• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
southerncross

Wanted Missing VOR Skipper

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, hoppy said:

That idiot is not my president. 

Yep. he is.  Just googled it.

Edit: Ok so you are not American.  Odd, you have so much in common with the pussy grabber.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of abusive behavior is Witt smooshing his hand around Hayles's crotch getting a good coating of mid-Atlantic man-funk, then sniffing it like a stud sniffs a mare in heat.

In the first picture he is rubbing crotch, immediately the hand goes to his nose, then the satisfied reaction. Clever how he set it all up so he could get his hands stinking with funk.

What a letch.

Also note the weather helm and the boat being driven...Hayles never drops a hand from the wheel and maintains two hands...focused doing his job as the nutbag skipper gropes him. 

5a292e46b59a3_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-55-39.png.106f26b198237cc4b96f87ab67686ab0.png5a292e451077a_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-56-16.png.c2b5b1d724a0bcf0ee586a01d404cb45.png5a292e435196f_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-56-45.png.0e406f3c3aa8e61913a7b4685e98508d.png

Edited by EvaOdland
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EvaOdland said:

Evidence of abusive behavior is Witt smooshing his hand around Hayles's crotch getting a good coating of mid-Atlantic man-funk, then sniffing it like a stud sniffs a mare in heat.

In the first picture he is rubbing crotch, immediately the hand goes to his nose, then the satisfied reaction. Clever how he set it all up so he could get his hands stinking with funk.

What a letch.

 

Maybe he set it up as an excuse to ... ah never mind.

Seriously though, weren't they were supposed to be racing?  Then he complains about being at the back of the fleet.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but I think it goes to the "offended", the person who brought the case, to prove that this merits a breach of of the rule.  This was an offense and here's why.  

AB's opinion, though not relative to this case, could be used as evidence by the "offended" or in defense of the accused but at each parties discretion.  It was not AB that invoked the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, southerncross said:

AB's opinion, though not relative to this case, could be used as evidence by the "offended" or in defense of the accused but at each parties discretion.

The "offended" are not a party to these proceedings. Once the investigation of their complaint is concluded, they evaporate. 

PS. The concept everyone is missing here is the provisions being employed is bringing the sport into disrepute. The grounds behind the complaint by Dawn Riley is that the incident is not conjusive to advancing and retaining women's participation in the sport. Nothing more.

If you wanted to draw a long bow all four other participants in this incident, Bessie included could easilly be sitting beside Witt and Hayles.

Share this post


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

What matters is the opinion of the women who made the complaint, you are very confused.

No, you are wrong. What matters is whether in the jury's opinion, did the action that generated the complaint result in a rule being broken.

If you let the opinion of one person not connected to the "incident" be the basis of the jury's decision, there there is no need for a jury and Witt has no choice but to be considered guilty.

What next, a vegan gets upset and complains when someone posts a video where they state they are looking forward to eating a big juicy steak when they get to port? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, hoppy said:

There is a massive difference between a crude joke told in someones presence and an actual sexual assault.

So SH should be crying sexual assault.

 

Well he's got more grounds than anyone else!!:huh:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Waking up at 4am.  Coffee slowly seeping in.  

So the case for the jury to decide is simply about conduct unbefitting?  Nothing to do with Dawn Riley being offended.  She just raised the issue.  Got it.

VOR has filmed jury proceedings in the past.  I agree that they should record this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of the jury are wishing they'd never been dragged into this little debacle, they're decision is going to come under a large amount of scrutiny and possibly set the benchmark for future cases.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mad said:

I wonder how many of the jury are wishing they'd never been dragged into this little debacle, they're decision is going to come under a large amount of scrutiny and possibly set the benchmark for future cases.

It could be a bellwether case or be dismissed as groundless.  I hope that the rule is revisited at the very least.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mad said:

I wonder how many of the jury are wishing they'd never been dragged into this little debacle,

Those WS people should have thought about that when WS wrote the 69er Recipe Book. Someone else has baked this cake in strict accordance with their recipe, they now have to eat it and pretend it tastes great.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Those WS people should have thought about that when WS wrote the 69er Recipe Book. Someone else has baked this cake in strict accordance with their recipe, they now have to eat it and pretend it tastes great.

Exactly!!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally watched the video. Christ it is nothing.

While I think Witt did approach it with the intent of being a sexist prick and making a girl uncomfortable it is such a poor effort that frankly I'm disappointed.

I was really expecting to be deeply offended. 

If Witt needs a lawyer I know a good Aussie law firm right up his alley..

image.jpeg.ab9711917e51214952e88938bfc06ff1.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, southerncross said:

It could be a bellwether case or be dismissed as groundless.  I hope that the rule is revisited at the very least.

What should occur if the jury had 6 balls and 1 equivelent; is dismiss it outright but with findings stating that if a RO wish to have an event with mixed crews beamed into people's living rooms then they must have policies in place that guide, govern and enforce conduct having regard for Rule 69. They then get on a plane, go home and redraft Rule 69 accordingly.

Unfortunately that and the prospect of pigs flying over Cape Town today is remote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Mate you are both not a great listener and a shit driver. Pull over because you are both on the wrong road and your street directory is either out of date and or your on the wrong page.

When you have had a rest start with who made the complaint and under what provision were they relying on to have it acted upon, against who and what medium did they observe the incident behind the complaint. Hint...bringing the sport into disrepute is a 1 - 5 level infringement not a 0 - 3 for what ever your banging on about.

Maybe you should have a look at this document before you start with the car driving analogies, http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrs.prod/assets/data/1407/original.pdf.

Section 9 on Page 7 gives a general indication of what behaviour could constitute a rule 69 violation. Section 10 on pages 7&8 gives some examples albeit this is not an exhaustive list. Section 46 on page 29 then gives good guidance on the levels of action. Whilst you are right that bring the sport into disrepute is a 1-5 range I am not sure the video is at a level to justify the bringing the sport into disrepute even on a level 1 basis. If you want to go down the bullying or discriminatory behaviour route because there was a female crew member present who was either happy with the behaviour or not then I would want to hear from the recipient of the alleged abuse which in this case is Dr Clogs. If it is foul language then the video will suffice as it is all there as he does say Scrotum.   

I am not a supporter of Witty and his humour nor his current prowess in a VOR65 however nor am I supporter of a system whereby a spectator can watch a video and then bring about a rule 69 proceedings on the basis of being offended. In the interests of fairness I will lodge a complaint against each boat for the jury to consider per leg and recommend everyone watching does the same. It appears that being and offended third party is enough. Is the problem with Scallywag is that they are not operating as a normal commercial team where bad publicity would result in his removal which would be the case for a lot of the other commercially funded teams hence why the video would not have been created in the first place. If this is the case then I very much look forward to future wealthy team bosses putting inappropriate teams out there with the sole purpose of generating high numbers of public complaints. If nothing else it is fun to watch others reactions on a sailing forum.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Those WS people should have thought about that when WS wrote the 69er Recipe Book. Someone else has baked this cake in strict accordance with their recipe, they now have to eat it and pretend it tastes great.

Let's be specific about who "those WS people" are.

Just go back in history and look at the creation of the Disciplinary Commission and who was on the working party, and then then on the Commission itself, and then various levels of Disciplinary functions.

You'll see names like Brian Willis, David Tillett and oh yeah....John Doerr.

Then look at those who were part of the Review Board.  You'll see names like Jan Stange.

Chris Atkins, who was a WS VP up until he lost in the last election, was part and parcel with the creation of the Disciplinary Commission initially, and now is on this Jury.

ISAF/WS legal beagle Jon Napier has a lot to do with all this too.

And imagine my surprise when I see that John Doerr is now the Event Disciplinary officer.

As a result of the de Ridder CAS hearing, ISAF was forced to disband the Disciplinary Commission (which had been authorized but not yet created, then they very hastily cobbled it together during the AC 34 king post case) and had come up with some other mechanism, hence, what we have today.  In the process, they also redrafted 69 to end up where he are.

There were multiple working parties, commissions, committees and whatever else you want to give a name of a new group, comprised mostly of the same members of the IJ cabal from time to time, who created the system that leads to this absurd rule.  To be sure, it has been basically the same couple of guys driving this bus for years.

Further, there was a case in the US several years ago - the Salk case - where the Chair of a jury read a police blotter report three days after a youth event.  The kids were caught on a state beach drinking beer on like the Saturday night of the regatta.  Cops found them because they had a bonfire, which is illegal.  Cop said something like "you sent me smoke signals".  So the cop made them pour the beer into the fire to put it out, and send them on their way. But it ended up in the little local newspaper police blotter.  So the uptight US Sailing judge, Wes Durant, called a hearing on like Wednesday night (the regatta has been over since Sunday), tossed the kids out of the regatta, which was a qualifier for the Sears Cup (junior national champ).  Kids got a New York based sports law expert - Ed Williams - to represent them, and they won.  This crap of anyone being able to file a report at any time will never stand up under the Stevens Act, where that applies to an event in the US.  I've been hoping something like this would happen in the US, because the first thing I'd do is connect the protestee with Ed.  Oh yeah, an IJ, and one time Olympic Games PRO,  Charlie Cook, was the lawyer for US Sailing on that case.  He is now under indictment for money laundering in a sex ring, and other charges.

The thing is, I tried to get people to understand what had, and would happen. Fell on deaf ears.  Lots of you want to crucify me for supporting Dirk, but maybe now a few of you will start to understand that while Oracle cheated with the lead in the king post (which could have easily been allowed in some form if Slater had just asked for approval of the change, like had been done, and granted in some prior instances) Dirk and Matt Mitchell had nothing to do with it. They were set up as the fall guys in the trade that Coutts and Simmer made with the Jury to reduce the fine and the penalty.  Tienpont admits to doing the work, and yet he walks away, and is now running a Volvo team in this race.    

I spoke with the US Failing ExDir at one point about this rule, the process and his eyes glazed over, he had no clue, and no interest.

So we got to this point in having a bizarre, draconian rule like this all because people want to diminish me, and the likes of Paul Henderson, when we see the problem occurring, and getting worse, because it's better to have blind opposition than to really look at the totality of the circumstances, and think maybe, just maybe, ISAF/WS has a couple of guys who just love the idea of being mortality police.  

Given the way the process inside WS works, the only way to demand change is to get your MNA's to demand it of WS.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

Whilst you are right that bring the sport into disrepute is a 1-5 range I am not sure the video is at a level to justify the bringing the sport into disrepute even on a level 1 basis.

^^^^ This is the nature of the third party/public complaint with the grounds under pinning it being the incident does not advance and retain the participation of women in the sport. 

38 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

If you want to go down the bullying or discriminatory behaviour route because there was a female crew member present who was either happy with the behaviour or not then I would want to hear from the recipient of the alleged abuse which in this case is Dr Clogs.

^^^^^ Not this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think who ever filed the rule 69 protest against Witt was just waiting for the opportunity since his remarks before the start of the race.  His head was already in the noose, he just had to say something stupid.

The only thing that upsets me about this is that if this happened on TTOP and the crass remarks were made by women, none of this would be happening.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rgeek said:

Expectations change. Fellas don't hand their daughters over to there wives to be bought up as fodder for cretins anymore.

And in terms of performance remind me where the white night of laddism finished up this last leg?

Irony escapes you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, glexpress said:

I think who ever filed the rule 69 protest against Witt was just waiting for the opportunity since his remarks before the start of the race.  His head was already in the noose, he just had to say something stupid.

The only thing that upsets me about this is that if this happened on TTOP and the crass remarks were made by women, none of this would be happening.

Agreed, on both points. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

The only thing that upsets me about this is that if this happened on TTOP and the crass remarks were made by women, none of this would be happening.

And that upsets you why?

Share this post


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

The only thing that upsets me about this is that if this happened on TTOP and the crass remarks were made by women, none of this would be happening.

I can guarantee with near certainty that would have never happened, and after this landmark case will never happen. Take good notes.

Share this post


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

 

So we got to this point in having a bizarre, draconian rule like this all because people want to diminish me, and the likes of Paul Henderson, when we see the problem occurring, and getting worse, because it's better to have blind opposition than to really look at the totality of the circumstances, and think maybe, just maybe, ISAF/WS has a couple of guys who just love the idea of being mortality police.  

 

No, we got to this point because no one sees fit to make it their campaign, meaning real lawsuits with teeth (none of this CAS shit) and a real PR effort.  All we get is you and Hendo taking shots once or twice a year, and everything else goes on in secret.  

I am fairly sure that the only way this changes is through court action.  WS's actions have been illegal in certain countries for so long that they don't even know it, but a nice fat injunction about how they must operate before, say the VOR gets to American shores, might be a good thing.

If you don't think national authorities or courts can do anything about international, sponsored races, read.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Basic fairness, premise of equality 

Only someone who has never read or understood a history book would pretend there has ever been equality in sailing (or life, or any sport, or...)

That's like the people who complain that black folks getting more aid for their neighborhood's schools than rich white neighborhoods is "reverse racism".  It shows a total lack of understanding of history and how it effects the present.  

There should be NO equality until women have at least some semblance of being able to compete on a level playing field with men.  Get back to me when we're at that point, and we can talk about the poor men who are now being abused by Dee and her team.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

And that upsets you why?

It's not equality when one group is punished more than the other. 

There are many examples of men getting more severe punishments than women for the same crime in our world.  I work with women who make sexist comments with impunity that would have me fired in an instant.  That's not equality.  

 

11 minutes ago, pudge said:

I can guarantee with near certainty that would have never happened, and after this landmark case will never happen. Take good notes.

I agree it wouldn't happen, hypothetical.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Only someone who has never read or understood a history book would pretend there has ever been equality in sailing (or life, or any sport, or...)

That's like the people who complain that black folks getting more aid for their neighborhood's schools than rich white neighborhoods is "reverse racism".  It shows a total lack of understanding of history and how it effects the present.  

There should be NO equality until women have at least some semblance of being able to compete on a level playing field with men.  Get back to me when we're at that point, and we can talk about the poor men who are now being abused by Dee and her team.

So define equality. Is anyone stopping them from entering ? Is anyone penalizing them as a class ? Seems the opposite, with special status afforded to incentivize teams. If you (apparently) define equality, with a historical balance, who keeps score, and how far back? 

 

My distant ancestors (1800’s) captained ships out of Baltimore. One was stopped off the West Africa Coast with a cargo of coins and high value trade goods. His distant ancestors (1700’s) owned slaves in VA. Do I owe reparations by your logic? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

source? ^_^

Yes I have one thank you, as a journalist I would have thought you would understand that one protects one's sources

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

So define equality. Is anyone stopping them from entering ? Is anyone penalizing them as a class ? Seems the opposite, with special status afforded to incentivize teams. If you (apparently) define equality, with a historical balance, who keeps score, and how far back? 

 

My distant ancestors (1800’s) captained ships out of Baltimore. One was stopped off the West Africa Coast with a cargo of coins and high value trade goods. His distant ancestors (1700’s) owned slaves in VA. Do I owe reparations by your logic? 

Defining equality is uneccessary, because you can look at the effects rather than definition.  If our sport is 7% female even though "no one is stopping them" from entering, is there equality?  If there is, then what is stopping more females from racing?  

For the other thing, if you feel like you owe reparations, have at it. For me, supporting affirmative action and other programs that recognize the historically and continually occurring societal obstacles to equality makes me feel like I am doing my part. Then again my people were being slaughtered until pretty recently too.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

Yes I have one thank you, as a journalist I would have thought you would understand that one protects one's sources

 #fakesailingnews

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the whining and bitching about being overwhelmed by PC police will continue. Because every silly claim that's submitted is taken as a momeumental event approaching conviction before the panel even renders its decision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Defining equality is uneccessary, because you can look at the effects rather than definition.  If our sport is 7% female even though "no one is stopping them" from entering, is there equality?  If there is, then what is stopping more females from racing?  

For the other thing, if you feel like you owe reparations, have at it. For me, supporting affirmative action and other programs that recognize the historically and continually occurring societal obstacles to equality makes me feel like I am doing my part. Then again my people were being slaughtered until pretty recently too.

 

What is stopping females is a bloody big question Mr Clean. Both my significant females (daughter and spouse) are well into sailing so perhaps it is the attitude of the males around them. Then again perhaps I am totally wrong, maybe it is they don't like getting cold and wet? Maybe it is.... well I am sure we could fill a page of potential reasons.

Perhaps it would be better to ask those females who DID get into sailing and attempt to replicate the same environment to attract others. I wonder if ISAF or any MNA has ever done that

SS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shanghaisailor said:

What is stopping females is a bloody big question Mr Clean. Both my significant females (daughter and spouse) are well into sailing so perhaps it is the attitude of the males around them. Then again perhaps I am totally wrong, maybe it is they don't like getting cold and wet? Maybe it is.... well I am sure we could fill a page of potential reasons.

Perhaps it would be better to ask those females who DID get into sailing and attempt to replicate the same environment to attract others. I wonder if ISAF or any MNA has ever done that

SS

One size fits all, huh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

What is stopping females is a bloody big question Mr Clean. Both my significant females (daughter and spouse) are well into sailing so perhaps it is the attitude of the males around them. Then again perhaps I am totally wrong, maybe it is they don't like getting cold and wet? Maybe it is.... well I am sure we could fill a page of potential reasons.

Perhaps it would be better to ask those females who DID get into sailing and attempt to replicate the same environment to attract others. I wonder if ISAF or any MNA has ever done that

SS

The sport is fragmented in classes, recreational/competitive, national cultures and regions. 

Problem with ISAF trying to set policy is like the same deal with UN trying to manage programs. There are some scenes healthier than others. But the strategy doesn't really address microcasm. 

Most offshore sailors who are women in my gen come from sailing families heavily influenced by dads who kept the girls involved. The girls may take a break here and there in other athletic or professional spheres, but go back because of some skill or exp crossover. It's very different from the more recent Olympic sailing making the switch over once Olympic career is over. 

Something that many also don't think about re inclusion. Ppl are indiviuals. There are women who prefer to sail with those who are stereotypically male. Some do not. There are ppl of various sexual orientations. Some prefer solosailing because crew dynamics are hard. Inclusion works for the benefit of men, women, nonbinary folks. A shotgun not a sniper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Defining equality is uneccessary, because you can look at the effects rather than definition.  If our sport is 7% female even though "no one is stopping them" from entering, is there equality?  If there is, then what is stopping more females from racing?  

For the other thing, if you feel like you owe reparations, have at it. For me, supporting affirmative action and other programs that recognize the historically and continually occurring societal obstacles to equality makes me feel like I am doing my part. Then again my people were being slaughtered until pretty recently too.

 

You assume an equal number of women would want to sail competitively. Based on what ? Do you judge rhythmic dancing and synchronized swimming as unequal  because of low male participation? Your virtue signalling may make you feel you are doing your part, fair nuff, not my issue. Trying to persuade others to your view is fine, even to what borders on editorial discrimination on a private platform. Compelling them by judicial/legislative/regulatory “social engineering” procedures not so much 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Yes confirmed now she did so at the Yacht Racing Forum held in Denmark on last weekend in November. I didn't put my "candle" post up earlier until that was confirmed.

No standing yes but the RO is compelled to act upon any third party formal complaint with the first step being an investigation to see if it should be taken further. As shown in this case a member of the public simply viewing onboard video in the middle of the ocean is enough to allow a third party formal complaint to be made and acted upon.

Your fucked.

The RO has put their head in the sand. That would seem to indicate that all we can expect to see and hear is nothing other than the outcome of the WS Jury Hearing later today. 

The Editors FP video which went up a few hours ago is the first time Dawn Riley's involvement in this 69er has been published. I was worried this third party complaint aspect would be buried so hats off to Scott/Clean for publishing it. Others in the media will now no doubt follow. That might also flush Dawn out.

As to mainstream media the 69er was published earlier today in the Australian.

Thanks for explaining things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Only someone who has never read or understood a history book would pretend there has ever been equality in sailing (or life, or any sport, or...)

That's like the people who complain that black folks getting more aid for their neighborhood's schools than rich white neighborhoods is "reverse racism".  It shows a total lack of understanding of history and how it effects the present.  

There should be NO equality until women have at least some semblance of being able to compete on a level playing field with men.  Get back to me when we're at that point, and we can talk about the poor men who are now being abused by Dee and her team.

Most of the playing fields in pro ocean racing ain't yet level Clean. Some are fairly level, Mini, Figaro, and given the small number of women entering those races, they are not just competing. Some women are finishing races ahead of many very skilled men. Given level playing fields like this women can and are competing. It's not any inferiority in the fair sex that holds them back. Talking about the professional side of the sport you simply can't afford to put in the learning time to develop the needed skills until you get a sponsor, and perhaps it could just be it is attitudes like yours (typical male sailor?) which are putting sponsors off from choosing women's projects.

Sponsors are free to choose whoever they want and to date sponsors just don't give women the same opportunities as they do for men. I don't see why that should be the case but clearly it is, so we have a chicken and egg situation. It has nothing to do with any ability to "compete on a level playing field".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried to edit to add thist: Something else that occurred to me in Mexico while listening to Jo Aleh - the sports efforts at stimulating future talent can also prevent other individual pathways from occurring. I don't know the dynamics during her trial with Brunel - but she's 31 and trying to make the switch when there's a under-30 rule. Could she have been given a chance under SCA in the last edition? Maybe. She definitely knows how to make a boat go fast, is structured enough to go ahead and build her own miles and obtain qualifications ahead of the VOR. But ultimately? She's a rookie who is over 30 and Brunel brought 2 experienced women instead. Time will tell if this generation of ocean sailors will have careers - there's definitely a potential generation gap coming in the next edition. 


For food for thought. If Nikki Henderson decides she'll like to try her hand at a Vendee - will she be able to find a consistent benefactor sponsor like AT? Is it a surprise that the more successful folks from the English speaking world like Dee, Sam, Ellen are comfortable before a camera & can present themselves well?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the subject of equality, sexism and feminism etc.,  I like to quote my 90 yr old mother who had a very Victorian upbringing in the UK.

She says "Son I don't understand these feminists and women's libbers, the "smart" women have had all the power and control all along. They have no need to flaunt it".

Probably not relevant but an interesting perspective from a generation perceived as being the poster children for sexual discrimination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yep plus expert costs, fees accommodation, etc and on both sides. 

Well if it comes to nothing, I’d hope that the party/parties that started this are responsible for the costs involved. 

Very unlikely, I know.  

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

No, we got to this point because no one sees fit to make it their campaign, meaning real lawsuits with teeth (none of this CAS shit) and a real PR effort.  All we get is you and Hendo taking shots once or twice a year, and everything else goes on in secret.  

I am fairly sure that the only way this changes is through court action.  WS's actions have been illegal in certain countries for so long that they don't even know it, but a nice fat injunction about how they must operate before, say the VOR gets to American shores, might be a good thing.

If you don't think national authorities or courts can do anything about international, sponsored races, read.

Well, actually, I agree with you. MNA's mostly don't give a shit about any of this, obviously, but that is, in theory, the way this is supposed to work.  And so it will have to take legal action to get WS out of the regulation and morality police business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VOR: Rule 69 protest has been dismissed 'on a number of grounds'

Thursday, December 7, 2017

TOM EHMAN

CAPE TOWN – Nothing official out yet from the Volvo Ocean Race management, but one hears from multiple sources that the Rule 69 protest against Scallywag skipper David Witt (AUS) and ex-navigator Steve Hayles (GBR) has been summarily dismissed after a hearing this afternoon in Cape Town. We are gathering the details, already have many, and will be writing in due course. We will also be going live with a Facebook netcast with one of the parties live via Skype from Cape Town on next week's "Tuesdays with TFE" if not sooner.

https://www.sailingillustrated.com/single-post/2017/12/07/VOR-Rule-69-protest-has-been-dismissed-on-a-number-of-grounds

Not such a landmark case after all?

http://sailinganarchy.com/2017/12/07/dismissed/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 If our sport is 7% female even though "no one is stopping them" from entering, is there equality?  If there is, then what is stopping more females from racing?  

 

 

Probably for the same reason my wife takes ballet lessons and I don't...

Could it be lack of interest? No females in my family have ever shown real interest in sailing (my wife is an active windsurfer, but didn't like racing on any sailboat, much to my dislike). 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bouwe the bad boy?

Reportedly, as EDIO Mr Doerr received at least two complaints. We have a copy of the first complaint from a Mr Alex Haworth. We do not know the gentleman nor his nationality. Mr Haworth's complaint named Bouwe Bekking of Team Brunel and Mr Witt, not Mr Hayles. The complaint against Mr Bekking stemmed from this 14 Oct 17 BBC article. The complaint against Mr Witt was for a post to the Scallywag team's Facebook page, long since removed, and for this 4 July 17 article on the VOR website. The complaint was only links to articles with no discussion or argumentation as to why the articles rose to the level of Rule 69 "misconduct." 

https://www.sailingillustrated.com/single-post/2017/12/07/VOR-Rule-69-protest-has-been-dismissed-on-a-number-of-grounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well some sort of line was of drawn in something that resembles sand in a flooding tide...a process developed, tested, hated, condemned, rejected, ignored, forgotten... 

The tether light is off and you are now free to swing your dicks about the cabin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic

On transparency…

At SHK Scallywag, we’re a complete open book. We don’t hide anything. I think that as the race has got more professional, people have got a bit ahead of themselves. At the end of the day, we’re sailors – we sail the boat. We’re not doctors, or brain surgeons, or curing cancer, we’re just good yachties. I really believe that one of the problems restricting our sport is that some people at the top think they’re Beckham – and we’re not soccer, we’re sailing. If you carry on like you’re a rockstar when you’re just a guy who is good at driving a boat, you won’t appeal to the general public – and I think some of the top-level sailors have lost that connection. In the old days, it was okay just to be you. If we have a high, everyone will see it, if we have a major low, everyone will see it. I’ve spent 20 years wanting to do this race, and if I pretend I’m someone I’m not, that’s a failure in my opinion.  David Witt

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misconduct charge against sailors dismissed

A misconduct charge against two sailors has been dismissed by the International Jury...

http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/10506_Misconduct-charge-against-sailors-dismissed.html

The International Jury has dismissed a charge of misconduct under Rule 69 of the Racing Rules of Sailing against David Witt and Steve Hayles following a complaint to World Sailing.

In its decision, the International Jury wrote: “David Witt and Steve Hayles did not commit misconduct because the video has not caused widespread offence worldwide and has not brought the sport into disrepute.”

Richard Brisius, the President of the Volvo Ocean Race, said: “As race organisers we would like to thank the International Jury for its time and thoughtful handling of this case.”

The complaint, put forward by an outside party not associated with the race, focused on content contained in a video produced from on board Scallywag during Leg 2 of the race.

“I’ve seen the video and I think it’s unfortunate that this resulted in a hearing,” said Dee Caffari, the skipper of Turn the Tide on Plastic. “This case has shown all of us, I think, that the banter and jokes that are an essential part of life on board, don’t always travel well off the water. But to have singled out these guys for a charge when it’s clear that nobody on their boat felt offended in any way seems misguided to me.”

Jordi Neves, Chief Digital Officer of the Volvo Ocean Race added: “As event organisers we are constantly undertaking a review of our and the teams content workflow. We are providing updated guidelines to our communications team, including the on board reporters.

“Our focus now is to evolve and respond in a responsible manner, as we continue our authentic storytelling of the race as the sailors take on the ultimate test of a team in professional sport.”

The teams next take to the water on Friday 8 December at 2pm local time in Cape Town for the In-Port Race, before the start of Leg 3, from Cape Town to Melbourne, Australia on Sunday 10 December.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I’ve seen the video and I think it’s unfortunate that this resulted in a hearing,” said Dee Caffari, the skipper of Turn the Tide on Plastic. “This case has shown all of us, I think, that the banter and jokes that are an essential part of life on board, don’t always travel well off the water. But to have singled out these guys for a charge when it’s clear that nobody on their boat felt offended in any way seems misguided to me.”

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, southerncross said:

“Our focus now is to evolve and respond in a responsible manner, as we continue our authentic storytelling of the race as the sailors take on the ultimate test of a team in professional sport.”

Good on ya, VOR.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EvaOdland said:

Evidence of abusive behavior is Witt smooshing his hand around Hayles's crotch getting a good coating of mid-Atlantic man-funk, then sniffing it like a stud sniffs a mare in heat.

In the first picture he is rubbing crotch, immediately the hand goes to his nose, then the satisfied reaction. Clever how he set it all up so he could get his hands stinking with funk.

What a letch.

Also note the weather helm and the boat being driven...Hayles never drops a hand from the wheel and maintains two hands...focused doing his job as the nutbag skipper gropes him. 

5a292e46b59a3_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-55-39.png.106f26b198237cc4b96f87ab67686ab0.png5a292e451077a_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-56-16.png.c2b5b1d724a0bcf0ee586a01d404cb45.png5a292e435196f_Screenshotfrom2017-12-0614-56-45.png.0e406f3c3aa8e61913a7b4685e98508d.png

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing the Jury has said or done can change what we see in the video.  It is out of order.  The only doubt was what WS would do about it.

Witt is still loose canon and a complete dick, what he has done has tarnished the reputation of the sport.  That is not just an opinion, that it the result of endless thrashing about in the press this last week, drawing attention, smoke and fire comes to mind.

This in an odd way may have been helpful to Witty, drawing attention away from his result.  He wuld care less about be called a misogynist, that's a badge of honour to him.  But he doesn't like being second last, back with the wood ducks and the 'girls'.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Nothing the Jury has said or done can change what we see in the video.  It is out of order.  The only doubt was what WS would do about it.

Witt is still loose canon and a complete dick, what he has done has tarnished the reputation of the sport.  That is not just an opinion, that it the result of endless thrashing about in the press this last week, drawing attention, smoke and fire comes to mind.

This in an odd way may have been helpful to Witty, drawing attention away from his result.  He wuld care less about be called a misogynist, that's a badge of honour to him.  But he doesn't like being second last, back with the wood ducks and the 'girls'.

I am a little disapointed :-/
I had hopes for more... like some shit about how Big Oil, Pharma etc. is involved in this outcome.
You can do better than this Randy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking funny how the WS process and those involved in it has been bagged relentlessly here.  But now they will all be good.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

But now they will all be good.

Not necessarily.  Hoping that the absurdity of it might make them revisit the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Fucking funny how the WS process and those involved in it has been bagged relentlessly here.  But now they will all be good.

Looks like you're the only one with a sandy vag.

The process worked, this time. But that's no guarantee it will work the next time someone gets their panties in a knot over nothing more than a tasteless video. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, southerncross said:

Not necessarily.  Hoping that the absurdity of it might make them revisit the rule.

So we have people whining about the lack of female participation, but then claim that only those involved in the sport should be able to protest about the reputation of the sport being potentially damaged.  The focus should be on the opinion of those considering entering the sport, like parents with a few children who may or may not be allowed to go sailing.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

So we have people whining about the lack of female participation,

I think you got the threads mixed up. They're whining about this on the thread you started.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

So we have people whining about the lack of female participation, but then claim that only those involved in the sport should be able to protest about the reputation of the sport being potentially damaged.  The focus should be on the opinion of those considering entering the sport, like parents with a few children who may or may not be allowed to go sailing.

Oh right... Because of that video, some parents might change their mind and not let their 6 year old daughter go to sailing school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, southerncross said:

I think you got the threads mixed up. They're whining about this on the thread you started.

 

Short memory and inaccurate posting ... same as it every was

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random said:

So we have people whining about the lack of female participation, but then claim that only those involved in the sport should be able to protest about the reputation of the sport being potentially damaged.  The focus should be on the opinion of those considering entering the sport, like parents with a few children who may or may not be allowed to go sailing.

So the standards are set by kids who might someday sail optis or not? Are you going to apply that standard to all sports? Just to be safe, perhaps you and your kids should stick to competitive basket weaving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Oh right... Because of that video, some parents might change their mind and not let their 6 year old daughter go to sailing school.

Maybe.  But they would certainly think again about allowing a teenage girl to go ocean racing

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Oh right... Because of that video, some parents might change their mind and not let their 6 year old daughter go to sailing school.

LOL, she's really grasping at straws to justify her fauxrage. And we've already learned it's based solely on not liking the skipper. 

Share this post


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

Reportedly, as EDIO Mr Doerr received at least two complaints. We have a copy of the first complaint from a Mr Alex Haworth. We do not know the gentleman nor his nationality. 

https://www.seahorsemagazine.com/sailor-of-the-month/hall-of-fame/?cover_month=September&cover_year=2006

Seahorse magazine sailor of the month 2006 SEPTEMBER Dee Caffari (GBR)

‘Voting for the first-timer rather than the third-timer’ – Alex Haworth

Coincidence?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

Maybe.  But they would certainly think again about allowing a teenage girl to go ocean racing

Because the only reason there aren't hundreds of teenage girls ocean racing is because of a video. <roll eyes>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, random said:

Nothing the Jury has said or done can change what we see in the video.  It is out of order.  The only doubt was what WS would do about it.

Witt is still loose canon and a complete dick, what he has done has tarnished the reputation of the sport.  That is not just an opinion, that it the result of endless thrashing about in the press this last week, drawing attention, smoke and fire comes to mind.

This in an odd way may have been helpful to Witty, drawing attention away from his result.  He wuld care less about be called a misogynist, that's a badge of honour to him.  But he doesn't like being second last, back with the wood ducks and the 'girls'.

Maybe you need to get over yourself.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites