Jump to content


After the International Jury rules, what happens?

Oracle Corruption

  • Please log in to reply
373 replies to this topic

#1 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:32 AM

This round of the AC has turned into a fiasco.  But nothing is more surprising than the fact US federal authorities are now in the driver’s seat.  

 

At one time the SF BOS and Governor of California thought this event fell into their jurisdiction.

 

Now, because of Iain Murray’s intemperate remarks, Coast Guard Headquarters in the Eastern US hold the key to the event.

 

There is near universal agreement the IJ will rule in favour of unanimous consent for changes to the class rule.

 

If Murray delivers on his threat, and tells Coast Guard the event is no longer safe (this despite the fact ETNZ and LR have sailed many miles on allegedly “unsafe” appendages), what will Coast Guard do?

 

I have had several interactions with the US Coast Guard and am not convinced they are the brightest lights on the Christmas tree.

 

However, for the sake of this argument, let us assume SF-based CG officials will have consulted higher-ups and will deliver a considered decision. Their response will have been crafted in Washington, D.C.

 

What will happen? I can imagine the following scenarios and am sure you can think of more:

 

1. Scenario One: “See you in court.” Although the IJ has ruled against him, Murray refuses to budge and the two offending clauses remain in the CG permit.  ETNZ and LR note the transgression but, having come this far (and with sponsors waiting) decide to race now and fight later.  This guarantees a post-regatta court challenge (comparable to 1988). In these circumstances it is hard to see how any court would rule in favour of Murray.   If OR win on the water they would almostly certainly lose in court.   

 

2. Scenario Two: “Grow up Iain”.  Having noted the ability of LR and ETNZ to safely sail on the original appendages, Coast Guard consider this an unethical OR con-job, tell Murray to go home  and promptly issue a new permit without the offending clauses. Murray resigns but racing goes as planned.

 

3. Scenario Three:  “Ok, you are the experts.”  When  Iain Murray says deleting offending clauses means he cannot guarantee  safety, Coast Guard says “you are the experts …. we are not equipped to research this …. If you say it is not safe we cannot issue a permit”.  Racing is suspended.

 

In your view, what will happen after the IJ rules in favour of unanimous consent for changes to the class rule?  



#2 Liquid Assett NZ

Liquid Assett NZ

    Anarchist

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

Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:37 AM

IJ rules in favour of ETNZ/LR.. We go racing and its decided on the water as it should be. ETNZ wins AC 9-2.The cup comes back to NZ and revival starts then. The pieces are picked up and the cup regains the integrity it deserves.

#3 jonsailor

jonsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,464 posts
  • Location:Mooloolaba Australia
  • Interests:Sailing, design, hot babes

Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:42 AM

People sit in the back ground and still think OR had nothing to do with this change.

IM is a clever bloke, but he didn't fall out of bed one morning and say "you know what, larger winglets on the bottom of the rudders are going to make boats safe"

How could he come to this asumption when 2 boats were screaming around in full stable flight and control.

The guise of AR's crash doing the deed on the changes is hog wash....the boat was never meant't to and never foiled to achieve this "safe alteration"

 

So IM looks pissed; of course he is, he has been made a puppet by wussel.

 

So if I were a kiwi fan, maybe I would suggest Scenario One???



#4 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 926 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:57 AM

As I understand the present situation both ETNZ and LR comply with the IM's 37 safety rules that have been submitted to the CG ..

 

Therefore it is only AR that is affected in the LV series .. (the 100kg additional weight allowance) and they have other problems as well ..

 

If the IJ rule against IM it would seem that AR will be unable to start .. not the end of the world ..

 

RC has said that OR will comply which ever way the IJ rules so they will be able to compete in the AC .. where's the problem ?



#5 Chainlocker

Chainlocker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Virginia
  • Interests:Single handed racing, dinghy racing (Buccaneer 18), disabled sailing, King Krimson, electronics.

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:15 AM

The US Coast Guard will not attempt to make a decision and will simply go with the saftey opinion of the America's Cup. They are not going to put themselves or the US in a position of liability in a sailboat race.
The IJ will error on the side of safety and uphold IM. In race 2 of the America's Cup, tied 1/1, ETNZ, while attempting a jibe in the 4th leg of race 3 and leading by 23 seconds, snaps the starboard rudder because of loads caused by their unsafe (but tested) asymetrical elevator and because the yacht was 100 kg. too light, suddenly was lifted and blown back to New Zealand. The crew was charged with international travel without a passport and held in custody until October when an IJ ruled that it was simply an unlisted New Zeland flagged flight, releasing the crew, but too late as OTUSA retained the cup through forefit. There are rumors that LE developed a weather machine and has not lost a yacht race since the fiasco.

The US Coast Guard will not attempt to make a decision and will simply go with the saftey opinion of the America's Cup. They are not going to put themselves or the US in a position of liability in a sailboat race.
The IJ will error on the side of safety and uphold IM. In race 2 of the America's Cup, tied 1/1, ETNZ, while attempting a jibe in the 4th leg of race 3 and leading by 23 seconds, snaps the starboard rudder because of loads caused by their unsafe (but tested) asymetrical elevator and because the yacht was 100 kg. too light, suddenly was lifted and blown back to New Zealand. The crew was charged with international travel without a passport and held in custody until October when an IJ ruled that it was simply an unlisted New Zeland flagged flight, releasing the crew, but too late as OTUSA retained the cup through forefit. There are rumors that LE developed a weather machine and has not lost a yacht race since the fiasco.

#6 Chainlocker

Chainlocker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Virginia
  • Interests:Single handed racing, dinghy racing (Buccaneer 18), disabled sailing, King Krimson, electronics.

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:16 AM

The US Coast Guard will not attempt to make a decision and will simply go with the saftey opinion of the America's Cup. They are not going to put themselves or the US in a position of liability in a sailboat race.
The IJ will error on the side of safety and uphold IM. In race 2 of the America's Cup, tied 1/1, ETNZ, while attempting a jibe in the 4th leg of race 3 and leading by 23 seconds, snaps the starboard rudder because of loads caused by their unsafe (but tested) asymetrical elevator and because the yacht was 100 kg. too light, suddenly was lifted and blown back to New Zealand. The crew was charged with international travel without a passport and held in custody until October when an IJ ruled that it was simply an unlisted New Zeland flagged flight, releasing the crew, but too late as OTUSA retained the cup through forefit. There are rumors that LE developed a weather machine and has not lost a yacht race since the fiasco.

#7 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 06:14 AM

14.2. GGYC (as trustee) shall amend this Protocol if required to do so to meet the requirements
of any authority having jurisdiction over the Deed of Gift.

 

But the real question is will LE have a Merry Christmas ?



#8 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:00 PM

Terry Hollis has a good analysis.
 
And, according to today's Sail-World, it is Artemis who will be bounced out by the IJ ruling.
 
WTF did they NOT design their boat according to the class rule?

#9 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,514 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:21 PM

Honestly, its like my 13yr old daughter has suddenly taken over this site after having lost her latest boyfriend/future husband.

 

Calm down, there will be an AC and it will be cool.



#10 flatearth

flatearth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

I mentioned a scenario about 14.2 in another post. The games will go on when the rules get changed by an authority with jurisdiction over the DoG.

And will LE have a Merry Christmas or more correctly a Happy Hanukkah?

Remember this by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.

#11 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:45 PM

Yes, but what happens after the IJ rules?

#12 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:54 PM

Yes, but what happens after the IJ rules?

TK /  H 

 

the IJ has already been bought and paid for by evilsin - its a isaf puppet team not a jury 

 

isaf /us sailing etc are all paid off to do what evilsin wants = pays for 

 

just look at the recent history 

 

so IJ will just bohica the teams protesting and LR will go to court 1st 

 

they are are already getting ready - I know this as a fact 

 

from certain communications with me from their experts retained to go to court 

 

anyway ij rules then what does IM do with it s ruling

 

and then what does uscg do or will they do the right thing and suspend mep 

 

cheers 



#13 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 08:03 PM

Yes, but what happens after the IJ rules?

 

 

the IJ has already been bought and paid for by evilsin - its a isaf puppet team not a jury 

 

isaf /us sailing etc are all paid off to do what evilsin wants = pays for 

 

just look at the recent history 

 

so IJ will just bohica the teams protesting and LR will go to court 1st 

 

they are are already getting ready - I know this as a fact 

 

from certain communications with me from their experts retained to go to court 

 

anyway ij rules then what does IM do with it s ruling

 

and then what does uscg do or will they do the right thing and suspend mep 

 

cheers 

 

This is good, a new chapter in the MSP comedy series.



#14 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 06 July 2013 - 08:07 PM

14.2. GGYC (as trustee) shall amend this Protocol if required to do so to meet the requirements
of any authority having jurisdiction over the Deed of Gift.

 

But the real question is will LE have a Merry Christmas ?

Only NYSC has jurisdiction over the Deed of Gift.

 

And LE probably won't have a happy Xmas with an empty display cabinet where the Ol' Maug used to be.



#15 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,244 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 08:07 PM

Yes, but what happens after the IJ rules?

TK /  H 

 

the IJ has already been bought and paid for by evilsin - its a isaf puppet team not a jury 

 

isaf /us sailing etc are all paid off to do what evilsin wants = pays for 

 

just look at the recent history 

 

so IJ will just bohica the teams protesting and LR will go to court 1st 

 

they are are already getting ready - I know this as a fact 

 

from certain communications with me from their experts retained to go to court 

 

anyway ij rules then what does IM do with it s ruling

 

and then what does uscg do or will they do the right thing and suspend mep 

 

cheers 

 

 

So if the Jury rules in favor of ETNZ and Luna Rossa, are you still going to say they are bought and paid for by Larry?



#16 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 06 July 2013 - 08:40 PM

 

Yes, but what happens after the IJ rules?

TK /  H 

 

the IJ has already been bought and paid for by evilsin - its a isaf puppet team not a jury 

 

isaf /us sailing etc are all paid off to do what evilsin wants = pays for 

 

just look at the recent history 

 

so IJ will just bohica the teams protesting and LR will go to court 1st 

 

they are are already getting ready - I know this as a fact 

 

from certain communications with me from their experts retained to go to court 

 

anyway ij rules then what does IM do with it s ruling

 

and then what does uscg do or will they do the right thing and suspend mep 

 

cheers 

 

 

So if the Jury rules in favor of ETNZ and Luna Rossa, are you still going to say they are bought and paid for by Larry?

ph

 

yes I will 

 

it isnt a all or nothing ruling option like you suggest 

 

even if ij appears to make determinations in favor of nz and lr for pr and a camo of justice 

 

it will be done so IM can use uscg to inflect new rules bs on race =mep 

 

as IM  has threatened 

 

imo it wont be a clear ruling because the ij doesnt have enough ethics or honesty

 

to rule failrly -it will be a half assed write up -stalling and asking for negoiations etc -bs -  besides being evilsin puppets 

 

ij also doenst have legal authority to intervene on mep so the IM ploy to give it as a attachment to mep 

 

was the trigger to reserve IM ace in the hole he thinks he has with uscg and over IJ 

 

otherwise they would have suspended the race schedule and said they will make their determinations first 

 

as a timely process - like what LR has forced by refraining from racing

 

- so they dont help ij by making their rulings -null and void 

 

ex post facto 

 

ij and isaf havent appeared as required or performed as required -so thats very telling already 

 

wtf are they waiting for 

 

look at the sf fiasco path and ask yourself how many times they should have weighed in and didnt 

 

I am sure ehman and evilsin are directing ij to keep their ggyc sf fiasco scheme moving along  as before 

 

thats how ggyc got there in the first place with bogus -challenge bs -ac33*

 

and ij and isaf didnt nothing except enable it 



#17 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,244 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:05 PM

 

 

Yes, but what happens after the IJ rules?

TK /  H 

 

the IJ has already been bought and paid for by evilsin - its a isaf puppet team not a jury 

 

isaf /us sailing etc are all paid off to do what evilsin wants = pays for 

 

just look at the recent history 

 

so IJ will just bohica the teams protesting and LR will go to court 1st 

 

they are are already getting ready - I know this as a fact 

 

from certain communications with me from their experts retained to go to court 

 

anyway ij rules then what does IM do with it s ruling

 

and then what does uscg do or will they do the right thing and suspend mep 

 

cheers 

 

 

So if the Jury rules in favor of ETNZ and Luna Rossa, are you still going to say they are bought and paid for by Larry?

ph

 

yes I will 

 

it isnt a all or nothing ruling option like you suggest 

 

even if ij appears to make determinations in favor of nz and lr for pr and a camo of justice 

 

it will be done so IM can use uscg to inflect new rules bs on race =mep 

 

as IM  has threatened 

 

imo it wont be a clear ruling because the ij doesnt have enough ethics or honesty

 

to rule failrly -it will be a half assed write up -stalling and asking for negoiations etc -bs -  besides being evilsin puppets 

 

ij also doenst have legal authority to intervene on mep so the IM ploy to give it as a attachment to mep 

 

was the trigger to reserve IM ace in the hole he thinks he has with uscg and over IJ 

 

otherwise they would have suspended the race schedule and said they will make their determinations first 

 

as a timely process - like what LR has forced by refraining from racing

 

- so they dont help ij by making their rulings -null and void 

 

ex post facto 

 

ij and isaf havent appeared as required or performed as required -so thats very telling already 

 

wtf are they waiting for 

 

look at the sf fiasco path and ask yourself how many times they should have weighed in and didnt 

 

I am sure ehman and evilsin are directing ij to keep their ggyc sf fiasco scheme moving along  as before 

 

thats how ggyc got there in the first place with bogus -challenge bs -ac33*

 

and ij and isaf didnt nothing except enable it 

 

this has to be the most bullshit post of yours, ever.

 

You were fully supportive of GGYC/Oracle during AC 33 - you even used to call Ehman "General E".

 

You are so wrong about the influence you seem to think that any aspect of GGYC has over the Jury.

 

You are right about one thing, the Jury ignores things they want to - just like they ignored the mutiny of the RC members from SNG during Race two of AC 33.  That Jury could have and should have gone after the mutineers, but they didn't, likely fearful of the prospect of litigation from Erne$to.

 

So, will the Jury will with an eye towards their potential for being involved in litigation?  What if they rule in favor of ETNZ/Luna Rossa, the races get run, and there is a serious injury or death.  Who will bear the responsibility there?  Would the Jury then be held responsible for contributory negligence?

 

You really ought to take off your tin foil hat.  Ellison hasn't bought off anyone, and Ehman doesn't have all the juice for which you give him credit.



#18 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:48 PM

 

 

 

Yes, but what happens after the IJ rules?

TK /  H 

 

the IJ has already been bought and paid for by evilsin - its a isaf puppet team not a jury 

 

isaf /us sailing etc are all paid off to do what evilsin wants = pays for 

 

just look at the recent history 

 

so IJ will just bohica the teams protesting and LR will go to court 1st 

 

they are are already getting ready - I know this as a fact 

 

from certain communications with me from their experts retained to go to court 

 

anyway ij rules then what does IM do with it s ruling

 

and then what does uscg do or will they do the right thing and suspend mep 

 

cheers 

 

 

So if the Jury rules in favor of ETNZ and Luna Rossa, are you still going to say they are bought and paid for by Larry?

ph

 

yes I will 

 

it isnt a all or nothing ruling option like you suggest 

 

even if ij appears to make determinations in favor of nz and lr for pr and a camo of justice 

 

it will be done so IM can use uscg to inflect new rules bs on race =mep 

 

as IM  has threatened 

 

imo it wont be a clear ruling because the ij doesnt have enough ethics or honesty

 

to rule failrly -it will be a half assed write up -stalling and asking for negoiations etc -bs -  besides being evilsin puppets 

 

ij also doenst have legal authority to intervene on mep so the IM ploy to give it as a attachment to mep 

 

was the trigger to reserve IM ace in the hole he thinks he has with uscg and over IJ 

 

otherwise they would have suspended the race schedule and said they will make their determinations first 

 

as a timely process - like what LR has forced by refraining from racing

 

- so they dont help ij by making their rulings -null and void 

 

ex post facto 

 

ij and isaf havent appeared as required or performed as required -so thats very telling already 

 

wtf are they waiting for 

 

look at the sf fiasco path and ask yourself how many times they should have weighed in and didnt 

 

I am sure ehman and evilsin are directing ij to keep their ggyc sf fiasco scheme moving along  as before 

 

thats how ggyc got there in the first place with bogus -challenge bs -ac33*

 

and ij and isaf didnt nothing except enable it 

 

this has to be the most bullshit post of yours, ever.

 

You were fully supportive of GGYC/Oracle during AC 33 - you even used to call Ehman "General E".

 

You are so wrong about the influence you seem to think that any aspect of GGYC has over the Jury.

 

You are right about one thing, the Jury ignores things they want to - just like they ignored the mutiny of the RC members from SNG during Race two of AC 33.  That Jury could have and should have gone after the mutineers, but they didn't, likely fearful of the prospect of litigation from Erne$to.

 

So, will the Jury will with an eye towards their potential for being involved in litigation?  What if they rule in favor of ETNZ/Luna Rossa, the races get run, and there is a serious injury or death.  Who will bear the responsibility there?  Would the Jury then be held responsible for contributory negligence?

 

You really ought to take off your tin foil hat.  Ellison hasn't bought off anyone, and Ehman doesn't have all the juice for which you give him credit.

HILARIOUS thanks 

 

so you say /post ''ellison hasnt bought off anyone  ...''

 

how and the hell do you know that for sure ? did he em you that just  like cory f claimed he doesnt read sa ac ??  :lol: whatever

 

there are more exhibits of evilsin using his vast $$$ for just that very thing

 

thats what evilsin does -HE BUYS THINGS including people and influences us govt - ie faoc = frging act of congress etc 

 

even that didnt make the sf fiasco work like - praised and sold by ehman  ggyc 

 

ehman had my respect as you state - that is since long gone -after his behavior I know about now 

 

 

as you know 

 

I told you and ehman that if he / ggyc  pulled the same bs as eb on having ac then we would be enemies 

 

he broke his word to me on that so that changed my respect for him .period 

 

he has a huge amount of responsibilities on this and maybe he isnt as important as you elude 

 

thats the problem as the claimed --transparency- is non existent

 

its been a total fraudulent ggyc cover up   via evilsin -ehman 

 

does sf fiasco now  look like its even close to what was sold  ? - you can be on ehman side -whatever 

 

I respect you for what I know about you -including who you know 

 

we just dont agree so thats fine - 



#19 flatearth

flatearth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:07 PM

The IJ is going to take testimony and apply the rules, which in this case are the Protocol. I do not think they are biased nor are they concerned with litigation. If they find that the recommendations where agreed to by the competitors, then the 37 recommendations are upheld and the rules changes are valid. IJ they find that IM made the changes without consent of all competitors then the rule changes cannot be valid, and I see GGYC going to the NYSC to get changes done under P14.2.

Any other reasonable suggestions on the actions taken by the competitors or trustees after the jury decision?

#20 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:12 PM

The IJ is going to take testimony and apply the rules, which in this case are the Protocol. I do not think they are biased nor are they concerned with litigation. If they find that the recommendations where agreed to by the competitors, then the 37 recommendations are upheld and the rules changes are valid. IJ they find that IM made the changes without consent of all competitors then the rule changes cannot be valid, and I see GGYC going to the NYSC to get changes done under P14.2.

Any other reasonable suggestions on the actions taken by the competitors or trustees after the jury decision?

it'll be a race to NY between ggyc and lr then?



#21 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,467 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:21 PM

I'm fairly certain AR will 'find' a set of rudders that suit the eventual outcome of the IJ deliberations and the clever work-arounds that the teams and ACRM come up with that replace the 37 point plan in the CG file.

 

If it goes one step beyond that IM, SB and AR should all get the flick!



#22 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:30 PM

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?



#23 RMac

RMac

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:31 PM

My guess is the jury sides with NZ and LR in the protest, then IM-not wishing to damage the event-allows them to proceed with 35/37 enacted

 

OR will certainly be legal come race time, I'm not super worried about that.  I still have them winning the cup assuming there is one.

 

AR I think will withdraw from the event despite efforts of their team (and the other teams) using the rudder issue as the straw that broke their back.

 

Along the way there will be lots of vicious minded spin and insults on this forum, while the sport of sailing gets a little worse. 



#24 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:33 PM

Thirteen years ago after the end of the '95 Kiwi AC victory in San Diego I had a conversation with Tom Ehman who was event director that year.  He went on at some length about the need for independent management of the event to remove the dual burden placed on the Defender of running the series and defending the Cup. He made a lot of sense.

 

Well, Tom's got what he wished for but it's gone sideways in the process. 

 

There's a lot of conspiracy bullshit from posters here, media and in some cases contestants. Well I call bullshit on all of them.

 

Stop for a minute and think about the howls of protest had Oracle/GGYC attempted to directly manage the event.

 

I have confidence in the IJ, also IM, although I believe he's let emotions rule some of his comments and decisions.

 

The IJ will uphold the protest.

 

The USCG won't budge on the provisions of the Event Permit which have already been published in the Federal Register and have the force of law.

 

After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 

 

And with the clock ticking concessions will be made but they won't come from the Coast Guard.



#25 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,467 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:50 PM

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?

 

http://noticeboard.a...omendations.pdf



#26 flatearth

flatearth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:53 PM

The USCG won't budge on the provisions of the Event Permit which have already been published in the Federal Register and have the force of law.

Can you provide a link to the MEP being published?


What is the Effect of Publishing in the Federal Register ?

Provides official notice of a document's existence, its contents and legal effect
indicates date of issuance and the effective date of actions
Specifies the legal authority of the agency
delegation of authority from Congress
Gives documents evidentiary status
makes them admissible in court
establishes FR text as true copy of original signed document
Shows how and when the CFR will be amended

#27 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:55 PM

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?

 

http://noticeboard.a...omendations.pdf

 

Saw that too. Not exactly 37 items. There are a couple of other documents with the one or the other, but I am looking for a complete list. Was none published after the CG application was sent out?



#28 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:56 PM

My guess is the jury sides with NZ and LR in the protest, then IM-not wishing to damage the event-allows them to proceed with 35/37 enacted

Like Grant, I continue to believe Iain is a decent bloke.

Hence, your remedy (let them sail with 35 out 37) would be good solution to the impasse.

So simple!

But Iain got himself boxed into a corner.

He now needs to save face. So, blame the IJ and fire the start gun!

#29 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,205 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 10:57 PM

Thirteen years ago after the end of the '95 Kiwi AC victory in San Diego I had a conversation with Tom Ehman who was event director that year.  He went on at some length about the need for independent management of the event to remove the dual burden placed on the Defender of running the series and defending the Cup. He made a lot of sense.
 
Well, Tom's got what he wished for but it's gone sideways in the process. 
 
There's a lot of conspiracy bullshit from posters here, media and in some cases contestants. Well I call bullshit on all of them.
 
Stop for a minute and think about the howls of protest had Oracle/GGYC attempted to directly manage the event.
 
I have confidence in the IJ, also IM, although I believe he's let emotions rule some of his comments and decisions.
 
The IJ will uphold the protest.
 
The USCG won't budge on the provisions of the Event Permit which have already been published in the Federal Register and have the force of law.
 
After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 
 
And with the clock ticking concessions will be made but they won't come from the Coast Guard.

+1

#30 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:05 PM

 

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?

 

http://noticeboard.a...omendations.pdf

 

Saw that too. Not exactly 37 items. There are a couple of other documents with the one or the other, but I am looking for a complete list. Was none published after the CG application was sent out?

http://cdn.sparkart....tions-22.5.13-1



#31 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:06 PM

 

 

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?

 

http://noticeboard.a...omendations.pdf

 

Saw that too. Not exactly 37 items. There are a couple of other documents with the one or the other, but I am looking for a complete list. Was none published after the CG application was sent out?

http://cdn.sparkart....tions-22.5.13-1

That's what I was looking for, thanks a bundle!



#32 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:10 PM

The USCG won't budge on the provisions of the Event Permit which have already been published in the Federal Register and have the force of law.

Can you provide a link to the MEP being published?


What is the Effect of Publishing in the Federal Register ?

Provides official notice of a document's existence, its contents and legal effect
indicates date of issuance and the effective date of actions
Specifies the legal authority of the agency
delegation of authority from Congress
Gives documents evidentiary status
makes them admissible in court
establishes FR text as true copy of original signed document
Shows how and when the CFR will be amended

Notice

MEP

Redlined AC72

 

http://noticeboard.a...g-event-permit/



#33 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,919 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:14 PM


Thirteen years ago after the end of the '95 Kiwi AC victory in San Diego I had a conversation with Tom Ehman who was event director that year.  He went on at some length about the need for independent management of the event to remove the dual burden placed on the Defender of running the series and defending the Cup. He made a lot of sense.
 
Well, Tom's got what he wished for but it's gone sideways in the process. 
 
There's a lot of conspiracy bullshit from posters here, media and in some cases contestants. Well I call bullshit on all of them.
 
Stop for a minute and think about the howls of protest had Oracle/GGYC attempted to directly manage the event.
 
I have confidence in the IJ, also IM, although I believe he's let emotions rule some of his comments and decisions.
 
The IJ will uphold the protest.
 
The USCG won't budge on the provisions of the Event Permit which have already been published in the Federal Register and have the force of law.
 
After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 
 
And with the clock ticking concessions will be made but they won't come from the Coast Guard.

+1

Maybe so. Forgive me for asking (my time zone), but what's to prevent adding to the Rule just rudder depth and elevator area, period? Surely, that's what the CG cares about, if anything.

#34 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:15 PM

That's what I was looking for, thanks a bundle!

You're welcome.



#35 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,467 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:15 PM

 

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?

 

http://noticeboard.a...omendations.pdf

 

Saw that too. Not exactly 37 items. There are a couple of other documents with the one or the other, but I am looking for a complete list. Was none published after the CG application was sent out?

 

Sorry about that. I have one that is called Draft Interim Recommendations, it not only includes all the new ideas but also the recommendations that came out post Orpocalypse and were supposed to be implemented straight away!?

 

Edit: I see you have that now



#36 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,205 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:25 PM





Thirteen years ago after the end of the '95 Kiwi AC victory in San Diego I had a conversation with Tom Ehman who was event director that year.  He went on at some length about the need for independent management of the event to remove the dual burden placed on the Defender of running the series and defending the Cup. He made a lot of sense.
 
Well, Tom's got what he wished for but it's gone sideways in the process. 
 
There's a lot of conspiracy bullshit from posters here, media and in some cases contestants. Well I call bullshit on all of them.
 
Stop for a minute and think about the howls of protest had Oracle/GGYC attempted to directly manage the event.
 
I have confidence in the IJ, also IM, although I believe he's let emotions rule some of his comments and decisions.
 
The IJ will uphold the protest.
 
The USCG won't budge on the provisions of the Event Permit which have already been published in the Federal Register and have the force of law.
 
After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 
 
And with the clock ticking concessions will be made but they won't come from the Coast Guard.

+1
Maybe so. Forgive me for asking (my time zone), but what's to prevent adding to the Rule just rudder depth and elevator area, period? Surely, that's what the CG cares about, if anything.
What will prevent that is IM's already-made declaration that it is a package that can't be multiple-choice for conjured-up competitive conspiracy arguments.

Am not suggesting the CG will care for even a second their problems, but: A big problem for the ETNZ/LR protest to the IJ will be to prove their assertion that the package does not improve safety; that any parts of it are 'purely performance related' with Zero safety effect.

I look forward to seeing IM's submissions on that.. despite the fact the CG already signed off and won't change their mind absent a compelling reason to.

#37 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:32 PM

 

 

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?

 

http://noticeboard.a...omendations.pdf

 

Saw that too. Not exactly 37 items. There are a couple of other documents with the one or the other, but I am looking for a complete list. Was none published after the CG application was sent out?

 

Sorry about that. I have one that is called Draft Interim Recommendations, it not only includes all the new ideas but also the recommendations that came out post Orpocalypse and were supposed to be implemented straight away!?

 

Edit: I see you have that now

2 things I again warn you folks about on that 37 rec doc -link

 

AC72 Safety Recommendations

(Issued November 21, 2012 & Revised May 22, 2013)

 

its the one thats public it is not confirmed to be the one uscg has a an attachment -so it ISNT official -

 

the one IM gave to uscg as an attachment is not on their mep permit link

 

ac website severed the complete doc =mep as the attachments cited are not complete

 

including 37 points doc IM made

 

public also doesnt know if thats the same one -exactly - that was submitted to uscg

 

so again why are they hiding it and why did they purposely sever it from main final app/mep 

 

it appears they didnt want it fully disclosed  yet  

 

also did Im change it 

 

another thing is that that permit IS NOT published yet in FED REGISTER 

 

unless I missed it somehow 

 

so if thats been published as some suggest then where is that link 

 

I do not think its been published and so is still pending that final as a determination

 

which again shows uscg rushed the permit at the last minute  



#38 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,919 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:50 PM

What will prevent that is IM's already-made declaration that it is a package that can't be multiple-choice for conjured-up competitive conspiracy arguments.


Now now - surely geeky details like distance from transom or beam overhang are irrelevant, iirc IM already deviated from the submitted list by generously admitting asymmetrical elevators (true?). What clearly matters is a beefy elevator area and this would be confirmed, no?

A big problem for the ETNZ/LR protest to the IJ will be to prove their assertion that the package does not improve safety; that any parts of it are 'purely performance related' with Zero safety effect.


As Rennie dixit, ETNZ/LR don't have to prove anything to the IJ - just confirm they do not agree with some Rule changes, no reason needed

#39 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,205 posts

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:57 PM

The transom distance and beam rules are not any problem for OR.

Trust me on this..

#40 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,919 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 07 July 2013 - 12:10 AM


^
Splendid! So, what's wrong with the proposal? Don't tell me it's AR

#41 amc

amc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 331 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 07 July 2013 - 01:37 AM

It is going to be handbags at dawn, and very high quality ones at that.

My guess is the jury sides with NZ and LR in the protest, then IM-not wishing to damage the event-allows them to proceed with 35/37 enacted

Like Grant, I continue to believe Iain is a decent bloke.

Hence, your remedy (let them sail with 35 out 37) would be good solution to the impasse.

So simple!

But Iain got himself boxed into a corner.

He now needs to save face. So, blame the IJ and fire the start gun!


#42 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 01:57 AM

Will broadcasters (inc. TVNZ) show ETNZ sailing the course alone?

 

And, if so, what will commentators say?

 

Maybe they will bring in Patrizio as a colour commentator?

 

Or members of the SF BOS?   They will have  interesting opinions.



#43 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 03:56 AM

Will broadcasters blah blah blah

 

So you never answered the question - did LE have a merry christmas ?



#44 ro!

ro!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,285 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 04:16 AM

Will broadcasters blah blah blah

 
So you never answered the question - did LE have a merry christmas ?

ubertroll doing what he does best....trolling..

#45 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 04:31 AM

 

Will broadcasters blah blah blah

 
So you never answered the question - did LE have a merry christmas ?

ubertroll doing what he does best....trolling..

whatever you say ro.



#46 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,326 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 04:32 AM

BozOr the troll  :) 



#47 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 04:35 AM

BozOr the troll  :)

Insult Index = -5/10

 

More emphasis needed on creativity and less on emotional outbursts.



#48 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,326 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 04:42 AM

BozOr the troll  :)

Insult Index = -5/10

 

More emphasis needed on creativity and less on emotional outbursts.

B like,.... like........Brad,..... like  Bozo,  :rolleyes:



#49 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 04:48 AM

 

BozOr the troll  :)

Insult Index = -5/10

 

More emphasis needed on creativity and less on emotional outbursts.

B like.... like  Bozo,  :rolleyes:

 

Insult Index = -5/10

 

Sorry, reverted to the remedial class for consistently poor performance.



#50 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 07 July 2013 - 04:53 AM

 

BozOr the troll  :)

Insult Index = -5/10

 

More emphasis needed on creativity and less on emotional outbursts.

B like,.... like........Brad,..... like  Bozo,  :rolleyes:

poor booz-or

 

is drinking heavy now -losing -failing -post-a-holic   :lol:

 

and he states ehman is his friend 



#51 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 05:01 AM

 

 

BozOr the troll  :)

Insult Index = -5/10

 

More emphasis needed on creativity and less on emotional outbursts.

B like,.... like........Brad,..... like  Bozo,  :rolleyes:

poor booz-or

 

Insult Index = N/A

 

Not registered for class. Please register first.

 

Thank you for your interest.



#52 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

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

Posted 07 July 2013 - 05:33 AM


Maybe so. Forgive me for asking (my time zone), but what's to prevent adding to the Rule just rudder depth and elevator area, period? Surely, that's what the CG cares about, if anything.

 

my understanding is AR can either sail a boat to the 2yo old rule, small sym rudders?

 

OR

 

IM's new rule big area elevators

 

but say they can make big elevator rudders that stay outside the box limit

 

guess that's because they feel they MUST be high aspect???

 

why can't they make low aspect big sym rudders??



#53 ro!

ro!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,285 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 05:35 AM


 


BozOr the troll  :)

Insult Index = -5/10
 
More emphasis needed on creativity and less on emotional outbursts.
B like,.... like........Brad,..... like  Bozo,  :rolleyes:
poor booz-or
 
is drinking heavy now -losing -failing -post-a-holic   :lol:
 
and he states ehman is his friend 

The crazed Indian falling on the wrong side of the argument again, just because he thinks he can score a point...

The ubertroll hates ehman with a vengeance he normally reserves for kiwis and native Americans but he has to to be on this side of the argument even though his YC club has been waylaid by the Barbarians....
He was one of the first to say "if lazza, russ ever try to do what Ernie did I will be the first one to point the finger.....next....

#54 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,842 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 07 July 2013 - 07:02 AM

After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 

 

There's nice scenery in Canada. Or do you prefer Mexican food?



#55 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:29 AM

 

 

After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 

 

IM endorses that HALF the fleet are safe under the new rules and the old rules.  If the new rules get flicked he surely has to go back to the USCG with an amended MEP application with the contentious rules removed and assurances that AR and TO will not be allowed to race until they have demonstrated they can do so safely under the old rules.

 

This is a design competition and the event should not be scrapped because 2 teams have built boats that are unsafe in the eyes of the RD/ SRC.



#56 Boybland

Boybland

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:45 AM

 

 

 

After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 

 

IM endorses that HALF the fleet are safe under the new rules and the old rules.  If the new rules get flicked he surely has to go back to the USCG with an amended MEP application with the contentious rules removed and assurances that AR and TO will not be allowed to race until they have demonstrated they can do so safely under the old rules.

 

This is a design competition and the event should not be scrapped because 2 teams have built boats that are unsafe in the eyes of the RD/ SRC.

 

Agreed if IM declares to the USCG that some boats are unsafe under the old rules expect ETNZ to push to be allowed on the course regardless of whether Oracle, LR or Artemis turn up.  They can hardly argue that ETNZ's rudders which comply with BOTH rules are dangerous under the old rules...



#57 winchfodder

winchfodder

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Location:Carolina, USA

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:51 AM

 

 

 

 

After it rules, the Jury will then have the task of mediating with the Defender and Challengers, and the Event Director, a way to go forward. 

 

IM endorses that HALF the fleet are safe under the new rules and the old rules.  If the new rules get flicked he surely has to go back to the USCG with an amended MEP application with the contentious rules removed and assurances that AR and TO will not be allowed to race until they have demonstrated they can do so safely under the old rules.

 

This is a design competition and the event should not be scrapped because 2 teams have built boats that are unsafe in the eyes of the RD/ SRC.

 

Agreed if IM declares to the USCG that some boats are unsafe under the old rules expect ETNZ to push to be allowed on the course regardless of whether Oracle, LR or Artemis turn up.  They can hardly argue that ETNZ's rudders which comply with BOTH rules are dangerous under the old rules...

 

Yes, Spot on. There can only be one conclusion for the IJ. Two boats have proved that they are safe and are allowed to race. The two others that have engineering, design and control problems have to prove to the IJ, Regatta Director and USCG that they are safe,

 

Result. Oracle is out of the Cup. The winner of the LV Cup wins the Cup. Job done.



#58 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:17 AM

It is almost amusing that everything that IM / TO have said over this affair is likely to come back and bite them in the ass, if you follow the logical conclusion that IM can't can the regatta because 2 boats have fundamental design flaws, not when he endorses the safe design of the other 2 boats.

 

IM has said pretty much he will not change his mind, he has stated that the 37 safety recommendations are the only way he believes the event can be run safely, then it is going to be very difficult for Or and Ar to prove they are safe under the old rules.  If I were ETNZ/ LR I would be pushing very hard that any further safety review concerning whether Ar or TO are safe enough to race should be conducted by a truly independent third party, such as the IJ.



#59 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:22 AM

 

 

IM endorses that HALF the fleet are safe under the new rules and the old rules.  If the new rules get flicked he surely has to go back to the USCG with an amended MEP application with the contentious rules removed and assurances that AR and TO will not be allowed to race until they have demonstrated they can do so safely under the old rules.

 

This is a design competition and the event should not be scrapped because 2 teams have built boats that are unsafe in the eyes of the RD/ SRC.

 

Agreed if IM declares to the USCG that some boats are unsafe under the old rules expect ETNZ to push to be allowed on the course regardless of whether Oracle, LR or Artemis turn up.  They can hardly argue that ETNZ's rudders which comply with BOTH rules are dangerous under the old rules...

Why would the USCG give a fuck about the safety of the boats?! They're already on record that they don't care how the boats are built. Their only concern is the safety of the Event, including the Competitors, other users of the Bay, other vessels, spectators, etc. Murray has tried to play a BS bluff that the Jury will collect on tomorrow, then he would be told by his masters to revise the Safety Plan and resubmit it.

 

The safety of each AC72 is not Murray's concern: it's the sole responsibility of each team's management, designers, manufacturers - and their insurance companies. Murray's sole responsibility is for the safety of the Event: he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.



#60 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:36 AM

he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.

 

Yes, totally agree!!!  But now that he has and has stated so publicly he will have to cancel the event if all 37 recommendations are not endorsed, he is on a very sticky wicket.  The reality is that he has no grounds to cancel the event, two boats are safe under the old rules by his own admission, his only real way forward is to go back to the USCG with the uncontentious recommendations removed and apply for a permit that permits only LR/ETNZ to race.  There is no reason that the USCG will not grant a MEP, given that the removed safety recommendations did not affect them.  If at a later stage TO or Ar prove that their designs are safe, then he can re-apply for a new/ amended permit

 

Either way the event must happen.



#61 Calico Jack

Calico Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Location:At Sea

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:53 AM

The IJ will find in favour of ETNZ LR and the old class rules will be back in place

The USCG permit will remain and IM will need to warrant that boats on the course comply with the permit requirements.

ETNZ, LR, and OR can and will comply and OR will assist AR to produce rule/permit compliant rudders to enable them to comply

#62 Tricky Pig

Tricky Pig

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:00 AM

When do we get some news from the IJ meeting ? 



#63 Pukka

Pukka

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Location:NZ

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:34 AM

It is almost amusing that everything that IM / TO have said over this affair is likely to come back and bite them in the ass, if you follow the logical conclusion that IM can't can the regatta because 2 boats have fundamental design flaws, not when he endorses the safe design of the other 2 boats.

 

IM has said pretty much he will not change his mind, he has stated that the 37 safety recommendations are the only way he believes the event can be run safely, then it is going to be very difficult for Or and Ar to prove they are safe under the old rules.  If I were ETNZ/ LR I would be pushing very hard that any further safety review concerning whether Ar or TO are safe enough to race should be conducted by a truly independent third party, such as the IJ.

 

Not gonna happen. That would require consultation with Team design engineers, actual composite layup component  certificates, and third party expert peer review to endorse the numbers. No time, who will pay?

If it happens it will be best guess which won't be much better than whats current.

Individual teams will have to underwrite their own risk.

Or, as in the case of ETNZ & LR,  provide "proof of service".  Whether current time testing is sufficient, may be moot.

Substantially better than  OTUSA & AR 's failure rate/ operator error.....call it what you like.



#64 Sailabout

Sailabout

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Location:Here there and everywhere
  • Interests:Engines

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:51 AM

this safety issue is like trying to get the F1 tyre maker to guarantee no tire will fail in a race regardless of what a driver does to it??
cut 50' height of the wing mast will make it safer as well, I could guarantee that and I'm sure all the teams would agree BUT they are not going to do it are they?

#65 polarbear

polarbear

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Location:Lake Ontario

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:55 PM

When do we get some news from the IJ meeting ? 

 

  Yes, I have the same question.  When do they meet and when are they expected to rule?



#66 flatearth

flatearth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:16 PM

It's a hearing, and a decision will get posted on the notice board for the public. It will be interesting if the parties speak to the press after the hearing and before a decision.

#67 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:47 PM

he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.

 

Yes, totally agree!!!  But now that he has and has stated so publicly he will have to cancel the event if all 37 recommendations are not endorsed, he is on a very sticky wicket.  The reality is that he has no grounds to cancel the event, two boats are safe under the old rules by his own admission, his only real way forward is to go back to the USCG with the uncontentious recommendations removed and apply for a permit that permits only LR/ETNZ to race.  There is no reason that the USCG will not grant a MEP, given that the removed safety recommendations did not affect them.  If at a later stage TO or Ar prove that their designs are safe, then he can re-apply for a new/ amended permit

 

Either way the event must happen.

If it seems like its uncontrolled/uncontrollable, that could be a reason. The event doesn't have to happen. The CG shutdown all offshore racing because they wanted to see if the racers and race organizers/OA had their house in order. When improvements were made as appropriate and/or verified, the stand down was lifted one race at a time. Certain regattas did not occur as scheduled. Time for everyone to work together for the event, sport. I've had folks new to the sport bringing kids into youth programs pretty disgusted with what they are witnessing. 



#68 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:05 PM

 

he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.

 

Yes, totally agree!!!  But now that he has and has stated so publicly he will have to cancel the event if all 37 recommendations are not endorsed, he is on a very sticky wicket.  The reality is that he has no grounds to cancel the event, two boats are safe under the old rules by his own admission, his only real way forward is to go back to the USCG with the uncontentious recommendations removed and apply for a permit that permits only LR/ETNZ to race.  There is no reason that the USCG will not grant a MEP, given that the removed safety recommendations did not affect them.  If at a later stage TO or Ar prove that their designs are safe, then he can re-apply for a new/ amended permit

 

Either way the event must happen.

If it seems like its uncontrolled/uncontrollable, that could be a reason. The event doesn't have to happen. The CG shutdown all offshore racing because they wanted to see if the racers and race organizers/OA had their house in order. When improvements were made as appropriate and/or verified, the stand down was lifted one race at a time. Certain regattas did not occur as scheduled. Time for everyone to work together for the event, sport. I've had folks new to the sport bringing kids into youth programs pretty disgusted with what they are witnessing. 

 

Hi Bob

 

The point I was making that if you remove the contentious issues from the 37, leaving the 35, the CG can provide a permit that allows ET / LR to sail, being as they both measure, according to IM, under both sets of rules.  I.E THE NEW SET OF RULES HAVEN'T CHANGED THE SAFETY OF EITHER LR / ET, so no reason for the CG not to grant a permit for those 2 to sail.  TO / Ar will have to prove they are safe to sail at a later date, or otherwise the winner of LR / ET will win the AC.



#69 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:10 PM

Hi Bob

 

The point I was making that if you remove the contentious issues from the 37, leaving the 35, the CG can provide a permit that allows ET / LR to sail, being as they both measure, according to IM, under both sets of rules.  I.E THE NEW SET OF RULES HAVEN'T CHANGED THE SAFETY OF EITHER LR / ET, so no reason for the CG not to grant a permit for those 2 to sail.  TO / Ar will have to prove they are safe to sail at a later date, or otherwise the winner of LR / ET will win the AC.

If the OA wants to submit that plan, that could be a plan. Its not a LR/ET event. Working through w the OA looks good to the CG.



#70 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:11 PM

 

 

he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.

 

Yes, totally agree!!!  But now that he has and has stated so publicly he will have to cancel the event if all 37 recommendations are not endorsed, he is on a very sticky wicket.  The reality is that he has no grounds to cancel the event, two boats are safe under the old rules by his own admission, his only real way forward is to go back to the USCG with the uncontentious recommendations removed and apply for a permit that permits only LR/ETNZ to race.  There is no reason that the USCG will not grant a MEP, given that the removed safety recommendations did not affect them.  If at a later stage TO or Ar prove that their designs are safe, then he can re-apply for a new/ amended permit

 

Either way the event must happen.

If it seems like its uncontrolled/uncontrollable, that could be a reason. The event doesn't have to happen. The CG shutdown all offshore racing because they wanted to see if the racers and race organizers/OA had their house in order. When improvements were made as appropriate and/or verified, the stand down was lifted one race at a time. Certain regattas did not occur as scheduled. Time for everyone to work together for the event, sport. I've had folks new to the sport bringing kids into youth programs pretty disgusted with what they are witnessing. 

 

Hi Bob

 

The point I was making that if you remove the contentious issues from the 37, leaving the 35, the CG can provide a permit that allows ET / LR to sail, being as they both measure, according to IM, under both sets of rules.  I.E THE NEW SET OF RULES HAVEN'T CHANGED THE SAFETY OF EITHER LR / ET, so no reason for the CG not to grant a permit for those 2 to sail.  TO / Ar will have to prove they are safe to sail at a later date, or otherwise the winner of LR / ET will win the AC.

 

The race permit is not boat specific - it is specific to the event.



#71 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:18 PM

 

 

The race permit is not boat specific - it is specific to the event.

and granted to the Organizing Authority to run as submitted. The apparent mutiny / IJ puts everyone under review. Not a good look for AC community I think.



#72 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:11 PM

The race permit is not boat specific - it is specific to the event.

and granted to the Organizing Authority to run as submitted. The apparent mutiny / IJ puts everyone under review. Not a good look for AC community I think.

 

Yes but the application specified the expected number of boats.  If ACRM went back to the CG and said here are the 35 safety recommendations and we only want a permit to run racing for 2 boats (LR / ET), being as the missing 2 regulations made no difference to either of them, why would the CG say no?  Ar / Or would have to prove they can be raced safely and when that is the case, ACRM can reapply for a new/ amended permit.  

 

What's so difficult about that???



#73 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:31 PM

 

The race permit is not boat specific - it is specific to the event.

and granted to the Organizing Authority to run as submitted. The apparent mutiny / IJ puts everyone under review. Not a good look for AC community I think.

 

Yes but the application specified the expected number of boats.  If ACRM went back to the CG and said here are the 35 safety recommendations and we only want a permit to run racing for 2 boats (LR / ET), being as the missing 2 regulations made no difference to either of them, why would the CG say no?  Ar / Or would have to prove they can be raced safely and when that is the case, ACRM can reapply for a new/ amended permit.  

 

What's so difficult about that???

 

They could also have 4 separate event permits, one for each boat, and a different set of 4 permits for each boat for the varying wind conditions, etc.

 

Getting a USCG permit is not like visiting a doughnut shop - I'll have two with sprinkles, one glazed and two jelly filled. Wait a minute, change that to three with sprinkles, one chocolate covered  and two powered instead. Oh, and I'll be back in a month to change the order again  :).

 

They don't issue permits for individual boats, but one for the event. It's really not that complicated.  

 

Again, I suggest you contact them directly if you need to hear it from the USCG.



#74 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,649 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:39 PM

ACRM can attach any conditions they want to the permit, and amend it as needed.  So long as they pass basic logic and don't endanger the public (not the racers), the USCG will approve.  But you know that already I suspect.  

 

The entire claim that the USCG is requiring changes to the boats is ignorant at best, spin at medium, and lying at worst.



#75 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:26 PM

ACRM can attach any conditions they want to the permit, and amend it as needed.  So long as they pass basic logic and don't endanger the public (not the racers), the USCG will approve.  But you know that already I suspect.  

 

The entire claim that the USCG is requiring changes to the boats is ignorant at best, spin at medium, and lying at worst.

 

So you are saying the 37 safety recommendations apply to the safety of the public and not the racers ? I didn't realize that was the primary objective of the safety review committee, which was convened as a result of the fatality of one of the crew. Must have missed something if the teams provided input for the safety of the public and not the crews.

 

Same point with permits issued for ocean races - thought the safety of the boats/crews was the primary concern.

 

It's been clearly stated that the safety recommendations were provided by the OA, and the permit was issued based on those recommendations. He's the one that needs to be convinced the rule related recommendations are a chinese menu the teams can individually pick from - sounds like a package deal.



#76 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:02 PM

ACRM can attach any conditions they want to the permit, and amend it as needed.  So long as they pass basic logic and don't endanger the public (not the racers), the USCG will approve.  But you know that already I suspect.  

 

You think?????  :D  :D

 

The reality is SW you have to refute the logic.............

 

Concerning the contentious safety recommendations:

 

1)  IM accepts that LR / ET measure under both the new rules and the old rules.

2)  IM maintains that the only way a safe regatta can be run is if all 37 rules are approved and he will recommend to the CG to revoke the permit if the IJ rule against IM, leaving just the 35 non-contentious recommendations

 

The only LOGICAL conclusion that one can draw from the above is that IM believes that either Or / Ar / or both will not be safe to race without the implementation of the new class rules, as dictated by the 37 safety rules submitted to the CG.  PLEASE REFUTE THIS LOGICAL CONCLUSION OR ENDORSE IT.

 

Given the above IM endorses the fact that LR / ET are unaffected by the 2 contentious safety rules, being as they measure under both the old and the new rules, it HAS to follow that IM accepts that LR / ET are safe to race even if only the 35 measures are allowed by the IJ.

 

IM's job is to run a regatta and a safe regatta.  

 

His job is not to run a regatta with a minimum of 4 boats.  If only two boats are safe enough to race in the opinion of IM, he must run a regatta for those 2 boats.  If the 2 unsafe boats can prove they are safe at some point in the future, they have to be included assuming the rules allow, at a later stage.

 

LOGIC ... I'd be really grateful if you'd apply the same but from the opposite side of things.  Cheers Oneyoti.



#77 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:13 PM

ACRM can attach any conditions they want to the permit, and amend it as needed.  So long as they pass basic logic and don't endanger the public (not the racers), the USCG will approve.  But you know that already I suspect.  

 

You think?????  :D  :D

 

The reality is SW you have to refute the logic.............

 

Concerning the contentious safety recommendations:

 

1)  IM accepts that LR / ET measure under both the new rules and the old rules.

2)  IM maintains that the only way a safe regatta can be run is if all 37 rules are approved and he will recommend to the CG to revoke the permit if the IJ rule against IM, leaving just the 35 non-contentious recommendations

 

The only LOGICAL conclusion that one can draw from the above is that IM believes that either Or / Ar / or both will not be safe to race without the implementation of the new class rules, as dictated by the 37 safety rules submitted to the CG.  PLEASE REFUTE THIS LOGICAL CONCLUSION OR ENDORSE IT.

 

Given the above IM endorses the fact that LR / ET are unaffected by the 2 contentious safety rules, being as they measure under both the old and the new rules, it HAS to follow that IM accepts that LR / ET are safe to race even if only the 35 measures are allowed by the IJ.

 

IM's job is to run a regatta and a safe regatta.  

 

His job is not to run a regatta with a minimum of 4 boats.  If only two boats are safe enough to race in the opinion of IM, he must run a regatta for those 2 boats.  If the 2 unsafe boats can prove they are safe at some point in the future, they have to be included assuming the rules allow, at a later stage.

 

LOGIC ... I'd be really grateful if you'd apply the same but from the opposite side of things.  Cheers Oneyoti.

ggyc/ACetc rely on the protocol for unilateral authority. this all comes down to legal interpretation and if the IJ have that capability? big question is indio's: why didn't murray clear it with the ij? 



#78 jhec

jhec

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:25 PM

The IJ will find in favour of ETNZ LR and the old class rules will be back in place

The USCG permit will remain and IM will need to warrant that boats on the course comply with the permit requirements.

ETNZ, LR, and OR can and will comply and OR will assist AR to produce rule/permit compliant rudders to enable them to comply

+1

The safety rules have two parts - mandatory and permissive.  It is the permissive parts that are being disputed, and they only assist one party (AR) to get to the start.  So all the other boats will comply with the 37 + the class rules - no issue for IM.

 

I can see no reason for IM to cancel the racing - he doesn't need the 37 in the class rules to enforce them.



#79 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:25 PM

 

ACRM can attach any conditions they want to the permit, and amend it as needed.  So long as they pass basic logic and don't endanger the public (not the racers), the USCG will approve.  But you know that already I suspect.  

 

You think?????  :D  :D

 

The reality is SW you have to refute the logic.............

 

Concerning the contentious safety recommendations:

 

1)  IM accepts that LR / ET measure under both the new rules and the old rules.

2)  IM maintains that the only way a safe regatta can be run is if all 37 rules are approved and he will recommend to the CG to revoke the permit if the IJ rule against IM, leaving just the 35 non-contentious recommendations

 

The only LOGICAL conclusion that one can draw from the above is that IM believes that either Or / Ar / or both will not be safe to race without the implementation of the new class rules, as dictated by the 37 safety rules submitted to the CG.  PLEASE REFUTE THIS LOGICAL CONCLUSION OR ENDORSE IT.

 

Given the above IM endorses the fact that LR / ET are unaffected by the 2 contentious safety rules, being as they measure under both the old and the new rules, it HAS to follow that IM accepts that LR / ET are safe to race even if only the 35 measures are allowed by the IJ.

 

IM's job is to run a regatta and a safe regatta.  

 

His job is not to run a regatta with a minimum of 4 boats.  If only two boats are safe enough to race in the opinion of IM, he must run a regatta for those 2 boats.  If the 2 unsafe boats can prove they are safe at some point in the future, they have to be included assuming the rules allow, at a later stage.

 

LOGIC ... I'd be really grateful if you'd apply the same but from the opposite side of things.  Cheers Oneyoti.

ggyc/ACetc rely on the protocol for unilateral authority. this all comes down to legal interpretation and if the IJ have that capability? big question is indio's: why didn't murray clear it with the ij? 

My post was all about if the IJ flick the class rule changes, then IM has no option but to reapply for a new CG permit, but only for ET/LR.  TO/ Ar can be included at some point in the future, assuming IM & the SRP consider them safe to race.



#80 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:30 PM

 they only assist one party (AR) to get to the start.  

 

Not sure about that BTW.  

 

TO have had a PP.  TO have low buoyancy bows.  TO was never designed for foiling.  TO built rudders with larger wings before the SRP released their findings.  I think TO have some way to go before they prove their boat is safe.  Although I do accept that the steamrollering of the 37, instead of the 35, was probably driven by a desire to have as many boats in the LVC as possible.



#81 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:31 PM

It's a hearing, and a decision will get posted on the notice board for the public. It will be interesting if the parties speak to the press after the hearing and before a decision.

AC Media are supposed to post notices for public consumption, but the teams are also empowered to publish the same information themselves if not specifically embargoed. Based on AC Media's performance to date, we'll see the decision from the teams and commercial media before the "official" (or is that officious!?) channel.



#82 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:38 PM

I'm fairly certain AR will 'find' a set of rudders that suit the eventual outcome of the IJ deliberations and the clever work-arounds that the teams and ACRM come up with that replace the 37 point plan in the CG file.

 

If it goes one step beyond that IM, SB and AR should all get the flick!

 

I agree that AR will find/modify rudders to comply.  They may not be the fastest, optimal available, but I can't help but think they have to have some, or can make them, that fit the protocol.  EVEN they would seem to have to have something that would comply, or planned to make them so they could comply.



#83 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:46 PM

...

ggyc/ACetc rely on the protocol for unilateral authority. this all comes down to legal interpretation and if the IJ have that capability? big question is indio's: why didn't murray clear it with the ij? 

I think we know the answer to that: Murray knew the IJ wouldn't let him fly that kite. But he was under direction to file the all-inclusive MEP application: remember, it was Ehman who went public in the video presser and stated that the 37 recommendations would be part of the MEP application, and this was on or about 23rd May.

 

 

My post was all about if the IJ flick the class rule changes, then IM has no option but to reapply for a new CG permit, but only for ET/LR.  TO/ Ar can be included at some point in the future, assuming IM & the SRP consider them safe to race.

K38BOB and SWS are correct: if the Jury upholds ETNZ's application, ACRM will have to revise and resubmit their MEP application, presumably after negotiations with ETNZ and LR on the contentious changes. The CG will then issue an updated MEP with the amended Safety Plan for the whole event - they don't care whether any boat complies with the AC72 Class Rules or not: that's a question for the Measurement Committee.



#84 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:03 PM

My post was all about if the IJ flick the class rule changes, then IM has no option but to reapply for a new CG permit, but only for ET/LR.  TO/ Ar can be included at some point in the future, assuming IM & the SRP consider them safe to race.

K38BOB and SWS are correct: if the Jury upholds ETNZ's application, ACRM will have to revise and resubmit their MEP application, presumably after negotiations with ETNZ and LR on the contentious changes. The CG will then issue an updated MEP with the amended Safety Plan for the whole event - they don't care whether any boat complies with the AC72 Class Rules or not: that's a question for the Measurement Committee.

 

And you're familiar with this process you allude to, of modifying a MEP after it's been published and ratified?

 

You can cite some case law where it has happened?

 

I wish I shared your confidence.

 

"Dear Mr. Coast Guard. The IJ says we were wrong about a couple of our Safety Recommendations. We'd like to change or withdraw them.  Why?  Well, to make the event more safe of course.  The Race Director who issued them has some egg on his face, but that's OK.  He's a big boy. He'll get over it."



#85 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,244 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:05 PM

he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.

 

Yes, totally agree!!!  But now that he has and has stated so publicly he will have to cancel the event if all 37 recommendations are not endorsed, he is on a very sticky wicket.  The reality is that he has no grounds to cancel the event, two boats are safe under the old rules by his own admission, his only real way forward is to go back to the USCG with the uncontentious recommendations removed and apply for a permit that permits only LR/ETNZ to race.  There is no reason that the USCG will not grant a MEP, given that the removed safety recommendations did not affect them.  If at a later stage TO or Ar prove that their designs are safe, then he can re-apply for a new/ amended permit

 

Either way the event must happen.

 

 

It is entirely possible this event will not happen, and I'm pretty sure the world will keep spinning on its axis.



#86 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:09 PM

 

My post was all about if the IJ flick the class rule changes, then IM has no option but to reapply for a new CG permit, but only for ET/LR.  TO/ Ar can be included at some point in the future, assuming IM & the SRP consider them safe to race.

K38BOB and SWS are correct: if the Jury upholds ETNZ's application, ACRM will have to revise and resubmit their MEP application, presumably after negotiations with ETNZ and LR on the contentious changes. The CG will then issue an updated MEP with the amended Safety Plan for the whole event - they don't care whether any boat complies with the AC72 Class Rules or not: that's a question for the Measurement Committee.

 

And you're familiar with this process you allude to, of modifying a MEP after it's been published and ratified?

 

You can cite some case law where it has happened?

 

I wish I shared your confidence.

 

"Dear Mr. Coast Guard. The IJ says we were wrong about a couple of our Safety Recommendations. We'd like to change or withdraw them.  Why?  Well, to make the event more safe of course.  The Race Director who issued them has some egg on his face, but that's OK.  He's a big boy. He'll get over it."

Why don't you cite where and when it has NOT happened. Common sense, not case law...and the experience of posters like K38BOB, yes SWS, Clean.....



#87 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:15 PM

he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.

 

Yes, totally agree!!!  But now that he has and has stated so publicly he will have to cancel the event if all 37 recommendations are not endorsed, he is on a very sticky wicket.  The reality is that he has no grounds to cancel the event, two boats are safe under the old rules by his own admission, his only real way forward is to go back to the USCG with the uncontentious recommendations removed and apply for a permit that permits only LR/ETNZ to race.  There is no reason that the USCG will not grant a MEP, given that the removed safety recommendations did not affect them.  If at a later stage TO or Ar prove that their designs are safe, then he can re-apply for a new/ amended permit

 

Either way the event must happen.

 

By getting involved in an area he has no right to be in and taking a "my way or the highway" approach to things, he has backed himself, LR and ETNZ into corners.

ETNZ are ok because they have said that they will accept the ruling either way. LR have a little bit of wiggle room because they have taken a "lets wait and see" approach.

 

But IM has absolutely no wiggle room at all. None. Zip. Nada.

He has said that he will be "forced" to cancel the regatta if (when) he loses and that is not a great position to be in.

When the IJ rule against him (which they must), then I can see resignation as his only option.

 

Truthfully, he should have resigned immediately after the death of his mate as it has obviously compromised his ability to think and act rationally.



#88 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:19 PM

 

he fucked up badly by becoming embroiled in Class Rule design decisions which are not his to make.

 

Yes, totally agree!!!  But now that he has and has stated so publicly he will have to cancel the event if all 37 recommendations are not endorsed, he is on a very sticky wicket.  The reality is that he has no grounds to cancel the event, two boats are safe under the old rules by his own admission, his only real way forward is to go back to the USCG with the uncontentious recommendations removed and apply for a permit that permits only LR/ETNZ to race.  There is no reason that the USCG will not grant a MEP, given that the removed safety recommendations did not affect them.  If at a later stage TO or Ar prove that their designs are safe, then he can re-apply for a new/ amended permit

 

Either way the event must happen.

 

 

It is entirely possible this event will not happen, and I'm pretty sure the world will keep spinning on its axis.

 

At least the northern hemisphere - it could split in have and the southern hemisphere may stop.



#89 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:20 PM

And you're familiar with this process you allude to, of modifying a MEP after it's been published and ratified?

 

Nope.

 

But it seems reasonable to me that if the terms of your original application have changed you surely must be allowed to either apply for a new permit, or to amended the existing permit.  Am I wrong on this assumption Kiwijoker?



#90 cheshirecat

cheshirecat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Location:Twixt sky and sea
  • Interests:VFRPS

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:21 PM

 

 

Does someone here have the link to the 37 recommendations handy?

 

http://noticeboard.a...omendations.pdf

 

Saw that too. Not exactly 37 items. There are a couple of other documents with the one or the other, but I am looking for a complete list. Was none published after the CG application was sent out?

http://cdn.sparkart....tions-22.5.13-1

Thanks from me as well - very helpful



#91 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:22 PM

It is entirely possible this event will not happen, and I'm pretty sure the world will keep spinning on its axis.

 

At least the northern hemisphere - it could split in have and the southern hemisphere may stop.

 

Those comments really add to the debate, come on argue the logic, the facts, you TO fans know so much, educate us, but don't waste our time eh!!!



#92 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:22 PM

And you're familiar with this process you allude to, of modifying a MEP after it's been published and ratified?

 

Nope.

 

But it seems reasonable to me that if the terms of your original application have changed you surely must be allowed to either apply for a new permit, or to amended the existing permit.  Am I wrong on this assumption Kiwijoker?

 

And if the USCG asks, "have the laws of physics or the density of water changed since you filed your application ?" 



#93 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:24 PM

 

 

My post was all about if the IJ flick the class rule changes, then IM has no option but to reapply for a new CG permit, but only for ET/LR.  TO/ Ar can be included at some point in the future, assuming IM & the SRP consider them safe to race.

K38BOB and SWS are correct: if the Jury upholds ETNZ's application, ACRM will have to revise and resubmit their MEP application, presumably after negotiations with ETNZ and LR on the contentious changes. The CG will then issue an updated MEP with the amended Safety Plan for the whole event - they don't care whether any boat complies with the AC72 Class Rules or not: that's a question for the Measurement Committee.

 

And you're familiar with this process you allude to, of modifying a MEP after it's been published and ratified?

 

You can cite some case law where it has happened?

 

I wish I shared your confidence.

 

"Dear Mr. Coast Guard. The IJ says we were wrong about a couple of our Safety Recommendations. We'd like to change or withdraw them.  Why?  Well, to make the event more safe of course.  The Race Director who issued them has some egg on his face, but that's OK.  He's a big boy. He'll get over it."

Why don't you cite where and when it has NOT happened. Common sense, not case law...and the experience of posters like K38BOB, yes SWS, Clean.....

 

My speculation is better than your speculation.   :)

 

If your theory bears out I'll be the first to apologise.



#94 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,128 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:26 PM

 

It is entirely possible this event will not happen, and I'm pretty sure the world will keep spinning on its axis.

 

At least the northern hemisphere - it could split in have and the southern hemisphere may stop.

 

Those comments really add to the debate, come on argue the logic, the facts, you TO fans know so much, educate us, but don't waste our time eh!!!

 

Not up for a little humor eh ?

 

Sometimes helping is a futile effort if you're not told what you want to hear - which is exactly why I sent you directly to the USCG so you could get all of your questions answered. Let me know if you've lost the number.



#95 Desprit

Desprit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • Location:Wellington, New Zealand

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:27 PM

 

And you're familiar with this process you allude to, of modifying a MEP after it's been published and ratified?

 

Nope.

 

But it seems reasonable to me that if the terms of your original application have changed you surely must be allowed to either apply for a new permit, or to amended the existing permit.  Am I wrong on this assumption Kiwijoker?

 

And if the USCG asks, "have the laws of physics or the density of water changed since you filed your application ?" 

The answer would of course be "not at all" its just that we have found the rule regarding rudders as originally written allows the competitors to comply with the recommendations without the need for a change.



#96 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:30 PM

ETNZ's applications to Jury:

 

1: Jury Case AC16: In the Application ETNZ sought a ruling from the Jury that the Measurement Committee (MC) effectively amended the AC72 Class Rule (Class Rule) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued Public Interpretation (PI) 22. They proposed that the Jury replace PI 22 with a determination, for which ETNZ provided the wording in their Application.

 

Verdict: Win to ETNZ

 

2: Jury Case AC24: ETNZ, inter alia, seek[s] a ruling from the Jury that the Regatta Director has exceeded his jurisdiction in seeking to introduce amendments to the AC 72 Class Rule (“Class Rule”) without obtaining the unanimous consent of the Competitors as required by Clause 4 of the Class Rule and that any such amendments are invalid and of no effect‟.

 

Verdict: Win to ETNZ

It would be convenient if the Jury could replace the offending changes (Class Rules) with theirs but alas they don't have that discretion.



#97 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:33 PM

And if the USCG asks, "have the laws of physics or the density of water changed since you filed your application ?" 

 

Why on earth would they say that???  Are you saying the USCG ask totally unreasonable questions and thus act totally randomly?  Well keen to read your answer to that one!!!!

Ps.  Still trying to deflect attention from the real debate SWS.



#98 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,205 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:34 PM

 The entire claim that the USCG is requiring changes to the boats is ignorant at best, spin at medium, and lying at worst.

The claim that the Safety Regs approved by CG for the Permit are Design Rules changes is arguably ignorant too. They may fall under that category at the AC Protocol and AC72 Class Rule level but they aren't 'DR' changes to the CG, who neither has nor cares the definition or distinction.


What I still don't get is why ETNZ started the protest in the first place, let alone stick to it causing LR to too, and causing the ridiculous situation for the Challs yesterday. Let's say they were able to get the 36 of 37 DB wrote about last week: AR might never have time to comply, okay fine there's one competitor eliminated, but their real target is OR and here's the thing: OR is happy to comply even with the abortion 'third-way' that ETNZ proposed. If they were to choose to run with fat symm elevators to comply with a still-enforced BMax limit despite the larger area requirement, well it makes basically no effing difference to anybody anyway. Least of all to OR. It's a wild good chase, totally ridiculous.

It's no wonder OR mocks them all. They couldn't care less what the Challs are frothing on about amongst themselves, let them at it for as long as they want to dick around not getting any race practice.

#99 Oneyoti

Oneyoti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:41 PM

The claim that the Safety Regs approved by CG for the Permit are Design Rules changes is arguably ignorant too. 


And who presented the safety regulations?

 

Would they have been be approved without the manipulation of the innocent USCG???

 

Why did IM believe that as Chairman of the SRP he could ignore his most basic remit as RD, that being to run a fair and unbiased regatta, and ignore performance implications when making his recommendations?



#100 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:43 PM

 it makes basically no effing difference to anybody anyway. Least of all to OR. It's a wild good chase, totally ridiculous.


It's no wonder OR mocks them all.

 

then OR should shut the fuck up

 

this is between the challs and the "independent" race management

 

wuss wading in to call LR prissy little girls didn't help the last minute negotiations to get them to race

 

and continuing comment weakens the independence of the race management  

 

just because he and PC fucked up with their new world order 

 

doesn't mean everyone else should take a shafting

 

if OR want to grow the event they will need "english as a 2nd language" teams, like italy, france, germany, china. korea, russia

 

and OR and their hand-picked stooges don't appear to be able to communicate adequately even with native english speaking teams, so what hope is there for their role as defender and racer organiser?

 

the side-lining of bruno from the LV was yet another bad choice by the defender

 

keep to the written word and work on explaining it better

 

not on continually changing the rules and blaming others for not keeping up!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users