Jump to content


lol - storm in a teacup

No Real Cheating

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 DngrMs

DngrMs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 10:45 PM

Seriously, a new thread is justified so the condemnation of the "cheating" protagonists doesn't get lost at sea.

 

The MC seems to have made a mistake, that's not a scenario I've seen discussed much...

Attached Files



#2 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,817 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 10:50 PM

It's like a comedy of errors.

BAR looks like it was perfectly legal, not sure what the rest of the confusion is all about.

#3 tech

tech

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Location:Incognito

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:02 PM

Must be a pretty big tea cup to fit in the illegally modified central king post on Spithills boat and the forward king post from the B.A.R boat.
I wonder if I am not alone in wondering if the evidence of "legitimate repairs" to the forward king posts on both Spithills and Coutts boats are from recent opening to remove something.

I think Tugboat is a pretty straight up guy, and if he thought all three boats where modified, I suspect they probably were.

#4 familysailor

familysailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:05 PM

Read it again Stingray. The BAR Forward kingpost was the only one of the three that was overweight .

The main kingposts were weighed as well and the #4 was about 4 lbs. overweight. the other two were not.



#5 DngrMs

DngrMs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:10 PM

It's certainly no big "cheating" scandal.



#6 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,799 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:11 PM

Could it be that the MC is composed of potted plants? Are they underpaid or have to do other jobs like cleaning the AC village after working hours? They make so many mistakes, incl. a false interpretation by not reading the protocol correctly, write sloppy reports, confuse boats and boat parts, miss to impound the boats in question and even worse, assign the inspection of the boats to the team owning them, and last but definitely not least apparently do not look at the boats themselves.

 

We had officials acting in a similar way, although the issue was different, some time ago in rallying, and they had send back their license for over a year. No more motorsport for them. Is it so different in sailing that sloppy and neglecting work by the MC is not only tolerated but seemingly standard at the pinnacle of the sport?



#7 familysailor

familysailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:14 PM

Must be a pretty big tea cup to fit in the illegally modified central king post on Spithills boat and the forward king post from the B.A.R boat.
I wonder if I am not alone in wondering if the evidence of "legitimate repairs" to the forward king posts on both Spithills and Coutts boats are from recent opening to remove something.

I think Tugboat is a pretty straight up guy, and if he thought all three boats where modified, I suspect they probably were.

The forward kingpost from Coutts' boat weighed .002 KG (.0044 Lbs.) more than a new one. I'm pretty sure you weren't implying that is asignificant amount, were you? Butterfly farts weigh more than that. (after a heavy meal of course)

Spithill's Forward post weighed .245 KG more than a new on and had sighns of repaired damage. That's .545 lbs. About as much as a healthy Bran Muffin from Peets. (more than a butterfly fart, but still..)



#8 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,842 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:14 PM

Oracle Coutts 5 is perfectly legal.

#9 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:16 PM

Could it be that the MC is composed of potted plants? Are they underpaid or have to do other jobs like cleaning the AC village after working hours? They make so many mistakes, incl. a false interpretation by not reading the protocol correctly, write sloppy reports, confuse boats and boat parts, miss to impound the boats in question and even worse, assign the inspection of the boats to the team owning them, and last but definitely not least apparently do not look at the boats themselves.

 

We had officials acting in a similar way, although the issue was different, some time ago in rallying, and they had send back their license for over a year. No more motorsport for them. Is it so different in sailing that sloppy and neglecting work by the MC is not only tolerated but seemingly standard at the pinnacle of the sport?

 

I agree with you Renny, perhaps someone can protest the MC's incompetence to the IJ?

Still doesn't change the fact that rules were broken and a penalty must be paid.

The only question is about intent, which will determine the magnitude of the penalty.



#10 MattyB73

MattyB73

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Location:Currently, Melbourne
  • Interests:Sailing. Boats. Wind. Beer. Order varies.

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:21 PM

Is it just me, or is this unbelievably amateur?

 

Reporting boats as outside class rules without actually measuring them yourself, siting the recording the evidence at this level is simply, truly, unbelievable. 

 

It would not happen at a kids one design regatta.  Sure there would be plenty of talk in the boatpark, but the head of the MC would not be writing to the regatta director or IJ without seeing, weighing and photographing said non-conforming parts.

 

He said, she said.  Nonsense.

 

I wonder if I start a rumour right here and now that there is a mystical pixie dust powered star trek like warp drive discovered in Mordor under the LR space suits that the MC will report that to the RD before seeing it?

 

I am aghast.



#11 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,417 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:21 PM

Just to be clear:

 

Both BAR and OR4 had clear 'illegal' modifications against the class rules.

 

BAR forward king post filled with resin/ballast slury.

OR4 Main king post contained plastic bag of some sort of steel shot.

 

OR5 was clean when measurement committee finally looked at it 2 weeks after the ACRM boat builders AND OR itself reported it had also been modified.

 

So still apparent 'cheating', just now combined with apparent incompetence by the measurement committee.



#12 Nutta

Nutta

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ
  • Interests:Technology, motorsport, fishing, photography, boats and all things that float.

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:36 PM

And where does RC credibility sit having done a full mea culpa on three boats etc?

#13 krispy kreme

krispy kreme

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:37 PM

Must be a pretty big tea cup to fit in the illegally modified central king post on Spithills boat and the forward king post from the B.A.R boat.
I wonder if I am not alone in wondering if the evidence of "legitimate repairs" to the forward king posts on both Spithills and Coutts boats are from recent opening to remove something.

I think Tugboat is a pretty straight up guy, and if he thought all three boats where modified, I suspect they probably were.

The problem with legitimate repairs is that according to the rules they were to have been reported immediately upon implementation to the MC, not discovered 16 months later via an investigation.



#14 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,817 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:42 PM

The Cheating Slander thrown by various parties before even knowing the facts is beginning to look, umm, on thinner and thinner ice.

IF (big if) the facts of the situation continue to be resolved in this direction then RC would surely be in his right to lodge protests for commercial damages, through slanderous defamation.

#15 krispy kreme

krispy kreme

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:42 PM

Could it be that the MC is composed of potted plants? Are they underpaid or have to do other jobs like cleaning the AC village after working hours? They make so many mistakes, incl. a false interpretation by not reading the protocol correctly, write sloppy reports, confuse boats and boat parts, miss to impound the boats in question and even worse, assign the inspection of the boats to the team owning them, and last but definitely not least apparently do not look at the boats themselves.

 

We had officials acting in a similar way, although the issue was different, some time ago in rallying, and they had send back their license for over a year. No more motorsport for them. Is it so different in sailing that sloppy and neglecting work by the MC is not only tolerated but seemingly standard at the pinnacle of the sport?

The Measurement Committee is appointed by the Regatta Director who may replace them at will at any time.  They are:

 Chief Measurer Nick Nicholson (USA)

 Carlos de Beltran Gutierrez (ESP) and

 Shaun Ritson (AUS)



#16 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:45 PM

Is 'not really cheating' a bit like being a 'little bit pregnant'?



#17 Nutta

Nutta

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ
  • Interests:Technology, motorsport, fishing, photography, boats and all things that float.

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:46 PM

The Cheating Slander thrown by various parties before even knowing the facts is beginning to look, umm, on thinner and thinner ice.

IF (big if) the facts of the situation continue to be resolved in this direction then RC would surely be in his right to lodge protests for commercial damages, through slanderous defamation.


The cheating accusations were on the back of officially lodged reports from the MC, RC and IM...

They have now amended their official statements.

I don't think your statement holds much more water than the sieve that has been this investigation so far...

The Cheating Slander thrown by various parties before even knowing the facts is beginning to look, umm, on thinner and thinner ice.

IF (big if) the facts of the situation continue to be resolved in this direction then RC would surely be in his right to lodge protests for commercial damages, through slanderous defamation.


The cheating accusations were on the back of officially lodged reports from the MC, RC and IM...

They have now amended their official statements.

I don't think your statement holds much more water than the sieve that has been this investigation so far...

#18 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,799 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:48 PM

Could it be that the MC is composed of potted plants? Are they underpaid or have to do other jobs like cleaning the AC village after working hours? They make so many mistakes, incl. a false interpretation by not reading the protocol correctly, write sloppy reports, confuse boats and boat parts, miss to impound the boats in question and even worse, assign the inspection of the boats to the team owning them, and last but definitely not least apparently do not look at the boats themselves.

 

We had officials acting in a similar way, although the issue was different, some time ago in rallying, and they had send back their license for over a year. No more motorsport for them. Is it so different in sailing that sloppy and neglecting work by the MC is not only tolerated but seemingly standard at the pinnacle of the sport?

The Measurement Committee is appointed by the Regatta Director who may replace them at will at any time.  They are:

 Chief Measurer Nick Nicholson (USA)

 Carlos de Beltran Gutierrez (ESP) and

 Shaun Ritson (AUS)

 

Yup, but somehow they do a very sloppy job. As if they do it part-time, voluntarily after work, without any QM, processes, forms/check lists in place.



#19 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,817 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 11:55 PM

Nutta, that's true and I should not have written 'surely' when it's more like 'possibly.'

What makes me wonder about the possibility is the article linked somewhere in the 2Mkg thread, where Coutts used the specific word 'slander.'

#20 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,974 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 17 August 2013 - 12:02 AM

Stingray
What are you talking about? This report clearly states that they have seen the evidence that 2 boats were illegal and that OR admits a 3rd boat was also illegal. How much clearer of you want it? It is beyond any dout the 3 boats were illegal. The only question is whether the weight was placed in the wrong place deliberately or accidentally. To date, nobody has offered a reasonable explanation as to how weight was added to the wrong place. The accusation of cheating has not changed at all because of this report and this report in no way changes the conclusion of the original report which described the situation as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules.

#21 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,799 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 12:09 AM

Hopefully we will know more, read: the whole story, when the IJ breaks its silence. With so many interviews going on, there should be a clearer picture in the end, no matter what OR Management or the MC have said, do say and will say until then.



#22 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,817 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 12:09 AM

I suppose it comes down to personal definitions of 'cheating.'

I doubt the IJ will use exactly that hot-word in its decision; could be wrong.

#23 Landlockedlubber

Landlockedlubber

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 12:24 AM

I suppose it comes down to personal definitions of 'cheating.'

I doubt the IJ will use exactly that hot-word in its decision; could be wrong.


After OR aborts four races, is it now ok for you/ them to deny 'pregnancy' ever existed and for their chastity to remain intact? BS on that- even if IJ adds whitewash.

#24 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,196 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 12:25 AM

Must be a pretty big tea cup to fit in the illegally modified central king post on Spithills boat and the forward king post from the B.A.R boat.
I wonder if I am not alone in wondering if the evidence of "legitimate repairs" to the forward king posts on both Spithills and Coutts boats are from recent opening to remove something.

I think Tugboat is a pretty straight up guy, and if he thought all three boats where modified, I suspect they probably were.

The forward kingpost from Coutts' boat weighed .002 KG (.0044 Lbs.) more than a new one. I'm pretty sure you weren't implying that is asignificant amount, were you? Butterfly farts weigh more than that. (after a heavy meal of course)

Spithill's Forward post weighed .245 KG more than a new on and had sighns of repaired damage. That's .545 lbs. About as much as a healthy Bran Muffin from Peets. (more than a butterfly fart, but still..)

 

 African or European butterfly? 

 

 They did the same kind of shit to the One World Challenge a decade ago.  



#25 Nutta

Nutta

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ
  • Interests:Technology, motorsport, fishing, photography, boats and all things that float.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:11 AM

Grumpy about to do interview with Vietch on NewsTalk ZB in NZ...

#26 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:31 AM

This situation could leave the OR haters as disappointed as these guys:

 

Monty-Python-and-the-Holy-Grail-19751.jp



#27 Nutta

Nutta

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ
  • Interests:Technology, motorsport, fishing, photography, boats and all things that float.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:33 AM

Is RC the black knight? It is just a flesh wound...



#28 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,974 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:44 AM

I suppose it comes down to personal definitions of 'cheating.'

I doubt the IJ will use exactly that hot-word in its decision; could be wrong.

there is no room for playing with words. It is cheating if you sail a boat that is out of class and somebody in the team knew the boats were out of class. There is zero doubt that the 3 boats were out of class because each of the boats had weight added in a position that was not class legal. The only question is whether anybody on the team knew the weight was placed in an illegal position. Given the clarity oh the rule communication requiring the added weight and that the MC have stated (and not retracted) that it was done to deliberately circumvent the rules, it is a reasonable comment to say that OR have been accused of cheating and that it is, in the words of the MC, Competitors and highly respected commentators such as Bob Fisher, this is serious.

#29 WetHog

WetHog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,503 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD USA

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:09 AM

Since the BARF boat is the worst of the (now) 2, and OR4 added weight is categorized as possible weight added by legit repair work, anyone consider whether the Aleph folk might be responsible for the BARF boat being illegal?  Just putting it out there.

 

WetHog  :ph34r:



#30 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,949 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:34 AM

yes thought of it but did not want to write it up without basis

#31 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,817 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 03:07 AM

posted yet?

RC: "Its a great example of why you shouldnt slander others before youve got the facts clear. It doesnt pay to prejudge people.

http://blog.sfgate.c...ates-confusion/

#32 zillafreak

zillafreak

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 03:29 AM

What the frick difference is 4 lbs in a kingpost going to make? Seriously? Get a clue. Not taking a crap before sailing will increase righting moment. Foul!!



#33 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 03:35 AM

Ok, so my take on this is and has always been that there is no proof of intentional cheating in a regatta, but is obviously intentional breaking of the rules since modifying these boats in such a way is against the rules.

Clearly this is a failure of the team, since the team failed to prevent the stupidity of the individuals involved, even if the individuals are only grunts and even if they didn't intentional cheat.

 

So, this may not be the "great cheating scandal" that some here are on about. In fact I find it hard to believe it is.

However, I consider it very disingenuous to call it a storm in a tea cup, since what they have done is still quite a big deal even if they have done it out of stupidity.



#34 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,974 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:00 AM

there is no proof of intentional cheating in a regatta, but is obviously intentional breaking of the rules since modifying these boats in such a way is against the rules. WTF are you on about. If they intentionally broke the rules, that is cheating. It's that simple. Intentionally breaking the rules is the very definition of cheating.

Clearly this is a failure of the team, since the team failed to prevent the stupidity of the individuals involved, even if the individuals are only grunts and even if they didn't intentional cheat. Are you attempting to say that the boat builders didn't know where they were meant to put the weights and therefore they did not realise that they had done anything wrong? If that is your claim, I agree, that is possible, but in some ways has worse consequences than straight out cheating, because it means we have zero faith that the OR management processes were good enough for them to be able to self certify what they need to on the AC72.

 

So, this may not be the "great cheating scandal" that some here are on about. In fact I find it hard to believe it is. But the MC clearly states that it was a DELIBRATE act to circumvent the rules. Here is the strange thing. RC has not denied that it was a deliberate act. He has chosen his words very carefully. Even his statement about slandering people is playing with words. Of course he is right, and IMO, too many on here have been quick to condemn people and in particular, RC and JS, who I believe had zero to do with this. However, don't take his statement to mean there wasn't cheating, simply that we need to balme the right people.

However, I consider it very disingenuous to call it a storm in a tea cup, since what they have done is still quite a big deal even if they have done it out of stupidity. As you say, this is a very big deal either way.



#35 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,974 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:05 AM

What the frick difference is 4 lbs in a kingpost going to make? Seriously? Get a clue. Not taking a crap before sailing will increase righting moment. Foul!!

Again, somebody who doesn't understand. It doesn't matter what difference it makes. It is about integrity. In sailing, we rely on our competitors not to do things that are against the rules. Even at the highest level, the only way of ensuring that nobody cheats with their boat is to supply it for the event. At all other times, even with the strictest measurement systems in place, it is easy to circumvent the rules.

 

As has been said before, it doesn't matter what the potential benefits might be. It is the fact that they have done it. If they were stupid enough to cheat doing something with no benefit, then more fool them. But you cannot simply ignore rules because you think that it will make no difference.



#36 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,150 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:30 AM

Yawnn, ......storm in a teacup... What a waste of time,......... for ACWS that have nothing to do with the AC.

 

The only interest is if OR have had too many surrogate yachts......



#37 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 05:19 AM

there is no proof of intentional cheating in a regatta, but is obviously intentional breaking of the rules since modifying these boats in such a way is against the rules. WTF are you on about. If they intentionally broke the rules, that is cheating. It's that simple. Intentionally breaking the rules is the very definition of cheating.

Clearly this is a failure of the team, since the team failed to prevent the stupidity of the individuals involved, even if the individuals are only grunts and even if they didn't intentional cheat. Are you attempting to say that the boat builders didn't know where they were meant to put the weights and therefore they did not realise that they had done anything wrong? If that is your claim, I agree, that is possible, but in some ways has worse consequences than straight out cheating, because it means we have zero faith that the OR management processes were good enough for them to be able to self certify what they need to on the AC72.

 

So, this may not be the "great cheating scandal" that some here are on about. In fact I find it hard to believe it is. But the MC clearly states that it was a DELIBRATE act to circumvent the rules. Here is the strange thing. RC has not denied that it was a deliberate act. He has chosen his words very carefully. Even his statement about slandering people is playing with words. Of course he is right, and IMO, too many on here have been quick to condemn people and in particular, RC and JS, who I believe had zero to do with this. However, don't take his statement to mean there wasn't cheating, simply that we need to balme the right people.

However, I consider it very disingenuous to call it a storm in a tea cup, since what they have done is still quite a big deal even if they have done it out of stupidity. As you say, this is a very big deal either way.

 

I did say INTENTIONAL cheating as opposed to just a general fuck up.

However,I should have said that I don't believe there was intentional cheating at the management level, but believe it MIGHT have been intentional at the crew level - not sure about it.

 

There is no doubt that they deliberately circumvented the rules (anyone saying they didn't is a weasel), but it doesn't necessarily mean the intent was to cheat in a regatta.

 

I actually consider the prospect of this being a fuck up rather than intentional to be as big an indictment on the team as intentional cheating, because it speaks volumes about the quality of the team and quite frankly I thought this team was a LOT better than that.



#38 Qman

Qman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 500 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 05:33 AM

doesnt really change much in my book, 2 boats clearly have weight intentionally added.   result is the same.  



#39 bob202

bob202

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:06 AM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.



#40 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,833 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:15 AM

They should allow the non cheating / accidentally repaired cats to retain the WS trophy & have another prize giving to acknowledge that OR is always wright in all matters quazilegal! Especially as to the silly rule that to qualify for the AC a Team had to endure the ACWS stuffz.



#41 Qman

Qman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 500 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:18 AM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't at attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained yis relevant you may as well argue that it doesn't matter that the runner was taking steroids because they came last in the race.

it is pretty hard to unintentionally pour weighted resin into a kingpost and strap a bag of metal beads in place with cable ties.   



#42 bob202

bob202

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:35 AM

Coutts said in a NZ Herald item today that "It doesn't change the fact that we had some lead in the wrong place in the other boats and made some mistakes. But it does help show that it wasn't a team-wide issue and this helps us to move forward, as well. I've always said management and the skippers were not involved."

 

He must have his head screwed on wrong if he thinks that because two of the boats were intentionally modified instead of three that it somehow demonstrates that it wasn't a team-wide issue or that the management or skippers weren't involved. Both of those things could still be entirely true regardless of one boat being found to be legit.

 

He is in his own obscufation dreamworld - he's been drinking too much big-business Kool-Ade and can't see how it appears when you strip away the partisan details.



#43 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,833 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:39 AM

The real lesson is that apart from never trusting americans, ( a given newayz), is that when creating rules for high stakes stuff the key element should be just like the pro sports... equipment/ jockey etc are impounded as they cross the finish line for scruitiny!!



#44 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:14 AM

The real lesson is that apart from never trusting americans, ( a given newayz), is that when creating rules for high stakes stuff the key element should be just like the pro sports... equipment/ jockey etc are impounded as they cross the finish line for scruitiny!!

 

I suspect that any race OR wins in the AC (assuming they do) will result in a thorough re-measure.

If ETNZ didn't demand this, I would be stunned.

If the MC didn't oblige them, then I would be doubly stunned.



#45 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,799 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:35 AM

The real lesson is that apart from never trusting americans, ( a given newayz), is that when creating rules for high stakes stuff the key element should be just like the pro sports... equipment/ jockey etc are impounded as they cross the finish line for scruitiny!!

 

Agree 100%. All those comparisons with F1 fail in several important aspects, e.g. precautionary safety measures and PR, and especially this time in professionalism regarding inspections/scrutineering, measurement and documentation process. Where was the parc fermé during all those races? Do they have one in the LVC/AC?



#46 snaerk

snaerk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts
  • Location:High latitudes
  • Interests:sea and snow and ice

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:49 AM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

Well construckted argument, I reckin



#47 Adair

Adair

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:01 AM

It's amazing what the word 'cheating' can be made to mean when you don't want it to mean what it does mean: a deliberate circumvention or flouting of the rules.

 

As has been said numerous times 'intent' and 'advantage' are irrelevant.  If Oracle had turned up to race with three feet cut off the top of the wing because 'it wouldn't fit into the container' it would still be 'cheating' the rule.

 

The whole reason this farrago matters is because the AC45 is a 'strict one design' class.  Anything that deliberately takes the boat 'out of class' by breaking the rules cannot be tolerated.  It brings the sport into disrepute and destroys trust.  It is the destruction of trust and reputation that is what this is all about, not why or how the rules were broken.



#48 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:14 AM

It's amazing what the word 'cheating' can be made to mean when you don't want it to mean what it does mean: a deliberate circumvention or flouting of the rules.

 

As has been said numerous times 'intent' and 'advantage' are irrelevant.  If Oracle had turned up to race with three feet cut off the top of the wing because 'it wouldn't fit into the container' it would still be 'cheating' the rule.

 

The whole reason this farrago matters is because the AC45 is a 'strict one design' class.  Anything that deliberately takes the boat 'out of class' by breaking the rules cannot be tolerated.  It brings the sport into disrepute and destroys trust.  It is the destruction of trust and reputation that is what this is all about, not why or how the rules were broken.

 

Even though I am expecting some fairly serious penalties handed out, I believe intent need to be taken into consideration when meting out the penalties



#49 lead

lead

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:51 AM

It's amazing what the word 'cheating' can be made to mean when you don't want it to mean what it does mean: a deliberate circumvention or flouting of the rules.

 

As has been said numerous times 'intent' and 'advantage' are irrelevant.  If Oracle had turned up to race with three feet cut off the top of the wing because 'it wouldn't fit into the container' it would still be 'cheating' the rule.

 

The whole reason this farrago matters is because the AC45 is a 'strict one design' class.  Anything that deliberately takes the boat 'out of class' by breaking the rules cannot be tolerated.  It brings the sport into disrepute and destroys trust.  It is the destruction of trust and reputation that is what this is all about, not why or how the rules were broken.

 

Even though I am expecting some fairly serious penalties handed out, I believe intent need to be taken into consideration when meting out the penalties

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:33 PM

*yawn* who cares about the '45s anyway? Certainly not me.

 

No conspiracy here, but it does smack of pretty fucking incompetent.

 

 

 

 

 

wow really jaysper seems to me you dont know shit from clay but hey as long as we get our 50 posts in a day we are all good



#50 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 10:02 AM

 

It's amazing what the word 'cheating' can be made to mean when you don't want it to mean what it does mean: a deliberate circumvention or flouting of the rules.

 

As has been said numerous times 'intent' and 'advantage' are irrelevant.  If Oracle had turned up to race with three feet cut off the top of the wing because 'it wouldn't fit into the container' it would still be 'cheating' the rule.

 

The whole reason this farrago matters is because the AC45 is a 'strict one design' class.  Anything that deliberately takes the boat 'out of class' by breaking the rules cannot be tolerated.  It brings the sport into disrepute and destroys trust.  It is the destruction of trust and reputation that is what this is all about, not why or how the rules were broken.

 

Even though I am expecting some fairly serious penalties handed out, I believe intent need to be taken into consideration when meting out the penalties

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:33 PM

*yawn* who cares about the '45s anyway? Certainly not me.

 

No conspiracy here, but it does smack of pretty fucking incompetent.

 

 

 

 

 

wow really jaysper seems to me you dont know shit from clay but hey as long as we get our 50 posts in a day we are all good

*yawn* wowser. crawl under your rock.



#51 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,417 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 10:50 AM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

This latest report says: "

... two components installed on these three yachts that have been inspected and weighed by the Measurement Committee and found to be unambiguously out of compliance with the requirements of the AC45 Class Rule."



#52 MattyB73

MattyB73

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Location:Currently, Melbourne
  • Interests:Sailing. Boats. Wind. Beer. Order varies.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 11:36 AM

I can't wait for some racing again...



#53 8Y8

8Y8

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Location:Pittwater AUS

Posted 17 August 2013 - 11:50 AM

3lbs at the end of a 25ft lever = ?? Anyone bueller anyone



#54 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,833 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 17 August 2013 - 11:57 AM

who needs a Pet CoR when you have a poodle  IJ ?

 

Bring on the Arabflyer V the Italians! :P



#55 Nutta

Nutta

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ
  • Interests:Technology, motorsport, fishing, photography, boats and all things that float.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 12:04 PM

Poodle IJ? Not that I've noticed...

The MC has a hint of the leash about them though... 8-)

#56 WetHog

WetHog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,503 posts
  • Location:Annapolis, MD USA

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:25 PM

The real lesson is that apart from never trusting americans, ( a given newayz), is that when creating rules for high stakes stuff the key element should be just like the pro sports... equipment/ jockey etc are impounded as they cross the finish line for scruitiny!!

How does this sorry episode show Americans should never be trusted? OR is a team run by and dominated by people from the Southern Hemisphere.

If we are talking about lessons learned from this mess, using atefooterz superior logic, if someone sounds like Cocodile Dundee they cannot be trusted.

WetHog

#57 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,833 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:34 PM

The real lesson is that apart from never trusting americans, ( a given newayz), is that when creating rules for high stakes stuff the key element should be just like the pro sports... equipment/ jockey etc are impounded as they cross the finish line for scruitiny!!

How does this sorry episode show Americans should never be trusted? OR is a team run by and dominated by people from the Southern Hemisphere.

If we are talking about lessons learned from this mess, using atefooterz superior logic, if someone sounds like Cocodile Dundee they cannot be trusted.

WetHog

Especially if they are knife weilding! :)



#58 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:48 PM

I have voiced this concern earlier and the latest letter from the measurement committee seems to confirm that forward kingposts on these boats where not the only questionable parts. So how on earth all the OR boats (including BAR) where not taken aside and checked from bow to stern, and masthead to kingpost is above my understanding.

 

So now the MC have somehow managed to clear Coutts boat after he has withdrawn from the worldseries and his team managed to say that his boat had been modified. But at the same time the Coutts boat wasn't controlled by the MC before August 13!!! When the issues surfaced as early as July 26th is beyond belief.

 

For Spithill I would note that the placement of extra weight at the very center of the boat sounds even worse than having weight added in the forward kingpost, as he now had they weight in the optimal place when it comes to reducing pitching moment. 



#59 ncs

ncs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:03 PM

3lbs at the end of a 25ft lever = ?? Anyone bueller anyone

 

Rough guess - up to half a sec per leg.



#60 xfire

xfire

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Interests:Etchells racing<br>Jr. sailing programs<br>

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:37 PM

3lbs at the end of a 25ft lever = ?? Anyone bueller anyone

 
Rough guess - up to half a sec per leg.
Faster or slower?

#61 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,291 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM

The real lesson is that apart from never trusting americans, ( a given newayz), is that when creating rules for high stakes stuff the key element should be just like the pro sports... equipment/ jockey etc are impounded as they cross the finish line for scruitiny!!

 

Agree 100%. All those comparisons with F1 fail in several important aspects, e.g. precautionary safety measures and PR, and especially this time in professionalism regarding inspections/scrutineering, measurement and documentation process. Where was the parc fermé during all those races? Do they have one in the LVC/AC?

 

Thank goodness they have compared the AC to F1, those backwards NASCAR people have a tear-down on the winner and top-3 (?) cars after a race. ;)

 

That after the close scrutiny in the pre-race measurement, the 'Room of Doom'. 



#62 ncs

ncs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 03:34 PM

 

3lbs at the end of a 25ft lever = ?? Anyone bueller anyone

 
Rough guess - up to half a sec per leg.
Faster or slower?

 

Faster. Not just a guess but a scaled estimate from another VPP.



#63 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:03 PM

posted yet?

RC: "Its a great example of why you shouldnt slander others before youve got the facts clear. It doesnt pay to prejudge people.

http://blog.sfgate.c...ates-confusion/

paging porthos :)

 

is it possible to slander a person who has publicly admitted to an offense? 



#64 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,949 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:30 PM

I have voiced this concern earlier and the latest letter from the measurement committee seems to confirm that forward kingposts on these boats where not the only questionable parts. So how on earth all the OR boats (including BAR) where not taken aside and checked from bow to stern, and masthead to kingpost is above my understanding.
 
So now the MC have somehow managed to clear Coutts boat after he has withdrawn from the worldseries and his team managed to say that his boat had been modified. But at the same time the Coutts boat wasn't controlled by the MC before August 13!!! When the issues surfaced as early as July 26th is beyond belief.
 
For Spithill I would note that the placement of extra weight at the very center of the boat sounds even worse than having weight added in the forward kingpost, as he now had they weight in the optimal place when it comes to reducing pitching moment. 


ok, lead is a not a construction material, is steel shot? in a carbon part that may not be sealed? sounds more malicious than helpful.
second, as noted on a dinghy thread, the cg and cb tend not to be the same, moving them together or separating more will have different impacts depending on hull shape, sea state, etc.,. I guess that the main king post is forward of the cb, probably the cg also, allowed weight area is probably closer to both, so adding weight there was meant to be neutral in impact.
i cannot explain what was done but only guess, i do not know the facts, and the alterations are different on each boat, crimes of opportunity?

#65 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:19 PM

I have voiced this concern earlier and the latest letter from the measurement committee seems to confirm that forward kingposts on these boats where not the only questionable parts. So how on earth all the OR boats (including BAR) where not taken aside and checked from bow to stern, and masthead to kingpost is above my understanding.
 
So now the MC have somehow managed to clear Coutts boat after he has withdrawn from the worldseries and his team managed to say that his boat had been modified. But at the same time the Coutts boat wasn't controlled by the MC before August 13!!! When the issues surfaced as early as July 26th is beyond belief.
 
For Spithill I would note that the placement of extra weight at the very center of the boat sounds even worse than having weight added in the forward kingpost, as he now had they weight in the optimal place when it comes to reducing pitching moment. 


ok, lead is a not a construction material, is steel shot? in a carbon part that may not be sealed? sounds more malicious than helpful.
second, as noted on a dinghy thread, the cg and cb tend not to be the same, moving them together or separating more will have different impacts depending on hull shape, sea state, etc.,. I guess that the main king post is forward of the cb, probably the cg also, allowed weight area is probably closer to both, so adding weight there was meant to be neutral in impact.
i cannot explain what was done but only guess, i do not know the facts, and the alterations are different on each boat, crimes of opportunity?

The real test question on this is if anyone can imagine that the opposite could have happened. So if the rules requested weight to be put in either one of the kingpost, and that the same boatbuilders then by accident could have misplaced the weight at the chainplates. Do anyone think that this could have happened? 



#66 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:36 PM

 

 

3lbs at the end of a 25ft lever = ?? Anyone bueller anyone

 
Rough guess - up to half a sec per leg.
Faster or slower?

 

Faster. Not just a guess but a scaled estimate from another VPP.

This should definitely get the gold medal for 'complete, unsubstantiated bullshit post of the day'.

Respect!



#67 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:37 PM

Here is a comprehensive analysis

 

http://www.nzherald....jectid=10913858



#68 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:46 PM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

 

Bullshit. A sprinter taking steroids is obviously intentionally trying to win unfairly using a proven method. But with the AC45s, nobody has been able to come up with a convincing argument of how a heavy forward kingpost could improve performance. Because - in the context of attempting to find an unfair advantage - it makes no sense.

Now we also learn that the other boats that were out of spec had different weight (less) in a different place. Which scuttles the 'why did they do it on three boats then?' argument. They didn't. Think about THAT for a minute - if adding more weight forward(with more lever arm) would give you an advantage, what would adding less weight aft do? Is your head spinning yet?!

Finally, since one of the boats turned out to be NOT out of spec, that pretty much exposes the speciousness of the charts culled from sketchy non-existent data that were supposed to be the 'smoking gun' of evidence showing how the boat mods helped performance.

Just sayin'!





 



#69 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:48 PM

Here is a comprehensive analysis

 

http://www.nzherald....jectid=10913858

 

 

The guy that wrote that Op Ed piece should probably take the time to read the acual report. You know, so that at least some of his 'facts' bore a passing resemblence to reality.



#70 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 07:58 PM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

For fucks sake people, the reason this is a storm in a tea cup is that this means NOTHING with regard to the AC72s and the America's Cup, partly because the "cheating" was absurdly trivial in scale and impact on performance, but particularly because the cheating was in a different class of boat and a different competition compared to what people want OR punished for no.  Typically, when we talk about a one-design boat being out of compliance, the investigation and punishment, etc. is all related to THAT class of boats.  To determine if forfeiture and/or punishment is necessary FOR THAT COMPETITION. If they were cheating/not conforming the investigation is whether they should forfeit in that competition, or be punished in that competition.  Absofuckinglutely, we ALL agree that OR had to forfeit the ACWS.  They were guilty of having boats out of compliance.  You want to call it cheating in the ACWS, fine, knock yourself out.  Who gives a rat's ass?  THEY ARE FORFEITING AND MAY BE PUNISHED THERE (in the ACWS).

 

But the point of intent, of management involvement, is a HUGE deal when it comes to dragging the issue over to the America's Cup and the AC72s.  If OR management had nothing to do with it and were doing things appropriately, then there is ZERO reason they should be punished in a totally different competition and totally different class of boats, boats that are specifically NOT one-design.  The one caveat is that if the IJ believes the wrong-doers were guilty enough to intentional cheating that they should be given some form of ban.  Fine, if they decide that is worth, I'm all for it.  But the damned blood-thirsty lynch mob around here wants OR blood, pretty stupid to me.



#71 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:05 PM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

For fucks sake people, the reason this is a storm in a tea cup is that this means NOTHING with regard to the AC72s and the America's Cup, partly because the "cheating" was absurdly trivial in scale and impact on performance, but particularly because the cheating was in a different class of boat and a different competition compared to what people want OR punished for no.  Typically, when we talk about a one-design boat being out of compliance, the investigation and punishment, etc. is all related to THAT class of boats.  To determine if forfeiture and/or punishment is necessary FOR THAT COMPETITION. If they were cheating/not conforming the investigation is whether they should forfeit in that competition, or be punished in that competition.  Absofuckinglutely, we ALL agree that OR had to forfeit the ACWS.  They were guilty of having boats out of compliance.  You want to call it cheating in the ACWS, fine, knock yourself out.  Who gives a rat's ass?  THEY ARE FORFEITING AND MAY BE PUNISHED THERE (in the ACWS).

 

But the point of intent, of management involvement, is a HUGE deal when it comes to dragging the issue over to the America's Cup and the AC72s.  If OR management had nothing to do with it and were doing things appropriately, then there is ZERO reason they should be punished in a totally different competition and totally different class of boats, boats that are specifically NOT one-design.  The one caveat is that if the IJ believes the wrong-doers were guilty enough to intentional cheating that they should be given some form of ban.  Fine, if they decide that is worth, I'm all for it.  But the damned blood-thirsty lynch mob around here wants OR blood, pretty stupid to me.

so pls explain why a competitor for the AC must also race in the ACWS? are they not linked by the protocol?



#72 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:11 PM

 

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

For fucks sake people, the reason this is a storm in a tea cup is that this means NOTHING with regard to the AC72s and the America's Cup, partly because the "cheating" was absurdly trivial in scale and impact on performance, but particularly because the cheating was in a different class of boat and a different competition compared to what people want OR punished for no.  Typically, when we talk about a one-design boat being out of compliance, the investigation and punishment, etc. is all related to THAT class of boats.  To determine if forfeiture and/or punishment is necessary FOR THAT COMPETITION. If they were cheating/not conforming the investigation is whether they should forfeit in that competition, or be punished in that competition.  Absofuckinglutely, we ALL agree that OR had to forfeit the ACWS.  They were guilty of having boats out of compliance.  You want to call it cheating in the ACWS, fine, knock yourself out.  Who gives a rat's ass?  THEY ARE FORFEITING AND MAY BE PUNISHED THERE (in the ACWS).

 

But the point of intent, of management involvement, is a HUGE deal when it comes to dragging the issue over to the America's Cup and the AC72s.  If OR management had nothing to do with it and were doing things appropriately, then there is ZERO reason they should be punished in a totally different competition and totally different class of boats, boats that are specifically NOT one-design.  The one caveat is that if the IJ believes the wrong-doers were guilty enough to intentional cheating that they should be given some form of ban.  Fine, if they decide that is worth, I'm all for it.  But the damned blood-thirsty lynch mob around here wants OR blood, pretty stupid to me.

so pls explain why a competitor for the AC must also race in the ACWS? are they not linked by the protocol?

 

So they will show up for the event that doesn't actually matter.



#73 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,799 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:17 PM

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

 

Bullshit. A sprinter taking steroids is obviously intentionally trying to win unfairly using a proven method. But with the AC45s, nobody has been able to come up with a convincing argument of how a heavy forward kingpost could improve performance. Because - in the context of attempting to find an unfair advantage - it makes no sense.

Now we also learn that the other boats that were out of spec had different weight (less) in a different place. Which scuttles the 'why did they do it on three boats then?' argument. They didn't. Think about THAT for a minute - if adding more weight forward(with more lever arm) would give you an advantage, what would adding less weight aft do? Is your head spinning yet?!

Finally, since one of the boats turned out to be NOT out of spec, that pretty much exposes the speciousness of the charts culled from sketchy non-existent data that were supposed to be the 'smoking gun' of evidence showing how the boat mods helped performance.

Just sayin'!

 

Why has OR confessed that the frt king post has been modified on Coutts' boat as well in their August 4 report, after they had enough time for internal investigations?



#74 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:20 PM

 

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

 

Bullshit. A sprinter taking steroids is obviously intentionally trying to win unfairly using a proven method. But with the AC45s, nobody has been able to come up with a convincing argument of how a heavy forward kingpost could improve performance. Because - in the context of attempting to find an unfair advantage - it makes no sense.

Now we also learn that the other boats that were out of spec had different weight (less) in a different place. Which scuttles the 'why did they do it on three boats then?' argument. They didn't. Think about THAT for a minute - if adding more weight forward(with more lever arm) would give you an advantage, what would adding less weight aft do? Is your head spinning yet?!

Finally, since one of the boats turned out to be NOT out of spec, that pretty much exposes the speciousness of the charts culled from sketchy non-existent data that were supposed to be the 'smoking gun' of evidence showing how the boat mods helped performance.

Just sayin'!

 

Why has OR confessed that the frt king post has been modified on Coutts' boat as well in their August 4 report, after they had enough time for internal investigations?


Apparently, they thought it was, or at least might be, and RC was clearly trying to do the absolute right thing once the issue came to his attention. Turned out - in the light of a full investigation - they were wrong. So what?
 



#75 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:24 PM

 

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

 

Bullshit. A sprinter taking steroids is obviously intentionally trying to win unfairly using a proven method. But with the AC45s, nobody has been able to come up with a convincing argument of how a heavy forward kingpost could improve performance. Because - in the context of attempting to find an unfair advantage - it makes no sense.

Now we also learn that the other boats that were out of spec had different weight (less) in a different place. Which scuttles the 'why did they do it on three boats then?' argument. They didn't. Think about THAT for a minute - if adding more weight forward(with more lever arm) would give you an advantage, what would adding less weight aft do? Is your head spinning yet?!

Finally, since one of the boats turned out to be NOT out of spec, that pretty much exposes the speciousness of the charts culled from sketchy non-existent data that were supposed to be the 'smoking gun' of evidence showing how the boat mods helped performance.

Just sayin'!

 

Why has OR confessed that the frt king post has been modified on Coutts' boat as well in their August 4 report, after they had enough time for internal investigations?

Like Coutts said: you shouldn't jump to conclusions before you have all the facts. Maybe he should take his own advice :lol:



#76 DngrMs

DngrMs

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:25 PM

Why has OR confessed that the f[i]r[s]t king post has been modified on Coutts' boat as well in their August 4 report, after they had enough time for internal investigations?

 

This is a very good question that remains to be answered. If one doesn't feel "guilty" why would they "confess" when there is no apparent "evidence"?

This I do find a little confusing.



#77 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:29 PM

Why has OR confessed that the f[i]r[s]t king post has been modified on Coutts' boat as well in their August 4 report, after they had enough time for internal investigations?

 

This is a very good question that remains to be answered. If one doesn't feel "guilty" why would they "confess" when there is no apparent "evidence"?

This I do find a little confusing.

 

Well, has he asked to be reinstated? If not, I'm gonna say he took one for the team as CEO, even though his boat was to spec.

Mind you, that's pure conjecture - for all I know, they found a nuclear-powered jet drive in the stern of his boat, and this is all a HUGE COVERUP and OMG GET JAYSPER WITH HIS JAR OF LUBE and AMERICANS ARE MORALLY BANKRUPT AND SHOULD BE BANNED FROM YACHT RACING FOR ETERNITY FOR HIRING KIWIS!!!!!!!

lol



#78 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:35 PM

 

The report says no proof of intentional cheating.

 

The boats were modified to be outside of the class rule. The only proof of intentional cheating possible would basically be an admission, footage of it happening or documents discussing it. of course none of those things exist. This is a case of "prove god doesn't exist" - pointless and no reasonable level of proof can ever be found for his/her existence.

 

This case is why class rules exist - the operator of a boat is effectively forewarned that any unexplainable variation compliance should be automatically treated as a deliberate breach of the rules - not argued away as a lawyer would in a court when they obfuscate the rules and meaning of them.

 

It is a sad day when non-class compliant boats which were deliberately made that way can result in an outcome saying "no proof of intentional...". Only people versed in arsehole-esque lawyerspeak can go to bed at night convincing themselves this wasn't an attempt to cheat.

 

Anyone who aruges that the modifications didn't or couldn't have any positive (or had a negative) effect on the boat performance has immediately outed themselves as clueless in the matter of recognising and understanding the core issue here. The results of cheating don't matter, the act matters.

 

If you think the lack of advantage gained is relevant you're effectively arguing the equivalent that it doesn't matter that a 100m sprinter who was taking steroids wasn't cheating because they came last in a race.

 

For fucks sake people, the reason this is a storm in a tea cup is that this means NOTHING with regard to the AC72s and the America's Cup, partly because the "cheating" was absurdly trivial in scale and impact on performance, but particularly because the cheating was in a different class of boat and a different competition compared to what people want OR punished for no.  Typically, when we talk about a one-design boat being out of compliance, the investigation and punishment, etc. is all related to THAT class of boats.  To determine if forfeiture and/or punishment is necessary FOR THAT COMPETITION. If they were cheating/not conforming the investigation is whether they should forfeit in that competition, or be punished in that competition.  Absofuckinglutely, we ALL agree that OR had to forfeit the ACWS.  They were guilty of having boats out of compliance.  You want to call it cheating in the ACWS, fine, knock yourself out.  Who gives a rat's ass?  THEY ARE FORFEITING AND MAY BE PUNISHED THERE (in the ACWS).

 

But the point of intent, of management involvement, is a HUGE deal when it comes to dragging the issue over to the America's Cup and the AC72s.  If OR management had nothing to do with it and were doing things appropriately, then there is ZERO reason they should be punished in a totally different competition and totally different class of boats, boats that are specifically NOT one-design.  The one caveat is that if the IJ believes the wrong-doers were guilty enough to intentional cheating that they should be given some form of ban.  Fine, if they decide that is worth, I'm all for it.  But the damned blood-thirsty lynch mob around here wants OR blood, pretty stupid to me.

so pls explain why a competitor for the AC must also race in the ACWS? are they not linked by the protocol?

 

MC, two racing series, participation (not results) in one required to compete in the other?  Is that complicated?



#79 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,674 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:45 PM

Bullshit. A sprinter taking steroids is obviously intentionally trying to win unfairly using a proven method. But with the AC45s, nobody has been able to come up with a convincing argument of how a heavy forward kingpost could improve performance. Because - in the context of attempting to find an unfair advantage - it makes no sense.

Ah, the Chewbacca defence.



#80 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:49 PM

Bullshit. A sprinter taking steroids is obviously intentionally trying to win unfairly using a proven method. But with the AC45s, nobody has been able to come up with a convincing argument of how a heavy forward kingpost could improve performance. Because - in the context of attempting to find an unfair advantage - it makes no sense.

Ah, the Chewbacca defence.


Thanks for editing my post so it appears you have a point.



#81 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,674 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:53 PM

^

You are welcome. Thank you for providing the opportunity for some amusement.

Now, remind us again why it makes the slightest bit of difference whether what was done makes any sense.

#82 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,799 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 08:55 PM

 

Why has OR confessed that the f[i]r[s]t king post has been modified on Coutts' boat as well in their August 4 report, after they had enough time for internal investigations?

 

This is a very good question that remains to be answered. If one doesn't feel "guilty" why would they "confess" when there is no apparent "evidence"?

This I do find a little confusing.

 

Well, has he asked to be reinstated? If not, I'm gonna say he took one for the team as CEO, even though his boat was to spec.

Mind you, that's pure conjecture - for all I know, they found a nuclear-powered jet drive in the stern of his boat, and this is all a HUGE COVERUP and OMG GET JAYSPER WITH HIS JAR OF LUBE and AMERICANS ARE MORALLY BANKRUPT AND SHOULD BE BANNED FROM YACHT RACING FOR ETERNITY FOR HIRING KIWIS!!!!!!!

lol

 

TE wrote on FB that they'll ask for it to be reinstated (has it ever been taken off at all?)

 

Again, maybe I was not clear enough with my Q: In the August 4 report, Oracle Racing stated that all three boats had similar, modified king posts. The issue had been communicated on 26. July. That makes 8 or 9 days of internal investigation to make an erroneous statement after an internal investigation in a document that could jeopardize your AC campaign and future. Unbelievable, sorry.



#83 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:01 PM

^

You are welcome. Thank you for providing the opportunity for some amusement.

Now, remind us again why it makes the slightest bit of difference whether what was done makes any sense.


Because it's a window into the 'why did this happen' question. The answer 'Illegally modifying the boats to improve performance' - jumped at by so many - doesn't match the facts.



#84 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:03 PM

 

 

Why has OR confessed that the f[i]r[s]t king post has been modified on Coutts' boat as well in their August 4 report, after they had enough time for internal investigations?

 

This is a very good question that remains to be answered. If one doesn't feel "guilty" why would they "confess" when there is no apparent "evidence"?

This I do find a little confusing.

 

Well, has he asked to be reinstated? If not, I'm gonna say he took one for the team as CEO, even though his boat was to spec.

Mind you, that's pure conjecture - for all I know, they found a nuclear-powered jet drive in the stern of his boat, and this is all a HUGE COVERUP and OMG GET JAYSPER WITH HIS JAR OF LUBE and AMERICANS ARE MORALLY BANKRUPT AND SHOULD BE BANNED FROM YACHT RACING FOR ETERNITY FOR HIRING KIWIS!!!!!!!

lol

 

TE wrote on FB that they'll ask for it to be reinstated (has it ever been taken off at all?)

 

Again, maybe I was not clear enough with my Q: In the August 4 report, Oracle Racing stated that all three boats had similar, modified king posts. The issue had been communicated on 26. July. That makes 8 or 9 days of internal investigation to make an erroneous statement after an internal investigation in a document that could jeopardize your AC campaign and future. Unbelievable, sorry.

 

Fair enough. Didn't see that. Probably it was not as easy to sort out which parts belonged to what boat etc, but like I said, I really have no idea. What I do know is that jumping to conclusions based on less than complete information generally doesn't yield correct answers.



#85 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,674 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:09 PM

Because it's a window into the 'why did this happen' question. The answer 'Illegally modifying the boats to improve performance' - jumped at by so many - doesn't match the facts.

There isn't a "why" question. There's a "who" question and there's a "what penalty" question.

#86 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:13 PM

Because it's a window into the 'why did this happen' question. The answer 'Illegally modifying the boats to improve performance' - jumped at by so many - doesn't match the facts.

There isn't a "why" question. There's a "who" question and there's a "what penalty" question.


There is if you want to claim 'cheating'. If no one in management and none of the sailors knew, it's hard to see how you can lable them 'cheaters'. But you - and others - have, over and over. Certainly answering the 'why' will be a necessary component of proving that one way or the other.



#87 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,674 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:15 PM

^

The cheating is in the "what" not the "why". You are back at that Chewbacca defence.

#88 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:20 PM

 

Because it's a window into the 'why did this happen' question. The answer 'Illegally modifying the boats to improve performance' - jumped at by so many - doesn't match the facts.

There isn't a "why" question. There's a "who" question and there's a "what penalty" question.


There is if you want to claim 'cheating'. If no one in management and none of the sailors knew, it's hard to see how you can lable them 'cheaters'. But you - and others - have, over and over. Certainly answering the 'why' will be a necessary component of proving that one way or the other.

 

And if there was no INTENTIONAL "cheating", then there is no grounds for any kind of carry-over of punishment to the Americas Cup and the AC72s



#89 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:22 PM

^

The cheating is in the "what" not the "why". You are back at that Chewbacca defence.

 

Only with regard to the ACWS.  That is the thing.  When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.  So, your argument about "why" not mattering is correct ONLY IN THE ACWS.  The "why" is arguably the most important consideration in carrying over to the Americas Cup. 



#90 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:23 PM

^

The cheating is in the "what" not the "why". You are back at that Chewbacca defence.


It's both. If you were racing on a boat, and found out after the fact it was not legit, would you be a 'cheater'? Were you 'cheating' while you were racing? Would that be an indication of a 'culture of cheating' within the entire boat crew?



 



#91 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,417 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:29 PM

  When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.

Not so.  A rule 69 ban applies to ALL ISAF racing.  If you get caught cheating in one class and get a rule 69 ban, then you are done sailing for a while, including in all/different classes and competitions.



#92 GauchoGreg

GauchoGreg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,747 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:37 PM

  When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.

Not so.  A rule 69 ban applies to ALL ISAF racing.  If you get caught cheating in one class and get a rule 69 ban, then you are done sailing for a while, including in all/different classes and competitions.

 

But the IJ can absolutely take into account the reason why the boat was out of compliance, the "cheating" if you are so bound and determined to use that word.  The "why", in this case, if it was a mistake or rogue action would be considered on whether a ban, or other punishment, would be applicable or not.  The "why" does matter.



#93 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:42 PM

  When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.

Not so.  A rule 69 ban applies to ALL ISAF racing.  If you get caught cheating in one class and get a rule 69 ban, then you are done sailing for a while, including in all/different classes and competitions.

 

Sure. But what about all the posters frothing about how 'OR should be forced to drop a race in the final' etc ?! It's just plain ignorance.

 



#94 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,417 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 09:55 PM

 

  When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.

Not so.  A rule 69 ban applies to ALL ISAF racing.  If you get caught cheating in one class and get a rule 69 ban, then you are done sailing for a while, including in all/different classes and competitions.

 

Sure. But what about all the posters frothing about how 'OR should be forced to drop a race in the final' etc ?! It's just plain ignorance.

 

Well, that would be protocol rule 60, which IS a brand new AC special rule with zero case history.  But that protocol does specifically link the AC & ACWS so some sort of 'carry over' penalty would not be logically absurd. I personally doubt the jury will do it, but it is a possibility within the 4 corners of the protocol. You should remember, when the protocol was written, the ACWS was intended to be raced (after the first season) in the AC72's.



#95 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,674 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 18 August 2013 - 05:46 AM



When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.

Not so.  A rule 69 ban applies to ALL ISAF racing.  If you get caught cheating in one class and get a rule 69 ban, then you are done sailing for a while, including in all/different classes and competitions.


 
Sure. But what about all the posters frothing about how 'OR should be forced to drop a race in the final' etc ?! It's just plain ignorance.


For the record, I've said nothing about what sanctions should be. On the contrary, I've specifically said I'm happy to leave that question to the Jury. I've pointed out that the Jury has gone on the record as saying it's considering use of Protocol 60, which allows them to sanction Oracle pretty much in any way they see fit. I doubt the Jury made that remark formally and in writing as a random side-thought. Protocol 60 allows the full gamut of 15.4d sanctions:

(i) censure;
(ii) fine;
(iii) order a partial or full forfeiture of a Challenger’s performance bond;
(iv) order loss of existing or future points, scores or races;
(v) award points or races to another Competitor;
(vi) disqualify a Competitor from any race, series or the Event;
(vii) order a reduction in the number of sails permitted; and/or
(viii) to order the suspension or expulsion of any individual from the Event.

#96 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,674 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 18 August 2013 - 05:57 AM


^

The cheating is in the "what" not the "why". You are back at that Chewbacca defence.

It's both. If you were racing on a boat, and found out after the fact it was not legit, would you be a 'cheater'? Were you 'cheating' while you were racing? Would that be an indication of a 'culture of cheating' within the entire boat crew?


In sailing penalties are largely applied to the boat. The boat would certainly be thrown out.

Rule 69 penalties apply to individual crew. The answer to your question would depend, in my view, not only what I knew but what I should have taken the trouble to find out. The position of an owner/skipper is not the same as that of crew picked up on the dock for the day. In the case of I-Punkt (illegal water ballast), a wide range of crew were sanctioned, not only those directly responsible and not only those in charge. As it happens I think too many crew took rule 69 bans in that instance but that is what the Jury decided.

Protocol 60 applies to the team and to the AC cycle in its entirety. I've discussed that in another post and won't repeat myself.

I'm not sure why you've brought the phrase 'culture of cheating' into a response to me. I've never used it or anything like it.

#97 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:00 AM

 

 

When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.

Not so.  A rule 69 ban applies to ALL ISAF racing.  If you get caught cheating in one class and get a rule 69 ban, then you are done sailing for a while, including in all/different classes and competitions.

 

 
Sure. But what about all the posters frothing about how 'OR should be forced to drop a race in the final' etc ?! It's just plain ignorance.

 

For the record, I've said nothing about what sanctions should be. On the contrary, I've specifically said I'm happy to leave that question to the Jury. I've pointed out that the Jury has gone on the record as saying it's considering use of Protocol 60, which allows them to sanction Oracle pretty much in any way they see fit. I doubt the Jury made that remark formally and in writing as a random side-thought. Protocol 60 allows the full gamut of 15.4d sanctions:

(i) censure;
(ii) fine;
(iii) order a partial or full forfeiture of a Challenger’s performance bond;
(iv) order loss of existing or future points, scores or races;
(v) award points or races to another Competitor;
(vi) disqualify a Competitor from any race, series or the Event;
(vii) order a reduction in the number of sails permitted; and/or
(viii) to order the suspension or expulsion of any individual from the Event.

 

And they'll punt competitor(s) out with enough evidence and either take race(s) off OR or award them to ETNZ.



#98 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,674 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:04 AM


^

The cheating is in the "what" not the "why". You are back at that Chewbacca defence.

 
Only with regard to the ACWS.  That is the thing.  When discussing this kind of "cheating" in racing, we have never seen it related to a different class and different competition, as we do here.  So, your argument about "why" not mattering is correct ONLY IN THE ACWS.  The "why" is arguably the most important consideration in carrying over to the Americas Cup.


It is not correct that consequences are limited to the regatta in which cheating took place. As Estar has pointed out, Rule 69 bans apply to all racing under ISAF rules and Protocol 60 sanctions may apply to the gamut of events under the banner of the protocol, including ACWS, LVC and the AC final.

#99 surfsailor

surfsailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Maui
  • Interests:Surf. Foiling. Vintage guitars.

Posted 18 August 2013 - 07:09 AM

 

^

The cheating is in the "what" not the "why". You are back at that Chewbacca defence.

It's both. If you were racing on a boat, and found out after the fact it was not legit, would you be a 'cheater'? Were you 'cheating' while you were racing? Would that be an indication of a 'culture of cheating' within the entire boat crew?

 

In sailing penalties are largely applied to the boat. The boat would certainly be thrown out.

Rule 69 penalties apply to individual crew. The answer to your question would depend, in my view, not only what I knew but what I should have taken the trouble to find out. The position of an owner/skipper is not the same as that of crew picked up on the dock for the day. In the case of I-Punkt (illegal water ballast), a wide range of crew were sanctioned, not only those directly responsible and not only those in charge. As it happens I think too many crew took rule 69 bans in that instance but that is what the Jury decided.

Protocol 60 applies to the team and to the AC cycle in its entirety. I've discussed that in another post and won't repeat myself.

I'm not sure why you've brought the phrase 'culture of cheating' into a response to me. I've never used it or anything like it.


Everybody on I-Punkt knew about the illegal water ballast - impossible to be on a boat and NOT know, especially when they yanked all the containers on deck and tossed 'em over the side during the last leg of the race, so that example is utterly irrelevent. You also utterly failed to answer a simple, clear question - gee, how did I know that was coming?!

<face palm>






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users