Jump to content


AR Statement: GD Out of Line and Unsportsmanlike


  • Please log in to reply
459 replies to this topic

#1 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,193 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:50 AM

After a few weeks of GD having his way with Jihads against Artemis go unchallenged:
--
http://blog.sfgate.c...ealands-dalton/

Artemis Racing, the Swedish sailing syndicate that suffered a casualty during training for the Americas Cup race in May, released a scathing statement on Monday regarding recently published comments from one its chief competitors, Emirates Team New Zealand. Artemis characterized the Kiwi comments as out of line and unsportsmanlike.
In response to comments by Emirates Team New Zealands Managing Director Grant Dalton in a June 8, 2013 article in the New Zealand Herald, we would like to set the record straight, the Artemis statement read. Daltons proposals to change the (Louis Vuitton Cup) race (start direct elimination on July 19, rather than August 6, and alter the format to eliminate the semi-finals) would certainly not help Artemis Racing, as suggested, but make it even harder for us to compete.
Late last week, Artemis announced that it would not be ready for the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup, the competitors round-robin that will ultimately decide the competitor to Oracle Racings defense of the Americas Cup in September. The LV Cup was slated to start on July 7. Instead, New Zealand and Italian syndicate Luna Rossa will start without its Swedish counterparts. Artemis announced plans to join the racing in August, allowing them time to rebuild its damaged boat and still make a run at the finals. Race organizers agreed to the new plan.
Dalton took exception with the race organizers accommodation for the Artemis team. He was quoted in the article saying, So the whole thing is now geared to the needs of the weakest common denominator, said Dalton. I wonder what would happen if the Rugby World Cup had to stop and re-organise itself in an unsatisfactory way because Namibia had a few injuries. How that would go down?
Dalton wasnt done. He went on to be quoted saying: We havent lost sight of the tragedy and we have said we are in favour of the safety recommendations but Artemis can get away with this because there are not enough teams in the Americas Cup. If there were five teams, theyd be gonners (sic); they wouldnt be here. But because there arent enough, the regatta will have to meet their needs.
Artemis racing found Daltons tone too aggressive, prompting Mondays statement.
Daltons proposals benefit no team but his own, and his public insults are out of line and unsportsmanlike, the Artemis statement read. Artemis Racings May 9 accident set us back immensely on a human level and a campaign level. As competitors, though, we may be down, but we are not out.
Our passion for the Americas Cup remains strong. We are committed again to competing. Anyone who knows our sailors knows that our team will not shy away from a tough challenge. We are doing our best to recover and our target is to be ready for racing in the Louis Vuitton Cups semi-finals on August 6, if not earlier. In the meantime, the race schedule should remain unchanged and the derogatory analogies should be left on the dock.
Emirates Team New Zealand did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
The back and forth between the two teams was the latest wrinkle for an event that has seen its fair share of tragedy and controversy in recent months. In addition to the death of Artemis sailor Andrew Bart Simpson, who drowned during a training run May 9, the event has become shrouded with financial concerns, as well. As of now, just three competitors remain to challenge for the Cup held by Oracle, down from an estimated dozen two years ago.

#2 Terrafirma

Terrafirma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,535 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 12:57 AM

Artemis Racing's skipper Paul Cayard has hit back at Emirates Team NZ's MD Grant Dalton's comments made after the Teams Meeting in San Francisco, late last week:

 

   

 

In response to comments by Emirates Team New Zealand's Managing Director Grant Dalton in a June 8, 2013 article in the New Zealand Herald, we would like to set the record straight. Dalton's proposals to change the race (start direct elimination on July 19, rather than August 6, and alter the format to eliminate the semi-finals) would certainly not help Artemis Racing, as suggested, but make it even harder for us to compete. To shorten an already tight timeline is clearly not acceptable to us, as to any team in the same position. Dalton's proposals benefit no team but his own, and his public insults are out of line and unsportsmanlike.

Artemis Racing's May 9 accident set us back immensely - on a human level and a campaign level. As competitors, though, we may be down, but we are not out. Our passion for the America's Cup remains strong. We are committed again to competing. Anyone who knows our sailors knows that our team will not shy away from a tough challenge. We are doing our best to recover and our target is to be ready for racing in the Louis Vuitton Cup's semi-finals on August 6, if not earlier. In the meantime, the race schedule should remain unchanged and the derogatory analogies should be left on the dock.


The original race schedule had the three teams sailing a Round Robin consisting of seven rounds (21 races) in total with the winner having the option to advance through to the Finals, or participating in the Semi-Finals, presumably with the third placed boat.

After the capsize and death of Artemis Racing crew man, Andrew Simpson (GBR), the recommendation was made to reduce the Round Robin phase of the Challenger Selection series to five rounds, or 15 races.

Luna Rossa and Emirates Team NZ, in a concession to Artemis Racing's dilemma, to delay the start of the Round Robin Series to July 19. This was not acceptable to Artemis Racing, who would only agree to a full series being run, with one extra reserve day being added, bringing the series down to the agreed 15 races (Five rounds). But then Artemis Racing then announced that they would default most of the races in the Round Robin, and would instead seriously race only in the Semi-Finals phase of the CSS or Louis Vuitton Cup.



#3 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:03 AM

"Late last week, Artemis announced that it would not be ready for the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup"

 

HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO THEY NEED?

 

EVERYONE ELSE IS READY, WHY IS IT DIFFERENT FOR AR?



#4 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,193 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:19 AM

"Late last week, Artemis announced that it would not be ready for the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup"

EVERYONE ELSE IS READY, WHY IS IT DIFFERENT FOR AR?

HOW IS THE RULE DIFFERENT FOR ANYONE ELSE?

Dumbass ;)

Good to see PC take GD on directly, for the obvious untruths in GD's NZ Herald jihad, the one that RG also swallowed hook, line and sinker.

I can see what GD was after (elimination of AR) and it made sense from his agenda's POV. But it was factually incorrect, self-serving, and was definitely unnecessarily nasty.

#5 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:28 AM

"Late last week, Artemis announced that it would not be ready for the start of the Louis Vuitton Cup"

EVERYONE ELSE IS READY, WHY IS IT DIFFERENT FOR AR?

HOW IS THE RULE DIFFERENT FOR ANYONE ELSE?

Dumbass ;)

Good to see PC take GD on directly, for the obvious untruths in GD's NZ Herald jihad, the one that RG also swallowed hook, line and sinker.

I can see what GD was after (elimination of AR) and it made sense from his agenda's POV. But it was factually incorrect, self-serving, and was definitely unnecessarily nasty.

 

The naughty corner is calling.

 

Farking hilarious that challengers can now pick n choose when they start the event and what races they'll enter.

 

I guess it's the same all(?)



#6 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:38 AM

Oh dear, all the problems suffered by Artemis are the fault of Naughty Grant Dalton.

Yeah ... right!

#7 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:41 AM


Tsk, tsk Paul ... ever heard the word "bowsprit?"

If you want an example of "out of line and unsportmanslike" check the back attic of your mind.

#8 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:49 AM

Good to see PC take GD on directly, for the obvious untruths in GD's NZ Herald jihad

"Obvious untruths".

That is a serious accusation.

Against a man who has a well-founded reputation for truthfulness and plain-talking.

Hence, please list (and explain) the "untruths".

#9 baygrass

baygrass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 01:55 AM

What's up with the over dramatic use of the word "Jihad" in SA? Does the word have a special meaning here? I guess i didn't get my decoder ring in the mail. 



#10 catsailor

catsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts
  • Location:Always near the water

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:01 AM

Can't wait for the racing to start and the political horseshit to take a backseat to win/loss records.



#11 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:12 AM

Sad, sad, sad. I'm sorry to say that Grant brought this on himself. he's done such a great job with the team and the boat. If only he could keep his big mouth shut.

 

I'm beginning to think that like DC and so many before him, that it starts to be more about him than about the team.

 

 

 

Go ahead, flame suit activated.



#12 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,268 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:28 AM

So now if the " accident " some were predicting were to happen and AR takes out ET in a prelim they can't blame it on being a " poodle " move.

 

It will be PC's call all the way.

 

The LV finally got interesting :)



#13 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts
  • Location:Mos-Vegas
  • Interests:I like sailing

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:31 AM

Yeah!! PC tells them all where to stick it! They don't say much or very often, but when they do it's PR smack-down!!
 
Some reasons why everyone's underestimated them:
 
1. They can foil on an AC45
2. Their blue boat is completely different to the red death-trap - it's flawless
3. The supremacy of their sailors and design team means they can start a year behind everyone else and still be competitive
4. PC managed to completely fuck-over TNZ in San Diego and is full of confidence that he can do it again
5. They can do practice sailing against the benchmark OR team
6. They are all Swedish and everything in Sweden runs on time and is efficient
7. They will gain a distinct psychological edge when the boats go out and race them when they're not there - like the Viet Cong.
8. They have the moral high ground because they're the underdogs who fought back from calamity
9. They've been in SF the longest, made the first wing and had the most impressive testing platform
10. They're not bound up by the limitations of sponsors and using public money
11. 'Flintstones' teams like ETNZ have come to SF with Old-School attitudes about how the LV should be run
12. They didn't build their wing, boat, beams or other equipment in New Zealand sweatshops
13. LR and ETNZ are overconfident and think Artemis will be knocked out - but they plan to win the LVC and AC
14. Any day now ETNZ will stack their boat and they won't have a spare to race because it's wrapped in plastic on the dock.
15. Everything always boils down to good vs. evil - OR are clearly good (like in the Wind Gods movie) while ETNZ are obviously evil.
16. Now that the 'Summer of Racing' tickets are being refunded they won't be encumbered by a guilty conscience 
 
Geez - there's so many more reasons. The major thing is is that this is the LVC and the AC. At no point was this event meant to be attractive to TV, sponsors, spectators and teams. That's a romanticised, ridiculous vision that nobody realistically entertained. Having boats sail around the course on their own has always been a big part of sailing - they call it 'Scratch Racing' - and it's where everything is heading.
 
Grant Dalton should stick to sailing, refining his boat, managing his team and keeping media and sponsorship commitments. He should also be careful to only say things that will please everybody else.
 
Artemis will nuke one of LR and ETNZ in the final and semi-finals - foiling, flybing, multi-moded, AC72 shock-and-awe - they will be rocked for certain. Obviously the idea of sailing round-robins was a trick.


#14 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:43 AM

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?



#15 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:44 AM

AR were on the water before anyone else in this AC cycle.

 

When your primary enemy is time it was a good thing. However, the design, engineering and building clusterfucks since then all lay at Cayards feet. As CEO, the buck stops with him as to the long list of poor decisions made. At best, AR had 1 wing that measured. Their first wing wasn't even close to measuring and the information I have suggested Clifford didn't measure either. It is completely inexcusable at this level that such fundamental issues exist and testimony to AR's leadership.

 

Putting the tragedy of the Clifford rollover aside, AR were struggling at best to be ready with the new boat. The incident put them back 2 months they didn't have.

 

At best they have 1 wing and 1 boat that measures out of all of the shit they have built.

 

Their current position isn't because of the Clifford capsize, it's because of management decisions made well over 2 years ago. Cayard is delusional if he thinks otherwise.

 

AR have some really great people. The problem is they're very poorly managed.



#16 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:52 AM

WTF is Cayard on about? So GD and Luna Rossa offered to give AR more time to sort out their boat and thats unsportsmanlike? How is that unsportsmanlike?

The only thing unsportsmanlike is the fact that Paul Cayard wants the other 2 teams to have to race each other and risk their own calamity while he and his team can sit on the dock, without getting fined and work on their boat so they can sneak in the back door into the semi finals.

 

In essence, all he is saying is "we're not going to show up, but you guys will have to, and if you crash, we'll take your place in the semi's" Because Im Paul Cayard, and thats how i roll"



#17 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,114 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:55 AM

Yeah!! PC tells them all where to stick it! They don't say much or very often, but when they do it's PR smack-down!!
 

Grant Dalton should stick to sailing, refining his boat, managing his team and keeping media and sponsorship commitments. He should also be careful to only say things that will please everybody else.
 
Artemis will nuke one of LR and ETNZ in the final and semi-finals - foiling, flybing, multi-moded, AC72 shock-and-awe - they will be rocked for certain. Obviously the idea of sailing round-robins was a trick.

 

Then we would never hear anything out of him.

 

Actually that would be nice for a change.



#18 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:58 AM

Can anyone acknowledge that AR's shitty design killed a sailor?

 

Wow some memories are short.

 

So now AR takes time to respond to GD???

 

Why dont they focus are their own problems.

 

Amazing.

 

What a bunch of whiny little bitches.



#19 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,114 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:01 AM

In essence, all he is saying is "we're not going to show up, but you guys will have to, and if you crash, we'll take your place in the semi's" Because Im Paul Cayard, and thats how i roll"

 

He's saying they'll show up when the boat is adequately checked out.

 

Pretty rational statement after the accident.

 

As others have said, if the accident happened to ET, it would all be blamed on RC, like everything else Grumpy has bitched about.

Attached Files



#20 southseasbill

southseasbill

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:02 AM

Sad, sad, sad. I'm sorry to say that Grant  Cayard brought this on himself. he's done such a great crap job with the team and the boat. If only he could keep his big mouth shut.

FIFY



#21 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:11 AM

In essence, all he is saying is "we're not going to show up, but you guys will have to, and if you crash, we'll take your place in the semi's" Because Im Paul Cayard, and thats how i roll"

 

He's saying they'll show up when the boat is adequately checked out.

 

Pretty rational statement after the accident.

 

As others have said, if the accident happened to ET, it would all be blamed on RC, like everything else Grumpy has bitched about.

But the accident DIDN'T happen to ETNZ!! Wether through luck, or good management. You can say, "what if" all day long... but the fact remains, that it happened to AR. Wether through bad luck or bad management, it happened. GD offered them more time, PC saw that offer as unsportsmanlike and out of line? How does that work? 

PC is the one that wanted the regatta to start on time even though he's not going to show up? And you find that sportsmanlike?



#22 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:12 AM

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?

 

Quite frankly I think it is unsportsmanlike for AR to take advantage of the situation to keep itself in the regatta.

They're not ready and therefore should withdraw.

 

This is more about Cayard trying to salvage his career than actually advance the cause of AR IMO.

 

AR are going to get completely fucked over in the LVC as you would expect from a team that has been nothing short of calamitous all along.



#23 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:13 AM

Withdrawing from the RR was always on the cards. Suppose one team found they were slow in the first few races. It would then be better to withdraw from the remaining races and work on their boat.

 

This is just a result of having a RR that doesn't eliminate anybody.

 

AR's problems mean that this has happened already, but it probably would have happened later anyway.



#24 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:16 AM

Can anyone acknowledge that AR's shitty design killed a sailor?

 

Wow some memories are short.

 

So now AR takes time to respond to GD???

 

Why dont they focus are their own problems.

 

Amazing.

 

What a bunch of whiny little bitches.

 

Apparently its improper to criticise anything about a syndicate once a member of the team dies.

I'm just waiting for someone to scream out "Won't someone please think of the children" and this whole clusterfuck will be complete. 



#25 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,376 posts
  • Location:Mos-Vegas
  • Interests:I like sailing

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:17 AM

 

Yeah!! PC tells them all where to stick it! They don't say much or very often, but when they do it's PR smack-down!!
 

Grant Dalton should stick to sailing, refining his boat, managing his team and keeping media and sponsorship commitments. He should also be careful to only say things that will please everybody else.
 
Artemis will nuke one of LR and ETNZ in the final and semi-finals - foiling, flybing, multi-moded, AC72 shock-and-awe - they will be rocked for certain. Obviously the idea of sailing round-robins was a trick.

 

Then we would never hear anything out of him.

 

Actually that would be nice for a change.

 

Too right mate - GD is infuriating. You're just up the road, why don't you go down and do some muck raking. If you meet him will you tell him he's a hypocritical, nobody? Just yell "hey grumpy" and make a rude gesture. Say paradox says so too. If he's completely ripped (because he does sail on an AC72) and actually is grumpy blame me then run.

 

Like I said before - ETNZ carry on like this AC was supposed to be about match racing, a summer of sailing that would be attractive to TV, sponsors and spectators. They naively thought that having yachts race other yachts was going to be part of that. They'll get used to the "scratch racing" format. You'd think that would suit a prima dona like Grant Dalton.

 

Artemis in stealth mode will be a dangerous adversary. When you don't know what their boat looks like and how you will go against it, it makes it tricky to know how you can improve for they next race when they don't sail. It's so hard to prepare for that.



#26 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:22 AM

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?

It's not a question of what any other CoR would do: the fact is AR are not ready to race through no-one else's fault. The fact is they are milking the death of Simpson for sympathy to buy themselves time. You can go on with your "what-if" conjecture, it won't alter the facts.

 

AR should just fuck off.



#27 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,114 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:23 AM

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?

 


AR are going to get completely fucked over in the LVC as you would expect from a team that has been nothing short of calamitous all along.

 

So why have you waited this long to express your opinion ? :)



#28 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,114 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:24 AM

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?

It's not a question of what any other CoR would do: the fact is AR are not ready to race through no-one else's fault. The fact is they are milking the death of Simpson for sympathy to buy themselves time. You can go on with your "what-if" conjecture, it won't alter the facts.

 

AR should just fuck off.

Attached Files



#29 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:33 AM

 

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?

 


AR are going to get completely fucked over in the LVC as you would expect from a team that has been nothing short of calamitous all along.

 

So why have you waited this long to express your opinion ? :)

 

SWS, are you seriously still holding onto the idea that AR might be competitive?

Or are you just trying to be dogmatic?

 

Its been plainly obvious since last year that this team were never going to be competitive and yet you still persist.

 

They haven't made the start line and should therefore do the right thing and drop out.

 

If they hit another boat or have their own boat implode again causing injury or death, I suppose you will espouse their right to compete?



#30 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:36 AM

Artemis in stealth mode will be a dangerous adversary. When you don't know what their boat looks like and how you will go against it, it makes it tricky to know how you can improve for they next race when they don't sail. It's so hard to prepare for that.

 

Nominee for quote of the day!  :lol:



#31 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,114 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:41 AM

 

 

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?

 


AR are going to get completely fucked over in the LVC as you would expect from a team that has been nothing short of calamitous all along.

 

So why have you waited this long to express your opinion ? :)

 

SWS, are you seriously still holding onto the idea that AR might be competitive?

Or are you just trying to be dogmatic?

 

Its been plainly obvious since last year that this team were never going to be competitive and yet you still persist.

 

They haven't made the start line and should therefore do the right thing and drop out.

 

If they hit another boat or have their own boat implode again causing injury or death, I suppose you will espouse their right to compete?

 

Not sure I spoke to their ability to be competitive, but I believe they have the right to compete.

 

Is Grumpy really that concerned, or just pissed about the veto authority given to the CoR ? 

 

If he's so concerned about "man and machine" why did he so vehemently protest lowered wind limits ? 

 

A bit of an inconsistency in his rhetoric, eh ? How do you rationalize this ?



#32 chocoa

chocoa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Location:up state New York--once upon a time--Lower Hutt

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:01 AM

disillusionment in oneself must be hard to except; it's the American way to blame someone else---- especially when ones' direct decisions look/looked so suspect, desperate and ultimately tragic.

#33 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:27 AM

 

 

 

Maybe PC can refund GD his entry money too...............and then race LR in the final.

 

I can understand some frustration by GD, he lost-out to PC as CoR, so with AR having their tragic crash and holding things up, he is not happy being in position ready to race and feeling like a favorite to meet OR in the Cup match.

 

But, if he were CoR and in the same position as PC, would he not struggle to continue on also?

 


AR are going to get completely fucked over in the LVC as you would expect from a team that has been nothing short of calamitous all along.

 

So why have you waited this long to express your opinion ? :)

 

SWS, are you seriously still holding onto the idea that AR might be competitive?

Or are you just trying to be dogmatic?

 

Its been plainly obvious since last year that this team were never going to be competitive and yet you still persist.

 

They haven't made the start line and should therefore do the right thing and drop out.

 

If they hit another boat or have their own boat implode again causing injury or death, I suppose you will espouse their right to compete?

 

Not sure I spoke to their ability to be competitive, but I believe they have the right to compete.

 

Is Grumpy really that concerned, or just pissed about the veto authority given to the CoR ? 

 

If he's so concerned about "man and machine" why did he so vehemently protest lowered wind limits ? 

 

A bit of an inconsistency in his rhetoric, eh ? How do you rationalize this ?

He protested the wind limits because they had designed a boat to the protocol written when the boats were first announced. Which was set at 33 knots being the top end limit, which means you would had to have designed a boat to survive 33 knots of wind and big waves - which is what they've done. Altering those wind limits has left them with a stronger, and therefor heavier design. He offered Artemis more time because they need it, and then Cayard turns around and calls him unsportsmanlike for doing that. I suppose if you have veto powers you can use them no questions asked and everyone else can go to hell.

I hope Artemis gets absolutely embarrased by ETNZ and Luna Rossa.



#34 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,114 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:34 AM

 

 

 

 


AR are going to get completely fucked over in the LVC as you would expect from a team that has been nothing short of calamitous all along.

 

So why have you waited this long to express your opinion ? :)

 

SWS, are you seriously still holding onto the idea that AR might be competitive?

Or are you just trying to be dogmatic?

 

Its been plainly obvious since last year that this team were never going to be competitive and yet you still persist.

 

They haven't made the start line and should therefore do the right thing and drop out.

 

If they hit another boat or have their own boat implode again causing injury or death, I suppose you will espouse their right to compete?

 

Not sure I spoke to their ability to be competitive, but I believe they have the right to compete.

 

Is Grumpy really that concerned, or just pissed about the veto authority given to the CoR ? 

 

If he's so concerned about "man and machine" why did he so vehemently protest lowered wind limits ? 

 

A bit of an inconsistency in his rhetoric, eh ? How do you rationalize this ?

He protested the wind limits because they had designed a boat to the protocol written when the boats were first announced. Which was set at 33 knots being the top end limit, which means you would had to have designed a boat to survive 33 knots of wind and big waves - which is what they've done. Altering those wind limits has left them with a stronger, and therefor heavier design. He offered Artemis more time because they need it, and then Cayard turns around and calls him unsportsmanlike for doing that. I suppose if you have veto powers you can use them no questions asked and everyone else can go to hell.

I hope Artemis gets absolutely embarrased by ETNZ and Luna Rossa.

But still a bit of inconsistency in his rhetoric, no ?



#35 sclarke

sclarke

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Americas Cup

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:42 AM

He protested the wind limits because they had designed a boat to the protocol written when the boats were first announced. Which was set at 33 knots being the top end limit, which means you would had to have designed a boat to survive 33 knots of wind and big waves - which is what they've done. Altering those wind limits has left them with a stronger, and therefor heavier design. He offered Artemis more time because they need it, and then Cayard turns around and calls him unsportsmanlike for doing that. I suppose if you have veto powers you can use them no questions asked and everyone else can go to hell.

I hope Artemis gets absolutely embarrased by ETNZ and Luna Rossa.

But still a bit of inconsistency in his rhetoric, no ?

explain?



#36 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,114 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:53 AM

 

He protested the wind limits because they had designed a boat to the protocol written when the boats were first announced. Which was set at 33 knots being the top end limit, which means you would had to have designed a boat to survive 33 knots of wind and big waves - which is what they've done. Altering those wind limits has left them with a stronger, and therefor heavier design. He offered Artemis more time because they need it, and then Cayard turns around and calls him unsportsmanlike for doing that. I suppose if you have veto powers you can use them no questions asked and everyone else can go to hell.

I hope Artemis gets absolutely embarrased by ETNZ and Luna Rossa.

But still a bit of inconsistency in his rhetoric, no ?

explain?

 

Why did he protest the reduced wind limits then turn around and agree to them ?

 

If he then agrees to them why is he concerned about racing in lower limits with potential destruction with "man and machine", or haven't you been paying attention ?

 

It's not that difficult. If I have to explain it to you other issues are at play.



#37 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:01 AM

On the basis of the catastrophic failures of his team so far PC has been in charge of and his inglorious AC record the guy has now reached new lows. No problem though because if he thinks he can make it to the AC final for the second time in his illustrious and wanton abuse of money, then he really is a fuckwit.



#38 JMOD

JMOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:the usual stuff

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:24 AM

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....



#39 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • Location:Auckland, New Zealand
  • Interests:Flying sea monsters

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:29 AM

 

 

He protested the wind limits because they had designed a boat to the protocol written when the boats were first announced. Which was set at 33 knots being the top end limit, which means you would had to have designed a boat to survive 33 knots of wind and big waves - which is what they've done. Altering those wind limits has left them with a stronger, and therefor heavier design. He offered Artemis more time because they need it, and then Cayard turns around and calls him unsportsmanlike for doing that. I suppose if you have veto powers you can use them no questions asked and everyone else can go to hell.

I hope Artemis gets absolutely embarrased by ETNZ and Luna Rossa.

But still a bit of inconsistency in his rhetoric, no ?

explain?

 

Why did he protest the reduced wind limits then turn around and agree to them ?

 

If he then agrees to them why is he concerned about racing in lower limits with potential destruction with "man and machine", or haven't you been paying attention ?

 

It's not that difficult. If I have to explain it to you other issues are at play.

 

I am sure his preferred wind limit is NOT 23 knots, your trying to imply that he thinks 23 knot limits is a great idea and exactly what it should be, the fact he is accepting them is quite diferent to thinking they are the correct limits for the event, hence the reason he argued so hard about the moving of races to at least ensure if it was 23 knots they still raced instead of moving the races to a time when the wind was even lower.



#40 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:02 AM

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....

 

Actually, I doubt the will make the semis as I doubt they will have their boat ready to sail.

Even if they do, goodness knows if it will survive the 5 (?) races it will take to eliminate them.



#41 JMOD

JMOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • Interests:the usual stuff

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:07 AM

Artemis Racing's skipper Paul Cayard has hit back at Emirates Team NZ's MD Grant Dalton's comments made after the Teams Meeting in San Francisco, late last week:

 

   

 

In response to comments by Emirates Team New Zealand's Managing Director Grant Dalton in a June 8, 2013 article in the New Zealand Herald, we would like to set the record straight. Dalton's proposals to change the race (start direct elimination on July 19, rather than August 6, and alter the format to eliminate the semi-finals) would certainly not help Artemis Racing, as suggested, but make it even harder for us to compete. To shorten an already tight timeline is clearly not acceptable to us, as to any team in the same position. Dalton's proposals benefit no team but his own, and his public insults are out of line and unsportsmanlike.

Artemis Racing's May 9 accident set us back immensely - on a human level and a campaign level. As competitors, though, we may be down, but we are not out. Our passion for the America's Cup remains strong. We are committed again to competing. Anyone who knows our sailors knows that our team will not shy away from a tough challenge. We are doing our best to recover and our target is to be ready for racing in the Louis Vuitton Cup's semi-finals on August 6, if not earlier. In the meantime, the race schedule should remain unchanged and the derogatory analogies should be left on the dock.


The original race schedule had the three teams sailing a Round Robin consisting of seven rounds (21 races) in total with the winner having the option to advance through to the Finals, or participating in the Semi-Finals, presumably with the third placed boat.

After the capsize and death of Artemis Racing crew man, Andrew Simpson (GBR), the recommendation was made to reduce the Round Robin phase of the Challenger Selection series to five rounds, or 15 races.

Luna Rossa and Emirates Team NZ, in a concession to Artemis Racing's dilemma, to delay the start of the Round Robin Series to July 19. This was not acceptable to Artemis Racing, who would only agree to a full series being run, with one extra reserve day being added, bringing the series down to the agreed 15 races (Five rounds). But then Artemis Racing then announced that they would default most of the races in the Round Robin, and would instead seriously race only in the Semi-Finals phase of the CSS or Louis Vuitton Cup.

 

 

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....

 

Actually, I doubt the will make the semis as I doubt they will have their boat ready to sail.

Even if they do, goodness knows if it will survive the 5 (?) races it will take to eliminate them.

i kind of agree, but read their own statement (highlighted in red). Is there something in the rules about the CoR not having to do the RR?



#42 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:33 AM

When is anyone going to admit that AR and in particular PC have fucked this up? And Dalton is the bad guy and Grumpy? Bet you he has more to smile about than the perennial loser PC......................................



#43 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:53 AM

Pathetic lack of pride or any sense of propriety by Cayard who has been mostly AWOL, and now only popping up to issue a statement playing the sympathy card instead of addressing the shortcomings in their programme or the issues raised by Dalton.

The claim by some of the fanboys that AR vetoed Dalton's proposal is BS: the only reason the status quo has been maintained is because OR voted with AR...



#44 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:06 AM

Did the prick go to Simpsons funeral and donate HEAVILY both personally and from the team (i.e the owner) to the family? A simple announcement through Ben Ainslie that the family trust account is now fully funded and that they do not ever have any future financial worries would be a welcome announcement. But hey what would I know......................................



#45 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:24 AM

But hey you can buy Artemis clothing and all proceeds do to Pelle P, or his daughter eventually who is married to no other than.............PC



#46 CheekyMonkey

CheekyMonkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:26 AM

AR's campaign has been a disaster, to put it charitably, and the buildup for this AC not far behind.  Neither party can look itself in the mirror and deny that it what they see is largely responsible.

 

However, if there's anything that the past month or so has illustrated, it is that the gloves have come off, gamesmanship has turned into marksmanship and self-interest has come to the fore.

 

And not even ETNZ is exempt from this, despite what those who wear the Kiwi-colored glasses may believe.



#47 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:28 AM

Artemis Racing's skipper Paul Cayard has hit back at Emirates Team NZ's MD Grant Dalton's comments made after the Teams Meeting in San Francisco, late last week:

 

   

 

In response to comments by Emirates Team New Zealand's Managing Director Grant Dalton in a June 8, 2013 article in the New Zealand Herald, we would like to set the record straight. Dalton's proposals to change the race (start direct elimination on July 19, rather than August 6, and alter the format to eliminate the semi-finals) would certainly not help Artemis Racing, as suggested, but make it even harder for us to compete. To shorten an already tight timeline is clearly not acceptable to us, as to any team in the same position. Dalton's proposals benefit no team but his own, and his public insults are out of line and unsportsmanlike.

Artemis Racing's May 9 accident set us back immensely - on a human level and a campaign level. As competitors, though, we may be down, but we are not out. Our passion for the America's Cup remains strong. We are committed again to competing. Anyone who knows our sailors knows that our team will not shy away from a tough challenge. We are doing our best to recover and our target is to be ready for racing in the Louis Vuitton Cup's semi-finals on August 6, if not earlier. In the meantime, the race schedule should remain unchanged and the derogatory analogies should be left on the dock.


The original race schedule had the three teams sailing a Round Robin consisting of seven rounds (21 races) in total with the winner having the option to advance through to the Finals, or participating in the Semi-Finals, presumably with the third placed boat.

After the capsize and death of Artemis Racing crew man, Andrew Simpson (GBR), the recommendation was made to reduce the Round Robin phase of the Challenger Selection series to five rounds, or 15 races.

Luna Rossa and Emirates Team NZ, in a concession to Artemis Racing's dilemma, to delay the start of the Round Robin Series to July 19. This was not acceptable to Artemis Racing, who would only agree to a full series being run, with one extra reserve day being added, bringing the series down to the agreed 15 races (Five rounds). But then Artemis Racing then announced that they would default most of the races in the Round Robin, and would instead seriously race only in the Semi-Finals phase of the CSS or Louis Vuitton Cup.

 

 

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....

 

Actually, I doubt the will make the semis as I doubt they will have their boat ready to sail.

Even if they do, goodness knows if it will survive the 5 (?) races it will take to eliminate them.

i kind of agree, but read their own statement (highlighted in red). Is there something in the rules about the CoR not having to do the RR?

 

 

But, can you name the last time their best was actually good enough?

There is ready and there is "ready". Sure, they might be able to sail the boat, but how fast and how safe?



#48 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:33 AM

What part of the fact that AR will not be either available or viable do you wankers not get?



#49 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:50 AM

What part of the fact that AR will not be either available or viable do you wankers not get?

 

Well, aside from the wankers part I agree wholeheartedly with you.

I've been saying since about October that AR were not going to be upto it and it still hasn't sunken in.

However, not even I thought they would screw the pooch this badly.

 

By continuing, I personally think PC's intent to continue is purely an attempt to save his career.



#50 tomtom

tomtom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:09 AM

It is very funny that no-one actually blames the protocol that put in a bunch of completely useless and pointless races at the start of the LV in a blatant attempt by OR to blow up the event into something resembling a substantial sports event, other than 3 boats racing. Let's face it, with the race time of 30 minutes, they could run the whole LV round robins, semi and finals in 1 to 2 days, not stretch it out over 2 months.

 

Let's also face it, if the accident hadn't happened, and if AR was happily sailing their blue boat around and LR or ETNZ had a major wing failure now, they would have (and will) opt(ed) out of the pointless pre-races as well. And it could well still happen, these races might not occur at all.

 

I would not be surprised if ETNZ and LR agreed to run some comparative "training" runs during 1 or 2 of these  pre-races and then not turn up any more, once they both know what is going on and what they need to improve. It is not a game.

 

And it is also within ARs rights to take full advantage of the protocol that all signed up to that allows EVERY team to not turn up until the semis, and to block any change that shortens their time to prepare. It is not their protocol and I am sure that if they did not have these problems, they would also not be too chuffed about having to risk their boat in pointless punts on the pond, just like ETNZ and LR. 

 

To blame them for that attitude is just sour grapes, and either piss poor sportsmanship or misfired gamesmanship.



#51 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:12 AM

On the basis of the catastrophic failures of his team so far PC has been in charge of and his inglorious AC record the guy has now reached new lows. No problem though because if he thinks he can make it to the AC final for the second time in his illustrious and wanton abuse of money, then he really is a fuckwit.

Agree, Cayard has stooped to his lowest point of his mediocre career with this Bollox. How about Design, implement, test, modify, test again and win straight up. Or the way I see him is lie, blag, whinge, make excuses, get through on technicalities, and generally be a total fuckwit. The thing is he will fail this time as he has always failed before.

How low can his AC take the sport and its credibility ??

#52 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:14 AM

Find out the reasons for the stack, keep it quiet if you want, but make sure the widow and her children are more than adequately compensated - if that is even possible...

Back of the envelope calendar:
- AR have lost exactly 1 month of sailing/prep time if everything has been shut down since the accident.
- if you count backwards for their 'new planned launch date' announced by PC as hopefully August 6, then it means that Big Blue wasn't going to hit the water until the first race. (July 6th or thereabouts).

Seriously - does anyone enter a regatta on the day you launch the boat, and expect a decent result? Let alone in the AC with a new highly experimental boat?!!

PC is acting the goose calling out anyone for their lateness - I feel sorry for the rest of the team who in their own right could have run a better campaign. The talent in the sailing and coaching, onsite builders and support crews rival any other team. Shame they were setup to fail and have to appear like they are picking up the pieces.

#53 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:16 AM

And it is also within ARs rights to take full advantage of the protocol .

Is there a thing called Dignity and Integrity in the way AR go about their business ???

#54 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:16 AM


Back of the envelope calendar:
- AR have lost exactly 1 month of sailing/prep time if everything has been shut down since the accident.
- if you count backwards for their 'new planned launch date' announced by PC as hopefully August 6, then it means that Big Blue wasn't going to hit the water until the first race. (July 6th or thereabouts).

Seriously - does anyone enter a regatta on the day you launch the boat, and expect a decent result? Let alone in the AC with a new highly experimental boat?!!

 

That's about right



#55 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:17 AM

Are you the only AR fan? Rather than crapping on about what if's and maybe's can you answer basic questions that have been asked many times about the "team". Wing failure - no reply. Tow test failure - no reply. Skipper firing - no reply. A person killed - no reply.



#56 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,623 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:20 AM

Withdrawing from the RR was always on the cards. Suppose one team found they were slow in the first few races. It would then be better to withdraw from the remaining races and work on their boat.

 

This is just a result of having a RR that doesn't eliminate anybody.

 

AR's problems mean that this has happened already, but it probably would have happened later anyway.

 

That would not necessarily have been the case as under the 'Requirement to Race' section of the Protocol it would have cost the competitor $100,000 per LV race they did not compete in. 

 

One of the safety recommendations is to remove the fines so that teams can decide whether or not race. It is that change that allows AR to not race.

 

The fair option would be for the team that comes second in the RR to carry a life into the semi while the team that comes first goes straight to the final.

 

Cayard's press release makes it plainly obvious that AR do not want to meet ETNZ in the early rounds. They obviously feel that LR are the weaker of the two and would rather race them in the semi than meet TNZ and LR in a elimination round robin.

 

TNZ/LR could decide not to sail in the 5 round robins. That would mean that all three teams could meet in the semi, which would then be a sudden death round with 2 teams going to the final. Just the thing Cayard didn't want.

 

ETNZ and LR could sail all or some of the round robins and ETNZ could ensure that LR win the series and go through to the LV final with ETNZ meeting AR in the semi. The odds would be pretty much stacked in ETNZ's favour that they would beat AR and join LR in the final.



#57 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,834 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:21 AM

The talent in the sailing and coaching, onsite builders and support crews rival any other team.

It certainly was, the question is who is left. It looks like NO is still planning to sail, assuming Artemis sails again. We don't know about IP or LP, both of whom seem to be on radio silence. Unless anyone knows otherwise?

You are however right, they've lost a month when of all the teams, they were the one already critically short of time. Continuing now seems barely rational.

#58 tomtom

tomtom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:25 AM

And it is also within ARs rights to take full advantage of the protocol .

Is there a thing called Dignity and Integrity in the way AR go about their business ???

Bollocks - dignity and integrity are part of being on this forum, but nothing doing with the AC. LE didn't win the last AC with D&I, and it wasn't defended by EB with D&I. AR have invested heavily, lost more than most and want to salvage what they can. Some would say this actually shows D&I. Remember: AR did not request a rule change, they only blocked it, it is the boats that are sailing that did. And when did any AC competitor such as ETNZ ever give up an advantage willingly "for the good of the cup"?

 

Contradicting myself, in "American Movies" there is would be stirring music, a montage of preparation (where ETNZ & LR shore crew would gallantly help out the struggling AR shore crew) and a lot of D&I on display as the underdog overcome massive adversity to turn up (and win = Disney version, gallantly hold up at the final meters to let ETNZ win = Disney puke version, crash and burn = European version ....)



#59 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:26 AM

Continuing now seems barely rational.

Egotistical is the word that springs to mind. Cayard has never been able to win on the water. I have lost any shred of respect for him left and there wasn't much left anyway.

#60 kiwi_jon

kiwi_jon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,623 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:28 AM

It is very funny that no-one actually blames the protocol that put in a bunch of completely useless and pointless races at the start of the LV in a blatant attempt by OR to blow up the event into something resembling a substantial sports event, other than 3 boats racing. Let's face it, with the race time of 30 minutes, they could run the whole LV round robins, semi and finals in 1 to 2 days, not stretch it out over 2 months.

 

Let's also face it, if the accident hadn't happened, and if AR was happily sailing their blue boat around and LR or ETNZ had a major wing failure now, they would have (and will) opt(ed) out of the pointless pre-races as well. And it could well still happen, these races might not occur at all.

 

I would not be surprised if ETNZ and LR agreed to run some comparative "training" runs during 1 or 2 of these  pre-races and then not turn up any more, once they both know what is going on and what they need to improve. It is not a game.

 

And it is also within ARs rights to take full advantage of the protocol that all signed up to that allows EVERY team to not turn up until the semis, and to block any change that shortens their time to prepare. It is not their protocol and I am sure that if they did not have these problems, they would also not be too chuffed about having to risk their boat in pointless punts on the pond, just like ETNZ and LR. 

 

To blame them for that attitude is just sour grapes, and either piss poor sportsmanship or misfired gamesmanship.

 

Up until the AR crash, the Protocol, under the Requirement to Race section, would have fined any competitor not racing in any of its scheduled races $100,000 per race.

 

It is only since the fines have been removed, as a safety recommendation, that AR can do what it is going to do.



#61 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:30 AM

ETNZ is now the only 2-boat challenger left which must be a concern for OR who will have to 2-boat test to simulate what the Challengers will be undertaking in semi-anger. The only issue which I find puzzling is why LR proposed and pushed for the elimination of the $100k fines system - unless they were planning on forfeiting some races themselves. I suspect ETNZ would have voted against it but LR's vote would have provided the majority needed to push it through.

 

Now the other shitfight brewing will be the rudder elevator changes which requires unanimous agreement.

 

This is more like the ACs of old...



#62 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Wellington
  • Interests:Sailing, AC,

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:30 AM

Bollocks - dignity and integrity are part of being on this forum, but nothing doing with the AC. LE didn't win the last AC with D&I, and it wasn't defended by EB with D&I.

Here is the actual truth of where we have got to. The whole palava has become a disgrace.

#63 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:32 AM

Started a new thread for the beloved Cayard. Lets use that



#64 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:56 AM

“The joint proposal put forth by Luna Rossa and Emirates Team New Zealand of starting the Louis Vuitton Cup later in July was done so in the hope of enhancing the event with a full muster of boats from the beginning, and therefore, placing more importance on the racing from the first race, something for which fans and sponsors are craving right now.
“Normally the challenger series of an America’s Cup is run on terms that meet the wishes of the majority of challengers,” Dalton said, in the statement. “This is not the case here with Artemis rejecting the proposal and wanting to continue running an event schedule in which, by under their own admission, they will not compete in in the early stages. Obviously it was assumed that 10 weeks after the Artemis tragedy, that having previously taken delivery of their second AC72 they would be ready to race. This is not the case.”

 

This is even more confusing now. Art 25.3 (Protocol) states that the " format of the ACCS agreed by the Challengers and the Regatta Director shall be revised by agreement of the majority of the Challengers and the Regatta Director if the format of the Match is amended."

How was AR then able to kill the ETNZ-LR proposal to change the dates of the LVCCS if it was a vote between the 3 Challengers? Or does the ambiguity in the phrasing of "majority of the Challengers AND the Regatta Director..." mean the RD's vote counts? In other words, Ian Murray voted with the poodle for the staus quo? So much for the "neutrality" and "independence of ACRM!!



#65 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:02 AM

Indie are you otherwise called Justice Gilbert



#66 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:11 AM

Indie are you otherwise called Justice Gilbert

Just trying to understand how AR could have "vetoed" (as claimed by OR fanboys) the ETNZ-LR proposal. If in fact IM's vote is valid, and he exercised it to back the poodle, then IM's neutrality and independence are seriously compromised because he voted under orders from GGYC - his employers.



#67 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:15 AM

The status quo would be fine - if the goal posts hadn't already moved.
In fact - leaving all rules as they had been agreed and published 12 months ago would be totally fair and reasonable.

Nope. This is now all about no quo in the status.

#68 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,468 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:34 AM

It would be very cool if you were otherwise called justice gilbert, there would be very few other people who could understand

Indie are you otherwise called Justice Gilbert

Just trying to understand how AR could have "vetoed" (as claimed by OR fanboys) the ETNZ-LR proposal. If in fact IM's vote is valid, and he exercised it to back the poodle, then IM's neutrality and independence are seriously compromised because he voted under orders from GGYC - his employers.



#69 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:58 AM

The most interesting thing of the LVC could be just what else Paul Cayard wont manage to fuck up?



#70 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,831 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:03 PM

This came in today (sorry, if already posted here or in another thread, I'm still catching up on 200+ unread posts)

 

 

<<June 10 2013

 

Emirates Team New Zealand managing director Grant Dalton replies to Artemis Press Release

 

“The joint proposal put forth by Luna Rossa and Emirates Team New Zealand of starting the Louis Vuitton Cup later in July was done so in the hope of enhancing the event with a full muster of boats from the beginning, and therefore, placing more importance on the racing from the first race, something for which fans and sponsors are craving right now.

 

“The weighting of points (more points later in July) was also suggested, with the idea being to get racing underway but not determine the results too early in the racing.

 

Both these proposals were rejected by Artemis racing, the Challenger of Record.

 

“Normally the challenger series of an America’s Cup is run on terms that meet the wishes of the majority of challengers,” Dalton said. “This is not the case here with Artemis rejecting the proposal and wanting to continue running an event schedule in which, by under their own admission, they will not compete in in the early stages.

 

“Obviously it was assumed that 10 weeks after the Artemis tragedy, that having previously taken delivery of their second AC72 they would be ready to race.

This is not the case.”>>



#71 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts
  • Location:i'm loving it
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:11 PM

^^^ seems like GD and LR were being reasonable not putting AR to the vote that they would normally have lost?

what do AR have to complain about? GD and LR could have voted them out of the CSS.



#72 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,831 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:00 PM

WTF is Cayard on about? So GD and Luna Rossa offered to give AR more time to sort out their boat and thats unsportsmanlike? How is that unsportsmanlike?

The only thing unsportsmanlike is the fact that Paul Cayard wants the other 2 teams to have to race each other and risk their own calamity while he and his team can sit on the dock, without getting fined and work on their boat so they can sneak in the back door into the semi finals.

 

In essence, all he is saying is "we're not going to show up, but you guys will have to, and if you crash, we'll take your place in the semi's" Because Im Paul Cayard, and thats how i roll"

 

Honest question: The LVC format has been changed before with the reduction from 7 (?) to 5 rounds to accommodate AR's need for more time and provide more safety. So, it is not the original schedule anymore anyway.

Now ETNZ comes along and proposes to reduce the number of races even more, which would give AR even more time, and this is somehow vicious?

 

What have I missed?



#73 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:01 PM

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....

 

Actually, I doubt the will make the semis as I doubt they will have their boat ready to sail.

Even if they do, goodness knows if it will survive the 5 (?) races it will take to eliminate them.

 

Come on.  First of all, it is not as though they have not been sailing an AC72 at all.  Yes, they have not been foiling one, but they have been sailing one.  The new boat will be much better than the one they had.  And, if the indications from AR on their foiling AC45 have anything to show for anything, then they very likely will be able to go around a course with a foiling AC72, leaning on their experience with the Red boat, and their foiling 45.  Will they be hobby-horsing around?  Quite possibly.  But the idea that they won't be able even race or survive with 23knt wind limits is a bit of an over-statement.  You have generally been a voice of reason, but over the past week, you have started sounding more and more like the shit-slingers.



#74 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:14 PM

 

 

 

AR are going to get completely fucked over in the LVC as you would expect from a team that has been nothing short of calamitous all along.

 

So why have you waited this long to express your opinion ? :)

 

SWS, are you seriously still holding onto the idea that AR might be competitive?

Or are you just trying to be dogmatic?

 

Its been plainly obvious since last year that this team were never going to be competitive and yet you still persist.

 

They haven't made the start line and should therefore do the right thing and drop out.

 

If they hit another boat or have their own boat implode again causing injury or death, I suppose you will espouse their right to compete?

 

Not sure I spoke to their ability to be competitive, but I believe they have the right to compete.

 

Is Grumpy really that concerned, or just pissed about the veto authority given to the CoR ? 

 

If he's so concerned about "man and machine" why did he so vehemently protest lowered wind limits ? 

 

A bit of an inconsistency in his rhetoric, eh ? How do you rationalize this ?

He protested the wind limits because they had designed a boat to the protocol written when the boats were first announced. Which was set at 33 knots being the top end limit, which means you would had to have designed a boat to survive 33 knots of wind and big waves - which is what they've done. Altering those wind limits has left them with a stronger, and therefor heavier design. He offered Artemis more time because they need it, and then Cayard turns around and calls him unsportsmanlike for doing that. I suppose if you have veto powers you can use them no questions asked and everyone else can go to hell.

I hope Artemis gets absolutely embarrased by ETNZ and Luna Rossa.

 

First of all, wasn't it LR that asked for the lowered wind limits and elimination of the big fines for missing races, but GD has been acting like it was all AR, and favors being done for AR.  I have yet to hear where AR has asked for lowered wind limits or even the elimination of the fines (maybe they did, but I had not heard about it before the Italians did), but AR is absolutely pleased to be able to take advantage of them, which I would think we can all appreciate.  Before AR ever said anything about GD, I had said several times that GD should keep it zipped about them other than opposing any rule changes he does not like.  I understand AR's reaction, but I also think AR should have probably kept it zipped.



#75 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:19 PM

It is very funny that no-one actually blames the protocol that put in a bunch of completely useless and pointless races at the start of the LV in a blatant attempt by OR to blow up the event into something resembling a substantial sports event, other than 3 boats racing. Let's face it, with the race time of 30 minutes, they could run the whole LV round robins, semi and finals in 1 to 2 days, not stretch it out over 2 months.

 

Let's also face it, if the accident hadn't happened, and if AR was happily sailing their blue boat around and LR or ETNZ had a major wing failure now, they would have (and will) opt(ed) out of the pointless pre-races as well. And it could well still happen, these races might not occur at all.

 

I would not be surprised if ETNZ and LR agreed to run some comparative "training" runs during 1 or 2 of these  pre-races and then not turn up any more, once they both know what is going on and what they need to improve. It is not a game.

 

And it is also within ARs rights to take full advantage of the protocol that all signed up to that allows EVERY team to not turn up until the semis, and to block any change that shortens their time to prepare. It is not their protocol and I am sure that if they did not have these problems, they would also not be too chuffed about having to risk their boat in pointless punts on the pond, just like ETNZ and LR. 

 

To blame them for that attitude is just sour grapes, and either piss poor sportsmanship or misfired gamesmanship.

 

Up until the AR crash, the Protocol, under the Requirement to Race section, would have fined any competitor not racing in any of its scheduled races $100,000 per race.

 

It is only since the fines have been removed, as a safety recommendation, that AR can do what it is going to do.

 

And who was it that lobbied for those changes???  Had it just been LR that benefited, somehow I don't think you guys would be so frothed up about it.



#76 Mariner

Mariner

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,513 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 11 June 2013 - 05:47 PM

 Agreed... if AR were serious about getting back in this they'd be sailing the new boat by now and not asking for concessions. Every team is in this to win and thats the way it should be. I have no problem with Dalton's issues and comments. TNZ has waayyy too much at stake.

 

WTF is Cayard on about? So GD and Luna Rossa offered to give AR more time to sort out their boat and thats unsportsmanlike? How is that unsportsmanlike?

The only thing unsportsmanlike is the fact that Paul Cayard wants the other 2 teams to have to race each other and risk their own calamity while he and his team can sit on the dock, without getting fined and work on their boat so they can sneak in the back door into the semi finals.

 

In essence, all he is saying is "we're not going to show up, but you guys will have to, and if you crash, we'll take your place in the semi's" Because Im Paul Cayard, and thats how i roll"

 

Honest question: The LVC format has been changed before with the reduction from 7 (?) to 5 rounds to accommodate AR's need for more time and provide more safety. So, it is not the original schedule anymore anyway.

Now ETNZ comes along and proposes to reduce the number of races even more, which would give AR even more time, and this is somehow vicious?

 

What have I missed?



#77 yar

yar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:sailing - rigging - deliveries - bay and ocean racing/cruising - navigation - astronomy

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:09 PM

^^^^

 

 

What have I missed?

 

-------------------------------


"My Boat...?!
 
 
 
_______________________________
 
 
cute


#78 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,831 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 06:11 PM

^^^^

 

 

What have I missed?

 

-------------------------------


"My Boat...?!
 
 
 
_______________________________
 
 
cute

 

Hehe, funny!



#79 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,268 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:30 PM

As was mentioned earlier by Greg and others , If GD's BFF LR had not opened the door of " no fines " AR would not have had the opportunity to walk through it .

 

If LR center punching ET in the last ac45 regatta wasn't apparent enough that the honeymoon is over, this sure is .



#80 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:50 PM

 

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....

 

Actually, I doubt the will make the semis as I doubt they will have their boat ready to sail.

Even if they do, goodness knows if it will survive the 5 (?) races it will take to eliminate them.

 

Come on.  First of all, it is not as though they have not been sailing an AC72 at all.  Yes, they have not been foiling one, but they have been sailing one.  The new boat will be much better than the one they had.  And, if the indications from AR on their foiling AC45 have anything to show for anything, then they very likely will be able to go around a course with a foiling AC72, leaning on their experience with the Red boat, and their foiling 45.  Will they be hobby-horsing around?  Quite possibly.  But the idea that they won't be able even race or survive with 23knt wind limits is a bit of an over-statement.  You have generally been a voice of reason, but over the past week, you have started sounding more and more like the shit-slingers.

 

This is not shit slinging, just looking at the facts and calling it how I see it.

There seems to be a strong aversion to the truth after Andrew Simpson died and I can see another disaster coming if some sort of reality check isn't taken.

 

The reality is that the big ticket items on boat 2 were largely finished by the time they decided to go the foiling route and were well and truly finished by the time of the accident. That means that they are taking a non-foiling hull body and forcing it to foil, which will involve different loads than it was designed for.

 

Their previous boat disintegrated in less than 23 knots, so this hardly bodes well for boat 2.

 

Factor into the mix that AR have not really put a single foot right in the whole campaign and we have a recipe for more disaster.

 

I have been predicting since last year that they would struggle to be competitive based on all the SNAFUs that they have suffered, but others on this forum have cried me down by saying they can still come out and win this thing.

 

Even now, some on this board are suggesting that ETNZ's motivation for getting rid of AR is to do with being scared of the competition.

Pardon the expression, but what utter bollocks.

 

All I am doing to being realistic about the situation and I wish others would do the same.

AR just shouldn't be there any more.



#81 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:54 PM

As was mentioned earlier by Greg and others , If GD's BFF LR had not opened the door of " no fines " AR would not have had the opportunity to walk through it .

 

If LR center punching ET in the last ac45 regatta wasn't apparent enough that the honeymoon is over, this sure is .

 

And yet, the current Artemis haters all completely ignore that issue. 

 

Had ETNZ and LR both been consistent with the position that they would not change the rules, then I would be fine with AR being stuck with the original protocol & CSS rules.  There is a reason that the teams may want to accommodate AR, to have a bigger event, which could certainly benefit the other teams, particularly if AR is not a serious threat to beating them out to challenge OR.  But if ETNZ and LR want to hold AR to the original rules, then I believe they should be able to do so, siting that they have followed the rules.  But THEY opened the door (namely LR) to the changes.  I find it pretty damned hypocritical to be haranguing against AR, and ignoring LR's role.  If GD wants to contest the rule changes, he may want to not limit his criticisms to AR, and ETNZ's fans may also want to be consistent and recognize where the proposals have come from.



#82 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:55 PM

As was mentioned earlier by Greg and others , If GD's BFF LR had not opened the door of " no fines " AR would not have had the opportunity to walk through it .

 

If LR center punching ET in the last ac45 regatta wasn't apparent enough that the honeymoon is over, this sure is .

 

Personally I don't think LR T-Boning ETNZ in Naples (?) is a sign of any cooling, but rather a natural sign that both teams are highly competitive in nature.

 

For anyone that has played a friendly game of Rugby (or similar contact sport for our American friends - NFL I think?), you will know that you can go out there and tackle and pound the living daylights out of your best mate without hesitation. But once you come off the field, normal service resumes.



#83 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 07:58 PM

And yet, the current Artemis haters all completely ignore that issue. 

 

Had ETNZ and LR both been consistent with the position that they would not change the rules, then I would be fine with AR being stuck with the original protocol & CSS rules.  There is a reason that the teams may want to accommodate AR, to have a bigger event, which could certainly benefit the other teams, particularly if AR is not a serious threat to beating them out to challenge OR.  But if ETNZ and LR want to hold AR to the original rules, then I believe they should be able to do so, siting that they have followed the rules.  But THEY opened the door (namely LR) to the changes.  I find it pretty damned hypocritical to be haranguing against AR, and ignoring LR's role.  If GD wants to contest the rule changes, he may want to not limit his criticisms to AR, and ETNZ's fans may also want to be consistent and recognize where the proposals have come from.

 

I agree with your statement about LR.

Straight after that statement I posted here that Bertelli needed to "grow a pair".

 

From what precious little information I have access to, it would seem that trying to force the other teams to stick to the original rules is a losing battle for ETNZ because of the death that occured.



#84 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:06 PM

As was mentioned earlier by Greg and others , If GD's BFF LR had not opened the door of " no fines " AR would not have had the opportunity to walk through it .

 

If LR center punching ET in the last ac45 regatta wasn't apparent enough that the honeymoon is over, this sure is .

 

And yet, the current Artemis haters all completely ignore that issue. 

 

Had ETNZ and LR both been consistent with the position that they would not change the rules, then I would be fine with AR being stuck with the original protocol & CSS rules.  There is a reason that the teams may want to accommodate AR, to have a bigger event, which could certainly benefit the other teams, particularly if AR is not a serious threat to beating them out to challenge OR.  But if ETNZ and LR want to hold AR to the original rules, then I believe they should be able to do so, siting that they have followed the rules.  But THEY opened the door (namely LR) to the changes.  I find it pretty damned hypocritical to be haranguing against AR, and ignoring LR's role.  If GD wants to contest the rule changes, he may want to not limit his criticisms to AR, and ETNZ's fans may also want to be consistent and recognize where the proposals have come from.

FFS, grow some brain cells for a fucking change. It's fashionable to pick on AR, but the reality is they didn't block the ETNZ-LR proposal all on their own: Ian Murray's "NEUTRAL and INDEPENDENT" vote with AR did!! CoR or not, AR have no veto on anyfuckingthing: they have a vote like every other competitor. Ian Murray's vote allowed the status quo to remain...



#85 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:18 PM

 

 

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....

 

Actually, I doubt the will make the semis as I doubt they will have their boat ready to sail.

Even if they do, goodness knows if it will survive the 5 (?) races it will take to eliminate them.

 

Come on.  First of all, it is not as though they have not been sailing an AC72 at all.  Yes, they have not been foiling one, but they have been sailing one.  The new boat will be much better than the one they had.  And, if the indications from AR on their foiling AC45 have anything to show for anything, then they very likely will be able to go around a course with a foiling AC72, leaning on their experience with the Red boat, and their foiling 45.  Will they be hobby-horsing around?  Quite possibly.  But the idea that they won't be able even race or survive with 23knt wind limits is a bit of an over-statement.  You have generally been a voice of reason, but over the past week, you have started sounding more and more like the shit-slingers.

 

This is not shit slinging, just looking at the facts and calling it how I see it.

There seems to be a strong aversion to the truth after Andrew Simpson died and I can see another disaster coming if some sort of reality check isn't taken.

 

The reality is that the big ticket items on boat 2 were largely finished by the time they decided to go the foiling route and were well and truly finished by the time of the accident. That means that they are taking a non-foiling hull body and forcing it to foil, which will involve different loads than it was designed for.

 

Their previous boat disintegrated in less than 23 knots, so this hardly bodes well for boat 2.

 

Factor into the mix that AR have not really put a single foot right in the whole campaign and we have a recipe for more disaster.

 

I have been predicting since last year that they would struggle to be competitive based on all the SNAFUs that they have suffered, but others on this forum have cried me down by saying they can still come out and win this thing.

 

Even now, some on this board are suggesting that ETNZ's motivation for getting rid of AR is to do with being scared of the competition.

Pardon the expression, but what utter bollocks.

 

All I am doing to being realistic about the situation and I wish others would do the same.

AR just shouldn't be there any more.

 

No, you are not being "realistic", you are projecting a pessimistic outcome.

 

First of all, AR's Boat 1 was all designed and built before it was realized that foiling was the route to go.  Revelation 1, before AR's boat 2 was built, is that foiling would be playing a role in AC34.  Boat 2 was absolutely NOT complete before foiling was determined to be not only feasible, but fast.  Revelation 2 occurred prior to the build (and I'm sure final design) of Boat 2, which was the cracking of the front beam on Boat 1, last summer. 

 

Do you honestly believe that AR's designers, as admittedly errant as they were (apparently), wouldn't at the least make changes to the beam design after the first broke without even being stressed under sail, if not entirely re-design for foiling after those two revelations, above???  I think that it would be beyond absurdity to believe that they had not made any significant changes to designs but rather , hardly "realistic".  But either way, you and I don't know, and so, it is not being "realistic" to assume Boat 2 won't be worth a damn, or that they won't be able to sail her.  What we do know is they have a great helm in NO who knows how to foil as well as anyone, that they knew about foiling LONG before Boat 2 was even started, AND they knew they had problems with the beam on Boat 1 before Boat 2 was started.  I would tend to believe they would make more than just superficial changes under those conditions.

 

You keep saying AR will absolutely, unequivocally suck.  So, there is no reason ETNZ should be afraid of them.  Why not simply hold on to all the harsh criticism and call for them to suspend their challenge until you see Boat 2 hit the water and see how they do?  Hey, don't we all want to see one more AC72 launched, anyway?  I would HATE to have the AC72 class go away and never get to see Big Blue hit the water.  If they can't control her under sail, THEN everyone can call for them to abstain.  Otherwise, LR opened the door for them to stay with the call for lower wind limits and removal of the fines.



#86 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,193 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:22 PM

 

As was mentioned earlier by Greg and others , If GD's BFF LR had not opened the door of " no fines " AR would not have had the opportunity to walk through it .

 

If LR center punching ET in the last ac45 regatta wasn't apparent enough that the honeymoon is over, this sure is .

 

And yet, the current Artemis haters all completely ignore that issue. 

 

Had ETNZ and LR both been consistent with the position that they would not change the rules, then I would be fine with AR being stuck with the original protocol & CSS rules.  There is a reason that the teams may want to accommodate AR, to have a bigger event, which could certainly benefit the other teams, particularly if AR is not a serious threat to beating them out to challenge OR.  But if ETNZ and LR want to hold AR to the original rules, then I believe they should be able to do so, siting that they have followed the rules.  But THEY opened the door (namely LR) to the changes.  I find it pretty damned hypocritical to be haranguing against AR, and ignoring LR's role.  If GD wants to contest the rule changes, he may want to not limit his criticisms to AR, and ETNZ's fans may also want to be consistent and recognize where the proposals have come from.

FFS, grow some brain cells for a fucking change. It's fashionable to pick on AR, but the reality is they didn't block the ETNZ-LR proposal all on their own: Ian Murray's "NEUTRAL and INDEPENDENT" vote with AR did!! CoR or not, AR have no veto on anyfuckingthing: they have a vote like every other competitor. Ian Murray's vote allowed the status quo to remain...

You claim that RD has a 'vote' and used it, and that it prevented ETNZ and LR from achieving a majority that would have forced a change creating an elimination series starting July 19 (effectively killing any chance for AR). From the above AR statement: (start direct elimination on July 19, rather than August 6, and alter the format to eliminate the semi-finals) And you are arguing IM should not have any role, that the clause's "by majority vote of the challengers and the regatta director" should instead read "by majority vote of the challengers" only.

 

Let's assume that were all true, or does get ruled so by the IJ. Here's my question:

 

By your argument, is it any stretch that ETNZ and LR could vote to simply exclude from any further participation any team starting with 'A'? Because all that matters is 'majority rules'?

 

 

edit: the exact clause: 'The format of the ACCS agreed by the Challengers and the Regatta Director shall be revised by agreement of the majority of the Challengers and Regatta Director'



#87 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:24 PM

 

 

 

At least we know of one contender of the semifinals;  AR, for having won no other races and not being ready to race at race start. 

 

I am not sure what the unsportmanslikeship is about....

 

Actually, I doubt the will make the semis as I doubt they will have their boat ready to sail.

Even if they do, goodness knows if it will survive the 5 (?) races it will take to eliminate them.

 

Come on.  First of all, it is not as though they have not been sailing an AC72 at all.  Yes, they have not been foiling one, but they have been sailing one.  The new boat will be much better than the one they had.  And, if the indications from AR on their foiling AC45 have anything to show for anything, then they very likely will be able to go around a course with a foiling AC72, leaning on their experience with the Red boat, and their foiling 45.  Will they be hobby-horsing around?  Quite possibly.  But the idea that they won't be able even race or survive with 23knt wind limits is a bit of an over-statement.  You have generally been a voice of reason, but over the past week, you have started sounding more and more like the shit-slingers.

 

This is not shit slinging, just looking at the facts and calling it how I see it.

There seems to be a strong aversion to the truth after Andrew Simpson died and I can see another disaster coming if some sort of reality check isn't taken.

 

The reality is that the big ticket items on boat 2 were largely finished by the time they decided to go the foiling route and were well and truly finished by the time of the accident. That means that they are taking a non-foiling hull body and forcing it to foil, which will involve different loads than it was designed for.

 

Their previous boat disintegrated in less than 23 knots, so this hardly bodes well for boat 2.

 

Factor into the mix that AR have not really put a single foot right in the whole campaign and we have a recipe for more disaster.

 

I have been predicting since last year that they would struggle to be competitive based on all the SNAFUs that they have suffered, but others on this forum have cried me down by saying they can still come out and win this thing.

 

Even now, some on this board are suggesting that ETNZ's motivation for getting rid of AR is to do with being scared of the competition.

Pardon the expression, but what utter bollocks.

 

All I am doing to being realistic about the situation and I wish others would do the same.

AR just shouldn't be there any more.

 

No, you are not being "realistic", you are projecting a pessimistic outcome.

 

First of all, AR's Boat 1 was all designed and built before it was realized that foiling was the route to go.  Revelation 1, before AR's boat 2 was built, is that foiling would be playing a role in AC34.  Boat 2 was absolutely NOT complete before foiling was determined to be not only feasible, but fast.  Revelation 2 occurred prior to the build (and I'm sure final design) of Boat 2, which was the cracking of the front beam on Boat 1, last summer. 

 

Do you honestly believe that AR's designers, as admittedly errant as they were (apparently), wouldn't at the least make changes to the beam design after the first broke without even being stressed under sail, if not entirely re-design for foiling after those two revelations, above???  I think that it would be beyond absurdity to believe that they had not made any significant changes to designs but rather , hardly "realistic".  But either way, you and I don't know, and so, it is not being "realistic" to assume Boat 2 won't be worth a damn, or that they won't be able to sail her.  What we do know is they have a great helm in NO who knows how to foil as well as anyone, that they knew about foiling LONG before Boat 2 was even started, AND they knew they had problems with the beam on Boat 1 before Boat 2 was started.  I would tend to believe they would make more than just superficial changes under those conditions.

 

You keep saying AR will absolutely, unequivocally suck.  So, there is no reason ETNZ should be afraid of them.  Why not simply hold on to all the harsh criticism and call for them to suspend their challenge until you see Boat 2 hit the water and see how they do?  Hey, don't we all want to see one more AC72 launched, anyway?  I would HATE to have the AC72 class go away and never get to see Big Blue hit the water.  If they can't control her under sail, THEN everyone can call for them to abstain.  Otherwise, LR opened the door for them to stay with the call for lower wind limits and removal of the fines.

 

Gaucho, my biggest problems with AR now are:

 

1) Their failure has brought about wholesale changes to the original rules, and

2) I don't have any faith in their ability to run a safe campaign.

 

So based on that, then I would rather not see another '72 launched.

I particularly don't want to be in a position of being proven correct by another fatality.



#88 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,764 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:28 PM

And yet, the current Artemis haters all completely ignore that issue. 

 

Had ETNZ and LR both been consistent with the position that they would not change the rules, then I would be fine with AR being stuck with the original protocol & CSS rules.  There is a reason that the teams may want to accommodate AR, to have a bigger event, which could certainly benefit the other teams, particularly if AR is not a serious threat to beating them out to challenge OR.  But if ETNZ and LR want to hold AR to the original rules, then I believe they should be able to do so, siting that they have followed the rules.  But THEY opened the door (namely LR) to the changes.  I find it pretty damned hypocritical to be haranguing against AR, and ignoring LR's role.  If GD wants to contest the rule changes, he may want to not limit his criticisms to AR, and ETNZ's fans may also want to be consistent and recognize where the proposals have come from.

 

I agree with your statement about LR.

Straight after that statement I posted here that Bertelli needed to "grow a pair".

 

From what precious little information I have access to, it would seem that trying to force the other teams to stick to the original rules is a losing battle for ETNZ because of the death that occured.

 

And HERE lies the truth.  You can piss into the wind all you want, but you just get piss all over yourself. 

 

There is more, IMO, to be gained for the teams to make reasonable accommodations for AR then there is to try and shoulder them out.  First, I think, long term, it will be easier to attract other commercial sponsors for ALL teams if AR can come back from their tragedy and at least compete.  Commercial sponsors are not going to be as excited about jumping into the AC game if they see a death and a team completely fold, even if they do change the boats.  So, in that way, I believe ETNZ may be able to benefit as much as anyone.  Second, this public interest in this event will be dramatically improved if the team that had suffered such a tragedy is able to come back and compete.  Hell, talk about a big "human interest story", which is one thing that this AC has lacked thus far.  I hope I don't sound to cold/callous in saying that.  But people will be interested to see how AR can do coming back from this tragedy, and will likely follow the AC more.  No matter who wins the Louis Vuitton, and eventually the AC, they will benefit from having more people interested in the AC.  And because ETNZ would seem to have such a huge lead over the other teams, AND they have two boats, they would likely be in a great position to not worry about any threat (whether it be getting beat by them, or having their boat damaged by errant AR boat handling) from AR. With the new wind limits, I simply don't see where the other teams have much to worry about from AR, but I do believe they have a lot to benefit from having AR in the game.



#89 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,716 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:31 PM

FS, grow some brain cells for a fucking change. It's fashionable to pick on AR, but the reality is they didn't block the ETNZ-LR proposal all on their own: Ian Murray's "NEUTRAL and INDEPENDENT" vote with AR did!! CoR or not, AR have no veto on anyfuckingthing: they have a vote like every other competitor. Ian Murray's vote allowed the status quo to remain...

You claim that RD has a 'vote' and used it, and that it prevented ETNZ and LR from achieving a majority that would have forced a change creating an elimination series starting July 19 (effectively killing any chance for AR). From the above AR statement: (start direct elimination on July 19, rather than August 6, and alter the format to eliminate the semi-finals) And you are arguing IM should not have any role, that the clause's "by majority vote of the challengers and the regatta director" should instead read "by majority vote of the challengers" only.

 

Let's assume that were all true, or does get ruled so by the IJ. Here's my question:

 

By your argument, is it any stretch that ETNZ and LR could vote to simply exclude from any further participation any team starting with 'A'? Because all that matters is 'majority rules'?

Yes.

Next question: should the defender's employee have a vote in the Challengers Selection Series?

Absofuckinglutely not!



#90 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,193 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:34 PM

Let's assume that were all true, or does get ruled so by the IJ. Here's my question:

 

By your argument, is it any stretch that ETNZ and LR could vote to simply exclude from any further participation any team starting with 'A'? Because all that matters is 'majority rules'?

Yes.

Next question: should the defender's employee have a vote in the Challengers Selection Series?

Absofuckinglutely not!

Yes, what?

 

Yes, it ~is~ a stretch? If so, then where is the delineation between stretching and not stretching?

or

Yes, "ETNZ and LR could vote to simply exclude from any further participation any team starting with 'A' " ? If so, then where is the line? GD already offered one proposal that would have meant the certain elimination of AR, why not go the extra step and just make it even more direct?



#91 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:06 PM

 

Gaucho this is a competition I see no reason why any challenger/competitor should make any reasonable accommodations for AR.

In essence what makes them different from any other team?

 

I'm not interested in how AR come back from their current position, the bitter truth is that every decision that they have made since day 1 in the lead up to this campaign has put them where they find themselves now. As tragic as that is. 

 

I think it's time that AR retire from the AC, not because I don't wish to see them in the competition, far from it.

However we now getting towards the ridiculous end, a challenger asking for more build/development time, legal action on the horizon, ticket money being handed back, an RR series being non-contested or being a simple training exercise. This will make it extremely difficult for the next cycle of the AC and raising sponsorship money for sailing in general.

 

This well short of the 14 teams and electrifying RR series that sold to media and fans alike.

 

Perhaps you could answer this question - in the next Volvo Ocean Race if 1 team asks that the start be delayed for a month so they can get more built/development/training time should the start be delayed to allow them to catch-up, despite all other competitors being race ready?

 

Dangerous precedent no?     



#92 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,193 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:19 PM

AR is lucky that by the rules, given the number of Challengers they get until August if they need.

But like it or not, those are the rules - and for all 3 of them.

LR might choose to spend July modding and or training and avoid ETNZ altogether, and also race for the first time in the SF. Why should LR give ETNZ a read on their performance earlier than necessary?

#93 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:24 PM

^

Even if we ignore the farcical aspects of what is unfolding before us, there has to be consideration as to what happens if AR DOES turn up.

Can they even race safely? Will someone else be seriously injured or killed?



#94 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:27 PM

^

Even if we ignore the farcical aspects of what is unfolding before us, there has to be consideration as to what happens if AR DOES turn up.

Can they even race safely? Will someone else be seriously injured or killed?

 

This is something I have been thinking as well.

If on the race course AR again explodes and takes out LR or TNZ - then what?



#95 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:43 PM

From 1995:

 

SAILING : Australian sinking makes waves

Stuart Alexander - The Independent - Tuesday March 7, 1995

 

"The inquest into why John Bertrand's Australian challenger for the America's Cup became the first boat to sink in the 144-year history of the competition was raging in San Diego yesterday.......

 

........Bertrand is keen to salvage whatever he can from the disaster, and contacted the Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating to bring whatever influence he could on the US Navy, which has a major base in San Diego. Bertrand wants to investigate the possibility of rescuing the $500,000 mast and the sails. However Russell Bowler, a leading designer, estimated that the rate at which the yacht was sinking could be up to 15mph and that the impact would lead to disintegration.

The French completed a bad 24 hours for Bertrand by successfully objecting to his request for a day off yesterday to prepare his back-up boat for their scheduled race. Harry Cudmore, the French syndicate advisor, said: "John understood that if he takes risks he may have to pay the price."

 

I was looking for a precedence in the AC from 1995 and found the above. I guess one day and one race was not as big a deal as we have here, but no mercy was given. JB eventually raced the Kiwi's in the LV finals anyway.

 

I still do not think GD should pound on AR in this instance, it is not a situation where their boat was late from the builder, or they crashed into another boat, seawall, dock or something, it was a catastrophic failure that resulted in a death. I am sure that even if they wanted to AR could not do anything for a period of time until certain investigations were completed. (and are probably still on-going)

 

So, I can give GD some slack at being frustrated on how things are going, but ragging on AR is not the answer.



#96 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 10:56 PM

From 1995:

 

SAILING : Australian sinking makes waves

Stuart Alexander - The Independent - Tuesday March 7, 1995

 

"The inquest into why John Bertrand's Australian challenger for the America's Cup became the first boat to sink in the 144-year history of the competition was raging in San Diego yesterday.......

 

........Bertrand is keen to salvage whatever he can from the disaster, and contacted the Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating to bring whatever influence he could on the US Navy, which has a major base in San Diego. Bertrand wants to investigate the possibility of rescuing the $500,000 mast and the sails. However Russell Bowler, a leading designer, estimated that the rate at which the yacht was sinking could be up to 15mph and that the impact would lead to disintegration.

The French completed a bad 24 hours for Bertrand by successfully objecting to his request for a day off yesterday to prepare his back-up boat for their scheduled race. Harry Cudmore, the French syndicate advisor, said: "John understood that if he takes risks he may have to pay the price."

 

I was looking for a precedence in the AC from 1995 and found the above. I guess one day and one race was not as big a deal as we have here, but no mercy was given. JB eventually raced the Kiwi's in the LV finals anyway.

 

I still do not think GD should pound on AR in this instance, it is not a situation where their boat was late from the builder, or they crashed into another boat, seawall, dock or something, it was a catastrophic failure that resulted in a death. I am sure that even if they wanted to AR could not do anything for a period of time until certain investigations were completed. (and are probably still on-going)

 

So, I can give GD some slack at being frustrated on how things are going, but ragging on AR is not the answer.

 

I remember quite clearly AUS35 turning into a submarine and felt like many others that a couple of days break to prepare boat 1 was reasonable.

I also thought their request for an increase in allowable sails (up from 30 IIRC) was reasonable and was a little ticked off Dickson objected to this.

 

However, these were minor considerations that were actually rejected in the end.

The complete implosion of AR before it even races a single race has resulted in wholesale changes.

 

As far as I am concerned, the original rules were the rules and beyond a few minor accomodations they should stand.

 

What annoys me the most is that the team that has the least possibility of being competitive is having the biggest (negative) impact on the regatta.

Its time for them to withdraw.



#97 jc172528

jc172528

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,007 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:02 PM

I was looking for a precedence in the AC from 1995 and found the above. I guess one day and one race was not as big a deal as we have here, but no mercy was given. JB eventually raced the Kiwi's in the LV finals anyway.

 

Pretty sure they made race 1, RR 1, yes? (and had a reserve boat).



#98 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,240 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:03 PM

From 1995:

 

SAILING : Australian sinking makes waves

Stuart Alexander - The Independent - Tuesday March 7, 1995

 

"The inquest into why John Bertrand's Australian challenger for the America's Cup became the first boat to sink in the 144-year history of the competition was raging in San Diego yesterday.......

 

........Bertrand is keen to salvage whatever he can from the disaster, and contacted the Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating to bring whatever influence he could on the US Navy, which has a major base in San Diego. Bertrand wants to investigate the possibility of rescuing the $500,000 mast and the sails. However Russell Bowler, a leading designer, estimated that the rate at which the yacht was sinking could be up to 15mph and that the impact would lead to disintegration.

The French completed a bad 24 hours for Bertrand by successfully objecting to his request for a day off yesterday to prepare his back-up boat for their scheduled race. Harry Cudmore, the French syndicate advisor, said: "John understood that if he takes risks he may have to pay the price."

 

I was looking for a precedence in the AC from 1995 and found the above. I guess one day and one race was not as big a deal as we have here, but no mercy was given. JB eventually raced the Kiwi's in the LV finals anyway.

 

I still do not think GD should pound on AR in this instance, it is not a situation where their boat was late from the builder, or they crashed into another boat, seawall, dock or something, it was a catastrophic failure that resulted in a death. I am sure that even if they wanted to AR could not do anything for a period of time until certain investigations were completed. (and are probably still on-going)

 

So, I can give GD some slack at being frustrated on how things are going, but ragging on AR is not the answer.

 

I remember quite clearly AUS35 turning into a submarine and felt like many others that a couple of days break to prepare boat 1 was reasonable.

I also thought their request for an increase in allowable sails (up from 30 IIRC) was reasonable and was a little ticked off Dickson objected to this.

 

However, these were minor considerations that were actually rejected in the end.

The complete implosion of AR before it even races a single race has resulted in wholesale changes.

 

As far as I am concerned, the original rules were the rules and beyond a few minor accomodations they should stand.

 

What annoys me the most is that the team that has the least possibility of being competitive is having the biggest (negative) impact on the regatta.

Its time for them to withdraw.

 

If the boat from RNZYS is all that, they what early difference does it make what Artemis does, or doesn't do?



#99 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,524 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:08 PM

WTF is Cayard on about? So GD and Luna Rossa offered to give AR more time to sort out their boat and thats unsportsmanlike? How is that unsportsmanlike?

The only thing unsportsmanlike is the fact that Paul Cayard wants the other 2 teams to have to race each other and risk their own calamity while he and his team can sit on the dock, without getting fined and work on their boat so they can sneak in the back door into the semi finals.

 

In essence, all he is saying is "we're not going to show up, but you guys will have to, and if you crash, we'll take your place in the semi's" Because Im Paul Cayard, and thats how i roll"

 

Honest question: The LVC format has been changed before with the reduction from 7 (?) to 5 rounds to accommodate AR's need for more time and provide more safety. So, it is not the original schedule anymore anyway.

Now ETNZ comes along and proposes to reduce the number of races even more, which would give AR even more time, and this is somehow vicious?

 

What have I missed?

 

thou shalt not talk sense

 

when others are talking nonsense

 

as it makes them look bad



#100 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 June 2013 - 11:56 PM

 

 

As far as I am concerned, the original rules were the rules and beyond a few minor accomodations they should stand.

 

What annoys me the most is that the team that has the least possibility of being competitive is having the biggest (negative) impact on the regatta.

Its time for them to withdraw.

 

If the boat from RNZYS is all that, they what early difference does it make what Artemis does, or doesn't do?

 

Peter, I have highlighted what annoys me about this situation and I suspect it is what annoys GD also.

For this reason, I believe they should withdraw.

In fact, I suspect eventually they will be forced to as I am not convinced they can have their boat ready for the semis.

 

With regards to ETNZ (please show a little respect) having a boat that is "all that", I have never made an assertion as to how it might compare to OR.

However, I have said repeatedly that I expect them to have a much stronger boat than the other two challengers which is based on actual evidence.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users