• 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

Well, he does have some self awareness.  At a press conference before Leg 0 he said that he was a lunatic.  He was just being honest.

Share this post


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

I will take the opinion of a barister who specialises in this area of the law over a crusty old judge any day!

You don't know much about the Law. Barrister's are at the bottom of the food chain in court and pray to be a QC. Judges are extracted from the ranks of the best QC's. High Court judges are the creme of the crop and and as a consequence have minds which are scary. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You don't know much about the Law. Barrister's are at the bottom of the food chain in court and pray to be a QC. Judges are extracted from the ranks of the best QC's. High Court judges are the creme of the crop and and as a consequence have minds which are scary. 

Are they scary to you Jack?  Gee hey.

Looks like the concept of specialisation went right over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Holy shit, that opens a Pandora box full of it, Google does it again:

image.jpeg.3f152d4166ae510f878107b6fed2575c.jpeg

https://www.google.com/search?q=arse+wiper&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1CHBD_enFJ723FJ723&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9ueq_k_TXAhVE3IMKHUXqDrAQsAQIJQ&biw=1220&bih=629#imgrc=-xU6T26Ocwzd2M:

The Groom of the Stool was a male servant in the household of an English monarch who, among other duties, “preside[d] over the office of royal excretion,” that is, he had the task of cleaning the monarch’s anus after defecation. 

http://listverse.com/2009/09/24/top-10-strangest-jobs-in-history/

 

 

 

 

Yeah. They had a Union and everything.  Generations of them mostly from a small town in Wales going way back to William III.  They were known for their discretion and nimble hands. Bred that way over generations. Sad to see them go actually.  Another consequence of the PC police.  I heard most of them took to drink.  Others went into politics.

Share this post


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

No. But it is also not an excuse to be a bell end.

It's like saying "No offence" and then expecting somebody not to be offended when you call them a cunt.

He can't justify his actions by saying he is old school.

 

I have no problems with him being told to pull his head in and smarten up (by his backers), or being told he's being a stupid prick (by his peers).

I do have issues with him being sacrificed for assumed and projected offence. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I wasn't going to post again, but I wanted to address this because it shows the problem with the internet. I read you post, thought it was probably the best thing you had posted for a long time even if we didn't agree on all issues. I did not realise I needed to respond in any way, because we had both presented our views and it was there for all to see. Some might think otherwise, but I see no point in tit for tat arguments when the views expressed speak for themselves. I certainly wan't ignoring your comment. Just shows how easy it is to interpret what somebody does on a forum incorrectly. :)

I heard there was more than one complaint, but have no other details.

My final comment on this remains about how dismissive some people are about this. A complaint or maybe more than 1 was made. A highly respected independent assessor investigated the incident and he recommended that Witty should be charged with a rule 69 offence. If this was nothing, why has it made it passed the first step? Others clearly think there is a case to answer and that there is something problematic. Let's see where it goes from here.

 

My god you are an arse.

Share this post


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

You don't know much about the Law. Barrister's are at the bottom of the food chain in court and pray to be a QC. Judges are extracted from the ranks of the best QC's. High Court judges are the creme of the crop and and as a consequence have minds which are scary. 

Actually I do, rather well. Go speak to your ex Father-in-Law. To start with, QC's are barristers (and occasionally solictors) so my use of Barrister also covers QC's.  You do not need to be a QC to be a judge and although I agree that High Court judges are the cream of the crop, they also do not need to be QC's. 

Unless your ex Father-in-Law is/was a judge who specialised in employment law and is up to date with current case law in that area, i would take the word of a specialist Barrister, QC or not, over a crusty old non specialist judge any day.

Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. No judge is hearing this case and it will be decided by a group of highly unqualified people whose opinion on this is probably no more valid than those on here. Seriously, WTF do International Jurors in the sport of sailing know about this sort of thing? It doesn't matter what your view of the rights or wrongs of this case, the people deciding it are unlikely to have any experience in the matter making the whole process a farce. Whichever way the case goes, those on both sides of the argument will have plenty of reason to say the verdict is invalid and if it goes against Witty, I think he would have very good reason to refer the matter to CAS because he is far more likely to get a legal professional looking at it and the verdict couldn't get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my issue with this whole scenario is that as has been pointed out many time on this thread Witty has form for being a bit of a misogynist.

His comments pre race serving to back this up.

I have no issue with 99% of the banter on boats. It is vulgar, childish,disgusting and mostly fucking hilarious. If you are going to be a woman on a boat like this you best have a thick skin and be able to give as good as you can get.

But this whole skit isn't regular banter. It comes across as a premeditated action by Witty to target the woman onboard purely because she is a woman. So I wouldn't think it is very far from the realms of sexual harassment.

Share this post


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

There is a great example of the problem.   LB cannot understand why anyone would or should bother if it doesn't affect them personally.

Some people like Simon have a broader view than LB, showing concern for people other than themselves, women who are or want to sail without having to suffer harrassment.

Bit fucking rich LB acusing anyone of being an attention whore.

You are a complete fucking hypocrite as well as being a deranged clown. It is quite a cocktail. Only a week or so ago (and no I can't be fucked searching for it) you posted about how much you disliked women commentators like Erin Molan talking about sports they never played. If having a broader view is feigning outrage on behalf of the worlds women i will wait for a real issue. Yep everyone agrees that Witty is an Oaf with no filter. I didn't find it funny either - not because of the subject matter, but because he is simply not funny. But there are endless things on the internet far more worthy of your faux outrage than this. Grow up and a pair.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Looks like the concept of specialisation went right over your head.

I forgot to put you back on ignore however B4 pushing the silent button here is your last morsel.

The concept of specialisation was not lost on me. So as to the crusty old High Court judge in question who GB assumed new shit compared to a workplace law barrister. Guess what one of crustys specialities was as a judge in a prior jurisdiction and to the extent some of his decisions are case law on the matter of conduct in the workplace? 

Sticking your pecker out and becoming unstuck is a habit of yours. Goodbye.

Share this post


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

I forgot to put you back on ignore however B4 pushing the silent button here is your last morsel.

The concept of specialisation was not lost on me. So as to the crusty old High Court judge in question who GB assumed new shit compared to a workplace law barrister. Guess what one of crustys specialities was as a judge in a prior jurisdiction and to the extent some of his decisions are case law on the matter of conduct in the workplace? 

Sticking your pecker out and becoming unstuck is a habit of yours. Goodbye.

Three biggest lies

"This'll only hurt for a little while,
I'll only put the head of it in.
I have you on ignore. "

Share this post


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

Unless your ex Father-in-Law is/was a judge who specialised in employment law and is up to date with current case law in that area, i would take the word of a specialist Barrister, QC or not, over a crusty old non specialist judge any day.

Sorry I missed your post replying to Randumb for the last time. It answers your question.

Share this post


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

Seriously, WTF do International Jurors in the sport of sailing know about this sort of thing? It doesn't matter what your view of the rights or wrongs of this case, the people deciding it are unlikely to have any experience in the matter making the whole process a farce.

Fuckin a. Spot on!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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


I'll only put the head of it in.
 

You can not make this shit up!

Share this post


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

To be honest, I don't know. I've only used sudocream for my daughters nappy rash and never considered using it for self application or as an essential item on my yacht. We have a twilight race this evening and I'll report back.

Sudocream maybe the best winner out of this whole sage. 

Talk about product placement!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

But there are endless things on the internet far more worthy of your faux outrage than this.

Please link where I said I was outraged. Even 'faux-ish'

Making shit up again dude, it's a chronic issue you have, reading in what you want to see.

Share this post


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

No. But it is also not an excuse to be a bell end.

It's like saying "No offence" and then expecting somebody not to be offended when you call them a cunt.

He can't justify his actions by saying he is old school.

 

No offence, but you’re a cunt, or at least your sock puppet is. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Three biggest lies

"This'll only hurt for a little while,
I'll only put the head of it in.
I have you on ignore. "

You must be sick and tired of hearing them.

Share this post


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

Sorry I missed your post replying to Randumb for the last time. It answers your question.

I'm going to miss Jack.  He was fun.  Too bad

Seems he couldn't keep up when the going got tough, he lost the plot completely and started posting snuff images.

Edit: looks like the Chair of the Troll Busters has resigned due to lack of performance.

Share this post


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

Sudocream maybe the best winner out of this whole sage. 

Talk about product placement!

They might even get to supply randumb's institution. Wouldn't that be a weird coincidence.

Share this post


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

They might even get to supply randumb's institution. Wouldn't that be a weird coincidence.

But DFG doesn’t have a postal address. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

No offence, but you’re a cunt, or at least your sock puppet is. 

Look on his works yee mighty, and despair, all you newbies.   The glorious abusive content free posts of Maddy.

One day you too may sink rise to this level.

Share this post


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

Fuckin a. Spot on!

WS International Jury

Atkins Chris   GBR    Chairman

Allen Miguel   POR

Dellenbaugh Brad  USA

Green Russell  NZL

Perez Alvarez  Andres  ESP

Stage Jan  DEN

Truchanowicz  Sofia  POL

Not many to trust on that Jury, maybe Russell Green and Dave Dellenbaugh

Share this post


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

Seriously, WTF do International Jurors in the sport of sailing know about this sort of thing? It doesn't matter what your view of the rights or wrongs of this case, the people deciding it are unlikely to have any experience in the matter making the whole process a farce.

So true and add to that there will not be one VOR policy document in existance for Team crews (as apposed to their employees) that "properly addresss" this particular matter for those ill informed jurors to build their decision upon. Teams may have something but I doubt it would come close.

End result Witty is off to Melbourne, Dawn may or may not stick her head up on TV and the puff pastry clerks in workplace relations start drafting behavioural policies for offshore racing. Down the track Musto become intrigued why the arse has fallen out their womens gear sales.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But DFG doesn’t have a postal address. 

I see ...Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft..so randumb is a laboratory participant in a German Research Facility. Wow I don't think that is going to end well.

Share this post


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

So true and add to that there will not be one VOR policy document in existance for crews (as apposed to their employees) that "properly addresss" this particular matter for those ill informed jurors to build their decision upon. Teams may have something but I doubt it would come close.

End result Witty is off to Melbourne, Dawn may or may not stick her head up on TV and the puff pastry clerks in workplace relations start drafting behavioural policies for offshore racing. Down the track Musto become intrigued why the arse has fallen out their womens gear sales.

Doesn't work like that. Just because there isn't a VOR document that addresses this matter doesn't let anybody off the hook. Witty can be found to have acted inappropriately and the defence of "I don't know it wasn't allowed because there is no document" doesn't stack up.  I don't believe VOR needs a clause that details expected behaviour of the sailors. They aren't VOR employees and their behaviour is actually covered generally under rule 69. i do suspect that whatever the outcome, VOR will feel the need to bring out a document that explicitly covers crew behaviour, but I don't bel;ieve it is required.

Just because there is no document from VOR doesn't mean Witty cannot be found guilty under rule 69. How many rule 69 cases are decided based on documents that lay out acceptable behaviour. My guess would be none and that the IJ uses their "experience" to decide if what happened was a breach. Without saying this is my view of the incident, I personally think the IJ will find Witty in breach of rule 69 but will give him no more than a slap of the wrist. I even think there is a possibility that a deal is done behind the scenes where Witty pleads guilty and issues an apology on the grounds of it was unintended and then he is let off with no sanction. You can imagine the statement with some of the following lines

"Unintended.....didn't consider it would cause any real offence......... utmost respect for valued crew member.......respect for all women.........sincerely apologise for any offence caused" 

After that, we can then start debating the sincerity of the statement:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

December 06, 2017 03:00 UTC Team Sun Hung Kai/Scallywag press release

Team Sun Hung Kai/Scallywag has announced the signing of a new major sponsorship deal which will see the teams name changed to Team Sudocrem Scallywag. As part of the new sponsorship deal, Team Sudocrem Scallywag's navigator for the first two legs Steve Hayles will leave the race to take up the position of spokesman for Sudocrem. Actavis PLC which manufactures Sudocrem is using Team Sudocrem Scallywag as it's first foray into marketing Sudocremto elite sportsmen. As part of it's marketing to the sporting elite, Actavis PLC will invest heavily in marketing their product in cycling and have created a subsidiary and a team of the same name, Sudocrem Cycling Union Marketing which will be managed by Lance Armstrong.

Team Sudocrem Scallywag skipper, David Witt will also be a spokesman for Sudocrem and will represent the product from onboard during the race.

Team Sudocrem Scallywag will continue representing the city of Hong Kong.

Due to the limited time in Cape Town, only minor changes to the boats livery will be made before the 3rd leg commences. 

 

Scallywag.thumb.jpg.82ec65d55e0dd7fa424e6c1da8e09a95.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ModernViking said:

After the racist shit he posted yesterday, I am surprised that the Random-problem hasn't solved itself by now.

Mate, seriously, I would like to apologise for my comments about white men lying.  You got me thinking.  I did not appreciate at the time that it could have been taken as a generalsation for all white men, it is not.

White men are honest as rule, but there are some exceptions;

  • Politicians (all are bought off to say shit)
  • Salesmen (lifetime warranty)
  • Journalists who write what ever they are paid to regardless of whether they agree or not.
  • Climate Change denialists (See above)
  • Oil Companies (^)
  • Investment Advisors (commission on sales instead of your gain)
  • Banks (^^^we are here to help)
  • Anyone who made treaties with natives at the end of the genocide (not honoured)
  • Diplomats (the art of saying 'nice doggy' till you can find a big stick)
  • Donald Trump (he's not a politician, just a lying business man)
  • Cheating partners (well they did cheat)
  • Gamblers (about how much they have won / lost)
  • You tube posters (happy happy posts ... shit lives)
  • White men wanting a blow jobs (promise I won't come in your mouth)
  • Short course sailors (but I gave you plenty of Room!)
  • Any white man who says they are not racist
  • that'll do for now but there are more

Again I apologise.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Briaindead Mumblefuck Hangcock is back-tracking on the Front Page, for those interested.

I am not, please do not quote the SOF here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Mate, seriously, I would like to apologise for my comments about white men lying.  You got me thinking.  I did not appreciate at the time that it could have been taken as a generalsation for all white men, it is not.
... [Insert Randumbs irrelevant list here...]

Again I apologise.

I don't know what you think that list has to do with the shit you posted.
But you made me think too. You are precisely like a group of white people (men and women) around here.

The kind, that is so obsessed with showing the world how non-racist they are. You typically see them in action at the cash register, when a non-native is scanning their groceries. They then loudly compliment the non-native for having a job, and being able to scan the groceries.

It makes me wanna puke, and I guess that's how I connected that to you - besides the fact that this behaviour is you in a nutshell.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no fucking idea what you just said.  Non-native ... jobs ... cash registers ...WTF?

WTF.jpg

Share this post


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

Doesn't work like that. Just because there isn't a VOR document that addresses this matter doesn't let anybody off the hook. Witty can be found to have acted inappropriately and the defence of "I don't know it wasn't allowed because there is no document" doesn't stack up.  I don't believe VOR needs a clause that details expected behaviour of the sailors. They aren't VOR employees and their behaviour is actually covered generally under rule 69.

WHICH CANDLE FOR WOMEN HAS DAWN LIT?

Anyone who believes the Scallywag fiasco can be properly dealt with as a Rule 69 infraction in its current form and with no major consequences in  my opinion are living in  la-la-land. 

Very simply Dawn Riley has now moved the goal posts for matters that Rule 69 was intended to capture. In simplistic terms it was cheating on the race course and fights in the Club carpark etc where, from a public perspective, that sort of conduct brought the sport into disrepute. The definition of conduct in Rule 69 has now been watered down to capture a wider range of unspecified activities and therefore penalties. It is not drafted nor was it invisaged it would govern interpersonal workplace conduct.

Dawn has fired the first salvo towards  having Rule 69 cover "gender equality and mutual respect" out on the race course, and in this case putting aside the existance of video, outside the sight and knowledge of the public who are thousands of miles away. This is now irrefutabley an issue of workplace conduct where professional crews are concerned, no matter what coloured glasses you put on. 

Now generally speaking proceedings relating to workplace conduct in most western countries involve laws and regulations as well as policies at the place of employ. These enshrine the rights of those involved and amoungst other things, prescribe the various levels of misconduct to give guidance to determining procedual outcomes, whether they be for employees, employers and those governing judicial or tribunal systems in place.

What we have now is two professional sailors having to defend their conduct in the workplace and therefore their livelehood by a system that didn't exist when they stepped on board and one that has no regulatory framework to provide any guideance on how they should have acted, are judged and treated. Any thoughts that this absence of a formal framework doesn't let anyone automaticaly off the hook, is pure fantasy. The absence of the OBR being captured by these proceedings, and a RO employee responsible for capturing, editing and uploading media material into the public domain, independent of the team, is worrying.

Many posters have made the comment these people are professionals and should act accordingly which is fair comment. What is missing is everyone is forgetting that these professionals are now being asked to step on board to their workplace and for their conduct to be judged accordingly, but leaving ashore all the mechanisms and procedures that govern and decide that conduct when working ashore. That is madness to the extreme by any objective assessment.

For the most part this thread and the FP meanderings of Handcock have been disecting a piece of video and framing their views accordingly. It might suprise some but I haven't even watched it. I haven't watched any of Scallywags uploads, didn't see why this was any different as Witts style is not my cup of tea. Having said that, I'm a supporter if nothing else of Witt because here is an Australian who has put together a team, albeit under a different flag. No-one else from Oz has been able to do that in this event in over 50 years since it started, which the more you think about it, is now beyond weird.

As you have gathered my interest has been about the ramifications of what Dawn Riley has done. Interestingly she was at the Yacht Racing Forum in Denmark the weekend before last, and around the time she pushed the 69er button. I would be interested if any wise heads there, which there were many, would have expressed reservations about her intended actions?

My view is she should have prosecuted  her agenda of mutual respect and gender equality direct with VOR the moment they announced a mixed crew format. That could have then seen the implemention of a simple and transparent policy framework that all of the stakeholders were happy with. She then could of injected WS and other RO's over time with the same winning formula. 

The net result would have been everyone from crews to sponsors would have had a clear understanding of what was expected and the ramifications attached to breeching those workplace policy(s). Those enforcing it and adjudicating breaches would have a prescribed framework to judge the severity of any misconduct and to determine a punitive response. It is reasonable to assume with such a policy framework in place, this fiasco would never have occured.

The sad fact is Dawn didn't do this but chose to throw a grenade mid race at a targeted event to create maximum impact and where one key individual involved placed a target on his back for all to see, well before the race started. I have been reluctant to broach the question to date, but was that grenade directed at also maximising her personel exposure over and above looking to improve gender equality and respect? I have difficulty believing otherwise in the absence of any explanation behind her actions. This is particularly in light of the work she has put into this sphere of endeavour and the standing afforded her public position, yet doing nothing about it in terms of this event beforehand.

I believe the outcome of tomorrow's WAS Jury Hearing cannot be anything other than Witt and Hayles being exonerated with maybe a warning. Anything other than that, not only would it be grossly inequitable to be judged on non-existent workplace conduct criteria, but those judging them likewise have nothing at their disposal or within their spheres of expertise to be even judging them in the first place. 

Irrespective whether World Sailing close this loophole of Rule 69 suddenly being bastardised to govern workplace conduct or not, RO's will have to. The genie has been let out of the bottle and unfortunately it won't occur in a measured and collaborative way, but now be a policy framework stitched together on the run. If they don't do this Sponsors won't touch a mixed gender event where their employees and in turn even themselves are placed at risk. Thinking professional sailors will think twice about signing up for a mixed gender event without an appropriate mechanism to afford them protection in their place of employ. 

It won't stop at just professional events but spread to amateur world as how can you seperate the two anymore where the overarching rules of the sport govern both professionals and amateurs equally and alike. It is this arena which should be of most concern as it is the nursery for all sailors male and female. Improving the opportunities for women sailors have enough roadblocks as it is. They need another one that is hastily constructed and erected, without proper consultation like a hole in the head.

I realise my views may not be supported by some knee jerkers, but if they think it through like Dawn Riley should have, then my hope is they see more pain than joy emanating from this unfortunate episode.

Finally a quick look wearing the hat of the owner of Team Scallywag. Looking at the makeup of the WS Jury deciding what is effectively a gender equality and mutual respect issue in the workplace and see that it is a seven (7) person panel comprising solely sailing rule experts, with one (1) women, I would be looking on with dismay and like anyone, no matter which side of Dawn's fence they sit. This adjudication response is absurd.  If WS doesn't get it, if the RO doesn't get it, then how are owners and sponsors who put up the money and sailors who participate supposed to understand what those that govern don't understand?

If I was Seng Huang Lee and Sun Hung Kai & Co my response would be to make it known in Cape Town, Lisbon and Gothenburg and for the reasons I have outlined above, that anything other than a slap on the wrist and an undertaking from the RO to put in place procedures that I as an owner and my people can understand and rely upon; "then we are leaving here on the first plane Friday and reserving my rights to recover every dollar outlayed towards this Micky Mouse event".

So to conclude has Dawn lit the brightly glowing candle for "gender equality and respect"? Or is it the smokey spluttering one of "polarisation and paranoia"? 

To make that judgement we will probably have to keep an eye on the "Riley Musto Index", or sales volumes over time for womens offshore gear.

The Sparrow.

images (37).jpeg

  • Like 15

Share this post


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

I have no fucking idea what you just said.  Non-native ... jobs ... cash registers ...WTF?

WTF.jpg

Still working out how to post a picture??

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should go for the real Jack Sparrow's suggested punishment. 

Shoot him, then cut out his tongue, then shoot his tongue. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I think I found the problem. 

From her Wikipedia page:

"She is also politically active in the Democratic Party." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If I was Seng Huang Lee and Sun Hung Kai & Co my response would be to make it known in Cape Town, Lisbon and Gothenburg and for the reasons I have outlined above, that anything other than a slap on the wrist and an undertaking from the RO to put in place procedures that I as an owner and my people can understand and rely upon; "then we are leaving here on the first plane Friday and reserving my rights to recover every dollar outlayed towards this Micky Mouse event".

Thanks Sparrow !

That is a very clear message to the Jury and the VOR, and it will help to put this in perspective. 

I am confident that sanity will prevail, and that they will say "please be considerate of the viewers", and hope they will not even give a slap on the wrist. They should also recommend that WS and VOR look into all the Rule 69 ramifications in this regard.

Just in case there will be a penalty, or worse, for Witt or Scallywag, then not only Scallywag should refuse to start, but all the other teams should refuse to start as well. In solidarity and in their own interest in the long term. 

You know, the RTW Race was originally a yacht Race, THE  RACE, and it should still be a Race in the first place. The media spectacle and commercial considerations, ego's and sensitivities, should be second to the sport, always !

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post JS. I'm not sure this does push the boundaries of Rule 69. Thanks to the presence of an OBR the conduct in question was in a public place. So there's little difference between this and a bust up in the dinghy park.

Difficult to make Team_GBRs case for "unintended offence" given the open admission at the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

well put little birdy.

Thanks dunc your opinion I value.. likewise getting an upvote from Mad is like winning the lottery.

14 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Thanks Sparrow !

That is a very clear message to the Jury and the VOR, and it will help to put this in perspective. 

I wish Fugit..but I don't think that crew lurk around here.

 

27 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

I think we should go for the real Jack Sparrow's suggested punishment. 

Shoot him, then cut out his tongue, then shoot his tongue. 

...and Scanas my apologies for using confusing big words and concepts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Interesting post JS. I'm not sure this does push the boundaries of Rule 69. Thanks to the presence of an OBR the conduct in question was in a public place. So there's little difference between this and a bust up in the dinghy park.

Geeky I mention the OBR as a crew member acting as the sole content provider and conduit for moving the Rule 69 carpark out into the middle of the Sth Atlantic for the public to see, where ordinarily they wouldn't and as a crew member (and while independent to and not employed by the Team), is still subject to a 69er...but disturbingly so, he is let off the hook?

This is a workplace issue, not a sailing issue pure and simple.

The word "scapegoats" comes to mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As does "victim culture", and I'm not talking about women involved here. The good old 4chan refrain of "be a hero" seems to fit for Witty here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW what's the legal status of the crew here? Are they in direct employ by the Scallywag team, or is their employer contracted for service?

Share this post


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

WHICH CANDLE FOR WOMEN HAS DAWN LIT?

Anyone who believes the Scallywag fiasco can be properly dealt with as a Rule 69 infraction in its current form and with no major consequences in  my opinion are living in  la-la-land. 

Very simply Dawn Riley has now moved the goal posts for matters that Rule 69 was intended to capture. In simplistic terms it was cheating on the race course and fights in the Club carpark etc where, from a public perspective, that sort of conduct brought the sport into disrepute. The definition of conduct in Rule 69 has now been watered down to capture a wider range of unspecified activities and therefore penalties. It is not drafted nor was it invisaged it would govern interpersonal workplace conduct.

Dawn has fired the first salvo towards  having Rule 69 cover "gender equality and mutual respect" out on the race course, and in this case putting aside the existance of video, outside the sight and knowledge of the public who are thousands of miles away. This is now irrefutabley an issue of workplace conduct where professional crews are concerned, no matter what coloured glasses you put on. 

Now generally speaking proceedings relating to workplace conduct in most western countries involve laws and regulations as well as policies at the place of employ. These enshrine the rights of those involved and amoungst other things, prescribe the various levels of misconduct to give guidance to determining procedual outcomes, whether they be for employees, employers and those governing judicial or tribunal systems in place.

What we have now is two professional sailors having to defend their conduct in the workplace and therefore their livelehood by a system that didn't exist when they stepped on board and one that has no regulatory framework to provide any guideance on how they should have acted, are judged and treated. Any thoughts that this absence of a formal framework doesn't let anyone automaticaly off the hook, is pure fantasy. The absence of the OBR being captured by these proceedings, and a RO employee responsible for capturing, editing and uploading media material into the public domain, independent of the team, is worrying.

Many posters have made the comment these people are professionals and should act accordingly which is fair comment. What is missing is everyone is forgetting that these professionals are now being asked to step on board to their workplace and for their conduct to be judged accordingly, but leaving ashore all the mechanisms and procedures that govern and decide that conduct when working ashore. That is madness to the extreme by any objective assessment.

For the most part this thread and the FP meanderings of Handcock have been disecting a piece of video and framing their views accordingly. It might suprise some but I haven't even watched it. I haven't watched any of Scallywags uploads, didn't see why this was any different as Witts style is not my cup of tea. Having said that, I'm a supporter if nothing else of Witt because here is an Australian who has put together a team, albeit under a different flag. No-one else from Oz has been able to do that in this event in over 50 years since it started, which the more you think about it, is now beyond weird.

As you have gathered my interest has been about the ramifications of what Dawn Riley has done. Interestingly she was at the Yacht Racing Forum in Denmark the weekend before last, and around the time she pushed the 69er button. I would be interested if any wise heads there, which there were many, would have expressed reservations about her intended actions?

My view is she should have prosecuted  her agenda of mutual respect and gender equality direct with VOR the moment they announced a mixed crew format. That could have then seen the implemention of a simple and transparent policy framework that all of the stakeholders were happy with. She then could of injected WS and other RO's over time with the same winning formula. 

The net result would have been everyone from crews to sponsors would have had a clear understanding of what was expected and the ramifications attached to breeching those workplace policy(s). Those enforcing it and adjudicating breaches would have a prescribed framework to judge the severity of any misconduct and to determine a punitive response. It is reasonable to assume with such a policy framework in place, this fiasco would never have occured.

The sad fact is Dawn didn't do this but chose to throw a grenade mid race at a targeted event to create maximum impact and where one key individual involved placed a target on his back for all to see, well before the race started. I have been reluctant to broach the question to date, but was that grenade directed at also maximising her personel exposure over and above looking to improve gender equality and respect? I have difficulty believing otherwise in the absence of any explanation behind her actions. This is particularly in light of the work she has put into this sphere of endeavour and the standing afforded her public position, yet doing nothing about it in terms of this event beforehand.

I believe the outcome of tomorrow's WAS Jury Hearing cannot be anything other than Witt and Hayles being exonerated with maybe a warning. Anything other than that, not only would it be grossly inequitable to be judged on non-existent workplace conduct criteria, but those judging them likewise have nothing at their disposal or within their spheres of expertise to be even judging them in the first place. 

Irrespective whether World Sailing close this loophole of Rule 69 suddenly being bastardised to govern workplace conduct or not, RO's will have to. The genie has been let out of the bottle and unfortunately it won't occur in a measured and collaborative way, but now be a policy framework stitched together on the run. If they don't do this Sponsors won't touch a mixed gender event where their employees and in turn even themselves are placed at risk. Thinking professional sailors will think twice about signing up for a mixed gender event without an appropriate mechanism to afford them protection in their place of employ. 

It won't stop at just professional events but spread to amateur world as how can you seperate the two anymore where the overarching rules of the sport govern both professionals and amateurs equally and alike. It is this arena which should be of most concern as it is the nursery for all sailors male and female. Improving the opportunities for women sailors have enough roadblocks as it is. They need another one that is hastily constructed and erected, without proper consultation like a hole in the head.

I realise my views may not be supported by some knee jerkers, but if they think it through like Dawn Riley should have, then my hope is they see more pain than joy emanating from this unfortunate episode.

Finally a quick look wearing the hat of the owner of Team Scallywag. Looking at the makeup of the WS Jury deciding what is effectively a gender equality and mutual respect issue in the workplace and see that it is a seven (7) person panel comprising solely sailing rule experts, with one (1) women, I would be looking on with dismay and like anyone, no matter which side of Dawn's fence they sit. This adjudication response is absurd.  If WS doesn't get it, if the RO doesn't get it, then how are owners and sponsors who put up the money and sailors who participate supposed to understand what those that govern don't understand?

If I was Seng Huang Lee and Sun Hung Kai & Co my response would be to make it known in Cape Town, Lisbon and Gothenburg and for the reasons I have outlined above, that anything other than a slap on the wrist and an undertaking from the RO to put in place procedures that I as an owner and my people can understand and rely upon; "then we are leaving here on the first plane Friday and reserving my rights to recover every dollar outlayed towards this Micky Mouse event".

So to conclude has Dawn lit the brightly glowing candle for "gender equality and respect"? Or is it the smokey spluttering one of "polarisation and paranoia"? 

To make that judgement we will probably have to keep an eye on the "Riley Musto Index", or sales volumes over time for womens offshore gear.

The Sparrow.

images (37).jpeg

+ 100

well thought and reasoned arguments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating to watch a sport be governed by obscenely rich shit lords that history has shown are as quick to enter into litigation as they are to duke it out in the car park..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally. This thread is now worth reading. Well done Jack.

If you take up Clean's invitation to submit this for the front page, would you like some feedback for sharpening some of the points?

On 2017-11-29 at 8:43 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

However, if any of you feel compelled to write something about the race at any time, do so and send it in.  We're happy to publish anything that's got some passion behind it; I'm sure someone out there cares about the race...

Shanghai does a nice job even if he is a total homer for Dongfeng.  Brian's always good for some controversy.  Who wants to jump in?

Here's a sample:

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Dawn has fired the first salvo towards  having Rule 69 cover "gender equality and mutual respect" out on the race course. In this case, the video recorded something normally outside the sight and knowledge of the public who are thousands of miles away. Suddenly on-board behaviour is now irrefutabley an issue of workplace conduct where professional crews are concerned, no matter what coloured glasses you put on.

Want more? Your words, your call of course.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Dawn has fired the first salvo towards  having Rule 69 cover "gender equality and mutual respect" out on the race course, and in this case putting aside the existance of video, outside the sight and knowledge of the public who are thousands of miles away. This is now irrefutabley an issue of workplace conduct where professional crews are concerned, no matter what coloured glasses you put on. 

Now generally speaking proceedings relating to workplace conduct in most western countries involve laws and regulations as well as policies at the place of employ. These enshrine the rights of those involved and amoungst other things, prescribe the various levels of misconduct to give guidance to determining procedual outcomes, whether they be for employees, employers and those governing judicial or tribunal systems in place.

I am going to bet..somewhere there is a document that was signed by the Skippers and crew  that will cover professional behavioral violations that a Rule 69 protest exposes. 

It won't be Rule 69 itself, but the lord of all governing bodies in sailing since yacht racing began...the contract.  History has shown time and time again that any conflict in sailing almost always gets resolved in the courts over some breech of contract. I feel this incident will no doubt lead to this end and rather swiftly.

So yes, Rule 69 won't be a clean and quick resolution, no not at all, it is just the door the leads to other legal avenues. 

Edit Note: Random is the author of the quoted section...

Edited by EvaOdland
quote attribution correction

Share this post


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

I am going to bet..somewhere there is a document that was signed by the Skippers and crew  that will cover professional behavioral violations that a Rule 69 protest exposes.

Rather than bet, be good if you can find it. Links to some relevant docs are upthread. From Roger: https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/38-world-sailing-misconduct-guide

Leads to http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrs.prod/assets/data/1407/original.pdf

Where one can see, even one who is not a lawyer, that boat owners and support persons are included.

Quote
  1. 5  Who is subject to rule 69?

    1. 5.1  In this Guidance, we use the term ‘competitor’ for brevity. Under the RRS, a competitor is a person who races or intends to race in an event. In addition to competitors, rule 69 covers the boat owner and support persons.

    2. 5.2  “Support person” is a new defined term in the RRS and means any person who:

      1. 5.2.1  provides, or may provide, physical or advisory support to a competitor, including any coach, trainer, manager, team staff, medic, paramedic or any other person working with, treating or assisting a competitor in or preparing for the competition, or

      2. 5.2.2  the parent or guardian of a competitor.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, stief said:

Finally. This thread is now worth reading. Well done Jack.

If you take up Clean's invitation to submit this for the front page, would you like some feedback for sharpening some of the points?

Thanks stifler. I actually should give credit to DtW on the S2H thread for writing where I said if Witty was belted by the Jury and couldn't race even in the S2H, then Team Scally would pack their bags and go home. Upon reflection that seemed like a brain fart on my behalf so I went about giving substance to my opinion for DtW who is no idiot.

That aside if the Editor of this fleapit of opinion thinks fit to put something like mine up on the subject other than Handjob's ridiculous meanderings I'm sure he will. If not then he should start pondering why that Oracle/Larry sycophant behind that other publication keeps gazumping him.

Thanks for the edit suggestions but I'm happy as is, I wrote it on my phone waiting for an X-ray of one my degrading body bits...fell of a mast in France on the hard courtesy of some Froggy imbicile...another story.. anyway all is OK ..the dick is fine as Bindy just assured me...another story ..I have to stop. Cheers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I am confident that sanity will prevail, and that they will say "please be considerate of the viewers", and hope they will not even give a slap on the wrist. They should also recommend that WS and VOR look into all the Rule 69 ramifications in this regard.

 Sounds likely. A "Warning" is clearly indicated as an option. 16 matches. 7 for "Apology" in http://s3.amazonaws.com/rrs.prod/assets/data/1407/original.pdf 

 

6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Thanks stifler. I actually should give credit to DtW on the S2H thread for writing where I said if Witty was belted by the Jury and couldn't race then Team Scally would pack their bags and go home. Upon reflection that seemed like a brain fart on my behalf so went about giving substance to my opinion for DtW who is no idiot.

That aside if the Editor of this fleapit of opinion thinks fit to put something like mine up on the subject other than Handjob's ridiculous meanderings I'm sure he will. If not then he should start pondering why that Oracle/Larry sycophant behind that other publication keeps gazumping him.

Thanks for the edit suggestions but I'm happy as is, I wrote it on my phone waiting for an X-ray of one my degrading body bits...fell of a mast in France on the hard courtesy of some Froggy imbicile...another story.. anyway all is OK ..the dick is fine Bindy just assured me...another story ..I have to stop. Cheers.

Got it. Impressive history of the writing. Hard and dick usually work out better.

Share this post


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

I am going to bet..somewhere there is a document that was signed by the Skippers and crew  that will cover professional behavioral violations that a Rule 69 protest exposes. 

They don't have to sign a thing..they compete in a sanctioned event they are signed up to Rule 69 whether they like it or not.

The point of my post was is what they signed up to wasn't a Rule which now bastardisd aftet the start by a unrelated third party to now be treated as a all encompassing workplace conduct rule and having priority over any other rights they may have to earn an income as if they were in land.

Sorry but they and their employers didn't sign up for that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The point of my post was is what they signed up to wasn't a Rule which now bastardisd aftet the start by a unrelated third party to now be treated as a all encompassing workplace conduct rule and having priority over any other rights they may have to earn an income as if they were in land.

The rule was changed to follow common decency practices almost a year ago, that gave anyone giving a fuck about it plenty of notice. To boot, Witty warned of the video's offensive nature right from the start. 

Share this post


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

The rule was changed to follow common decency practices almost a year ago, that gave anyone giving a fuck about it plenty of notice. To boot, Witty warned of the video's offensive nature right from the start. 

Opinions are fine Pudge..we all have them good or bad. However yours does remind me of that old adage.

When you are dead you don't know you are dead. It is difficult only for others. It is the same when your alive and stupid.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It is the same when your alive and stupid.

At least I don't live in the stone age. 

Share this post


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

What we have now is two professional sailors having to defend their conduct in the workplace and therefore their livelehood by a system that didn't exist when they stepped on board and one that has no regulatory framework to provide any guidance on how they should have acted, are judged and treated.

This is especially relevant. The rule may have changed, but  there were few examples to say common practise should change. We did see that the equator rituals had adapted: 'victims' were given choices, so allowed to choose their 'humiliation'. Probably indication that the OBRs and teams had discussed their options.

Share this post


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

I don't live in the stone age...and I suspect no one here does.

Of course. So, don't feed the trolls. Once a poster has proven worthy of being ignored, let 'ignore' be your friend :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is this: Is this about Rule 69 or a fishing expedition?

 

Looks like dynamite fishing to me with all the allegations getting throw around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

We did see that the equator rituals had adapted: 'victims' were given choices, so allowed to choose their 'humiliation'. Probably indication that the OBRs and teams had discussed their options.

Stief maybe a case of some selective upload censorship and what actually happened. No one has chosen their first crossing ritual since Vasco da Gama...it just didn't suddenly change last month.

Share this post


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

My question is this: Is this about Rule 69 or a fishing expedition?

Looks like dynamite fishing to me with all the allegations getting throw around.

Interesting. Not sure exactly what you mean, but would fit Jack's point about Dawn Riley.

Share this post


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

Of course. So, don't feed the trolls. Once a poster has proven worthy of being ignored, let 'ignore' be your friend :) 

Thank you father..I keep forgetting being such a board church supporter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Stief maybe a case of some selective upload censorship and what actually happened. No one has chosen their first crossing ritual since Vasco da Gama...it just didn't suddenly change last month.

Can't recall that case (I'll google), but I still think the vids show the hazing ritual has slowly adapted to social changes. I'm thinking of Tamara on MAPF choosing to read something in English. Need me to dig up the link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chasm said:

My question is this: Is this about Rule 69 or a fishing expedition?

Looks like dynamite fishing to me with all the allegations getting throw around.

 

6 minutes ago, stief said:

Interesting. Not sure exactly what you mean, but would fit Jack's point about Dawn Riley.

Spot on Chasm ...except maybe used too much dynamite and are now swimming.

Share this post


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

Can you copy and paste the content? It’s a subscription site. 

Australian skipper faces misconduct charge in Volvo race

David Witt and Annemieke Bes on board Scallywag.

The Australian. 12:00AM December 7, 2017. NICOLE JEFFERY. Sports reporter. Sydney  @nicolejeffery

Australian skipper David Witt is facing a misconduct charge after an incident on the second leg of the Volvo Ocean Race.

It is understood that Witt will appear before an international jury at a hearing in Cape Town today to answer a complaint that he has breached Rule 69 of the racing rules of sailing.

The race organisers would say only that they would “provide an official communication after the hearing on Thursday’’.

Rule 69 says that “a competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct’’.

Misconduct is defined as “conduct that is a breach of good ­manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour: or conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute’’.

Witt, the skipper of Hong Kong-based yacht Scallywag, and his British helmsman Steve Hayles feature in a video that was posted to the team website during the second leg of the round-the-world race (from Lisbon to Cape Town) last month. The video purports to be a “breakfast show’’ and begins with Witt saying: “Adult warning: everything in this segment will ­offend most sections of the public domain.’’

Witt later introduces the only female crew member on board, Dutch Olympic silver medallist Annemieke Bes as “Doctor Clogs’’ and says they have a question for her from a viewer.

Hayles then says: “The question is: Our skipper David has a rash on his scrotum and they would like to know how these two are meant to apply the Sudocrem (an ointment)’’.

Bes, who is wearing a fake beard, is rendered speechless and Witt chimes in saying that the doctor is “mute’’ and “just does hand signals’’.

“So it’s in the Sudocrem and rubbing the Sudocrem like this,’’ he says while he pretends to remove cream from a jar and rub it into Hayles’ genital area.

The video was posted to the team’s website and automatically reposted to the Volvo Ocean Race website where it reportedly remained for several days before the race organisers removed it after complaints from the public.

The incident was then referred to the race’s protest committee.

A sailing website, www.sailingillustrated.com, broke the news of the hearing on Tuesday and posted a copy of the video to its Facebook page. However, the video was removed later that day. The original video was the subject of social media discussion within the sailing community for weeks.

Witt had attained a level of ­notoriety before the race even began when he declared, “There is no room for women on my boat”, in response to race rules that rewarded teams that included women with extra crew places.

“I’ve made my decision — we’re going with seven guys,’’ he said. “It’s hard enough to win the race, the last thing we need is to be part of a social experiment.”

However, he later backtracked and recruited Bes for the race.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

They don't have to sign a thing

Not possible. No way would a professional sailor agree to race on a boat without some kind of a contract...and race of this stature, probably several...

There is a real reason they call it "signing on" or "signing up"...because you actually sign your name on a pile of documents.

(not only employment and compensation contracts but also numerous liability limitation agreements coming from all sorts of entities including makers of prototype equipment, boat construction, hell even the people that put the food together, and don't think there weren't media releases to be signed) Good grief....they don't sign a thing?? You would have to be crazy even stupid put on an event such as this, one that can be potentially deadly, without contracts and agreements.

Oh, there will be the specific contract that is agreed to and signed by all concerned parties that describes what the sailor is going to, expected to do and to what compensation will be given in what form including performance bonuses, in any contract there will also be breech of contract clauses and remedy of such. I am 100% sure those contracts are not single page documents but dozens if not 100s of pages long that cover all sorts of things...in those contracts the footing will be found to deal with whatever Rule 69 or whatever may trigger an investigation into harassment accusations on board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I shouldn't post this here but does "foot in his mouth" have this right?

I am not sure if it’s because someone at the Volvo Ocean Race read my Open Letter to the VOR on Sailing Anarchy last week, or if it’s just a coincidence but the Volvo Ocean Race management have filed what’s called a Rule 69 against Team Sun Hung Kai/Scallywag, their skipper David Witt and navigator Steve Hayles for their stupid  sexist behavior in a video which was posted from the boat. For those not familiar with Rule 69 it reads as follows: