Wavedancer II

Someone has been naughty!

Recommended Posts

World Sailing Championship (Denmark)

Rule 69 case in the foiling NACRA class, 

Iker Martinez will have a hearing 8/8 for illegal change(s) to the boat. Looks pretty serious to me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

used an illegal upper daggerboard bearing that allowed a greater range of adjustment than allowed in the one design configuration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I can recall rule 69 being applied to an alleged measurement violation. Perhaps there's more to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more than a measurement violation.  This is knowingly using a part that is not allowed with the purpose to gain a competitive advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. This is very bad news indeed if proven. You have to wonder if top-level sailing is akin to the Tour de France I.e cheating is widespread.

Share this post


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

Oh dear. This is very bad news indeed if proven. You have to wonder if top-level sailing is akin to the Tour de France I.e cheating is widespread.

The world doping agency will begin random testing of racing crews. I predict wholesale disqualifications for excessive beer, cannabis and sundry other recreational impairments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ORC Worlds and boats that sat strangely in the water, J-70 Worlds last year in Porto Cervo and keel-swapping, king posts...the list is getting alarmingly long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 5:21 AM, MalahideGreener said:

Oh dear. This is very bad news indeed if proven. 

The rule 69 hearing is not to prove the allegation because that has already been proven. In an earlier measurement protest, it was found that the boat had been deliberately altered to gain an advantage. This is a new hearing under rule 69 which will consider whether those deliberate alterations constitute a breach of rule 69 and if so, what further sanctions need to be taken. If it is found he breached rule 69, that will then go to World sailing who can sanction him further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The result of the hearing:

https://www.manage2sail.com/en-US/Home/DownloadDocument/8bde801b-e8c9-48c4-bdca-ab981af51c1b

Quote:

Conclusion

19. The international jury is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that Mr. Iker Martinez deliberately modified ESP 70 in breach of the class rules and he concealed the modification. Thereby, Mr. Iker Martinez committed a breach of good sportsmanship contrary to RRS 69.1(a).

20. The international jury is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that Mr. Iker Martinez did not tell the truth to the EDIO. Thereby, Mr. Iker Martinez committed a breach of good sportsmanship and unethical behaviour contrary to RRS 69.1(a).

21. The international jury is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that Mr. Iker Martinez did not tell the truth to the International Jury during this hearing. Thereby, Mr. Iker Martinez committed a breach of good sportsmanship and unethical behaviour contrary to RRS 69.1(a).

Share this post


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

The result of the hearing:

https://www.manage2sail.com/en-US/Home/DownloadDocument/8bde801b-e8c9-48c4-bdca-ab981af51c1b

Quote:

Conclusion

19. The international jury is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that Mr. Iker Martinez deliberately modified ESP 70 in breach of the class rules and he concealed the modification. Thereby, Mr. Iker Martinez committed a breach of good sportsmanship contrary to RRS 69.1(a).

20. The international jury is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that Mr. Iker Martinez did not tell the truth to the EDIO. Thereby, Mr. Iker Martinez committed a breach of good sportsmanship and unethical behaviour contrary to RRS 69.1(a).

21. The international jury is comfortably satisfied, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that Mr. Iker Martinez did not tell the truth to the International Jury during this hearing. Thereby, Mr. Iker Martinez committed a breach of good sportsmanship and unethical behaviour contrary to RRS 69.1(a).

Interesting.

Can't see a fact found to support the conclusion about not telling the truth to the jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any truth to the rumor that a couple of boats have been testing a new top bearing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nodrog said:

Paras 17&18 look pretty clear? 

Those are facts about an interview with the Event Disciplinary Investigating Officer, and found the Conclusion in para 20.

The EDIO is not the jury.

Share this post


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

Is there any truth to the rumor that a couple of boats have been testing a new top bearing?

It's true, but the modifications were not to the bearing. They were to the tracks that the bearings go in. The new top bearings tested only fitted one side. Martinez had modified both sides. He did it by a mix of elongating existing holes, drilling new holes and filling old holes to hide the fact. Some of Martinez's team and supporters have been spreading the story that he was only using parts supplied by Nacra trying to make out it was an honest mistake but the truth is that he modified the top bearing fittings so as to get more rake which I read helps in light weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

It's true, but the modifications were not to the bearing. They were to the tracks that the bearings go in. The new top bearings tested only fitted one side. Martinez had modified both sides. He did it by a mix of elongating existing holes, drilling new holes and filling old holes to hide the fact. Some of Martinez's team and supporters have been spreading the story that he was only using parts supplied by Nacra trying to make out it was an honest mistake but the truth is that he modified the top bearing fittings so as to get more rake which I read helps in light weather.

Thanks, if that is the case then throw the book at him, add in an Olympic ban for Spain in the Nacra 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not the first time Martinez has been down this road. He preemptively modified the boat Mapre he was crewing during the 2013-2014 VOR. There was a protest, it was uphill, and the team penalized a point, I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rushman said:

Thanks, if that is the case then throw the book at him, add in an Olympic ban for Spain in the Nacra 17

Throw the book at him, for sure, but the other Spanish sailors have done nothing wrong and it would be an injustice to punish them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, A Class Sailor said:

Throw the book at him, for sure, but the other Spanish sailors have done nothing wrong and it would be an injustice to punish them. 

True but it sounded good from the top of my soapbox :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World Sailing is the governing authority of the sport....and the highest sanction they could apply would be to strip him of his Olympic Medals.

Share this post


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

This is not the first time Martinez has been down this road. He preemptively modified the boat Mapre he was crewing during the 2013-2014 VOR. There was a protest, it was uphill, and the team penalized a point, I believe. 

Wasn't there also questions raised over the use of the storm jib as s stsysail or something similar the race before that when Iker was in charge on Telefonica?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also the time when he added pre-prepared battens to the slamming area in the VO65 when there was no damage. He got a penalty for that as well as reinforcing an outrigger in an area where there was no damage.

The honourable thing to do would be to put his hands up and admit he did it and that he was wrong. But he has already demonstrated that isn't his approach. As such, I would say they need to throw the book at him. He might have proven he won't learn, but others might learn from it who look up to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to not get it sent to world sailing

Iker Martinez has filed for a re-opening of the Hearing on the issue of whether the Decision can be reported to the national or World body, Fox and Napier's employers, based on a World Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing Case 139 - which answers several hypothetical questions in relation to the ability to report a Rule 69 decision to the world body

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Brass said:

Those are facts about an interview with the Event Disciplinary Investigating Officer, and found the Conclusion in para 20.

The EDIO is not the jury.

Iker says in his statement to the EDIO that he hasn't modified the boat and he's stated that to the jury (of the initial measurement protest hearing) (18).  

Conclusion 21 doesn't say Iker lied to this jury before the hearing, it just says that he continued to lie during the hearing. Really that should be supported by a fact found quoting him during the hearing, is that what your getting at? 

Plenty of boats fail scrutiny, you go away and change it. Often it is due to wear, you misunderstood the rules, or even manufactured supplied parts being out of spec. What I don't get is that the failure of measurement went to a protest hearing... normally you're just told to go away and get it sorted. But maybe Iker maintained it was in class? He then got a DNE for the first race, before that race was sailed. If he had fessed up that he had made the mod, pleaded ignorance regarding the class rule, and went away and got it changed to a class legal fitting then I'm pretty sure nothing more would have come of it. The fact he tried to conceal it and didn't tell the truth to both the technical committee, the jury in the measurement protest, the EDIO and then Rule 69 Jury really seems to make it unethical behaviour / bad sportsmanship. 

 

Share this post


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

This is not the first time Martinez has been down this road. He preemptively modified the boat Mapre he was crewing during the 2013-2014 VOR. There was a protest, it was uphill, and the team penalized a point, I believe. 

Quote

The Spanish team MAPFRE were given a two-point penalty on Thursday by the ISAF-appointed independent jury for rules breaches during Leg 5 of the Volvo Ocean Race. In separate decisions, the jury made key rulings about the use of replacement sails for three teams.

After hearing evidence from Race Management and the team on Wednesday, the jury, headed by Bernard Bonneau, ruled that the Spanish team had applied repairs and alterations on the hull and on an outrigger without informing the Volvo Ocean 65 Class Authority (VCA) and therefore broke the Volvo Ocean 65 class rules as well as the race rules.

The Volvo Ocean 65 class rules require that if a team considers that a repair is necessary, it shall inform the VCA immediately.

Bonneau added that the five-strong jury had decided that the work was not done with the purpose of improving the performance of the Spanish team during Leg 5 and their second place in the stage stands.

The ruling, however, means that their overall points total is now 20 after five legs and they thus drop from fourth to fifth in the standings.

The team had earlier argued in the hearing through their rules advisor, Luis Sáenz Mariscal, that in both cases with their bow and outrigger, skipper Iker Martínez had made the reinforcements because of fears that both were damaged.

Sáenz Mariscal added that the outrigger had broken on previous occasions in the race and the crew had heard a bang from the bow and feared it was delaminating.

He said that in Southern Ocean conditions, Martínez feared that the boat and crew were in danger if the measures were not taken. He said the crew had not informed the VCA, but had openly shared video content showing repairs to Race Control in Alicante, Spain.

https://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/8761_The-jury-decides.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:
On 8/9/2018 at 7:54 PM, Brass said:

Those are facts about an interview with the Event Disciplinary Investigating Officer, and found the Conclusion in para 20.

The EDIO is not the jury.

Iker says in his statement to the EDIO that he hasn't modified the boat and he's stated that to the jury (of the initial measurement protest hearing) (18).  

Conclusion 21 doesn't say Iker lied to this jury before the hearing, it just says that he continued to lie during the hearing. Really that should be supported by a fact found quoting him during the hearing, is that what your getting at? 

Thanks for pointing out the paragraph 18 words to me.

That is a fact about words the protestee said about something he said at a previous occasion.

I understand about the previous protest hearing different from the rule 69 hearing.

I would have thought that a more appropriate fact to be found would have been "Martinez said to the Jury hearing protest xxx words to the effect that YYY   "  YYY was not true".

Share this post


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

Plenty of boats fail scrutiny, you go away and change it. Often it is due to wear, you misunderstood the rules, or even manufactured supplied parts being out of spec. What I don't get is that the failure of measurement went to a protest hearing... normally you're just told to go away and get it sorted.

In a measured class yes, but this isn't a measured class, its a manufacturer supplied components class. So its hard to see any way what is alleged to have been done is anything other than deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I completely agree, in this case it's obviously pre-meditated cheating.

But, even in manufacturer supplied classes it's possible to fail measurement pre-event, then be told just to change it. In 29er I failed measurement on a forestay. It was manufacturer supplied and I just went and got a new set. I guess it's a judgement by the technical committee whether they protest you, or give you chance to get it sorted. Obviously in Ikers case, given his response, and the change seen, they went to protest. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 7:48 PM, Mozzy Sails said:

Plenty of boats fail scrutiny, you go away and change it. Often it is due to wear, you misunderstood the rules, or even manufactured supplied parts being out of spec. What I don't get is that the failure of measurement went to a protest hearing... normally you're just told to go away and get it sorted. But maybe Iker maintained it was in class? He then got a DNE for the first race, before that race was sailed. If he had fessed up that he had made the mod, pleaded ignorance regarding the class rule, and went away and got it changed to a class legal fitting then I'm pretty sure nothing more would have come of it. The fact he tried to conceal it and didn't tell the truth to both the technical committee, the jury in the measurement protest, the EDIO and then Rule 69 Jury really seems to make it unethical behaviour / bad sportsmanship. 

 

Martinez was always in trouble from the moment it was spotted, because the way the modification was done included a deliberate attempt to hide the change. He basically drilled new holes so that the slider mechanism could be moved and then he filled the old holes. There was absolutely no need to fill the old holes except to hide the fact that new holes had been drilled. I have read on Facebook that others who had changed things they weren't allowed to were given the opportunity to replace parts because they had made no effort to hide what they had done and they were "genuine" mistakes. 

What I don't understand is the attitude of The Ed on the front page. He claims that this sort of cheating goes on all the time. Maybe it does in his world, but I cannot remember the last time when an Olympic class had such a cheating incident. The Ed says there is faux outrage but I don't think it is faux in any way. Our sport relies on a lot of self policing form touching marks when nobody is looking through to measurement. It also goes well beyond just cheating at a regatta. This regatta is an Olympic qualifier so if he had gained qualification for Spain by cheating, it would have hurt another country and its competitors. It was also a regatta that qualified him from Spanish grant money. That makes it attempted fraud in my book. It's also a regatta that sorts grant money out for many other countries, so Martinez doing well because of an illegal boat could have cost others financially.

How anybody thinks that not being able to sail a regatta is enough of a punishment for cheating like that is beyond me. There has to be some further penalty because if there is not, it encourages cheating. It makes it worth taking the risk in any regatta because you know that if you are caught, you can simply continue your campaign as if nothing has happened. Missing a single regatta isn't going to kill off a campaign.

Martinez needs to be banned from sailing. I personally think that ban should be long enough to ensure that he doesn't go to the next Olympics because if he does, the story will be about his cheating which isn't a great optic for the sport.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

Martinez was always in trouble from the moment it was spotted, because the way the modification was done included a deliberate attempt to hide the change. He basically drilled new holes so that the slider mechanism could be moved and then he filled the old holes. There was absolutely no need to fill the old holes except to hide the fact that new holes had been drilled. 

Martinez needs to be banned from sailing. I personally think that ban should be long enough to ensure that he doesn't go to the next Olympics because if he does, the story will be about his cheating which isn't a great optic for the sport.

%100 agree.....certainly banned from the class..don't think they can go beyond that...Cheating ='s Stealing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

 I cannot remember the last time when an Olympic class had such a cheating incident. 

Late 2000’s wasn’t everyone sneakily fairing the 49er hulls because of production/mould differences? That seemed pretty rampant and illegal. At the time of the sail redesign they had to do all new moulds to combat the issue? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that Iker cheated. However I'm curious about the rules related to the N17; is the slider position specified?

This is all likely to rear its ugly head in the 2019 Worrell 1000...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love these points

"10. During manufacturing, all holes on the Nacra 17 are drilled using a unique jig.  11. Only one jig set (port/starboard) exists at the builder"

The cheater changed the structure of the friggin boat.  The guy is a cheater, he should be sanctioned, kicked from the class what ever.  This should be done to help all the weekend warriors that wax their boat and prepare their boats legally so they can be competitive.  And now back to Ed's comment.  If this situation doesn't trigger rule 69 what would?  This personal blog called Sailing Anarchy is getting real old.  I come to it less and less.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm not denying that Iker cheated. However I'm curious about the rules related to the N17; is the slider position specified?

This is all likely to rear its ugly head in the 2019 Worrell 1000...

If it does, it will be for different components. The foiling Nacras are not allowed, according to the NoR.

https://worrell1000race.com/nor/

- Stumbling

 

Share this post


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

 is the slider position specified?

Its not a measurement controlled class, so things like that aren't specified, you simply aren't allowed to alter them - even if supplied wrong!

 The conventional way to check these things in such classes is to measure a good number of boats and establish what the range is. Note that a measurer can pick any dimension on any component to check, she/he isn't restricted to listed components. That was done in this case, and for the picked measurement all the boats were within 0.5mm of each other, except the one, which was 4.5mm greater. Bang, I greatly fear, to rights.

Share this post


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

If it does, it will be for different components. The foiling Nacras are not allowed, according to the NoR.

https://worrell1000race.com/nor/

- Stumbling

 

Stumbling,

Late generation F20c's are equipped with slider plates. This is a whole separate issue in a sense as the F20c rules are rather vague and open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, samc99us said:

Stumbling,

Late generation F20c's are equipped with slider plates. This is a whole separate issue in a sense as the F20c rules are rather vague and open.

Understood.   My cat sailing days ended before the original Worrell did.   I am not as familiar with the Nacra f20c.    Given that the rules are more nebulous for that version, would this modification have been the same level of naughty in the F20c as the F20 fcs?

- Stumbling

Share this post


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

Its not a measurement controlled class, so things like that aren't specified, you simply aren't allowed to alter them - even if supplied wrong!

 The conventional way to check these things in such classes is to measure a good number of boats and establish what the range is. Note that a measurer can pick any dimension on any component to check, she/he isn't restricted to listed components. That was done in this case, and for the picked measurement all the boats were within 0.5mm of each other, except the one, which was 4.5mm greater. Bang, I greatly fear, to rights.

JimC,

  That makes more sense. IMO it's a poor way to police the class; who decides who gets to test new slider plates, and that those meet the class approved spec? If you make a repair to the trunk/slider due to hitting the bottom you have to install back to within 0.0196" or you are deemed illegal? There are very few boats built to that level of tolerance at this scale (even in aerospace land, if I have a wing installed to within 1mm of the designed location I am happy, and again this is with an aerospace budget).

I could go on, and it's really not my problem, but in an Olympic class I would expect airtight rules with critical item locations spelled out, or you go the way of the Tornado with more loose interpretations. 

Share this post


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

I love these points

"10. During manufacturing, all holes on the Nacra 17 are drilled using a unique jig.  11. Only one jig set (port/starboard) exists at the builder"

The cheater changed the structure of the friggin boat.  The guy is a cheater, he should be sanctioned, kicked from the class what ever.  This should be done to help all the weekend warriors that wax their boat and prepare their boats legally so they can be competitive.  And now back to Ed's comment.  If this situation doesn't trigger rule 69 what would?  This personal blog called Sailing Anarchy is getting real old.  I come to it less and less.

 

 

Obviously so with 15 posts since 2009...:P

Share this post


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

Understood.   My cat sailing days ended before the original Worrell did.   I am not as familiar with the Nacra f20c.    Given that the rules are more nebulous for that version, would this modification have been the same level of naughty in the F20c as the F20 fcs?

- Stumbling

Potentially as you are altering the board rake which is a critical adjustment on a semi foiler or full foiler. The C-board F20 can go full foiling at times (not particulary stable) like the original Nacra 17. The other critical adjustment is board toe-in/out which also impacts total lift.

Then we can add in rudder winglets to the equation, which are a Nacra supplied item but don't have specified angle of attack ranges on the F20c. On the N17 Mk. 2 the rudder angle and thus winglet AoA is adjustable on the water within the factory specified bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, so the daggerboard case is more box like/open and the plates are there to position the board in it.    I have kept an eye on the A Class development over the years so I am familiar the general components, just not what it pertained to the F20c and N17.

- Stumbling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote from the IJ decision  - 'I. Does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Iker Martinez because he was not entered in the event'

So he just turned up to an event and slipped in the back gate to see how he got on?

This is deliberate cheating to gain an advantage. The facts found by the jury are damning and an appeal cannot change these facts. In any case at events with an IJ there is usually no appeal possible.

This is a perfect example of a rule 69 violation - not just the alterations but the apparent attempt to bluff or bully his way out of it.

World sailing must at least consider the referral from the IJ

I know what I would do!

And for the Ed's information we are not all at it!

Share this post


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

Obviously so with 15 posts since 2009...:P

I've hit my max for the month, I've come back twice today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this best applies here.  Fuck the Ed and fuck his cavalier attitude toward cheating.  Fuck his stance that everyone does it.  He's part of the problem with posts like that on front page and statements like that tacitly lend his approval. Trivializing it then conflating it with a poorly written rule is his own kind of special rationalized bull shit.

 The front page never fails to embarrass.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

JimC,

  That makes more sense. IMO it's a poor way to police the class; who decides who gets to test new slider plates, and that those meet the class approved spec? 

Its the standard rule set for single manufacturer boats. You buy them from the one builder and don't touch them. If you don't buy them from the one builder or do touch them its cheatiing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I recall that I think a rule 69 is appropriate. All these idiotic cases where somebody yelled "fuck" too loudly, got a little salty at the bar, or puked onto a local policeman's shoes were ridiculous. But here we have a convicted cheater who bluntly lied about his cheating in a protest hearing. Fuck that arsehole. Throw him out. For a long time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..and we wonder why we are losing the core sailors in our fleets. If its cheating in the olympics, who really cares -- but imagine the indigation if you were getting 3rd in your local beer can series and you found out the guys arhead of you were cheating on their ratings and you should have won! Its okay, buy him a beer and congratulate him on getting away with it . No harm, no foul! Apparently everyone does it so its oaky to let it go.

Share this post


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

IMO it's a poor way to police the class; who decides who gets to test new slider plates, and that those meet the class approved spec? If you make a repair to the trunk/slider due to hitting the bottom you have to install back to within 0.0196" or you are deemed illegal? There are very few boats built to that level of tolerance at this scale (even in aerospace land, if I have a wing installed to within 1mm of the designed location I am happy, and again this is with an aerospace budget).

I could go on, and it's really not my problem, but in an Olympic class I would expect airtight rules with critical item locations spelled out, or you go the way of the Tornado with more loose interpretations. 

Its not quite like that though...

Firstly, if you work in aerospace, hen you understand the difference between 1mm on a part which is only 10mm wide, versus a 50m wing. 

Secondly, it's illegal to modify the boat, so if there is any evidence it's been modified, it's illegal. Allowances are made for repairs, in the nacra these have to be signed off by the nacra technical committee (in a more amateur class you'd just explain the repair). So you don't have to reinstate to that level of accuracy, you just need it signed off. 

The 10% thing is just a general rule, it's usually 10% outside the range of boats tested, which allows for manufacturer tolerances plus some. It would then go to technical committee, who would decide what the result would be. This would be whether you gained an advantage, and how likely it was purposeful cheating or whether you just bought a duff part. 

Like I said up thread, I'd had a forestay (and shrouds) fail on a 29er, but I explained on the spot how I came by the parts, there was no sign of me medalling with them (because I hadn't) and I went and swapped them with the dealer pre-event. 

It's very simple. They're closed class rules: if it doesn't say you an do it, you can't.

P.S. the front page of this site really is shit sometimes. First of all, this sort of cheating isn't rife. I've been at the front f a few fleets, and have never seen something like this. Secondly, if you can't tell the difference between touching a mark and getting a DSQ versus knowingly modify a boat outside of class rules, and then need to punished each differently then god help the Ed; so out of touch. 

Share this post


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

Its the standard rule set for single manufacturer boats. You buy them from the one builder and don't touch them. If you don't buy them from the one builder or do touch them its cheatiing.

Good luck explaining that to every N17 sailor who went to Rio...

The issue here is that you have one of the most high tech racing classes on the planet bound to a modest set of SMOD rules. Modifications to a foiling platform have the potential for real speed gains, on the order of 20-30% in certain conditions (and in an Olympic class 1-2% is enough). Saying everything is drilled the same at the factory and not specifying exactly where the board exits the top and bottom of the trunk and a few other parameters doesn't really inspire confidence that everyone is using the same equipment. Bare in mind this a is a class that publishes mast bend data for every serial number mast, least they could do is specify the main board location..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the well documented build problems for the boats used prior to Rio, why does anyone think Nacra suddenly got religion and is building to milspec tolerance? 

My guess, this story is only beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

samc99us

You are creating a bit of a smoke screen here which isn't needed by inventing a problem that isn't there. There is no issue in the class about board cases or sliders being inaccurately positioned in the factory and even if there was an issue, it is irrelevant to this case. Martinez deliberately altered his boat and no amount of measurements in the rules would make any difference to that. This is not a poorly worded rules issue. 

2 minutes ago, sunseeker said:

With all the well documented build problems for the boats used prior to Rio, why does anyone think Nacra suddenly got religion and is building to milspec tolerance? 

My guess, this story is only beginning.

Again, this misses the point. The problems with the old boats were construction quality ones, not the position of fittings. With this particular fitting, the relationship between the holes the bolts go through is set by a template which is used when the holes are drilled. It is common practice with one designs. While there is a chance that the template might be positioned wrongly, it is impossible for the relationship between the holes to change. Then you need to consider what has been done to this particular boat. Somebody drilled 2 new holes 4.5mm behind the old ones and then filled in the old holes with sikaflex in order to hide the alteration. The issue isn't how the boat was built. The issue is that the boat was altered after it left the factory.

To me the really damning evidence is that it was done to both sides. I might have been able to accept that somebody in the factory screwed up and made a mistake drilling one side, but both sides by exactly the same amount? No way. There are 2 other factors to consider. The boat had previously passed measurement at more than 1 major event and the alteration creates exactly the same result as he would have experienced with an altered slider that he tested for Nacra which allowed for 0.5 degrees more rake. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The local sailing press here in Denmark has a story claiming that Iker Martinez removed the boat from the quarantine area after the issue was discovered, and when the members of the jury arrived at the hotel, Iker tried to drive off with the boat, so the Jury members threw themselves on the hood of the car to get him to stop.

Story here:

https://minbaad.dk/nyhed/archive/2018/09/august/article/maalere-smed-sig-paa-ol-guldvinders-koeler-ved-hotel-i-aarhus/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A Class Sailor said:

samc99us

You are creating a bit of a smoke screen here which isn't needed by inventing a problem that isn't there. There is no issue in the class about board cases or sliders being inaccurately positioned in the factory and even if there was an issue, it is irrelevant to this case. Martinez deliberately altered his boat and no amount of measurements in the rules would make any difference to that. This is not a poorly worded rules issue. 

Again, this misses the point. The problems with the old boats were construction quality ones, not the position of fittings. With this particular fitting, the relationship between the holes the bolts go through is set by a template which is used when the holes are drilled. It is common practice with one designs. While there is a chance that the template might be positioned wrongly, it is impossible for the relationship between the holes to change. Then you need to consider what has been done to this particular boat. Somebody drilled 2 new holes 4.5mm behind the old ones and then filled in the old holes with sikaflex in order to hide the alteration. The issue isn't how the boat was built. The issue is that the boat was altered after it left the factory.

To me the really damning evidence is that it was done to both sides. I might have been able to accept that somebody in the factory screwed up and made a mistake drilling one side, but both sides by exactly the same amount? No way. There are 2 other factors to consider. The boat had previously passed measurement at more than 1 major event and the alteration creates exactly the same result as he would have experienced with an altered slider that he tested for Nacra which allowed for 0.5 degrees more rake. 

ACS you are much closer to the situation than I am. The only real questions I have are:

1) At the event where the boat passed measurement, was the slider position/slider assembly modified?

2) If Nacra are testing an altered slider-and per your statement above, some boats are fitted with it on one side and maybe I am wrong but those boats passed measurement and sailed the worlds-how is Iker sailing with the exact same mod (just with screw holes 4.5mm out of position) an issue? If you follow this thread, its a paperwork/stamp issue, but the minbaad alludes to much higher levels of silliness and if true this was clearly foul play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a measurement handicap workshop about ten years ago when IRC was first being introduced in the US.  There were staff experts who here from both US  Sailing's Offshore Office as well as RORC.  This was when Jim Teeters was there and aslo a guy named Andrew ------, can't remember his last name.  

 

Basically it was explained to me that with the machine the US Sailing owns and operates that can measure hull stations to within a tolerance of a sheet of copy paper there was cheating going on in many one design classes.          Examples that I was given pointed to both the Melges 24 and Farr 40 classes.  These hulls are not supposed to be touched other than polishing...but since adding very thin layers of gellcoat is impossible to detect this was being done.  At 40K to do a M24 it was out of the reach of many in the class but the guys with the super deep pockets.  They were essentially making the hull perfectly faired and also symmetrical port and starboard.  

Share this post


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

least they could do is specify the main board location..

That would actually be a foolish thing to do. As soon as you publish measurements you are effectively giving a carte blanche to optimise towards those measurements. The whole point of the SMOD system is that the measurers can measure anything they like against the pack, and if a boat is outside the pack its toast. Given published measurements there is a defense of "I comply with the published measurements". There is no such defense against "we found a measurement that was different from all the others". But its a hard thing to get your head round if you come from a background in measurement rule classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely a simple jig could be made that would take 2 seconds to determine board rake, one would think that apart from manufacturing errors that simple wear and tear would increase rake over time.

Share this post


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

1) At the event where the boat passed measurement, was the slider position/slider assembly modified?

Apparently the boat had measured right (presumably has not modded at that point).

If you read the WS docs in full, it seems to say that they took two measurements in different days -- second one to confirm it was off. The boat measured off both times, but the first time extra holes (or elongated holes) were visible, the second time the holes had been filled with sikaflex, in an apparent attempt to hide the modding.

It reads to me incredibly cheeky. And then there's that danish report (which I can't read) about trying to run away with the boat.

Pretty off the wall. As I understand, from chatting with N17 sailors, you can't touch the boats, as supplied, etc. Light sanding/polishing of hulls and foils, changing lines, some blocks(?), might be allowed.

Share this post


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

ACS you are much closer to the situation than I am. The only real questions I have are:

1) At the event where the boat passed measurement, was the slider position/slider assembly modified?

2) If Nacra are testing an altered slider-and per your statement above, some boats are fitted with it on one side and maybe I am wrong but those boats passed measurement and sailed the worlds-how is Iker sailing with the exact same mod (just with screw holes 4.5mm out of position) an issue? If you follow this thread, its a paperwork/stamp issue, but the minbaad alludes to much higher levels of silliness and if true this was clearly foul play.

 

I am not at all close to this. I have read all the articles and have followed numerous Facebook threads where there are comments from people who are there, so I am only providing second hand info, but everything seems consistent. 

In answer to your questions, here is what I have learnt from all of this.

1) It seems highly likely that the modifications were done between the Europeans and the worlds. 

2) The modified slider was not used by anybody at any event. It was a test part and was only used as such and has never been used by anybody in racing. The modification allowed the slider to move further back than the standard part giving 0.5 degrees more rake. The modified slider is clearly different from the standard one so it would be easy to spot. Martinez supporters have been spreading the story of the modified slider in an attempt to muddy the waters but it is irrelevant. Martinez did not try to register with that part for the worlds. What he did was modify his boat to give the same 0.5 degrees extra rake with the original, approved parts. To me that is significant. He found that the extra 0.5 degrees was beneficial so he worked out how to modify his boat to get the same rake but with the existing gear.

Martinez tried to hide the evidence of his alterations by filling the original holes. There is a suggestion that this happened after the first inspection and that he told the jury he had not done so even though there were multiple witnesses that saw the holes unfilled during initial inspection. Somewhere between initial inspection and a further inspection the holes were filled with sikaflex.

To go to the heart of the matter again, there is no need for any measurements in the rules because the rules are simple. You cannot modify what comes out of the factory. Martinez's only defence is that the boat was like this when he collected it, which cannot be believed because it wasn't like that when inspected at another event. 

The other story on facebook involes his previous Nacra 17 which he sold to some young Australians. That boat failed inspection as well due to illegally modified parts and while it seems that it is pretty clear that Martinez did the modifications. It cost thousands of dollars in new parts to correct. It cannot be proved that he ever used the boat in competition with those modifications. It is alleged (again on Facebook) that when approached, rather than denying altering the boat, he simply claimed that they had bought the boat as seen and if they didn't spot the modifications, that was their problem! There was a suggestion that Martinez has actually paid for the new parts.

I note that the danish article linked to above the comment that Martinez had a blurred reputation in the 49er class. On one of the Facebook threads, somebody alleged that there was a problem with an illegally modified rudder stock at the 2004 olympics which was discovered before the racing got under way that everybody knew was deliberate and illegal but Martinez was given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to replace the part. That post was taken down a few hours later. I am only repeating what was posted and have no personal knowledge of the incident but when you then add up the incidents in the Volvo and now the N17, it paints an interesting and consistent story.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 2:39 AM, jdubes said:

I've hit my max for the month, I've come back twice today.

Doubt you will be missed then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 7:03 AM, JimC said:

In a measured class yes, but this isn't a measured class, its a manufacturer supplied components class. So its hard to see any way what is alleged to have been done is anything other than deliberate.

that's not true. Repairs need to be taken, boat specs may need to be updated, and not that it applies here but sometimes when you buy a used boat you need to figure out if the last owner took it out of OD trim. Was a bit of an issue for me in the 29er because those rules are written like absolute dogshit - things like "if this is the way the mfg supplied it, then don't change it"... dammit man, my boat was nearly twelve when i bought it! But yeah, i mostly do agree with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mustang__1 said:

- things like "if this is the way the mfg supplied it, then don't change it"... dammit man, my boat was nearly twelve when i bought it! 

People forget the Laser has had that rule for the last 200,000 boats and is it 40 years? Its not a new concept.

Share this post


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

People forget the Laser has had that rule for the last 200,000 boats and is it 40 years? Its not a new concept.

Yeah, and every Laser ever built has been identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACS, thank you for clarifying. Its pretty clear what the alleged situation is.

mustang and sunseeker prove my point with SMOD classes, of which I do have some experience., specifically one with poor rules that is no longer supported by the manufacturer and was shipped from the factory in 3 different configurations. I left that class for measurement based classes for several different reasons but a big one was to get away from poor rules and manufacturing inconsistencies that don't actually leave you playing on a level field at the top of the game.

Boats like the Laser and Sunfish have hundreds of thousands of articles fabricated and are much more equivalent to a modern production car then a run of 20 or 50 beach cats whose parts do change (generally to fix issues) over the life of their production. They have also had major issues on the management side as all the sailors rely on the builder to produce equivalent products, and when that builder decides to part ways with the product for various reason it can get ugly and messy. It can also work out well for all involved, but I wouldn't count on that happening forever. Certainly not in the world of high performance sailing.

Share this post


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

Nice work :lol:

I wondered when someone would get it. :P

Share this post


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

Yeah, and every Laser ever built has been identical.

I guess that is a tongue in cheek remark, since they are not. Ainslie even describes how to select the best one (measure the rake on a bunch before you buy one, there are slight variations). Still it is all within a range, and real cheating will be very obvious. At bigger sanctioned events rakes will be checked and it would be hard to hide the evidence of a modification. Of course, there is a lot of boat preparation (and boat choice, as the rake example shows) that can make a difference. Even with a Laser, you have options, such as carbon tiller, length of hiking stick, mainsheet and other control lines. All these small things will make it easier to sail the boat to its fullest potential, but you cannot change the potential.

I don't know the Nacra 17 but it seems that this was a serious attempt to modify the boat to make it faster, and hide the modifications (and then deny them). I would say an obvious case of cheating. Ever since the VOR incident I have been a bit suspicious about Martinez and it seems, unfortunately that there is a longer history. I am always wondering how these "sportspeople" feel about the races they have won because of cheating. 

AS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people trying to make excuses for Iker? He knowingly modified what was supplied and tried to cover it up, lie about it and then remove the evidence. 

It is a simple manufacturer class where you are not permitted to make changes. He did so to make the boat faster and got caught. Tried to hide it the tried to run away with it. So no one could have another look.

whether other boats may have been manufactured within a similar tolerance is irrelevant. If he hadn’t liked the boat he got, ask for the manufacture/Measurers to check it complied with the rules. Don’t change it and pretend you didn’t.

running away and lying about it only proves he knew he had done wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think folks are justifying anything. All the facts we know of point to a very guilty party. 

The complaints about parts and tolerances, Lasers and Sunfish, is because there's a forever-running discussion of OD classes in SA, and it gets rehashed there, just because the 10 000 prior posts failed to convey my exact point and y'know, duty callshttps://xkcd.com/386/ .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed should save his crocodile tears on this one.

The rules clearly require a report to World Sailing when a competitor is penalized for breaking rule 69, and give WS authority to penalize a competitor when indicated And while  there may have been instances of lousy interpretations and wrongful penalties in the past, in this case, the jury found that Martinez broke the rules and then lied about it. Martinez Decision

This is not the first time a penalty of this kind has been imposed. Readers may remember the controversy when the America's Cup IJ found that Oracle had made illegal changes to its AC-45 catamarans.Several Oracle sailors, including the wing trimmer, were suspended after that controversy. AC Catamaran Cheating Controversy

Ed suggests that he is surprised no one has reported him. Attentive readers will remember that a local yacht club "banished" Ed by refusing his entry in one of their local races after Ed made loud, disruptive (and humorous) comments during the trophy presentation. But as far as I know, Ed is not a cheater, and does not deliberately break the rules. IMO, that puts Martinez's conduct in a different category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can't understand is that Martinez is clearly an enormously talented sailor - why throw away your reputation, and livelihood, in this way? It's sad to see, but a couple of years on the sidelines may give him an opportunity to reflect on the stupid things he has done to himself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2018 at 1:22 AM, sunseeker said:

Yeah, and every Laser ever built has been identical.

yeah but they're all identically imperfect, each in their own unique way.  Occasionally you get a lemon and a rocket ship.  Occasionally a whole batch goes out bad or good.  But generally they're all close enough for jazz and in consideration to wear and tear.  I would suggest only really the very elite few can tell the difference.

Share this post


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

yeah but they're all identically imperfect, each in their own unique way.  Occasionally you get a lemon and a rocket ship.  Occasionally a whole batch goes out bad or good.  But generally they're all close enough for jazz and in consideration to wear and tear.  I would suggest only really the very elite few can tell the difference.

Well, the elite few are all chasing the Olympic medal thing, and therein lies the entire problem with monopoly manufacturers for Olympic classes. Hopefully, the EU puts an end to this monopoly charade of “identical” boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elite Olympians I know (including gold and silver medallists) and technical staff say that the idea that they chase special Lasers is rubbish. To win at the top, you must be able to step into a supplied Laser and adjust to it, not to search out the perfect one. The fact that some people in the USA appear to believe that the boat is the key may illustrate why US sailing has gone so badly downhill.

Oh, and do you really want to go back to a situation where the Brits spend 20k on one Europe mast, and the Americans turn up to the Olympics with a genoa on their Tornado? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The elite Olympians I know (including gold and silver medallists) and technical staff say that the idea that they chase special Lasers is rubbish. To win at the top, you must be able to step into a supplied Laser and adjust to it, not to search out the perfect one. The fact that some people in the USA appear to believe that the boat is the key may illustrate why US sailing has gone so badly downhill.

Oh, and do you really want to go back to a situation where the Brits spend 20k on one Europe mast, and the Americans turn up to the Olympics with a genoa on their Tornado? 

 

The real question is why wouldn’t the Olympics do the good old boat rotation if they actually wanted it to be about the sailors and not the boat?  Especially for something like a Laser. 

Share this post


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

The elite Olympians I know (including gold and silver medallists) and technical staff say that the idea that they chase special Lasers is rubbish. To win at the top, you must be able to step into a supplied Laser and adjust to it, not to search out the perfect one. The fact that some people in the USA appear to believe that the boat is the key may illustrate why US sailing has gone so badly downhill.

Oh, and do you really want to go back to a situation where the Brits spend 20k on one Europe mast, and the Americans turn up to the Olympics with a genoa on their Tornado? 

 

Actually yes, a bit of a design challenge is a good thing. The Brit’s are going to spend as much money as they can raise, so what difference does it make if it’s on a mast or more coaches, or whatever.

Share this post


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

Oh, and do you really want to go back to a situation where....... the Americans turn up to the Olympics with a genoa on their Tornado? 

 

Note, the Genoa issue arose when ISAF changed the class rules (min wind limit removed) for Beijing Games only as they feared they would not get racing in.  It turned out to be the windiest Games in god knows how long.

The Tornado class should never have been held responsible for this as it was not an issue until ISAF medaled with the class rules.

Why not so a cost model on campaigning a T vs N17.  Bet you find a T is significantly cheaper.  What other boats can you use across several campaigns and still be competitive.  Common for individual boats to be used for multiple campaigns.  Competative second hand boats were also plentyfull and they held reasonable resale value.  Multi manufacturing OD here developed a very high quality product that remained competitive for a VERY long time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The elite Olympians I know (including gold and silver medallists) and technical staff say that the idea that they chase special Lasers is rubbish. To win at the top, you must be able to step into a supplied Laser and adjust to it, not to search out the perfect one. The fact that some people in the USA appear to believe that the boat is the key may illustrate why US sailing has gone so badly downhill.

Oh, and do you really want to go back to a situation where the Brits spend 20k on one Europe mast, and the Americans turn up to the Olympics with a genoa on their Tornado? 

 

Actually, at least one of the Olympians I know used to call up the factory and ask which day of the week the boat was laid up.  He wanted a Tuesday or Wednesday boat when the guys in the shed might be on their game.  

Share this post


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

Actually, at least one of the Olympians I know used to call up the factory and ask which day of the week the boat was laid up.  He wanted a Tuesday or Wednesday boat when the guys in the shed might be on their game.  

We also used to weigh mast sections.  A heavier section was generally stiffer.  I had a favourite Radial section I kept for years.  Part sentimental, part psychological, part it was really stiff.  When I eventually sold it (to Brian Connolly of Zhik fame) he hated it using it only once. 

Others would bring components home from different manufacturers while travelling.   US, EU and AUS sections and sails had different characteristics enough you could tell through general inspection. How much did it matter?  I don't know... 

... But there is a masters sailor in Queensland called Brad Taylor who used to turn up with a clapped out boat and sail, and regularly smash everyone. 

There is nothing wrong with being particular in your equipment selection and preparation (within class rules).  Across a campaign you will hammer that gear and you want it to be the best possible state to start with. 

Elite sports people can also be very...  Particular (ne compulsive) when it comes to things as well.  That doesn't mean those things are realistically material to performance. 

And as mentioned, the top laser guys need to be able to step into any boat and make it go. 

Share this post


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

The elite Olympians I know (including gold and silver medallists) and technical staff say that the idea that they chase special Lasers is rubbish. To win at the top, you must be able to step into a supplied Laser and adjust to it, not to search out the perfect one. The fact that some people in the USA appear to believe that the boat is the key may illustrate why US sailing has gone so badly downhill.

Oh, and do you really want to go back to a situation where the Brits spend 20k on one Europe mast, and the Americans turn up to the Olympics with a genoa on their Tornado? 

 

Technically not a genoa . It still measured in as a Kite .

I suspect with the N 17 that although they look very genoa'ish their kites still measure in as such ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2018 at 11:59 PM, Recidivist said:

What I can't understand is that Martinez is clearly an enormously talented sailor - why throw away your reputation, and livelihood, in this way? It's sad to see, but a couple of years on the sidelines may give him an opportunity to reflect on the stupid things he has done to himself.

I suspect its possibly foolishness. Its clear that there's a common perception in at least some sections of elite sport that you have to go to the utmost limits of what the rules permit to win. Just look at the fuzzy borders between illegal drugging, food supplements, therapeutic exemptions etc. Then look at the number of people posting in this thread who have trouble fully grasping the difference between SMOD rules and measured rules. Add to that various exemptions for experimental parts that seem to have been around the Nacras. I have an acquaintance who I understand (tho we haven't talked about it) dropped out of the Nacra scene because they foresaw that the foil development was going to be a considerable pain in the neck (and they had a very good job offer). Put it all together, hypothesise a driven personality, a healthy measure of self deception and some muddled thinking about what ought to be allowed and I can imagine someone letting themselves drift way over the line and not being altogether consciously aware that they've done it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 1:01 PM, Tornado_ALIVE said:

Note, the Genoa issue arose when ISAF changed the class rules (min wind limit removed) for Beijing Games only as they feared they would not get racing in.  It turned out to be the windiest Games in god knows how long.

The Tornado class should never have been held responsible for this as it was not an issue until ISAF medaled with the class rules.

Why not so a cost model on campaigning a T vs N17.  Bet you find a T is significantly cheaper.  What other boats can you use across several campaigns and still be competitive.  Common for individual boats to be used for multiple campaigns.  Competative second hand boats were also plentyfull and they held reasonable resale value.  Multi manufacturing OD here developed a very high quality product that remained competitive for a VERY long time.

Yes, but the point was that there was less variation between the lasers than between the tornadoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 10:10 AM, sunseeker said:

Actually yes, a bit of a design challenge is a good thing. The Brit’s are going to spend as much money as they can raise, so what difference does it make if it’s on a mast or more coaches, or whatever.

Ask the countries that voted to drop the Europe class from the games.  Clearly they did not. And if you say “fuck those poorer nations” then expect them to behave the same way to our sport and its spot in the games. 

One can also wonder how sailing really benefits from a mast specially tailored to one sailor, or a boat with specially heavy centreboards to optimise weight distribution. Do the gains to specific sailors really outweigh the loss to the sport?

Share this post


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

Ask the countries that voted to drop the Europe class from the games.  Clearly they did not. And if you say “fuck those poorer nations” then expect them to behave the same way to our sport and its spot in the games. 

One can also wonder how sailing really benefits from a mast specially tailored to one sailor, or a boat with specially heavy centreboards to optimise weight distribution. Do the gains to specific sailors really outweigh the loss to the sport?

So drop the Europe and the Brits still dominate. They are the only country to have qualified in all 10 classes at this point. 

The cost of the equipment is a fairly minor expense in the overall Olympic budget. 

You can get more countries sailing with something like a radial v Europe, but in the end, the countries that spend the most money in a given class will be at the top of list.

Btw, many people mistake the Olympics as some sort of sports event. It’s not. It’s just an athletic reality TV show.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sunseeker said:

So drop the Europe and the Brits still dominate. They are the only country to have qualified in all 10 classes at this point. 

The cost of the equipment is a fairly minor expense in the