owned by Marco Salvi

Hull/sail #667 owned by Alexey Semenov 

The varying length suspensions are interesting. Wonder what the story is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JimC said:

The varying length suspensions are interesting. Wonder what the story is.

^this.

4 months from December 1st is nothing (unless you live in Monaco). 24 months hurt. Anyone know more? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that former owner of hull 922 gets 24 month ban but the boat doesn't get manufacturer declaration withdrawn. New owner fixed the problem after a warning? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this whole thing could work itself out pretty easily if they measured the top 3 boats after the regatta.  You fail, you're flicked, and you get laughed at by everyone for cheating.  Does it really matter if 10th place is cheating???  If they have to cheat for 10th and eventually they win something they get busted and flicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kack said:

Seems like this whole thing could work itself out pretty easily if they measured the top 3 boats after the regatta.  You fail, you're flicked, and you get laughed at by everyone for cheating.  Does it really matter if 10th place is cheating???  If they have to cheat for 10th and eventually they win something they get busted and flicked.

 

Never happen, because it makes perfect sense!! LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kack said:

Seems like this whole thing could work itself out pretty easily if they measured the top 3 boats after the regatta.  You fail, you're flicked, and you get laughed at by everyone for cheating.  Does it really matter if 10th place is cheating???  If they have to cheat for 10th and eventually they win something they get busted and flicked.

Basically how Car racing works. They set the standards, do spot inspections before the race, but always post race inspect the winners and penalize or flick them for violations. 

They do also inspect a certain percentage of all the cars as well (even 10 and below) and issue penalties fines suspensions etc. You see it all the time in NASCAR and it happens in other levels as well, just not publicized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kack said:

Seems like this whole thing could work itself out pretty easily...

Been discussed. Read the thread. Used to happen like that. It was crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JimC said:

Been discussed. Read the thread. Used to happen like that. It was crap.

 

If simple common sense rules are not acceptable to the competitors, then they should not be racing, because they only want to cheat, and that's just wrong...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2018 at 5:49 AM, 10thTonner said:

^this.

4 months from December 1st is nothing (unless you live in Monaco). 24 months hurt. Anyone know more? 

YCCS did the brave thing which was to exclude the boats for the regatta at the time. Now many months later there is this lily-livered response from the Class Association which will have minimal effect on the cheating culture all too prevalent it seems - especially in Italy.

Another example was the laughably late and ineffective response to the blatant cheating of the winner of the 2016 ORC Europeans where hidden ballast tanks were built in secretly and then only used when the boat was being measured. It then took more than a year to disqualify them from their win with no other action being taken. Why this was sucha difficult decision when the cheating was so blatant is hard to understand

The Jury decision found that Scugnizza’s Italian team deliberately broke RRS 2RRS 78.1, and ORC Rating System Rule 304.3a and was thus in breach of rule 69.1(a) and disqualified from all races of the championship regatta held in Porto Carras, Greece on July 3-10, 2016.

“This decision was difficult and long in coming, as it involved complex issues related to sailing trim, yet we applaud the Jury for upholding the integrity and principles of both our rules and the rules of the sport."

In all these cases there needs to be much harsher action from classes, ORC and World Sailing or this will just go on escalating. At a time when the whole sport is in trouble WS should be seen to be taking action rather than worrying about logos and sustainability. 

A 4 month ban involving the off season (other than the Monaco YC winter series) looks especially weak. Sadly it will have no effect on the pros and others who are intenet on winning at all costs in what used to be a self-policing sport.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why this has never been tried before in one design sailboat regattas:

A claiming race in thoroughbred horse racing is one in which the horses are all for sale for more or less the same price (the "claiming price") up until shortly before the race.

Transfer of the horse to the new owner occurs after the race(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2018 at 8:14 AM, Kack said:

Seems like this whole thing could work itself out pretty easily if they measured the top 3 boats after the regatta.  You fail, you're flicked, and you get laughed at by everyone for cheating.  Does it really matter if 10th place is cheating???  If they have to cheat for 10th and eventually they win something they get busted and flicked.

 A tenth place cheater does matter. People go to regattas for all sorts of reason, one of them is that they believe they are all racing within the same rules. If I go to the worlds, I know I will not finish top 3. Even at midpack, if I learn that the boat ahead of me cheated, I will protest him and get him flicked. The rules are not that complicated. They wanted to cheat and got caught. Flick'em for life from the class.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Plumber said:

 A tenth place cheater does matter. People go to regattas for all sorts of reason, one of them is that they believe they are all racing within the same rules. If I go to the worlds, I know I will not finish top 3. Even at midpack, if I learn that the boat ahead of me cheated, I will protest him and get him flicked. The rules are not that complicated. They wanted to cheat and got caught. Flick'em for life from the SPORT.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspension of class membership is rather pathetic. All that does is pass the problem on to whatever class they sail instead. Let's hope that WS takes further action against these cheats and bans them from sailing (bet it doesn't happen).

There are 2 other problems. 

In the case of  Achille Onorato, the modified boat was given him by his father, Vincenzo, who was the person who sent it to be modified. Add to that Vincenzo's behaviour after his son was flicked, including public abuse the commodore of the organising club, and you have to ask why he wasn't sanctioned as well. If i were a cynic, I would say it was because of his position in Italian sailing and that he might be about to launch an AC challenge:ph34r:

What about some action against the person doing the modifications? Even if that action was symbolic, he deserves some sanction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Team_GBR said:

Suspension of class membership is rather pathetic.

Its the only sanction a CA has...

If WS were to issue bans every time a boat fails measurement it would be pretty damn stupid. I suspect most of these owners were guilty more of not reading the rules than anything else. Wouldn't be the first time a class got in the habit of doing stuff the rules prohibit.

9 hours ago, Team_GBR said:

What about some action against the person doing the modifications? Even if that action was symbolic, he deserves some sanction.

What action? What sanction? You are free to modify any boat any way you like and I wouldn't have it any other way. Modifying a boat is not a crime. The only thing that is wrong is to enter a boat in an event claiming it to be a class legal wotsit when it isn't, and that's down to the owner who signs the entry form. I bet there was some lively discussion in the Onorato family.

Now if the company doing the work claimed that the modifications were within the class rules and they are not, then the owners will presumably have a claim under trade law, but that's way out of a CAs purview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahoy!

If you study the history, MOD never works. A few other things don't work either.

Just a quick list of a few things that have been really rooted over the last 40 years:

IOR/Williwaw & Aries (just only .3 foot IOR rating discrepancy. Lowell, are you with us?)

J24.... specially some Italians and the famous 24.1 built by Bashford...

Hobie 14/16

Etchells (So many corruptions it is laughable)

Farr 40 (last 'World Championship' more than 50% of the fleet not err, actually err....compliant. But we better let them race because otherwise, we have no race.)

Here is the core of the problem, in one sense. If you do the good fairing job (just on the hull and foils) to around 20 microns, in the production boat you will be directly 1 % faster, on average. Faired within (most) templates. But then there are another 50 things.....difficult to detect and etc. etc.

The 14 skiff rule is probably a good benchmark for 'what you can control'. Versus,.... what is impossible to control.

One last thing. For major offshore (IRC and ORCi) the F1 idea of 'park ferme' and scrutiny would we a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JimC said:

Its the only sanction a CA has...

If WS were to issue bans every time a boat fails measurement it would be pretty damn stupid. I suspect most of these owners were guilty more of not reading the rules than anything else. Wouldn't be the first time a class got in the habit of doing stuff the rules prohibit.

What action? What sanction? You are free to modify any boat any way you like and I wouldn't have it any other way. Modifying a boat is not a crime. The only thing that is wrong is to enter a boat in an event claiming it to be a class legal wotsit when it isn't, and that's down to the owner who signs the entry form. I bet there was some lively discussion in the Onorato family.

Now if the company doing the work claimed that the modifications were within the class rules and they are not, then the owners will presumably have a claim under trade law, but that's way out of a CAs purview.

There’s a very big difference between a boat not measuring in for a minor thing that is easily corrected and a boat with a keel shaped differently than plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Frogman56 said:

One last thing. For major offshore (IRC and ORCi) the F1 idea of 'park ferme' and scrutiny would we a good idea.

Why not for dinghys and small keel boats like the J70? As much as I hate the idea, I have to admit that it may be a solution for the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JimC said:

Its the only sanction a CA has...If WS were to issue bans every time a boat fails measurement it would be pretty damn stupid. I suspect most of these owners were guilty more of not reading the rules than anything else. Wouldn't be the first time a class got in the habit of doing stuff the rules prohibit.

Hogwash! We aren't talking about weekend sailors who drink beer as they sail around. These guys compete at the very top of the sport and knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the rules. It's been a long term problem in the class. this isn't a case of a boat failing to measure, which happens all the time for any one of many reasons. This is a case of owners doing something they knew was illegal but which they believed they would get away with, because no action had been taken in the past. It was deliberate cheating. I have never sailed a J70 but knew of the problem. The funny thing is that it is not a world wide problem, just sailors from one particular country, some of them have a real reputation for playing fast and loose with one design rules. To think this was anything other than outright cheating is being very naive.

Quote

 

What action? What sanction? You are free to modify any boat any way you like and I wouldn't have it any other way. Modifying a boat is not a crime. The only thing that is wrong is to enter a boat in an event claiming it to be a class legal wotsit when it isn't, and that's down to the owner who signs the entry form. I bet there was some lively discussion in the Onorato family.

Now if the company doing the work claimed that the modifications were within the class rules and they are not, then the owners will presumably have a claim under trade law, but that's way out of a CAs purview.

 

The person who was reshaping the keels knew what he was doing was wrong and he encouraged owners to have the work done. He knew the boats would be raced. He cannot say he didn't know that the boats would be raced at the world championships. He knew the work was illegal. "Just following orders" doesn't stack up in this case. What do you think his sales pitch was? I can make your keel look pretty? Or was it "I have developed a shape for J70 keels that will make your boat faster than other J70's? He knew it was against class rules yet he still touted for business.  Modifying a boat is not a crime, but providing the means for somebody to deliberately cheat is against everything the sport is about. I believe the guy sails in the class. He should have been banned from all class racing, or if they felt that could not be done (I don't see why not), he should have been reported to WS under rule 69.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Team_GBR said:

Hogwash! We aren't talking about weekend sailors who drink beer as they sail around. These guys compete at the very top of the sport and knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the rules. It's been a long term problem in the class. this isn't a case of a boat failing to measure, which happens all the time for any one of many reasons. This is a case of owners doing something they knew was illegal but which they believed they would get away with, because no action had been taken in the past. It was deliberate cheating. I have never sailed a J70 but knew of the problem. The funny thing is that it is not a world wide problem, just sailors from one particular country, some of them have a real reputation for playing fast and loose with one design rules. To think this was anything other than outright cheating is being very naive.

The person who was reshaping the keels knew what he was doing was wrong and he encouraged owners to have the work done. He knew the boats would be raced. He cannot say he didn't know that the boats would be raced at the world championships. He knew the work was illegal. "Just following orders" doesn't stack up in this case. What do you think his sales pitch was? I can make your keel look pretty? Or was it "I have developed a shape for J70 keels that will make your boat faster than other J70's? He knew it was against class rules yet he still touted for business.  Modifying a boat is not a crime, but providing the means for somebody to deliberately cheat is against everything the sport is about. I believe the guy sails in the class. He should have been banned from all class racing, or if they felt that could not be done (I don't see why not), he should have been reported to WS under rule 69.

EXACTLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Team_GBR said:

Hogwash! We aren't talking about weekend sailors who drink beer as they sail around. These guys compete at the very top of the sport and knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the rules.

Yeah, yeah, first class virtue signalling. I'm sure we all think you're a very moral person. Back in the real world, where every third thread on this site demonstrates that 7 sailors out of 10 haven't got a bloody clue about the racing rules, let alone their class rules, and a recent high profile incident demonstrated ignorance of fundamental rules can apply at a very high level...

Class rules are like the Highway code, everyone thinks they know it, we're all supposed to read it, but actually no ****** ever does. It seems clear enough the CA, with information we haven't seen, thought there was a very wide range of culpability for the sorry mess.

As for the thing about the yard. If you want him reported under RRS69 you have to start by explaining how RRS69 applies to him if he was not a competitor, boat owner or support person.  And if he's not a CA member the CA has no authority over him at all. But if he advertised or represented his work as being class legal then its the *real* law that comes into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JimC said:

Yeah, yeah, first class virtue signalling. I'm sure we all think you're a very moral person. Back in the real world, where every third thread on this site demonstrates that 7 sailors out of 10 haven't got a bloody clue about the racing rules, let alone their class rules, and a recent high profile incident demonstrated ignorance of fundamental rules can apply at a very high level...

Class rules are like the Highway code, everyone thinks they know it, we're all supposed to read it, but actually no ****** ever does. It seems clear enough the CA, with information we haven't seen, thought there was a very wide range of culpability for the sorry mess.

As for the thing about the yard. If you want him reported under RRS69 you have to start by explaining how RRS69 applies to him if he was not a competitor, boat owner or support person.  And if he's not a CA member the CA has no authority over him at all. But if he advertised or represented his work as being class legal then its the *real* law that comes into play.

Your apologizing for cheaters makes you a cheater.

i learned long ago that ignorance of the law was no excuse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimC said:

As for the thing about the yard. If you want him reported under RRS69, you have to start by explaining how RRS69 applies to him if he was not a competitor, boat owner or support person.  And if he's not a CA member, the CA has no authority over him at all. But if he advertised or represented his work as being class legal, then its the *real* law that comes into play.

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of observations.

Firstly that biggest penalty goes to the former owner of 922, and as far as I can see he wasn't at the worlds.

Secondly that a bit of googling suggests that boat was, when owned by that person, entered as "Corinthian" in at least in some events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JimC said:

Yeah, yeah, first class virtue signalling. I'm sure we all think you're a very moral person. Back in the real world, where every third thread on this site demonstrates that 7 sailors out of 10 haven't got a bloody clue about the racing rules, let alone their class rules, and a recent high profile incident demonstrated ignorance of fundamental rules can apply at a very high level...

Class rules are like the Highway code, everyone thinks they know it, we're all supposed to read it, but actually no ****** ever does. It seems clear enough the CA, with information we haven't seen, thought there was a very wide range of culpability for the sorry mess.

The information you haven't seen is very well known. The owners knew the modifications that were made were illegal. They had all been told it before and I know that for a fact. There had been confrontations about this in the past. It was well known in the class and regularly discussed that these people were breaking the rules but they had been allowed to get away with it for a long time. Any owner who claims they did not know these modifications were illegal is simply lying. What happened is that the class finally grew some balls.

Quote

As for the thing about the yard. If you want him reported under RRS69 you have to start by explaining how RRS69 applies to him if he was not a competitor, boat owner or support person.  And if he's not a CA member the CA has no authority over him at all. But if he advertised or represented his work as being class legal then its the *real* law that comes into play.

Again, I believe you are mistaken. The class has the power to ban him from competing in class run events. To start with, if he works on the boats, he is a support person, but I believe he crews. 

What i don't understand is why you are being such an apologist for these cheats. This was deliberate, done in full knowledge in the belief they could get away with it. We should be looking at every possible opportunity under the rules to sanction everybody who was knowingly involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, Team_GBR said:
  12 hours ago, JimC said:

Yeah, yeah, first class virtue signalling.

 

17 minutes ago, Team_GBR said:

What i don't understand is why you are being such an apologist for these cheats. This was deliberate, done in full knowledge in the belief they could get away with it. We should be looking at every possible opportunity under the rules to sanction everybody who was knowingly involved.

I'm with JimC.  Displays of personal moral outrage, asserting that my sportsmanship is bigger than your sportsmanship, don't really help the sport.

JImC is not being an aoplogist.

He is just pointing out that what is 'well known' about what the owners knew and had been told is very likely to be embarrassingly insufficient for a protest committee to be comfortably satisfied in making a rule 69 decision or a WS disciplinary panel in making a WS Regulations disciplinary finding, particularly in the face of a very likely formal restraint of trade action by the boat yard corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brass said:

He is just pointing out that what is 'well known' about what the owners knew and had been told is very likely to be embarrassingly insufficient for a protest committee to be comfortably satisfied in making a rule 69 decision or a WS disciplinary panel in making a WS Regulations disciplinary finding, particularly in the face of a very likely formal restraint of trade action by the boat yard corporation.

Another load of hogwash that is exactly why the class got into a mess in the first place. Why would the burden of proof be any more for WS than it is for the class association? If the class association has insufficient evidence, expect to see law suites following their bans. I suspect we haven't heard the end of this. As an international class, any decision like this will be seen by WS who are entitled to initiate or take action.

Banning a boatbuilder from sailing does not constitute restraint of trade. He would still be free to continue operation of his boatyard. He does not need to sail to do that.

To get back to the real issue, it is important to note that the class association found that the individuals concerned were found to have been involved with " intentional violation of the Class Rules” and/or “unsportsmanlike conduct” at the 2017 World Championship and/or some extended period prior to the World Championship." Please note the word "intentional". That means they knew what they were doing. These guys knowingly cheated. What do you think the penalty should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from what you are saying it sounds as if the class got in a mess because "everyone knew" the first boat (or boats) was illegal, but no-one had the balls to protest. Unsurprising then if other owners decided it couldn't be as illegal as all that. So the moral of this sad tale is to follow the rules and protest, not bitch pathetically behind the scenes or after the event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JimC said:

So from what you are saying it sounds as if the class got in a mess because "everyone knew" the first boat (or boats) was illegal, but no-one had the balls to protest. . So the moral of this sad tale is to follow the rules and protest, not bitch pathetically behind the scenes or after the event.

If only it was that simple. You rightly point out, you cannot do things without the right evidence, something that will stand proper scrutiny and here lies the problem. Building inaccuracies and quality control in the J70's means there can be significant differences in the keels, so proving what everybody knew, that keels were being altered, needed some proper process and ways of measurement, which were only developed after it became clear that people were cheating. This was the first time everything fell into place and they had the processes and methodology to tackle the cheaters. Remember, the class is very new, it took time to understand the level of cheating and who was doing it and to put process in place.

Again, I don't really understand your attitude. You continually seem to be making excuses for people who knowingly cheated. Your comment "Unsurprising then if other owners decided it couldn't be as illegal as all that" is total rubbish. At best, you could say that people cheated because they saw somebody get away with it so thought they could get away with it themselves. It doesn't get away from the truth, that they made a conscious decision to cheat, knowing it was against class rules, and they did it to gain an advantage believing they would get away with it. Stop making excuses. It is very clear these guys were knowingly cheating and there is no excuse for that.

The class should be praised for taking decisive action, for outing cheats and for imposing sanctions against them. Your constant excusing of their actions and blaming the association and class for allowing the situation to occur is unhelpful and sends the wrong message.

 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps because I've seen *all* the inside information for a similar incident in another class and so know first hand that there can be wildly different levels of culpability.  The CA clearly believes there are vastly different levels of culpability in this case too, otherwise they wouldn't be handing out a two year ban to one person and a "be more careful in future" warning to others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JimC said:

Perhaps because I've seen *all* the inside information for a similar incident in another class and so know first hand that there can be wildly different levels of culpability.  The CA clearly believes there are vastly different levels of culpability in this case too, otherwise they wouldn't be handing out a two year ban to one person and a "be more careful in future" warning to others. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/02/2018 at 8:05 AM, JimC said:

Perhaps because I've seen *all* the inside information for a similar incident in another class and so know first hand that there can be wildly different levels of culpability.  The CA clearly believes there are vastly different levels of culpability in this case too, otherwise they wouldn't be handing out a two year ban to one person and a "be more careful in future" warning to others. 

Still making excuses.

The sanctions were not based on levels of culpability. They were handed out based on whether the person had cheated and for how long they are known to have cheated. Cheating involves knowing you are cheating and doing it deliberately. Those who were warned could not be proven to know or deliberately set out to cheat. If you present a boat to be measured and it does not, that doesn't make you a cheat.

The reason for the differing length of bans is easy to understand. In the case of the longer ban, this wasn't the first boat they had altered they had been warned that alterations were illegal and they sold an altered boat without informing the owner (which brings up a completely different set of issues not relevant to this).

Sailing must have a "no tolerance" policy for those who knowingly cheat by altering their boats contrary to the rules. There are no acceptable excuses for doing it. I believe that in this situation, the class association has done a great job, as far as it has gone, and sent out a clear message that cheating will not be tolerated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now