• 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

24 minutes ago, pudge said:

You're running out of steam homey, better lay down that sword.

You have your words mixed up ...Homey laid down with your swordish mother and 9 months later she had a steaming dump, then ran away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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. 

Still a whole herd of pussyfied dimwits kept watching....

2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

VOR contacted us to clarify that Hancock was incorrect as fuck about the R69.  It was not initiated by VOR or another team.  It was the response to a complaint by an outside party, and someone I respect suggested that it came from 'some uptight arse at the HKSF "who has it in for Witty and hates the owner".  

I have corrected Brian's story and hope he is more careful about his facts in the future.  

Good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So based on this protest,  the current state of the world sailing RRS and our seemingly insatiable desire for instant on-line content of sailing events... How long will it be before some Mysandrist outsider with no real interest in the race gets someone DSQ'd for dropping an F bomb on the live feed?

Seem like a slippery slope we are on here.

Perhaps need to redefine and clarify what constitutes rule 69.

Share this post


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

So based on this protest,  the current state of the world sailing RRS and our seemingly insatiable desire for instant on-line content of sailing events... How long will it be before some Mysandrist outsider with no real interest in the race gets someone DSQ'd for dropping an F bomb on the live feed?

Seem like a slippery slope we are on here.

Perhaps need to redefine and clarify what constitutes rule 69.

There was once a proposition to have live coverage 24/7.  I don't remember if it came from an interview with Knut or if it was first discussed somewhere here.

Share this post


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

That was always my quest.  

 

Throw out Rule 69 and let the F Bombs drop where they will.  It would be fucking great.  Laugh our asses off.  

Bouwe to a Newbie:

"All right.  All right. You've had your fun. Now get the fuck off the wheel and make yourself useful."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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

Thank you Jack.  This is a really good piece and represents a great analysis of the situation.

It changes the focus from the particular incident (note to Pudge) to the wider ramifications of the using Rule 69 to control an on-board situation in a very particular race with very particular media environment.

Dawn Riley has, in my view, lit a fuse to an explosion not a candle. In the process she has dragged AB into the middle of a situation she seems not to have been too concerned about (she is still there for the next leg). Quiet moves behind the scene would have been a better approach.

Sorry it took me so long to respond.  Been working.

DtM

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No Witt!

 

No Bekking either. Maybe they've gone off to the wildlife refuge to adopt another penguin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Still working out how to post a picture??

Works fine here.  Not there?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

So based on this protest,  the current state of the world sailing RRS and our seemingly insatiable desire for instant on-line content of sailing events... How long will it be before some Mysandrist outsider with no real interest in the race gets someone DSQ'd for dropping an F bomb on the live feed?

Seem like a slippery slope we are on here.

Perhaps need to redefine and clarify what constitutes rule 69.

Some of us here knew that Witty had crossed the line when we first saw the video.

For me it was not about Rule 69, it was how the fuck do we stop these throwbacks from harassing women onboard.

If Rule 69 can be applied, suits me, but someone had to do something.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BREAKING VOR 

CAPE TOWN - Volvo Ocean Race announces sex toys will be given to all male crew.

On the heels sexual harassment complaints leveled on two members of Sun Hung Kai/Scallywag team,  male members of all crews will be given a Fleshlight male sex toy before the start of Leg 3 and each boat fitted with a privacy berth dubbed the "wanker" for discrete use of said male masturbation device.

This new rule was named the Fap Addendum to Rule 69.

Given the propensity of rude boy locker room behavior aboard and in an attempt to stem any further incidents that closely resemble sexual harassment of female crew, each male crew will be required to utilize the Fleshlight sex toy until climax at the start and end of each watch.

An unnamed VOR official was asked about the announcement.

"It is clear that sailing at this level attracts a certain type of man, who have huge sexual egos and fragile masculinity issues. Given the comments from sailors all across the world in support of the accused, they see nothing wrong in degrading women with unwanted sexual innuendo, coarse humor, physical and or emotional abuse. So as a result the VOR leadership has decided to take action in the best way we can.  As men ourselves, we know a good fapping wank takes the tension off. So this is the solution. We considered replacing the professional female sailors with professional escorts that have been sailing but were told this could cause health and jealousy issues among the crew in addition to marital problems for the husbands aboard."

When asked who would be choosing the popular sex toy model for the crew the unnamed source said "They will be given a coupon to use that allows them to select either anal or vaginal standard models. I could care less what color they pick." he said,  the official went on to add, "There are still details to work out, such as hygiene and if we will live stream to adult websites. These issues will be resolved in the coming days."

When asked if there was any alternative, the official shrugged, "All gay crews?"

A unnamed male member of one of the teams commented, "Our boat has already implemented this, so It's kinda cool that I'll have two [Fleshlights] to choose from now. It works, as far as I know. I mean the girls on our boat are cute and all, but my boyfriend ashore isn't so worried about them."

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Thank you Jack.  This is a really good piece and represents a great analysis of the situation.

It changes the focus from the particular incident (note to Pudge) to the wider ramifications of the using Rule 69 to control an on-board situation in a very particular race with very particular media environment.

Dawn Riley has, in my view, lit a fuse to an explosion not a candle. In the process she has dragged AB into the middle of a situation she seems not to have been too concerned about (she is still there for the next leg). Quiet moves behind the scene would have been a better approach.

Sorry it took me so long to respond.  Been working.

DtM

Jacks text uses so many words to explain away so simple an issue.  He protesteth too much me thinks.

I support anyone who stands up and takes action against what Witty did, to stamp this shit out.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I could care less what color they pick." he said,  the official went on to add

What?  No team colors and insignia?  A good swag bag item at the stopovers.  Missed marketing opportunity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.

Well, apparently there was a choice as early as 1614. Dry reading, but did find this, so thanks for the tip.

Quote

The three reports, written by men from the German states, are coherent in their silence about a new ritual for those recently engaged in maritime culture. Perhaps the silence was due to the fact that in 1614 the Dutch East India Company prohibited the ritual from being held, "probably because of the injuries of sailors," according to one scholar, who also noted that the Company promised doubled rations and drink for the crews to abandon the ritual, a signal that the written prohibition was not effective (Bronner, 2006, p.7).

Anyway, guess they didn't have fleshlights to offer. Back to awaiting more news.

Share this post


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

What kind of complete tool chooses 69 as his crew number?  Oh, right - that tool.  

Not everyone's view of the numbering system ... is viewed through the lens of sex acts. 

But it is interesting that those here who do see that 69 has sexual significance, seem to hold the view that Witt did nothing wrong ... mmmm.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no, and will have no opinion either way regarding "lines being crossed" until I better understand the full context of the situation and hear directly from the parties involved. This seems yet another example of society's current propensity to convict people in the kangaroo court of public opinion based on internet sound bites. Video and soundbites can be made to say anything from any source footage. Since no one posting here was present during the creation of that video, and I assume has had no direct contact with the parties involved I will reserve opinion until the truth and the full context comes out. 

As my previous post I think the bigger concern is how the system permits outsiders with no connection to the event potentially affecting the outcome.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

For me it was not about Rule 69, it was how the fuck do we stop these throwbacks from harassing women onboard.

WTF... How do you know AB was harassed? Were you on board? Have you spoken to her? Has she issued a statement to the press or on FB or a blog? Do you know her personally and know that that sort of humour does not fit with her personality? 

The only thing we can say for certain, 1) AB was not asked to apply the sudocrem, only advice on how the others should apply it. 2) AB was 100% part of the joke given that she was wearing the beard. 3) yes, she was rendered speechless, but we DO NOT know if it was because it was offensive to her .

AB as it seems has sailed with DW before on Scallywag Maxi and has spent a lot of time with DW in the lead up to the filming of video. Unless AB is totally niave,  which the patronising "offended" brigade seem to think, AB will have either know exactly the question that was coming or at least knew what it might be like, i.e. offensive to the mangina brigade. 

If I was "Dr Clog", I'm pretty sure I could have been rendered speechless in the moment, especially if I knew it was being filmed.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Some of us here knew that Witty had crossed the line when we first saw the video.

Crossed your line? yes. Crossed AB's line? no one here knows that.

I suspect that DW know's AB's line better than anyone on SA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

 

Filing protests against everyone and everything in the hope that something or indeed anything at all sticks. That is what it looks like to me.

 

Lets expand a bit.
I obviously don't know what is actually going on beyond reading this thread and what makes it to other media. 

 

As I understand during/after Leg 2 of this VOR edition of Rule 69 protests based on media coming off the boats a series got filed against several people. From sailors on different boats, to OBR, to VOR staff.
Most of those protests went away during preliminary investigation. Some were deemed serious enough to warrant a special investigator. Some or all of those now go to protest hearings.

No matter who filed them (Dawn Riley, someone else, several different people) or if someone with the actual ability to protest had to refile them it it is obvious that the protests come from within the sport. Outsiders would NOT bother with a protest.

 

One of my problems is that this seems to be about finding fault -somewhere, anywhere- rather than improving the situation. The VOR is long enough to force a broad discussion and generate a set of rules and expectations for the sport.  With or without input from the VOR. Then put the teams under close surveillance for the remaining 6 months or so. If something happens, and if there is actually a systematic problem it will happen again, then pounce on them with protests. 
Also, at which point becomes the sheer amount of apparently baseless protests a reason in itself a reason to throw all of them out?

Heck, what if Annemieke said something to the effect of "And girls, that is why you take a very close look at a sailor before you do anything with them at all." but it got cut from the video. So easy to turn the whole thing around.

 

Anyway. At the end of the day it is yet another reinforcement of the lesson that anything you say or do WILL be used against you. So STFU sailor, or at least dunk OBR and gear a few times into salt water. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Crossed your line, yes. Crossed AB's line, no one here knows that.

I suspect that DW know's AB's line better than anyone on SA.

I knew that it crossed a line of acceptability for many people.

It does not even matter if she was or was not offended, the issue is about Witt's actions, not her feelings.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

VOR contacted us to clarify that Hancock was incorrect as fuck about the R69.  It was not initiated by VOR or another team.  It was the response to a complaint by an outside party, and someone I respect suggested that it came from 'some uptight arse at the HKSF "who has it in for Witty and hates the owner". 

If that's the correct version I may have an inkling as to who the protestor may be, but I'll be fucked if I'm going to tar someone with that brush on just gut feeling.

Will the protestor be named at the hearing and will the outcomes etc be posted online?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I knew that it crossed a line of acceptability for many people.

It does not even matter if she was or was not offended, the issue is about Witt's actions, not her feelings.

So you are defending AB because you think AB is too weak to defend herself, how chivalrous of you.

If you are so prissy, why did you watch the video beyond the warning?

It's like going to a porn site, reading the warnings on the front page, clicking the "I'm over 18/21" button and then getting offended by the content.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Chasm 

FWIW, Doerr's Guidance is pretty clear that a complaint can come from outside, and that RO action should be proactive. Just one example:

Quote

49.5  It is important that all race officials work together to tackle the dissent when it is encountered. Failure to confront unacceptable behaviour at the time can lead competitors to think it is acceptable and repeat it in the future.

Huh. Thought others had taken the bliss of the ignore pill.

Share this post


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

So you are defending AB because you think AB is too weak to defend herself, how chivalrous of you.

Please link where I am supposed to be defending AB?  Calm down precious, stop making shit up.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Please link where I am supposed to be defending AB?  Calm down precious, stop making shit up.

 

1 hour ago, random said:

it was how the fuck do we stop these throwbacks from harassing women onboard.

 

Share this post


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

It does not even matter if she was or was not offended, the issue is about Witt's actions, not her feelings.

So it's not about harassment of a female crew and more about a personal issue with a VOR Skipper then.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

So it's not about harassment of a female crew and more about a personal issue with a VOR Skipper then.

You nailed it.

Share this post


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

So it's not about harassment of a female crew and more about a personal issue with a VOR Skipper then.

The Protest was not from a female crew member so her feelings are presumably not part of the protest.

So it can only be the actions of Witty and his crew that are being protested.  Simple if you really take the time to think about it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gorn FRANTIC!! said:

If that's the correct version I may have an inkling as to who the protestor may be, but I'll be fucked if I'm going to tar someone with that brush on just gut feeling.

Will the protestor be named at the hearing and will the outcomes etc be posted online?

I doubt it, because the complaints don't have to be part of the protest and the investigation doesn't need to be made public.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

so I finally got to see the video on the home page........thats.....it? Really? All this fuss over that very mild joke? 

Mate you are so fucking spot on, very mild joke.

It's so mild that Dr Random prescribes you a dose of the mild joke at your workplace sometime soon.  Get back to us with how that goes.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the hoopla and hand-wringing, I thought the video was going to be much worse. IMO, it was tasteless but only mildly offensive. If that's a rule 69 violation, then damn near every boat I sailed on over a 25 year span is guilty. Good thing no video BITD.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean seriously...Witt so rubbed his crotch and then sniffed his fucking fingers...holy crap...Witt wasn't humiliating AB, he was targeting Hayles and the fact that by that time, Scallywag was sucking hind teat at the back of the fleet. He calls this the Steven Hayles Show...i.e. placing the responsibility for their current performance directly on his head. He then proceeds to humiliate him by groping his has balls and grabbing his ass while he is at the helm. THEN SNIFFING HIS HAND....omg gross!!

 

No wonder Hayles left...and frankly from that perspective...that WAS abusive not only indirectly to AB and the crew but directly to Hayles.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Mate you are so fucking spot on, very mild joke.

It's so mild that Dr Random prescribes you a dose of the mild joke at your workplace sometime soon.  Get back to us with how that goes.

So its workplace sexual harassment you say? Let the employer deal with it then. 

Seems like David Witt is being proven right about his "Social Experiment" comment, you think that will help women in sailing?

Share this post


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

damn near every boat I sailed on over a 25 year span is guilty.

You see there it goes again, same old shit, no recognition that not only does no one give a fuck what happened to you in the last 25 years sailing, but that is was not posted on the interweb during a highly publicised global event!  WTF is so hard to understand about the difference?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Mate you are so fucking spot on, very mild joke.

It's so mild that Dr Random prescribes you a dose of the mild joke at your workplace sometime soon.  Get back to us with how that goes.

Give a rest.... how have you gotten this far in life....?

Please don't youtube any comedy routines from Jim Jeffreys.... gosh darn it.... to heck (sorry again Random for my super offensive outburst)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

So its workplace sexual harassment you say? Let the employer deal with it then. 

Seems like David Witt is being proven right about his "Social Experiment" comment, you think that will help women in sailing?

It seems to me that that is exactly what is happening.

Witty knew that it would be challenging for him,  and you are correct,  he and his actions will do nothing to encourage women in sailing, that's what they are desperately trying to patch up.  Think about it, the floating bill-boards are no interested in selling more stuff to half the population (men) they want to sell to all the population.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You see there it goes again, same old shit, no recognition that not only does no one give a fuck what happened to you in the last 25 years sailing, but that is was not posted on the interweb during a highly publicised global event!  WTF is so hard to understand about the difference?

I'm not the one pretending to be offended on behalf of AB. She's signed up for Leg 3, so either she wasn't offended or they worked it out amongst themselves. Not my place to decide if she's supposed to be offended.

Share this post


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

It seems to me that that is exactly what is happening.

Witty knew that it would be challenging for him,  and you are correct,  he and his actions will do nothing to encourage women in sailing, that's what they are desperately trying to patch up.  Think about it, the floating bill-boards are no interested in selling more stuff to half the population (men) they want to sell to all the population.

No that is specifically not what is happening. Not filed by VOR or anyone associated with. 

The protest came from outside the workplace. Its really simple if you take the time to think about it

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You see there it goes again, same old shit, no recognition that not only does no one give a fuck what happened to you in the last 25 years sailing, but that is was not posted on the interweb during a highly publicised global event!  WTF is so hard to understand about the difference?

Bwaaaaa !!!!!

I find your use of expletives in the above post misandristic and highly offensive,  and I have been harassed. Where is the phone number for the International Court of Human Rights?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I'm not the one pretending to be offended on behalf of AB. She's signed up for Leg 3, so either she wasn't offended or they worked it out amongst themselves. Not my place to decide if she's supposed to be offended.

I am not pretending to be offended, that's a strawman response from privileged white men who are scared shitless that the last safe place they had has been invaded by females.

Neither does it matter whether AB was offended or not, totally besides the point.  It's about what Witt did.

For the record, I was not offended by what I saw.  For some reason I am finding difficult to put into words, Witt grosses me out, I find him hard to watch, cringe-inducing.

I started to watch the video again today after it was posted on the front page but only got a few seconds into it.  Something very fucking creepy about that guy and I could not bear to watch the frozen reaction of AB again, not to mention the sheepish expressions of the crew.  They sat there like school children, definitely uncomfortable, they instinctively knew it was out of order

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I am not pretending to be offended, strawman response from privileged white men who are scared shitless that the last safe place they had has been invaded by females.

Neither does not matter whether AB was offended or not, totally besides the point.  It's about what Witt did.

For the record, I was not offended by what I saw.  For some reason I am finding difficult to put into words, Witt grosses me out, I find him hard to watch, cringe-inducing.

I started to watch the video again today after it was posted on the front page but only got a few seconds into it.  Something very fucking creepy about that guy and I could not bear to watch the frozen reaction of AB again, not to mention the sheepish expressions of the crew.  They sat there like school children, definitely uncomfortable, they instinctively knew it was out of order

 

so the truth comes out, you just hate David Witt. Thats fine, you dont have to like him, I dont either. But having the rule book respond to sexual harassment among the crew, is that really appropriate? Rule 69 is the same for professional crew as it is for amateur crews.  If so then I guess all race committees should go on youtube looking for videos of crew during races to make sure they arent offending anybody.

Share this post


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

I am not pretending to be offended, that's a strawman response from privileged white men who are scared shitless that the last safe place they had has been invaded by females.

Neither does it matter whether AB was offended or not, totally besides the point.  It's about what Witt did.

For the record, I was not offended by what I saw.  For some reason I am finding difficult to put into words, Witt grosses me out, I find him hard to watch, cringe-inducing.

I started to watch the video again today after it was posted on the front page but only got a few seconds into it.  Something very fucking creepy about that guy and I could not bear to watch the frozen reaction of AB again, not to mention the sheepish expressions of the crew.  They sat there like school children, definitely uncomfortable, they instinctively knew it was out of order

 

So, your panties are twisted in a knot because you don't like the skipper. Guess what? You're not on the boat, so no one cares. Except me...I care. Let me help you out...

 

IMG_0037.PNG

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

They sat there like school children, definitely uncomfortable, they instinctively knew it was out of order

Had she had a good comeback it might have salvaged the situation.

Maybe instead of a "caption" contest we could have a "comeback" contest.

Any takers? I'll be first.

AB:  "Had you two any balls in the first place maybe we wouldn't be at the back of the fleet."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creeping "Male Feminism" is worse that I had thought, it's gone beyond most of Europe and the US lefties and has spread into yachting. Much like the scourge of socialism to economic vigor,  demanding "equal outcomes" and thus the special accommodation to attain them will quash the spirit of sports. The only defense will be to leap ahead and have the requisite number of athletes "identify" as female, and thus finesse the PC crowd with their own ideological rubric. I am truly surprised that it has not happened already. Given that "lauren" is from Kiwiland, (s)he might even be a sailor... 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my boat it tends to be my remarks that leave men speechless.

As a practicing doctor  I can tell you that the problem with Witts scrotum needed more than cream, I have something that is applied with a syringe and 6 inch needle that would probably keep him quiet for the rest of the trip.

OMG......I used the word "scrotum" . Sorry about that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it stop at videos on the internet, or can anyone who is offended by a joke on an offshore race turn the perpertrator in  for Rule 69?

Hell, how come we haven' t seen a Rule 69 for the 'hazing' those who cross the equator.

This has really gone too far. (and i won't even mention how far Riley just raised the bar for taking women offshore) 

 

Share this post


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

Does it stop at videos on the internet, or can anyone who is offended by a joke on an offshore race turn the perpertrator in  for Rule 69?

It stops at events where there are paid crew sailing under RRS, oh and it matters if the record get's off the boat.

You are free to engage in misogyny and schoolboy antics on your boat anytime.  Fucking funni here how the rednecks with 4ksb's think that this incident applies to them.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

But having the rule book respond to sexual harassment among the crew, is that really appropriate?

Yes, that is why rules are written. 

Share this post


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

Does it stop at videos on the internet, or can anyone who is offended by a joke on an offshore race turn the perpertrator in  for Rule 69?

Hell, how come we haven' t seen a Rule 69 for the 'hazing' those who cross the equator.

This has really gone too far. (and i won't even mention how far Riley just raised the bar for taking women offshore) 

 

Dawn couch-surfed at my pad for about 3 months, 30 years ago. She can give it and take it with any guy. I'm a bit surprised she got herself into this clusterfuck. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Potter has confirmed it was Dawn Riley. [  .  .   . ]

I find this thread tendentious so haven't slogged through it and will limit my comment to one narrow avenue.

  • Where exactly has Riley publicly stated she found the vid offensive and has instigated (or collaborated on) a Rule 69 complaint with the VOR committee?  I can't find it, except for the above innuendo.
  • Riley is a spectator in this round, nothing more.  Spectators, as far as I know, have no standing in any protest committee actions, except possibly as witnesses. 
  • If this Rule 69 protest (apparently introduced by the Protest Committee without an official protester who's participating in the race) is upheld, what does it mean for me as an insignificant but sanctioned racing sailor?

What's swirling in my head is the situation where I gotta pee off the stern (or leeward shrouds) in a can race, carefully time it so no other boat can see me do so, some spectator ashore observes what is essentially indecent exposure, illegal discharge of sewage, and reports their observations to the Governing Authority,  and the next thing I know is I'm banned from racing for 6 months or more?

If that's true, I can live with it.  Sad to have to kneel in the cockpit and pee in a scupper with the mess that ensues, or even invest in a bunch of WAG bags.  The NBA handles such peccadilloes with a few thousand dollar fine, the NHL with some penalty box time (or fines), the NFL with a 5 yard penalty.  Also for this particular alleged transgression news is nowhere to be found on the Official VOR site, or the general media.

WTF is going on?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I find this thread tendentious so haven't slogged through it and will limit my comment to one narrow avenue.

  • Where exactly has Riley publicly stated she found the vid offensive and has instigated (or collaborated on) a Rule 69 complaint with the VOR committee?  I can't find it, except for the above innuendo.
  • Riley is a spectator in this round, nothing more.  Spectators, as far as I know, have no standing in any protest committee actions, except possibly as witnesses. 
  • If this Rule 69 protest (apparently introduced by the Protest Committee without an official protester who's participating in the race) is upheld, what does it mean for me as an insignificant but sanctioned racing sailor?

What's swirling in my head is the situation where I gotta pee off the stern (or leeward shrouds) in a can race, carefully time it so no other boat can see me do so, some spectator ashore observes what is essentially indecent exposure, illegal discharge of sewage, and reports their observations to the Governing Authority,  and the next thing I know is I'm banned from racing for 6 months or more?

If that's true, I can live with it.  Sad to have to kneel in the cockpit and pee in a scupper with the mess that ensues, or even invest in a bunch of WAG bags.  The NBA handles such peccadilloes with a few thousand dollar fine, the NHL with some penalty box time (or fines), the NFL with a 5 yard penalty.  Also for this particular alleged transgression news is nowhere to be found on the Official VOR site, or the general media.

WTF is going on?

IIRC anybody can file a 69 complaint with the protest committee. Apparently that now includes video watchers. And yes, if you piss off the back of your boat and random is watching through binocs, she'd probably be highly offended and file a 69 complaint. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

IIRC anybody can file a 69 complaint with the protest committee. Apparently that now includes video watchers. And yes, if you piss off the back of your boat and random is watching through binocs, she'd probably be highly offended and file a 69 complaint. 

Indeed.

 

69.2 Action by a Protest Committee
(a) A protest committee acting under this rule shall have at least three members.
(b) When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, believes a person may have broken rule 69.1(a), it shall decide whether or not to call a hearing.

Share this post


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

Indeed.

 

69.2 Action by a Protest Committee
(a) A protest committee acting under this rule shall have at least three members.
(b) When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, believes a person may have broken rule 69.1(a), it shall decide whether or not to call a hearing.

So that means it can call a Hearing without a protest being received.

Edit: Makes sense if they are serious in protecting the reputation of the sport.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

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

No you live in the cotton wool age. You are getting very excited over this cup cake - me thinks you may have a personal connection to the players (maybe Witt cut your lunch?), otherwise why would a rational adult have so much sand in their vag over something that has nothing to do with them. Yes we know you are doing this for your niece, your girlfriend and the female boss you fantasize over at work.

Any chance of posting their tits?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark Set (BIMBO Local 713) said:

well its the same fucking rule so why wouldnt it? What does "professional crew" have to do with it? Rule 69 makes zero fucking mention of it.

Good point.  I see that professional crew turn the boat into a workplace where additional considerations apply.  But it could be just any RRS event.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

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.

You endless winey posts in this thread are a fair indication of your Faux butt hurt. Maybe you could try some of witt's cod cream?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So that means it can call a Hearing without a protest being received.

RRS 69 is not grounds for a protest.  Only the PC can call a hearing if they believe the rule has been broken. :

69.1 (c) An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

You endless winey posts in this thread are a fair indication of your Faux butt hurt. Maybe you could try some of witt's cod cream?

I'll give it a go, but I''ll stop short of you applying it.  Have to say that I am starting to get used to your cold damp nose on my freckle though.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Please link where I am supposed to be defending AB?  Calm down precious, stop making shit up.

So I provided this link earlier and you failed to respond.

You are nothing more than your avatar suggests, a troll who needs a good amount of sudocrem rubbed into your private parts.

3 hours ago, random said:

it was how the fuck do we stop these throwbacks from harassing women onboard.

 

Share this post


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

otherwise why would a rational adult have so much sand in their vag over something that has nothing to do with them

the-hypocrisy-is-strong-with-this-one.jp

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

So I provided this link earlier and you failed to respond.

You are nothing more than your avatar suggests, a troll who needs a good amount of sudocrem rubbed into your private parts.

 

I think Bengay would be more suitable.

Share this post


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

So I provided this link earlier and you failed to respond.

You posted a link that proved nothing, nothing to comment on.  If you have anything to show that I am defending AB let's see it.

Given the bleating of the hairy masses here, I also though that failure of me to respond would have been a success for testosterone.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I support anyone who stands up and takes action against what Witty did, to stamp this shit out.

Unless that women was someone you dislike for commenting on male sports like Erin Molan. Keep up the good work mate - even people who agree with you think you are a cunt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'll give it a go, but I''ll stop short of you applying it.  Have to say that I am starting to get used to your cold damp nose on my freckle though.

You seem to have your tongue in JS's of late.

Share this post


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

I'll give it a go, but I''ll stop short of you applying it.  Have to say that I am starting to get used to your cold damp nose on my freckle though.

More sexual harassment from you Random..... I'm protesting  ... rule 69 of course .. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

RRS 69 is not grounds for a protest.  Only the PC can call a hearing if they believe the rule has been broken. :

69.1 (c) An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.

Indeed.

 

if you read Part 5 - there's effectively three procedures: protest, redress, and rule 69 action.

Share this post


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

oh fuck - just when this thread starts to settle down, along comes randumb to derail it again.

What did you expect.... He is the new DouG LorD

Share this post


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

oh fuck - just when this thread starts to settle down, along comes randumb to derail it again.

You mean just when the circle-jerk got humming?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Indeed.

if you read Part 5 - there's effectively three procedures: protest, redress, and rule 69 action.

Appendix G (p48) of Doerr's guidance is pretty good reading too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, axolotl said:

I find this thread tendentious so haven't slogged through it and will limit my comment to one narrow avenue.

  • Where exactly has Riley publicly stated she found the vid offensive and has instigated (or collaborated on) a Rule 69 complaint with the VOR committee?  I can't find it, except for the above innuendo.
  • Riley is a spectator in this round, nothing more.  Spectators, as far as I know, have no standing in any protest committee actions, except possibly as witnesses. 

It was mentioned by Potter first I think. Something about confirming that she raised the issue during the yacht racing forum in Copenhagen. Then I asked the representative from my country if this was true and it was confirmed that she raised the issue in that forum.

Whether she or anybody else outside the VOR can file a protest is unknown to me. But apparently they can.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I am not pretending to be offended, that's a strawman response from privileged white men who are scared shitless that the last safe place they had has been invaded by females.