Jump to content


Discrimination?

mythic front page Transpac

  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#1 Mr. Squirrel

Mr. Squirrel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,966 posts
  • Location:In a van, down by the river

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:10 AM

From the front page....

In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.

The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of “issues”, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the “sightless” sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.

This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. We’ve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more…

 

Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.

 

Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days

MS



#2 Gouvernail

Gouvernail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,923 posts
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:margaritas, hippie chicks, durable flying discs for retriever dog play

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:34 AM

What is front page???

#3 JuvenileD

JuvenileD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 325 posts
  • Location:UK South Coast

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:05 AM

Ed, as a race organiser over this side of the pond, I think you are totally wrong to throw brickbats at the race organisers here. Strikes me that the racing committee have bent over backwards with rule changes to address the issue of having a blind crew member on this boat, but the crew has failed to respond to this very positive action (and all I have to go on here is what you have published on the front page). B-Quest has, it appears, also failed to comply with other race requirements (which one assumes the successful entrants have all dealt with).

 

In all honesty I'd have written exactly the same letter.



#4 SCANAS

SCANAS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 782 posts
  • Location:Brisbane
  • Interests:Water and Mud

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:46 AM

Has there been any successful prosecutions against solo sailors for not keeping a proper lookout? With, or without, a collision before hand. Seems no one ever seems to get in trouble for it.

 

Do they take AIS and Radar etc as a proper lookout?



#5 grouchyIRL

grouchyIRL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:07 AM

Has there been any successful prosecutions against solo sailors for not keeping a proper lookout? With, or without, a collision before hand. Seems no one ever seems to get in trouble for it.

 

Do they take AIS and Radar etc as a proper lookout?

 

None come to mind, but I imagine if a solo sailor caused/failed to prevent another person's death due to not being able to maintain a proper lookout there might be a bit of bother in that regard. Usually they've only themselves they can harm. Here there's another person on board who could come to harm. Though I take your point.

 

Still, it seems fairly clear cut to me. OA doesn't want a boat to sail off over the horizon never to be seen again. They're worried the lack of sight of one of the two crew increases the chance of that happening, given that there's only two crew. They suggest a third person as an observer, if they don't want a third crew member, and amend the rules to allow for this. Boat refuses. Boat doesn't do email check. Boat doesn't provide satellite phone number. Boat doesn't demonstrate how they'd address an MOB situation. Boat in no way tries to cooperate with the OA. For justified safety concerns that the boat has refused to address, OA left with no choice but to bin the entry.

 

If another boat failed to meet 5 of the safety criteria laid down by the OA, I imagine they'd be scrubbed from the event. To not do so in this case, when all reasonable accommodation has been made, would be to discriminate against all the other boats who DID meet the OA's requirements. I'm all for equality. I'm also all for knowing your own limits. The guy can't go back for the other crew if he falls over. Much like I can't reach the top shelf in my kitchen cupboards and fridge. I'm too short. It's a physical fact and nothing's gonna change that - but if I get a chair and stand on it I can reach the top shelf. If this boat just took an observer on board, then if the crew member with sight did fall overboard, they could go back for him. So where's the problem? There's a safety requirement for the race. This boat couldn't meet it in the same way as other boats could. So the OA said "hey, if you do this, you'd meet the safety requirement and we'll change the rules to allow for it so that you can still qualify as a double handed boat". Boat rejected it. OA said okay, no race for you so.



#6 BIAM

BIAM

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,809 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:03 AM

Must be the coke talking......



#7 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,517 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:06 AM

Has there been any successful prosecutions against solo sailors for not keeping a proper lookout? With, or without, a collision before hand. Seems no one ever seems to get in trouble for it.

 

Do they take AIS and Radar etc as a proper lookout?

 

None come to mind, but I imagine if a solo sailor caused/failed to prevent another person's death due to not being able to maintain a proper lookout there might be a bit of bother in that regard. Usually they've only themselves they can harm. Here there's another person on board who could come to harm. Though I take your point.

 

Still, it seems fairly clear cut to me. OA doesn't want a boat to sail off over the horizon never to be seen again. They're worried the lack of sight of one of the two crew increases the chance of that happening, given that there's only two crew. They suggest a third person as an observer, if they don't want a third crew member, and amend the rules to allow for this. Boat refuses. Boat doesn't do email check. Boat doesn't provide satellite phone number. Boat doesn't demonstrate how they'd address an MOB situation. Boat in no way tries to cooperate with the OA. For justified safety concerns that the boat has refused to address, OA left with no choice but to bin the entry.

 

If another boat failed to meet 5 of the safety criteria laid down by the OA, I imagine they'd be scrubbed from the event. To not do so in this case, when all reasonable accommodation has been made, would be to discriminate against all the other boats who DID meet the OA's requirements. I'm all for equality. I'm also all for knowing your own limits. The guy can't go back for the other crew if he falls over. Much like I can't reach the top shelf in my kitchen cupboards and fridge. I'm too short. It's a physical fact and nothing's gonna change that - but if I get a chair and stand on it I can reach the top shelf. If this boat just took an observer on board, then if the crew member with sight did fall overboard, they could go back for him. So where's the problem? There's a safety requirement for the race. This boat couldn't meet it in the same way as other boats could. So the OA said "hey, if you do this, you'd meet the safety requirement and we'll change the rules to allow for it so that you can still qualify as a double handed boat". Boat rejected it. OA said okay, no race for you so.

This



#8 Ryley

Ryley

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,017 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • Interests:Sailing, Photography, Sailing, Mountain Biking.. did I mention sailing?

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:07 PM

There's definitely more to this story. I'd like to see the sailor's rebuttal to the letter rather than Ed's word that it exists. 

 

The one thing the OA has probably screwed up though is that Miyares is a well-respected lawyer, so once again sailboat racing is going to get dragged into the courts.

 

but this isn't somebody who's just "legally blind." From a San Diego paper in 2008:

 

Miyares lost his sight at 20, when he was an Army sergeant in the Vietnam War. “After I went into a diabetic coma during a firefight, they thought I was dead and tossed me into a body bag,” he says. An alert medic, detecting a faint heartbeat, rescued him. Miyares spent the next six months in a military hospital slowly recovering, not unlike the thousands of disabled vets he’s since helped and counseled.

Now 59, he’s overcome numerous obstacles. “I can’t see, and I’m hearing-impaired,” says the Rancho Peñasquitos resident. “I’ve had a stroke. My thyroid was removed. I had a kidney transplant. I have problems with balance. I’m classified as a walking paraplegic because of nerve damage in my legs. I have digestive issues.”



#9 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,326 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:26 PM

When was the last time any of you saw a blind person at an art show?.....



#10 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,784 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

TPYC had a very well reasoned answer for rejecting an entry.  It is not discrimination.  As a matter of fact they took the ADA and offered an accommodation as required by law.  Great job TPYC!



#11 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:40 PM

Many years ago I taught blind sailors and also taught sighted sailors, and the blind sailors were almost universally more capable than the sighted ones. The idea that the blind sailor could not go back to retrieve the sighted sailor seems like a bogus reason to me, an imagined excuse because some sighted folks would not have the balls to do what this guy is doing.



#12 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,517 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:41 PM

Many years ago I taught blind sailors and also taught sighted sailors, and the blind sailors were almost universally more capable than the sighted ones. The idea that the blind sailor could not go back to retrieve the sighted sailor seems like a bogus reason to me, an imagined excuse because some sighted folks would not have the balls to do what this guy is doing.

As much i think that everybody should have the chance to sail, i'm struggling with this



#13 bloodshot

bloodshot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:the pointy end of the boat

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:43 PM

when I was a youth instructor, I had a legally blind girl in one of my classes.  She was an awesome crew, sailed by feel of the boat, but could not skipper races as she couldn't see the marks or even the telltales for that matter.  magnify that by thousands of miles of open ocean with no chase boat, a double handed entry, and I can see my the RC did what it did.



#14 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,510 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:44 PM

What the hell, man?  You gotta be shittin' us to label this as anything other than 'a good judgement call', especially given the accommodations they tried to grant.  Its not even close.  I re-read the post to try to pick up on the snark, but didn't find it. Unless you've got something much more substantial than this to rest your allegations upon, I think you're just flinging shit.



#15 mr_ryano

mr_ryano

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,966 posts
  • Location:Southeast of Disorder

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:53 PM

Many years ago I taught blind sailors and also taught sighted sailors, and the blind sailors were almost universally more capable than the sighted ones. The idea that the blind sailor could not go back to retrieve the sighted sailor seems like a bogus reason to me, an imagined excuse because some sighted folks would not have the balls to do what this guy is doing.

 

 

My understanding is that the team was asked to demonstrate MOB procedures and refused. If you can do it, and hopefully practiced doing it, why not show it off?



#16 davidprobable

davidprobable

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts
  • Location:upper canada
  • Interests:classic collectible sailing and restoring , confronting the silly.

Posted 08 July 2013 - 12:57 PM

Hits hits hits.......talk total crap and get reactive hits.....we are all to blame.......



#17 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,517 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:05 PM

Thanks for the input, very insightful



#18 NautiGirl

NautiGirl

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,085 posts
  • Location:New Scotland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:10 PM

Hits hits hits.......talk total crap and get reactive hits.....we are all to blame.......

 

And of course Scot would advocate for such an entry, because nothing gets hits like a dead sailor.

 

Clearly, the organizing authority has gone above and beyond to assist this boat in ensuring the safety of the crew during a challenging race.  I don't see much evidence based solely on that letter where the entry has done anything to prove that they can sail the race safely.  I'm really not sure what the problem is here.



#19 flatearth

flatearth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 329 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:11 PM

Right call by the OA, and that they provided accommodations so the boat could enter. I highly respect Mr. Miyares and the limit is not the ability to sail, rather the limit in eliminating risk. If this was just two guys wanting to sail to Hawaii or across the sea and one was blind and with other health related issues, then great. (Just pay back the CG when something goes wrong.) but the OA has a responsibility to all the competitors. What if their regatta liability insurance was going to pulled? Would that be fair to the other competitors?

There was a little incident with BOR which I did have a conversation with a TPYC Flag officer last year that may have some bearing on eliminating the risk.

http://www.cruisingc...review_2012.pdf

#20 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,880 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:12 PM

The MOB issue aside, B Quest has failed to meet the entry requirements. It defies imagination how you rationalize this as discrimination.

#21 notherday

notherday

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:27 PM

this stuff is right out of the NOR, SIs, ISAF Regs, and are similar to that being done by other offshore events. Sounds like the crew couldn't meet even the minimum requirements - irrespective of the events of the last year - the committee is correct in their actions.



#22 Kent H

Kent H

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:29 PM

DP - some more than others as you have demonstrated.   Scot is just taking a side and if it results in more hits that is great as it allows those of us who would not have any influence to express our opinions.

 

 

We should let the two sailors involved make a statement before we jump to conclusions.   I greatly admire both for taking on the race.   I definitely would encourage all of you to get involved in Veterans affairs in some form.  It is very gratifying and especially if you never served in the Military, Police or Fire Dept. you will walk away from the experience a better person. The one guarantee I will make is that once you understand the anger and grief that some of these Veterans go through you will understand why these two individuals are determined to race.  Do not believe the government propaganda, in many cases the situation is much worse than what they let on. 

 

The reality of the US West Coast is that there have been several deaths involving sailing that have received a lot of publicity.   If you chum the water with blood you get sharks.   In the US West coasts case the blood attracts the government in the form of Homeland Security - United States Coast Guard.   So what might have been allowed only a few years ago is now being denied.  Either you police your event or the government will.  

 

There are arguments that can be made for the sailors involved.  

 

1. That it is an easy race that is mainly a beam to broad reach the entire way with very little tacking except entering and leaving the race.

2. That there are several solo races held as well as numerous boats that complete the trip with only one sailor aboard.  If the solo sailor falls off a boat with nobody onboard the boat can not complete a rescue!

 

I thought of two and I am sure that some of you can think of others.  But lets all keep an open mind to the issue until at least one of these sailors posts their position on why they should be allowed to race. 



#23 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,517 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:49 PM

The MOB issue aside, B Quest has failed to meet the entry requirements. It defies imagination how you rationalize this as discrimination.

He didn't, its the voices in his head



#24 L Z

L Z

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • Location:Member #50 - Detroit, MI

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:50 PM

TPYC is absolutely correct in their decision.  No, it is not discrimination. Just Scot's lack of reading comprehension.



#25 Spyder

Spyder

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:54 PM

In total agreement with Secret Squirrel and LZ.



#26 Paul Romain Tober

Paul Romain Tober

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:02 PM

I agree with the Ed this time. If single-handed is safe enough then double-handed with one blind, crippled, retarded, crazy or even dead crewmember ought to be ok. The organizers are just being dicks.

 

Romain

 

Edit: Anyone remember Hank Dekker? Sailed to Hawaii solo back in the day. http://news.google.c...pg=1146,8299511



#27 bottlerocket

bottlerocket

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:08 PM

The front page sucks.   Changing my bookmark back to the forums.



#28 JWBooth

JWBooth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Location:Island, Kentucky
  • Interests:Proud Co-founder and Ring Leader of the White Trash Circus:
    Local 270 Western Kentucky Chapter

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:10 PM

Blind sailor in Transpac =  blind NASCAR/F1 driver

 

 

...just say'n.



#29 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,517 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:12 PM

The front page sucks.  

You've been a member since '05 and you've just realised?



#30 longy

longy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:12 PM

  Doom and unmitigated failure is now well underway. Bqwest fails to satisfy entry requirements clearly stated for all boats. Why is this worth a soapbox?



#31 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,517 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:18 PM

  Doom and unmitigated failure is now well underway. Bqwest fails to satisfy entry requirements clearly stated for all boats. Why is this worth a soapbox?

Coz the Ed got flicked from a regatta for just the same thing.

 

 

Its just so unfair

 

screaming-425ds091010.jpg



#32 Polaris

Polaris

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,651 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:22 PM

I agree with Squirrel (minus the fucking)  It would be fine if they were full crew.  Doublehanded is not advised.  It was a good call.

From the front page....

 

In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.

The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of “issues”, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the “sightless” sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.

This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. We’ve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more…

 

Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.

 

Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days

MS



#33 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,980 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:58 PM

Trans Pacific Yacht club - 1

 

SA  -                                 ZERO



#34 cubfan

cubfan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:58 PM

From the front page....

 

In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.

The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of “issues”, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the “sightless” sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.

This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. We’ve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more…

 

Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.

 

Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days

MS

 

Gotta say-the Squirrel is right.  I thought it was very fair of the committee to offer a 3rd person to go along, but if the boat refuses-then they are out.  



#35 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:20 PM

I agree with the Ed this time. If single-handed is safe enough then double-handed with one blind, crippled, retarded, crazy or even dead crewmember ought to be ok. The organizers are just being dicks.

 

Romain

 

Edit: Anyone remember Hank Dekker? Sailed to Hawaii solo back in the day. http://news.google.c...pg=1146,8299511

 

That is the way I see it. Telling them they need to have a third person who acts as the eyes for the blind sailor is insulting and would be counter productive to what they are trying to accomplish.



#36 DancingBear

DancingBear

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Location:Naptown

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:20 PM

Ed's to do list:

 

Create controversy

Rail against something that a vast majority agree with

Increase hits on site due to created controversy

 

check, check and check.

 

Problem, newsworthy articles are ignored for this stupidity.



#37 oldweezer

oldweezer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Location:Northern Michigan

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:26 PM

As someone who often works with special needs individuals with outdoor sports, including sailing; I agree with the decision of the OA.

When someone goes MOB, it is not often in flat seas where they are conscious and right next to the boat. It is likely they are no where near the boat by the time the MOB is realized and may not be able to direct the visually impaired sailor to their location. Talk about trying to find a needle in a haystack! 

In the eventuality that the MOB is not found, my next question is "now what?" How does a blind sailor safely sail single-handed? How many rescuers may have to risk their lives to find that person?

Special needs sailors (and for that matter skiers, snowboarders, and whatever) can do awesome things but need to realize that safety may dictate some efforts. As much as I hate to place limitations on them, common sense dictates some.



#38 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,880 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:29 PM

I'd let them go if they were BOTH blind...BUT THEY HAVE TO COMPLETE THE MANDATORY PAPERWORK OR THEY'RE NOT A LEGAL ENTRY!

Sorry for yelling, but arguing the obvious gets old.

#39 DRDNA

DRDNA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Location:Ventucky

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:36 PM

I thought it was a good decision as it's difficult to recover anyone overboard anyway even with a full crew.  I have no doubt the skipper with poor eyesight can race the hell out of a boat, but this seems like a special circumstance- and the organizer gave them a few options.  I do admire the fact they want to do the race!



#40 BIAM

BIAM

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,809 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:40 PM

Ed's to do list:

 

Create controversy

Rail against something that a vast majority agree with

Increase hits on site due to created controversy

 

check, check and check.

 

Problem, newsworthy articles are ignored for this stupidity.

bingo, we have a winner.



#41 notherday

notherday

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:45 PM

Anyone can sail to Hawaii and show their abilities - go do it!!

 

As for the TP race, the TPYC has liability issues to manage and thus the STANDARD ISAF MU1 Regs - if you cannot will not meet the base requirements, then the YC has the right and responsibility to control who they 'invite' to this major offshore event.

 

And what happens if/when they do run into some issue? does everyone else have to stop and help them, even if they won't meet the minimum ISAF requirements - while I understand their personal issues and are impressed by what those with disabilities can do, there are hundreds of sailors spending millions who would be obliged to help them (and they would) all so they can show they might be able to sail double handed to Hawaii.

 

Agree with the 'hits' plan - and can't believe Scot hasn't put out a press release himself (with the appropriate URL of course)!



#42 realestatebroker

realestatebroker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:59 PM

This is a PR disaster, just not for TPYC.



#43 Secret Weapon

Secret Weapon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Location:Chi-town most of the time

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:00 PM

From the front page....

 

In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.

The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of “issues”, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the “sightless” sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.

This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. We’ve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more…

 

Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.

 

Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days

MS

 

"Stand by for more...."  Think that's a promise that will be kept?.



#44 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts
  • Location:Reno,Nv. San Francisco Bay , Santa Cruz,Ca. Tahoe,Nv
  • Interests:Sailing. I shot a man in Reno.. Just to watch him die..

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:19 PM

From the front page....


In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.
The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of issues, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the sightless sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.
This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. Weve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more

 
Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.
 
Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days
MS
its rather odd that the Singlehanded Sailing Society in the 80s allowed a SINGLE HANDED BLIND GUY, by the name of Hank Decker to be able to enter the race on a laser 28. The only navigation tools, a talking Loran and a watch without the crystal. Funny.. He had no problems, and finished the race. And just how does a single hander stand watch per colregs? How does that crew person on a ship that is all by themselves on watch take a leak? Or get something to eat, leaving the bridge of that ship? TPYC has been looking at to many horror films, and has let their imagination go wild.

#45 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts
  • Location:Reno,Nv. San Francisco Bay , Santa Cruz,Ca. Tahoe,Nv
  • Interests:Sailing. I shot a man in Reno.. Just to watch him die..

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:22 PM

When was the last time any of you saw a blind person at an art show?.....

when was the last time you were at an art show?

#46 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,880 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:23 PM

"Stand by for more...." Think that's a promise that will be kept?.

It'll start with a nasty letter referring to Dave Cort as a c$nt threatening to bring down the wrath of the worlds most useless Internet site, assuring him that if didn't know who he was, he'd be happy to remind him. Dave would get confused by all of that, shrug his shoulders, and drop the nasty email into the trash bin.

#47 Moreanon

Moreanon

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:55 PM

I'm on the side of TPYC for htis one. ED is out to lunch.

2c



#48 SA Lurker

SA Lurker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:57 PM

From the front page....


In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.
The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of issues, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the sightless sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.
This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. Weve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more

 
Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.
 
Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days
MS
its rather odd that the Singlehanded Sailing Society in the 80s allowed a SINGLE HANDED BLIND GUY, by the name of Hank Decker to be able to enter the race on a laser 28. The only navigation tools, a talking Loran and a watch without the crystal. Funny.. He had no problems, and finished the race. And just how does a single hander stand watch per colregs? How does that crew person on a ship that is all by themselves on watch take a leak? Or get something to eat, leaving the bridge of that ship? TPYC has been looking at to many horror films, and has let their imagination go wild.

 

Not so odd, really.

Times have changed and we as a society have become evermore litigious, holding others accountable for not protecting us from ourselves.

In 1994, Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap suffering 3rd-dgree burns and it cost McDonald's $2.86M.

The measure of accountability has only worsened since.

In light of the circumstances it sounds as though the OA has acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.



#49 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,784 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:05 PM

Let's discuss the practicality of maintaining a watch as required by IRPCAS.  It is nothing but that, a simple requirement.  Have the water cops ever pulled anyone over because they weren't maintaining a watch?  A big ocean going ship set on auto-pilot while the driver has his feet up reading Penthouse?  No.  It is only when a collision occurs, it is the aftermath in practicality where solo sailors, blind sailors or anyone else not maintaining a watch will have difficulty with the law.  I am thinking of two different singlehanders that fell asleep and ended up on the beach.  One was dead, the other made it ashore with the boat destroyed, they fell asleep and didn't wake up at the appropriate time.  In practicality, do you think the water cops will charge these people with not maintaining a watch?  File charges against the dead guy?  File charges against the guy whose boat was just destroyed?

 

What will occur some day is, two boats will meet, one boat not maintaining a watch and there will be damage, injuries and/or fatalities where the singlehander will be found guilty.  Why doesn't this occur? Most likely because the other boats ARE maintaining a watch and divert to avoid a collision.

 

In another practical sense, the Transpac is one of a few races in the country that strives for safety.  They have one of the most rigorous inspections, safety seminar requirements and works to provide an event that attempts to have all sailors come back to shore alive.  If other events endorse single handed racing, that is the standard those other events adopt, but you can't force some other events standards on the Transpac.  They set their bar much higher when it comes to safety.  And good for them for doing so.

 

 

I agree with the Ed this time. If single-handed is safe enough then double-handed with one blind, crippled, retarded, crazy or even dead crewmember ought to be ok. The organizers are just being dicks.

 

Romain

 

Edit: Anyone remember Hank Dekker? Sailed to Hawaii solo back in the day. http://news.google.c...pg=1146,8299511



#50 jerryj2me

jerryj2me

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:18 PM

Other than filling out the paperwork and processing all that properly (gotta play by the rules)

 

Isn't there a solo category in the TransPac?

 

As such, I would hope that all groups have to meet the same requirements.

That said, solo category will never meet the MOB requirement.

 

Or is there a double standard going on?



#51 spinntrim

spinntrim

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:North of Canada

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:22 PM

I think the more important point is that both Clean and the Ed have misread a significant portion of the forum participants in the last couple of weeks. As I see it, It started when the Ed flipped out about the regatta entry for his Shaw, continued with the Lawsuit plea for money, and now this. Has the eds divorce and move changed the way he sees this place? People grow and change, it just may be that the forum majority has moved away from or the ed and clean have moved away from the forum. 

 

 I'm mostly a lurker, but I have been around since precrash, and I would miss this place if it changes/ disappears. But it will happen and I shall move on. 



#52 ssi

ssi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:28 PM

Nope, he sees and treats this place in the same way ever since Gear Anarchy was created.

 

Has the eds divorce and move changed the way he sees this place? 



#53 hard aground

hard aground

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,138 posts
  • Location:out with my droogs

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

Blind sailor in Transpac =  blind NASCAR/F1 driver

 

 

...just say'n.

No. Blind sailor in TransPac = blind Paris/Dakar driver.



#54 spinntrim

spinntrim

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:North of Canada

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:43 PM

Nope, he sees and treats this place in the same way ever since Gear Anarchy was created.

 

Has the eds divorce and move changed the way he sees this place? 

 

So the inevitable fall started then?



#55 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,164 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:48 PM


TPYC is absolutely correct in their decision.  No, it is not discrimination. Just Scot's lack of reading comprehension.


I'm sure he can read fine. Sadly, it's the ramblings of a pathetic little man falling from grace. This really has gone from being funny as hell to just plain sad. I'll continue to mock him when he posts stupid shit like this, but I sincerely hope Scot gets help.

#56 DancingBear

DancingBear

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Location:Naptown

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:54 PM

 

From the front page....


In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.
The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of issues, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the sightless sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.
This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. Weve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more

 
Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.
 
Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days
MS
its rather odd that the Singlehanded Sailing Society in the 80s allowed a SINGLE HANDED BLIND GUY, by the name of Hank Decker to be able to enter the race on a laser 28. The only navigation tools, a talking Loran and a watch without the crystal. Funny.. He had no problems, and finished the race. And just how does a single hander stand watch per colregs? How does that crew person on a ship that is all by themselves on watch take a leak? Or get something to eat, leaving the bridge of that ship? TPYC has been looking at to many horror films, and has let their imagination go wild.

 

Not so odd, really.

Times have changed and we as a society have become evermore litigious, holding others accountable for not protecting us from ourselves.

In 1994, Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap suffering 3rd-dgree burns and it cost McDonald's $2.86M.

The measure of accountability has only worsened since.

In light of the circumstances it sounds as though the OA has acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.

Actually, it cost McDonalds a whole lot less than $2.8 million.  The Judge reduced the award to $640,000 and before the appeal was heard the parties agreed to an undisclosed settlement for something less than the $640,000 award.  I do agree though that this society has become far too litigious.



#57 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,784 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:49 PM

The lady got $160,000, full results including picture -

http://forums.sailin...44907&p=4063607

 

It's sick how the press and the courts distort the picture, of course they don't have any idea on how the story ends, they just report on the story as it develops.  They can't take anything back that was said earlier.

 

 

 

From the front page....


In what looks like an not only an abuse of the rules, a PR disaster, and perhaps outright discrimination, the Transpacific Yacht Club has, less than 24 hours before their start, cancelled/rejected the doublehanded entry of the Tripp 40 B-Quest challenged America for their Transpac race to Hawaii.
The reason? One of the sailors is blind. Claiming a litany of issues, some of which are, according to the sailors, completely false, The TPYC is alleging that the sightless sailor, Urban Miyares who is a very experienced sailor and has sailed a Transpac in 2003, could not rescue the other sailor on board, should said sailor fall overboard.
This seems to be yet another example of a misuse of power, judgement and an incredibly punitive decision. Weve seen how the TPYC has handled issues in the past and we have been unimpressed. This, however is a new low. Stand by for more

 
Ed you have serious lost your fucking mind.  Please explain to us less intelligent how a blind person can stand a watch as per the COLREGS unassisted?  Sure sounds like TPYC made all sorts of efforts to accommodate them and in each case B Quest refused.  Not sure what PR disaster you are seeing, but to my eyes TPYC is making a prudent decision and offered alternatives to B Quest that would allow them to compete.  That B Quest refused those alternatives falls on them, not the TPYC.
 
Once again you are dead wrong.  You should be getting used to it one of these days
MS
its rather odd that the Singlehanded Sailing Society in the 80s allowed a SINGLE HANDED BLIND GUY, by the name of Hank Decker to be able to enter the race on a laser 28. The only navigation tools, a talking Loran and a watch without the crystal. Funny.. He had no problems, and finished the race. And just how does a single hander stand watch per colregs? How does that crew person on a ship that is all by themselves on watch take a leak? Or get something to eat, leaving the bridge of that ship? TPYC has been looking at to many horror films, and has let their imagination go wild.

 

Not so odd, really.

Times have changed and we as a society have become evermore litigious, holding others accountable for not protecting us from ourselves.

In 1994, Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap suffering 3rd-dgree burns and it cost McDonald's $2.86M.

The measure of accountability has only worsened since.

In light of the circumstances it sounds as though the OA has acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.

Actually, it cost McDonalds a whole lot less than $2.8 million.  The Judge reduced the award to $640,000 and before the appeal was heard the parties agreed to an undisclosed settlement for something less than the $640,000 award.  I do agree though that this society has become far too litigious.



#58 Paul Romain Tober

Paul Romain Tober

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:06 PM

This is so obviously discrimination. From the letter:

 

"For the above reasons, the most important of which is the inability to demonstrate how the boat would effect recovery of an overboard David Hopkins..."

 

Do the other boats have to demonstrate MOB recovery also? Not likely. Does the OA or anyone here think that Mr. Hopkins is going to prance about the foredeck in leather shoes and no harness and tether?

 

I agree with most here that the entry should meet all the technical and equipment requirements, but from the above quote that is obviously not why the OA denied the entry.

 

Romain



#59 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,784 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:09 PM

NO.  Singlehanded is not an option for Transpac.

 

Other than filling out the paperwork and processing all that properly (gotta play by the rules)

 

Isn't there a solo category in the TransPac?

 

As such, I would hope that all groups have to meet the same requirements.

That said, solo category will never meet the MOB requirement.

 

Or is there a double standard going on?



#60 DancingBear

DancingBear

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Location:Naptown

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:25 PM

Quoting you from your own post she received $160,000 in damages award and the Judge reduced the punitive award from $2.7 million to $480,000 which totals $640,000 the amount I mentioned below.  However, before the appeal, the two parties agreed to a settlement for something less than the $640,000 but that amount was confidential.

The lady got $160,000, full results including picture -

http://forums.sailin...44907&p=4063607

 

It's sick how the press and the courts distort the picture, of course they don't have any idea on how the story ends, they just report on the story as it develops.  They can't take anything back that was said earlier.

 

 

 

 

From the front page.... 

 

 

its rather odd that the Singlehanded Sailing Society in the 80s allowed a SINGLE HANDED BLIND GUY, by the name of Hank Decker to be able to enter the race on a laser 28. The only navigation tools, a talking Loran and a watch without the crystal. Funny.. He had no problems, and finished the race. And just how does a single hander stand watch per colregs? How does that crew person on a ship that is all by themselves on watch take a leak? Or get something to eat, leaving the bridge of that ship? TPYC has been looking at to many horror films, and has let their imagination go wild.

 

Not so odd, really.

Times have changed and we as a society have become evermore litigious, holding others accountable for not protecting us from ourselves.

In 1994, Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap suffering 3rd-dgree burns and it cost McDonald's $2.86M.

The measure of accountability has only worsened since.

In light of the circumstances it sounds as though the OA has acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.

Actually, it cost McDonalds a whole lot less than $2.8 million.  The Judge reduced the award to $640,000 and before the appeal was heard the parties agreed to an undisclosed settlement for something less than the $640,000 award.  I do agree though that this society has become far too litigious.



#61 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts
  • Location:Reno,Nv. San Francisco Bay , Santa Cruz,Ca. Tahoe,Nv
  • Interests:Sailing. I shot a man in Reno.. Just to watch him die..

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:25 PM

Jerry, since it was first sailed in 1978 the Singlehanded TransPac has always been its own race.  The Pacific Cup has a double-handed division as does the LA TransPac apparently, but no single-handers.  People constantly confuse the three races even though they've all been run for years - even people on the West Coast.
 
The rules for the single-handed race are pretty rigorous as well.  If a skipper refused to supply his satphone number (or any of the other things in TPYC's letter) he would not be allowed to start.  It's an insult to others with impairments to cry "discrimination" here.
 
As to the other stuff, this place will roll right along as long as we all keep posting here.  Speaking to myself as well, we need to decide if we're pissed off enough to actually do something about it.

transpac at least for the last 35 years have had a good ol boy race. And if they didnt like you, your boat or whatever they would get their panties in a big wad. That is one reason the pacific cup came around. Look at what they did to any ULDB was entered. Until a good amount of the race was ULDB boats.. Then they had their back against the wall, or the race could have shriveled up like ones nuts on a very cold day and gone by the wayside. Maybe itis time to just do the VicMaui or the PAC cup.. At least they don't have their heads shoved in the sand.

#62 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,784 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:27 PM

Not even close to discrimination.  The Transpac is run under Special Regulations Category 1 (http://offshore.ussa... 1 extract.html).  5.09 states: "US SAILING prescribes that the "Quick-Stop" man-overboard procedure shall be practiced aboard the yacht at least once annually. A certificate of such practice shall be signed by participating crew members and kept aboard the yacht."

 

Being safety conscious, TPYC asked for proof up front. I already said they do one of the most critical safety reviews in the country.

 

The American with Disabilities Act says that people with disabilities cannot be discriminated against.  Apparently, this sight-less individual can sail, steer, trim sails, etc.  Transpac did not say he cannot sail.  They said he can sail as long as he can prove he can recover his sighted crew, or they take a third person whose activities would be limited to providing sighted guidance.  Or as the ADA says, "accommodations must be provided" which is exactly what TYPC accomplished.  TPYC is following the law to the T and good for them by offering two choices of accommodations.  Both are very reasonable.

 

This is so obviously discrimination. From the letter:

 

"For the above reasons, the most important of which is the inability to demonstrate how the boat would effect recovery of an overboard David Hopkins..."

 

Do the other boats have to demonstrate MOB recovery also? Not likely. Does the OA or anyone here think that Mr. Hopkins is going to prance about the foredeck in leather shoes and no harness and tether?

 

I agree with most here that the entry should meet all the technical and equipment requirements, but from the above quote that is obviously not why the OA denied the entry.

 

Romain



#63 Life Buoy 15

Life Buoy 15

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,110 posts
  • Location:The great southern land

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:30 PM

I think you are all being very inconsiderate towards this blind guy. How will he feels when he reads this stuff. Wait.
Oh never mind.

#64 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,326 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:37 PM

I think you are all being very inconsiderate towards this blind guy. How will he feels when he reads this stuff. Wait.
Oh never mind.

 

 

The holy braille of posts right there.....



#65 Asymptote

Asymptote

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,513 posts
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:47 PM

Quoting you from your own post she received $160,000 in damages award and the Judge reduced the punitive award from $2.7 million to $480,000 which totals $640,000 the amount I mentioned below.  However, before the appeal, the two parties agreed to a settlement for something less than the $640,000 but that amount was confidential.

 

The lady got $160,000, full results including picture -

http://forums.sailin...44907&p=4063607

 

It's sick how the press and the courts distort the picture, of course they don't have any idea on how the story ends, they just report on the story as it develops.  They can't take anything back that was said earlier.

 

 

 

its rather odd that the Singlehanded Sailing Society in the 80s allowed a SINGLE HANDED BLIND GUY, by the name of Hank Decker to be able to enter the race on a laser 28. The only navigation tools, a talking Loran and a watch without the crystal. Funny.. He had no problems, and finished the race. And just how does a single hander stand watch per colregs? How does that crew person on a ship that is all by themselves on watch take a leak? Or get something to eat, leaving the bridge of that ship? TPYC has been looking at to many horror films, and has let their imagination go wild.

 

Not so odd, really.

Times have changed and we as a society have become evermore litigious, holding others accountable for not protecting us from ourselves.

In 1994, Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap suffering 3rd-dgree burns and it cost McDonald's $2.86M.

The measure of accountability has only worsened since.

In light of the circumstances it sounds as though the OA has acted in a reasonable and responsible manner.

Actually, it cost McDonalds a whole lot less than $2.8 million.  The Judge reduced the award to $640,000 and before the appeal was heard the parties agreed to an undisclosed settlement for something less than the $640,000 award.  I do agree though that this society has become far too litigious.

I am so tired of the constant references to this incident as somehow being evidence of liability lawsuits run amok.  The damages were easily justified by the actual burns that she suffered...which were extensive and painful and not just a "cup of hot coffee" but from being served a cup of coffee that was truly - and proven to be - scalding, well over 180°.  If you wish to be grossed out, you can find the evidentiary photos of the woman's very damaged groin.  Not what you'd like your lap to look like at all. 

 

But hey, It's hard to give up an easy sound bite isn't it, Rush.



#66 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts
  • Location:Reno,Nv. San Francisco Bay , Santa Cruz,Ca. Tahoe,Nv
  • Interests:Sailing. I shot a man in Reno.. Just to watch him die..

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:48 PM

Ever think what the legal definition of being Blind is? Not being able to see? How about shadows? How about having corrected lenses, that aren't coke bottles but binoculars or microscopes? Like most I thought it was totally not seeing... Until I met Hank Decker.. The nicest guy you could ever meet.. Didnt know why he got out of sailing until today.. One gets tired of being told that you can't do something, when you know that you can.. Has anybody asked this guy that some are complaining about just how much ocean sailing has he done? Or what is his seeing limitation... NOOO but lets start making excuses.. You know we don't want that pesky rif raf to sail in OUR race. Typical..what's next? Maybe somebody will do the race, and is left handed, with a pink color boat and cleans every bodies clock .. Will it be OHHH we don't allow pink boats, or left handed people? You know they are to dangerous, and we can't have that.. Kind of sounds like when Merlin, panache and a few of the other ULDB s wanted to do the race..

#67 Life Buoy 15

Life Buoy 15

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,110 posts
  • Location:The great southern land

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:52 PM

I auditioned for a part in a porn film, but I didn't get it. They said my dick was to small. Cunts. I am going to sue them.

#68 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,396 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:07 PM

It was a prudent decision.  TPYC should have made it well ahead of the last minute as in before they accepted the entry.   



#69 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:07 PM

I LOVE to Ride my Harley - No REALLY

 

I HATE to Ride w others around = I avoid traffic & don't want to go for a ride In Traffic

 

There are Many Rally/Ride Events for Harley Riders = A Ride in "Harley Traffic"

 

I do None of them Because I am against everything that is what they are about

 

I have a Blast and Ride wherever I want whenever I want

 

I have Never asked any Harley Rally/Ride Events to alter their game for me to have my way

 

I just go Ride

 

 

Why do people want to enter events that are Not set up how they like/want it ???

 

If you don't like the Rules - Regulations - Class Breaks - Location - Dates Etc. Just Ignore the Event

 

 

I would like to do the Iditarod But Not in the Cold & Not with the Dog's and somewhere in SoCal and in the Water

 

Who Should I Send a Rant To ???? 

 

KIDz  Just go out and play - IF you chose to play in the Skool Yard you'll have to follow the Skool rules

 

Just Don't Go There and they have No Say in How you Play

 

After the past year or so we are Lucky to still have SailBoat Racing

 

Anymore - not enforcing whatever standard SI that would have eliminated the Rick

 

Will bring a Rain of Lawsuits should a Life be lost in Your Race

 

Jus Sayin

 

Have to wonder how long the back & forth of this went on ??

 

If B-Q was led on that they Might get the go ahead and only at the last min got the Axe = WRONG

 

But if it was known All Along You Can't Race "Unless you meet X,Y,Z" and no complince made = No Excuse



#70 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,784 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:09 PM

TPYC said he can sail.  People need to stop saying that he can't.

 

 

Ever think what the legal definition of being Blind is? Not being able to see? How about shadows? How about having corrected lenses, that aren't coke bottles but binoculars or microscopes? Like most I thought it was totally not seeing... Until I met Hank Decker.. The nicest guy you could ever meet.. Didnt know why he got out of sailing until today.. One gets tired of being told that you can't do something, when you know that you can.. Has anybody asked this guy that some are complaining about just how much ocean sailing has he done? Or what is his seeing limitation... NOOO but lets start making excuses.. You know we don't want that pesky rif raf to sail in OUR race. Typical..what's next? Maybe somebody will do the race, and is left handed, with a pink color boat and cleans every bodies clock .. Will it be OHHH we don't allow pink boats, or left handed people? You know they are to dangerous, and we can't have that.. Kind of sounds like when Merlin, panache and a few of the other ULDB s wanted to do the race..



#71 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,034 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:19 PM

+1 with MS.

 

Scot, what's wrong with you mate?



#72 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:26 PM

I think you are all being very inconsiderate towards this blind guy. How will he feels when he reads this stuff. Wait.
Oh never mind.

 

 

Urban might laugh at your Dry sense of Humor, or Not

 

But one thing for Sure Urban "shall" read this thread !!!!

 

Jus Sayin  ;)



#73 NautiGirl

NautiGirl

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,085 posts
  • Location:New Scotland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:29 PM

It was a prudent decision.  TPYC should have made it well ahead of the last minute as in before they accepted the entry.   

 

I think to deny the entry outright would be discrimination.  They tried to work with him to find a safe solution that would allow him to participate, and he wanted nothing to do with it apparently. 



#74 Yeah Buoy

Yeah Buoy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Location:Lake Michigan
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:32 PM

I think the Ed should volunteer to be the observer.  OR, maybe they couldn't comply with supplying an observer because they are fictional characters from the FOX hit series, Fringe. 



#75 JDL

JDL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:37 PM

+1 with MS.
 
Scot, what's wrong with you mate?


Nothing that rehab and shoe lifts can't fix.

#76 Skol

Skol

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Location:SF Bay
  • Interests:foredeck overboard expert. PBR can spinnaker pole construction. bailing water.

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:45 PM

Seems like a 3rd or even 4th crewmember and a sat. ph# would have resolved any issues.    There's a lot more to the story here, I'm sure.    

 

As for the FP, why do people keep taking the bait?  Reminds me of my kid brother throwing rocks at the hornet's nest just to see 'em swarm.   :rolleyes:



#77 Icedtea

Icedtea

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,073 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:45 PM

I initially agreed (first time in a long time) with what was on the front page but now having read the comments above I'm starting to buy in there. 

 

The boat unfortunately failed to meet the requirements and that's a sad fact but the club was right to do what it did. 

 

 

The argument that no solo sailors have been prosecuted for hitting things may be valid but the fact is they don't have to perform MOB- If they go over that's it, it's curtains.



#78 ejpoulsen

ejpoulsen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:46 PM

Bqwest fails to satisfy entry requirements clearly stated for all boats. Why is this worth a soapbox?

 

Seems very reasonable to reject the entry.  



#79 Harry Pattison

Harry Pattison

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:52 PM

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

#80 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,326 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:07 PM

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

 

FP fail....



#81 L Z

L Z

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • Location:Member #50 - Detroit, MI

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:12 PM

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.



#82 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,326 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:14 PM

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

 

 

Think they saw that coming?....



#83 Icedtea

Icedtea

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,073 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:35 PM

 

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

 

 

Think they saw that coming?....

Whether they did or they didn't I'd be surprised if they don't appeal in some way



#84 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,784 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:59 PM

Who else would have taken a "picture" of the letter from TPYC and given it to Clean Scot (surely not TPYC!). 

 

 

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

 

 

Think they saw that coming?....



#85 some dude

some dude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,944 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:59 PM

 

 

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

 

 

Think they saw that coming?....

Whether they did or they didn't I'd be surprised if they don't appeal in some way

 

Pray tell; what would they be seeking in this appeal, given that their start was today?



#86 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,326 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:25 PM

 

 

 

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

 

 

Think they saw that coming?....

Whether they did or they didn't I'd be surprised if they don't appeal in some way

 

Pray tell; what would they be seeking in this appeal, given that their start was today?

 

 

A clue?...



#87 Icedtea

Icedtea

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,073 posts
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:28 PM

Ah. Did not realise. Carry on

#88 unShirley

unShirley

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Location:Ventucky
  • Interests:surfing and sailing

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:36 PM

As for the FP, why do people keep taking the bait?  Reminds me of my kid brother throwing rocks at the hornet's nest just to see 'em swarm.   :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, what he said.  Of course SA in always going to rail against the establishment.  That is what the A in SA stands for.



#89 BalticBandit

BalticBandit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,728 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:27 PM

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

The question is whether or not the rules are arbitrary or not WRT the blind sailor.   Remember the ADA requires that every "reasonable accommodation" be made to allow disabled individuals to participate in activities otherwise "normies" would be allowed to do.

 

Its not clear that in setting standards for a blind crew, that "reasonable accommodation" was being made

 



#90 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:41 PM

 

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

The question is whether or not the rules are arbitrary or not WRT the blind sailor.   Remember the ADA requires that every "reasonable accommodation" be made to allow disabled individuals to participate in activities otherwise "normies" would be allowed to do.

 

Its not clear that in setting standards for a blind crew, that "reasonable accommodation" was being made

 

 

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race." 

 

I can't seem to find that says anything about not being allowed b/c someone is blind

 

failing to meet a/the deadline for completing required safety inspection procedure

 

would equally keep any boat out of any race

 

 

well perhaps Not Scot as I'm sure he'll start off w who he is on the next entry form  :o  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 



#91 hbsurfer

hbsurfer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:05 AM

What a fantastic statement from Challenged America on the front page.  I need that copywriter and good luck in the race!



#92 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,876 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:10 AM

But hey, It's hard to give up an easy sound bite isn't it, Rush.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

 

 

I hope they have a fast and safe passage, and a great arrival in paradise.  I've never seen a post race welcome like that one.  But they have to meet the requirements for entry like everyone else, and were offered accommodation.  Shitty situation, but I think the TPYC is right, given the facts we know.  More to the story?  I hope so.  



#93 notherday

notherday

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:25 AM

from their facebook page:

 

162068_207458091348_1730496582_q.jpg

July 8, 2013

STATEMENT FROM CHALLENGED AMERICA TRANSPAC TEAM REGARDING 2013 ENTRY

Since Challenged America entered the 2013 Trans Pacific Yacht Race with the Tripp 40 “B’Quest”, we have been busy outfitting the yacht while soliciting sponsors and donations to our team. We were very proud to be featured on the TransPac web site with an article and photos touting our participation in the 2013 even...t; we thank the TPYC for its previous support. The yacht was completely outfitted with a lot of sponsorship help and a crew of dedicated workers.

When B’Quest submitted its entry, it was common knowledge that B’Quest’s skipper, Urban Miyares, was a blind Vietnam Vet and the crew, David Hopkins was also a disabled Vet. We entered in the double handed class. We found out a few weeks ago about a concern on the part of the TPYC regarding Urban’s ability to sail offshore safely due to his handicap. A couple of meetings were held; when the B’Quest left San Diego to sail to LA for the start, we believed the only outstanding issue was the safety inspection. On Saturday the safety inspection was held and B’Quest passed the last hurdle. The crew enjoyed the festivities on Saturday. On Sunday the skipper, Urban, was given his race packet and transponder and a letter from TPYC saying the entry was not accepted.

We do not agree with the contents of the letter as it pertains to requirements not met. Like any sailboat race, the skipper of the boat, not the organizing authority, should determine the physical qualifications of the crew. Urban is a well-known and well respected sailor and veteran of 2 TransPac races on the same vessel. Both he and David Hopkins decided the limited risks presented by their handicaps were far outweighed by the challenge of the double handed race ahead. To add a third person dilutes the accomplishment they sought.

At this time there is a disagreement regarding the limitations of a handicap. Due to the lateness of the final letter and the belief by Urban it would not be an issue, Urban and Dave decided to press on. B’Quest has started the race; the skipper and crew were flying a protest flag at the start to indicate to the Race Committee that they dispute the reasoning outlined in the letter rejecting their entry as well as the late notification. The B’Quest crew will file the paperwork in a timely manner after finishing and, together, the crew and the shore-side team shall await the outcome. Neither the B’Quest crew nor Challenged America harbor any ill will towards TPYC. We anticipate that this is a disagreement that will be cleared up in the proper manner according to the rules and laws that govern our sport and its conditions.

We wish all the competitors a great race and we will see you all in Honolulu.

Ken Guyer – Communications

THE CHALLENGED AMERICA TRANSPAC RACE TEAM – TRANSPAC 2013
See More
 


#94 crash

crash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,676 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:33 AM

 

Trans Pac has a different account of the rejected entry. From their web site:

"The Transpacific YC regrets that the entry for the yacht B’Quest – Challenged America in Division 7 has been withdrawn by the TPYC Board for non-compliance with entry requirements for this race.

Specifically, B’Quest – Challenged America failed to meet a June 23rd deadline for not completing the required safety inspection procedure, nor asked for any extension to that deadline.

As late as yesterday, July 7th, one day prior to the start of Division 7, B’Quest – Challenged America had still not complied with these rules. The owner of the yacht was therefore informed in writing of the decision yesterday, in accordance with Rule 76.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

"We take safety rules very seriously,” said Dave Cort, Commodore of Transpacific YC. “We feel this yacht has been given every opportunity to work with us to meet the requirements of this race, and they simply have not complied. We regret having to make this decision, we really wanted to have them in this race."

 

Don't see it any different then the letter sent and posted on the SA Front page.  Basically they didn't comply with the rules and the TPCY withdrew their entry.  Withdrew, removed, denied, deleted, what difference does it make - they didn't comply with the rules, they are not a valid entry, they are out.

The question is whether or not the rules are arbitrary or not WRT the blind sailor.   Remember the ADA requires that every "reasonable accommodation" be made to allow disabled individuals to participate in activities otherwise "normies" would be allowed to do.

 

Its not clear that in setting standards for a blind crew, that "reasonable accommodation" was being made

 

I hope I get to be on that jury.  Seemed pretty reasonable to me...there is a difference between "reasonable" and "I just want it my way"   B Quest is acting a lot like a spoiled teenaged child in my mind.



#95 Mr. Squirrel

Mr. Squirrel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,966 posts
  • Location:In a van, down by the river

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:46 AM

Can someone explain to me how someone not entered in an event expects to protest an event in which they are not participating.  Good luck with that.

 

MS



#96 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,329 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:49 AM

from their facebook page:

 

162068_207458091348_1730496582_q.jpg

July 8, 2013

STATEMENT FROM CHALLENGED AMERICA TRANSPAC TEAM REGARDING 2013 ENTRY

Since Challenged America entered the 2013 Trans Pacific Yacht Race with the Tripp 40 “B’Quest”, we have been busy outfitting the yacht while soliciting sponsors and donations to our team. We were very proud to be featured on the TransPac web site with an article and photos touting our participation in the 2013 even...t; we thank the TPYC for its previous support. The yacht was completely outfitted with a lot of sponsorship help and a crew of dedicated workers.

When B’Quest submitted its entry, it was common knowledge that B’Quest’s skipper, Urban Miyares, was a blind Vietnam Vet and the crew, David Hopkins was also a disabled Vet. We entered in the double handed class. We found out a few weeks ago about a concern on the part of the TPYC regarding Urban’s ability to sail offshore safely due to his handicap. A couple of meetings were held; when the B’Quest left San Diego to sail to LA for the start, we believed the only outstanding issue was the safety inspection. On Saturday the safety inspection was held and B’Quest passed the last hurdle. The crew enjoyed the festivities on Saturday. On Sunday the skipper, Urban, was given his race packet and transponder and a letter from TPYC saying the entry was not accepted.

We do not agree with the contents of the letter as it pertains to requirements not met. Like any sailboat race, the skipper of the boat, not the organizing authority, should determine the physical qualifications of the crew. Urban is a well-known and well respected sailor and veteran of 2 TransPac races on the same vessel. Both he and David Hopkins decided the limited risks presented by their handicaps were far outweighed by the challenge of the double handed race ahead. To add a third person dilutes the accomplishment they sought.

At this time there is a disagreement regarding the limitations of a handicap. Due to the lateness of the final letter and the belief by Urban it would not be an issue, Urban and Dave decided to press on. B’Quest has started the race; the skipper and crew were flying a protest flag at the start to indicate to the Race Committee that they dispute the reasoning outlined in the letter rejecting their entry as well as the late notification. The B’Quest crew will file the paperwork in a timely manner after finishing and, together, the crew and the shore-side team shall await the outcome. Neither the B’Quest crew nor Challenged America harbor any ill will towards TPYC. We anticipate that this is a disagreement that will be cleared up in the proper manner according to the rules and laws that govern our sport and its conditions.

We wish all the competitors a great race and we will see you all in Honolulu.

Ken Guyer – Communications

THE CHALLENGED AMERICA TRANSPAC RACE TEAM – TRANSPAC 2013See More
 

 

 

A proper response leaving open a chance (if there is one) - rather than just burning the bridge  B)



#97 Paul Romain Tober

Paul Romain Tober

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:15 AM

from their facebook page:
 
162068_207458091348_1730496582_q.jpg
Challenged America
about an hour ago near San Diego, CA




July 8, 2013
STATEMENT FROM CHALLENGED AMERICA TRANSPAC TEAM REGARDING 2013 ENTRY
Since Challenged America entered the 2013 Trans Pacific Yacht Race with the Tripp 40 “B’Quest”, we have been busy outfitting the yacht while soliciting sponsors and donations to our team. We were very proud to be featured on the TransPac web site with an article and photos touting our participation in the 2013 even...t; we thank the TPYC for its previous support. The yacht was completely outfitted with a lot of sponsorship help and a crew of dedicated workers.
When B’Quest submitted its entry, it was common knowledge that B’Quest’s skipper, Urban Miyares, was a blind Vietnam Vet and the crew, David Hopkins was also a disabled Vet. We entered in the double handed class. We found out a few weeks ago about a concern on the part of the TPYC regarding Urban’s ability to sail offshore safely due to his handicap. A couple of meetings were held; when the B’Quest left San Diego to sail to LA for the start, we believed the only outstanding issue was the safety inspection. On Saturday the safety inspection was held and B’Quest passed the last hurdle. The crew enjoyed the festivities on Saturday. On Sunday the skipper, Urban, was given his race packet and transponder and a letter from TPYC saying the entry was not accepted.
We do not agree with the contents of the letter as it pertains to requirements not met. Like any sailboat race, the skipper of the boat, not the organizing authority, should determine the physical qualifications of the crew. Urban is a well-known and well respected sailor and veteran of 2 TransPac races on the same vessel. Both he and David Hopkins decided the limited risks presented by their handicaps were far outweighed by the challenge of the double handed race ahead. To add a third person dilutes the accomplishment they sought.
At this time there is a disagreement regarding the limitations of a handicap. Due to the lateness of the final letter and the belief by Urban it would not be an issue, Urban and Dave decided to press on. B’Quest has started the race; the skipper and crew were flying a protest flag at the start to indicate to the Race Committee that they dispute the reasoning outlined in the letter rejecting their entry as well as the late notification. The B’Quest crew will file the paperwork in a timely manner after finishing and, together, the crew and the shore-side team shall await the outcome. Neither the B’Quest crew nor Challenged America harbor any ill will towards TPYC. We anticipate that this is a disagreement that will be cleared up in the proper manner according to the rules and laws that govern our sport and its conditions.
We wish all the competitors a great race and we will see you all in Honolulu.
Ken Guyer – Communications
THE CHALLENGED AMERICA TRANSPAC RACE TEAM – TRANSPAC 2013See More





 

 
 
A proper response leaving open a chance (if there is one) - rather than just burning the bridge  B)

I totally agree. I hope they have a great sail.

Romain

#98 Mambo Kings

Mambo Kings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,579 posts
  • Location:Marblehead, MA and Greenwich, CT

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:36 AM

I think the Ed should volunteer to be the observer.   

He did. They said "We'd rather drown".

#99 Mambo Kings

Mambo Kings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,579 posts
  • Location:Marblehead, MA and Greenwich, CT

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:39 AM

"Neither the B’Quest crew nor Challenged America harbor any ill will towards TPYC. We anticipate that this is a disagreement that will be cleared up in the proper manner according to the rules and laws that govern our sport and its conditions."

Shouldn't we just respect their wishes to sort this out without ill will.

#100 Dart#004

Dart#004

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:05 AM

Regardless, I think B'Quest did something remarkable: they went ahead and started, and will protest upon the (no doubt) successful completion of their passage/race.  The scenarios all favor their mission. Either they win the protest, and have raced two up with one of the crew being blind or they lose the protest, but still prove their point regarding disabilities and sailing by simply completing the trip alongside fully staffed and fully sighted boats.  TPYC comes out ahead, too.  The protest is upheld and they get to shake hands with an admirable competitor, who they wanted to have in the race all along. The protest is denied, TPYC is vindicated, but gets to shake hands with a worthy sailor whom they wish could have participated.  Lastly, God forbid, their greatest fear becomes a tragic reality- an unlikely event, which didn't occur in the actual race.

 

By the way, I suppose there are times when TPYC sounds like a good ol' boys club.  My experience working with both the Honolulu and LA committees is that they are, in reality, composed of fine people who want to promote and conduct a successful,  safe race to the islands.  In this instance, I cannot image anything other than disappointment that they felt required to deny the entry according to their conditions. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users