[Peelman]

Day of reckoning has come
Cory E. Friedman/Scuttlebutt


If we see light at the end of the tunnel, it is the light of the oncoming train.” - Robert Lowell.
“No two objects can occupy the same space at the same time.” Wolfgang Pauli.


(February 7, 2010) - By the time many ‘Buttheads read this, the first race of 33rd America’s Cup may be over and the representatives of the teams may be in the room. Certainly everything we have seen (and especially what we have not seen) indicates that even though one of the key participants is from the Bay area, this is not a rerun of the 60’s “Summer of Love.”

Indeed, Ernesto Bertarelli (Société Nautique De Genève (SNG/Alinghi)) and Larry Ellison (Golden Gate Yacht Club (GGYC/BMW Oracle Racing (BOR)/USA)) cannot even occupy the same room at the same time for a press conference or anything else. Who e-mailed what to whom and who is at fault is a major buzz topic, but does not really matter, because it looks like the boats are finally headed for the starting area.

But, this being AC 33, first a report from the room. The International Jury has finally handed down its final decision on measurement and it is not hard to see why it took so long. Indeed, when I saw the Jury driving out of their headquarters on Saturday, I was surprised they were not still holding their noses. The bottom line is that, although Justice Kornreich ruled, based on the recommendation of three of the Jury members, that the boats had to be measured with water ballast on board, the Jury has ratified an absurd measurement procedure that turns Justice Kornreich’s decision on its head. How does that work? The Jury has ruled that, although water has to be distributed equally from side to side, it does not have to be equally distributed fore and aft.

Thus, Alinghi can pump all its water ballast to specially constructed stern tanks, which will then sink the stern until the boat does a wheelie and the LWL is brought under 90 feet. Of course, the boat could never sail in that trim under any race condition and the stern tanks will probably not be used to any substantial extent while actually sailing. Clearly, this is not a case of exploiting a loophole in a rule. It is an example of ratifying breaking any rational understanding of the way to implement the rule in order to produce the exact opposite of the rule.

Why? Alinghi cannot comply with the Deed with any water ballast and cannot sail without water ballast. The Jury is simply not going to force Alinghi to comply with the Deed, knowing that it would decide the Match. It would have been simpler to just come out and say that, regardless of Justice Kornreich’s ruling, Alinghi can measure without water ballast and then add water while racing. Sailors should think twice before complaining about Supreme Court justices running this game, rather than sailors. The inmates cannot seem to run the asylum very well either.

And the Jury’s reward for such extraordinary largess? Harold Bennett was approved by ISAF as PRO and has pledged impartiality. Of course, the Race Committee is SNG’s and made up of Bennett, Fred Meyer from SNG and another SNG member. The kicker is that all decisions are to be made by majority vote, so Bennett’s impartiality and expertise could mean nothing at all as all decisions may be made by SNG. Nice. How this sorts out is up to ISAF, Bennett, and the Jury and a complete travesty is one of the alternatives. Bennett says he is in charge and does possess the nuclear option – he can simply walk. The latest breaking news is that Tom Ehman, eminence grise and all around AC resource of BOR, will be USA’s representative on the RC boat. Hopefully, he will not “fall” overboard.

cont'd

[Sparbuilder]

Looks like Tom Ehman will be onboard the race committee boat! :P NICE! Anyone want to bet that he will be recording some audio, just in case?

Go Tom!

SB

[Remodel]

More SNG bullshit. One more nail in the BoFd Coffin.

[A mear Paps]

Can you fucking believe it, what a joke.

[SimonN]

As I said elsewhere, this is an independent IJ. There is one Alinghi poodle, but there is also a BOR one as well and from what i understand, the ruling was unanimous. It seems to me that if they find for BOR, its truth, justice and the preservation of sailing as we know it. If the IJ finds for Alinghi, it is a travesty. :wacko:

[sledracr]

SimonN, on Feb 7 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

As I said elsewhere, this is an independent IJ. There is one Alinghi poodle, but there is also a BOR one as well and from what i understand, the ruling was unanimous. It seems to me that if they find for BOR, its truth, justice and the preservation of sailing as we know it. If the IJ finds for Alinghi, it is a travesty. :wacko:

The IJ clearly said "The procedures will include the Measurer being satisfied that the position and volume of water ballast on board when the boat is presented for measurement is consistent with that used for the purpose of enhancing racing performance."

*IF* the measurer allowed a "wheelie" in order for A5 to measure in, then the measurer didn't do what the IJ mandated.

And... while the IJ is well balanced, IIRC the measurer is a single SNG guy, working behind a cloak of secrecy (non-SNG observers not allowed)

[beerbonics]

Key sentence in CF's article:

"The Jury is simply not going to force Alinghi to comply with the Deed, knowing that it would decide the Match. "

You can go on and on about the make-up of the IJ, who's paying off whom, etc, but it doesn't matter. The fact is no jury wants to be in a position to rule this unbelievably epic match dead before it begins. It's not their fault it comes to this, and I suspect they want to see these things go like everybody else here. Now, as to how the Jury got into this position, let's go back and look at the history of the ballast shenanigans, shall we?

[tr1plet]

sledracr, on Feb 7 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

SimonN, on Feb 7 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

As I said elsewhere, this is an independent IJ. There is one Alinghi poodle, but there is also a BOR one as well and from what i understand, the ruling was unanimous. It seems to me that if they find for BOR, its truth, justice and the preservation of sailing as we know it. If the IJ finds for Alinghi, it is a travesty. :wacko:

The IJ clearly said "The procedures will include the Measurer being satisfied that the position and volume of water ballast on board when the boat is presented for measurement is consistent with that used for the purpose of enhancing racing performance."

*IF* the measurer allowed a "wheelie" in order for A5 to measure in, then the measurer didn't do what the IJ mandated.

And... while the IJ is well balanced, IIRC the measurer is a single SNG guy, working behind a cloak of secrecy non-SNG observers not allowed)

Once more - ballast all the way aft is a performance-enhancing position on multihull in a bear-away or on a reach when fully powered up. Ask any multihull sailor, or look at any picture or video of a beach cat, and look where the crew is in those circumstances - wishing to be able to move even further back than where the boat ends...

And obviously, A5 could have measured in without any ballast, since that is the rule SNG originally wrote and fought for...

I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is like playing "whack-a-mole", as a different poster put it so succinctly ;)

[Je Prefere]

Its perfectly clear, the IJ would not create a measurement system that would dsq alinghi 24 hours before the race. they had to balance the judges order that all ballast be aboard and how it was distributed, against letting alinghi measure with no ballast and then take some on during the race, and did so. Is it 'correct', I would argue no, but it accomplishes a race when the defender has screwed themselves otherwise.

I wonder if bor's (apparent ?) consent to this is balanced by the appearance of TE on the RC boat ?

[Peelman]

TE said that there was no issues with either boat being measured especially the water ballast wheelie story. No tit for tat on the wheelie issue. CF was joking.....sly fox ;)

The RC with the club/team Rep goes back to what they did in 1988. GGYC and Alinghi had agreed to this awhile back but GGYC hadn't selected their Rep until the other day.

[Je Prefere]

Peelman, on Feb 7 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

TE said that there was no issues with either boat being measured especially the water ballast wheelie story. No tit for tat on the wheelie issue. CF was joking.....sly fox ;)

The RC with the club/team Rep goes back to what they did in 1988. GGYC and Alinghi had agreed to this awhile back but GGYC hadn't selected their Rep until the other day.

good to hear, where and when did he say that ?

[Peelman]

Je Prefere, on Feb 7 2010, 09:01 PM, said:

Peelman, on Feb 7 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

TE said that there was no issues with either boat being measured especially the water ballast wheelie story. No tit for tat on the wheelie issue. CF was joking.....sly fox ;)

The RC with the club/team Rep goes back to what they did in 1988. GGYC and Alinghi had agreed to this awhile back but GGYC hadn't selected their Rep until the other day.

good to hear, where and when did he say that ?

About hour ago as he was heading the Pound.

[brian weslake]

What surprises me is that no one suggested the obvious solution to the measurement problem:

1. Fill all water ballast compartments 100% full in the starboard hull only with 0% full in the port hull (i.e. the maximum likely ballasted sailing condition, as they are unlikely to be sailing with ballast in the leeward hull)
2. Pump 50% of the fluid in each tank into the equivalent tank on the port side in order to distribute the load transversely.
3. Voila, the same fore and aft trim as the fully loaded sailing condition, but zero heel.

Looks like there are too many lawyers on the IJ and not enough naval architects.

Not that I think it would make any difference anyway, I suspect that all ballast tanks on A5 are just forward of the transom and that any addition of water ballast will shorten her static waterline, not lengthen it.

[Je Prefere]

Peelman, on Feb 7 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Je Prefere, on Feb 7 2010, 09:01 PM, said:

Peelman, on Feb 7 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

TE said that there was no issues with either boat being measured especially the water ballast wheelie story. No tit for tat on the wheelie issue. CF was joking.....sly fox ;)

The RC with the club/team Rep goes back to what they did in 1988. GGYC and Alinghi had agreed to this awhile back but GGYC hadn't selected their Rep until the other day.

good to hear, where and when did he say that ?

About hour ago as he was heading the Pound.

So decks are clear and everybody is ready for it to be on. excellent. thanks.

[Peelman]

Je Prefere, on Feb 7 2010, 09:20 PM, said:

Peelman, on Feb 7 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Je Prefere, on Feb 7 2010, 09:01 PM, said:

Peelman, on Feb 7 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

TE said that there was no issues with either boat being measured especially the water ballast wheelie story. No tit for tat on the wheelie issue. CF was joking.....sly fox ;)

The RC with the club/team Rep goes back to what they did in 1988. GGYC and Alinghi had agreed to this awhile back but GGYC hadn't selected their Rep until the other day.

good to hear, where and when did he say that ?

About hour ago as he was heading the Pound.

So decks are clear and everybody is ready for it to be on. excellent. thanks.

Yep, and the BOR Dock out show is one already at

http://www.sailingan..._ac_raceday.php

[Je Prefere]

On it.

[Finnfart]

SimonN, on Feb 7 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

As I said elsewhere, this is an independent IJ. There is one Alinghi poodle, but there is also a BOR one as well and from what i understand, the ruling was unanimous. It seems to me that if they find for BOR, its truth, justice and the preservation of sailing as we know it. If the IJ finds for Alinghi, it is a travesty. :wacko:

I agree with the IJ, and I also agree that this was BS.

But guess what? I think this was best for all concerned.

That is why nobody from BOR complained.

Imagine what a nightmare for BOR if A5 was dsq'd today? Seriously. All this buildup, and the reward?

Another litigation to see what actually happens since the deed is not clear on what happens in this situation.

Deal with it everyone. This was the best outcome for everyone.

It also suggests that BOR likes its chances or they would have been screaming.

[eric e]

and it's possible that bennet knows it's bullshit and because of that awhingey have used their "bye" from him

advantage bmwo

[shroo]

brian weslake, on Feb 8 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

What surprises me is that no one suggested the obvious solution to the measurement problem:

1. Fill all water ballast compartments 100% full in the starboard hull only with 0% full in the port hull (i.e. the maximum likely ballasted sailing condition, as they are unlikely to be sailing with ballast in the leeward hull)
2. Pump 50% of the fluid in each tank into the equivalent tank on the port side in order to distribute the load transversely.
3. Voila, the same fore and aft trim as the fully loaded sailing condition, but zero heel.

Looks like there are too many lawyers on the IJ and not enough naval architects.

Not that I think it would make any difference anyway, I suspect that all ballast tanks on A5 are just forward of the transom and that any addition of water ballast will shorten her static waterline, not lengthen it.

You forgot to think...

Alinghi designed to measure with zero ballast & bows slightly wheelying

Your points should read...

1. Fill all water ballast compartments 100% full in the starboard hull only with 0% full in the port hull (i.e. the maximum likely ballasted sailing condition, as they are unlikely to be sailing with ballast in the leeward hull)
2. Pump 50% of the fluid in each tank into the equivalent tank on the port side in order to distribute the load transversely.
3. Voila, the same fore and aft trim as the fully loaded sailing condition, but zero heel - and the boat is heavier, this deeper in the water, thus too long to measure, thus disqualified, thus the AC can finally continue ex one egomaniac.

However, I prefer to see them race...