Jump to content


Dirk's Defense..


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#1 Van Schakel

Van Schakel

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:29 PM

the Laywer of Dirk De Ridder wrote a letter to the jury regarding the ruling and the process. And I think it makes some sense..

 

How about you?

 

the letter:

 

http://www.clubracer...(origineel).pdf

 

 



#2 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,076 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:44 PM

Thanks....and agree...the process was very flawed, to say nothing of the penalities applied.

 

This will be interesting to watch unfold.



#3 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:46 PM

the Laywer of Dirk De Ridder wrote a letter to the jury regarding the ruling and the process. And I think it makes some sense..

 

How about you?

 

the letter:

 

http://www.clubracer...(origineel).pdf

so now they are going to take the protocol to where?



#4 insider

insider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:everywhere
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:57 PM

Very flawed and agreed that it should be revisited based on the content of that letter. 

 

You can well understand Oracle being pissed if even half of that is true.



#5 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,273 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 12:59 PM

Will DDR sue the panel and ACEA over this? First shot over the bow here?



#6 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,076 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:00 PM

How on earth is it appropriate for McKenzie to be one of the two investigators?  I mean seriously you Kiwi's, lets hear your defense of that one.



#7 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,639 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:01 PM

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

#8 Van Schakel

Van Schakel

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:01 PM

the Laywer of Dirk De Ridder wrote a letter to the jury regarding the ruling and the process. And I think it makes some sense..

 

How about you?

 

the letter:

 

http://www.clubracer...(origineel).pdf

so now they are going to take the protocol to where?

my thoughts exactly.. Clubracer.be reports that the jury hasn't even bothered to reply.



#9 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:05 PM

Very, very rarely does a Jury say "hey we've got it wrong, your man can have his job back". If they do, this may be the beginning of a very large snowball.



#10 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:06 PM

How on earth is it appropriate for McKenzie to be one of the two investigators?  I mean seriously you Kiwi's, lets hear your defense of that one.

 

You can talk while you have RC's dick in your mouth? You are talented Hooston



#11 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,273 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:08 PM

 

the Laywer of Dirk De Ridder wrote a letter to the jury regarding the ruling and the process. And I think it makes some sense..

 

How about you?

 

the letter:

 

http://www.clubracer...(origineel).pdf

so now they are going to take the protocol to where?

my thoughts exactly.. Clubracer.be reports that the jury hasn't even bothered to reply.

 

Lawyers do not take too kindly to not responding.



#12 insider

insider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:everywhere
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:10 PM

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

He doesn't need a defence if the ruling is retracted based on procedural flaws surely! (Until a subsequent hearing obviously)

 

I don't think this is about the cup stuff. This is about his ability to earn in the future...



#13 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:11 PM

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

 

Exactly.  Half the complaints are essentially "its not fair" and to a very large extent ignore the elephant in the room.  There was, and is, no doubt that the transgressions occurred and DdeR was responsible.  The letter complains that the rule 69 punishment is only appropriate of DdeR knew it was against the rules.  Seriously???  They are trying to make out DdeR didn't know it was against the rules?   Thus implicitly acknowledging that he was responsible anyway.  It is nothing more that the usual lawyer bluster.  The IJ will not, and should not ever, reply to letters like this. 

 

And exactly what is supposed to be the ethics of releasing the letter to the public? 



#14 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,076 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:11 PM

How on earth is it appropriate for McKenzie to be one of the two investigators?  I mean seriously you Kiwi's, lets hear your defense of that one.

 

You can talk while you have RC's dick in your mouth? You are talented Hooston

 

It's Huston, thank you.

 

And glad to see you keepin' it classy, as always, while having no response to a legitimate question.



#15 Van Schakel

Van Schakel

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:11 PM

@dogwatch: The conclusion says it all: Anderlini suggests mistrial and suggests retrial AFTER AC34



#16 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:12 PM

Completely wrong at point1: AC45s & ACWS events are explicitly under the AC Protocol & Jury -> absolutely associated with AC.

 

Maybe some point on 2 & 6, I don't think the Jury presented particularly strong evidence against Dirk & some of the others.

I'm curious whether the names found guilty match with the names OR presumably provided after the OR investigation?

GD did say he wasn't surprised 'after reading the transcripts', which seemed slightly odd wording until I read the Ruling with its details of the transcript stuff.

 

4 & 5 meh, pretty sure that Jurys are entitled to inquisitorial method used, especially in this kind of circumstance.

 

 

As pointed out above, there is not really a Defense here, just an attack on the Jury & process.

 

Fact remains that there is physical evidence of more than just a minor accident, OR internal investigation reported team member involvement, there are still probably more questions left open than answered + clear lack of procedure/oversight which should have picked up a line 'fill kingposts' in the task list -> team fault -> team punishment.

 

 

I'm sure the National bodies will be happy to pay concern to the procedural issues in their decision on further punishments but there is certainly no way that Oracle can get out of the -2.

Bans by this Jury are only for the AC duration, National bodies will be determining the long term effects.



#17 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,076 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:12 PM

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

 

Exactly.  Half the complaints are essentially "its not fair" and to a very large extent ignore the elephant in the room.  There was, and is, no doubt that the transgressions occurred and DdeR was responsible.  The letter complains that the rule 69 punishment is only appropriate of DdeR knew it was against the rules.  Seriously???  They are trying to make out DdeR didn't know it was against the rules?   Thus implicitly acknowledging that he was responsible anyway.  It is nothing more that the usual lawyer bluster.  The IJ will not, and should not ever, reply to letters like this. 

 

You think at some point the IJ isn't going to be compelled to reply?  Seriously?



#18 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:12 PM

Or is it OR pulling some strings trying to unravel this whole thing? He get's his day when he fronts his MNA or ISAF. This is bigger than that.



#19 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:17 PM

Most of this has been well debated, and the ACWS is a integral part of AC34 so that part is just nonsense. And it is really provoking that they use the argument that this happened a year ago. I find it really shocking that unless he feels he did nothing wrong that he pursue this. I would have gone hiding and applied for a name change in outer Mongolia. 

 

The procedural part might be relevant but, should we wait for a verdict to after the finals, and then have ruling? 



#20 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:18 PM

 

How on earth is it appropriate for McKenzie to be one of the two investigators?  I mean seriously you Kiwi's, lets hear your defense of that one.

 

You can talk while you have RC's dick in your mouth? You are talented Hooston

 

It's Huston, thank you.

 

And glad to see you keepin' it classy, as always, while having no response to a legitimate question.

Says the fuckwit who brought up the nationality question. Given he's one of the best regarded IJ's in the business and a Lawyer not enough for you?

 

Please, carry on with Russell...



#21 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,925 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:18 PM

@dogwatch: The conclusion says it all: Anderlini suggests mistrial and suggests retrial AFTER AC34


Trial? What trial?

#22 chocoa

chocoa

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:19 PM

If you can not trust the IJ, who can you trust?

 

Lawyers?

 

We all saw how lance Armstrong used lawyers to hide behind and cheat.



#23 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,639 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:20 PM

 

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

 
Exactly.  Half the complaints are essentially "its not fair" and to a very large extent ignore the elephant in the room.  There was, and is, no doubt that the transgressions occurred and DdeR was responsible.  The letter complains that the rule 69 punishment is only appropriate of DdeR knew it was against the rules.  Seriously???  They are trying to make out DdeR didn't know it was against the rules?   Thus implicitly acknowledging that he was responsible anyway.  It is nothing more that the usual lawyer bluster.  The IJ will not, and should not ever, reply to letters like this.

 

 
You think at some point the IJ isn't going to be compelled to reply?  Seriously?

I don't think the IJ will have to reply to this letter. However ISAF may hold an investigation and/or further hearing and I'll be surprised if they don't. These matters can be discussed at that point. Right now, Anderlini is just running up their bill. I wonder who is paying?

69.2 Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF
(a) When a national authority or the ISAF receives a report alleging a gross breach of a
rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or a report alleging conduct that has brought
the sport into disrepute, or a report required by rule 69.1© or 69.1(e), it may conduct
an investigation and, when appropriate, shall conduct a hearing. It may then take
any disciplinary action within its jurisdiction it considers appropriate against the
competitor or yacht, or other person involved, including suspending eligibility,
permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event held within its
jurisdiction, and suspending ISAF eligibility under ISAF Regulation 19.



#24 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,076 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:27 PM

 

 

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

 
Exactly.  Half the complaints are essentially "its not fair" and to a very large extent ignore the elephant in the room.  There was, and is, no doubt that the transgressions occurred and DdeR was responsible.  The letter complains that the rule 69 punishment is only appropriate of DdeR knew it was against the rules.  Seriously???  They are trying to make out DdeR didn't know it was against the rules?   Thus implicitly acknowledging that he was responsible anyway.  It is nothing more that the usual lawyer bluster.  The IJ will not, and should not ever, reply to letters like this.

 

 
You think at some point the IJ isn't going to be compelled to reply?  Seriously?

I don't think the IJ will have to reply to this letter. However ISAF may hold an investigation and/or further hearing and I'll be surprised if they don't. These matters can be discussed at that point. Right now, Anderlini is just running up their bill. I wonder who is paying?

69.2 Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF
(a) When a national authority or the ISAF receives a report alleging a gross breach of a
rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or a report alleging conduct that has brought
the sport into disrepute, or a report required by rule 69.1© or 69.1(e), it may conduct
an investigation and, when appropriate, shall conduct a hearing. It may then take
any disciplinary action within its jurisdiction it considers appropriate against the
competitor or yacht, or other person involved, including suspending eligibility,
permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event held within its
jurisdiction, and suspending ISAF eligibility under ISAF Regulation 19.

 

What is amusing to me is that guys like you think everyone inside ISAF is pleased with the way this process was run.  



#25 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,925 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:27 PM

So a 4 page letter @$x00/hour saying "our client is too stupid to read".

 

Snowball, welcome to hell. This is going absolutely nowhere.



#26 Francis Vaughan

Francis Vaughan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Location:Adelaide, Australia

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:29 PM


You think at some point the IJ isn't going to be compelled to reply?  Seriously?

 

Compelled?  How?  This is just a lawyer for hire nastygram.  It is content free and full of bluster.  Lawyers write them all the time and they are worth little more than the paper they are written on to anyone that understands that a lawyer is just another private individual, with no power.  Lots of scary sounding words, but that is it.  The IJ on the other hand have real power, and have a lot of backup. They probably wrote nastygrams for clients in their younger days anyway, and understand the game. They are also smart enough not to get into a what would inevitably turn into a media shitfight.  They might reply with a form letter acknowledging receipt, no more. They are not under any obligation to answer any part of the content of the letter.  They certainly can't be compelled to.



#27 insider

insider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:everywhere
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:30 PM

 

 

 

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

 
Exactly.  Half the complaints are essentially "its not fair" and to a very large extent ignore the elephant in the room.  There was, and is, no doubt that the transgressions occurred and DdeR was responsible.  The letter complains that the rule 69 punishment is only appropriate of DdeR knew it was against the rules.  Seriously???  They are trying to make out DdeR didn't know it was against the rules?   Thus implicitly acknowledging that he was responsible anyway.  It is nothing more that the usual lawyer bluster.  The IJ will not, and should not ever, reply to letters like this.

 

 
You think at some point the IJ isn't going to be compelled to reply?  Seriously?

I don't think the IJ will have to reply to this letter. However ISAF may hold an investigation and/or further hearing and I'll be surprised if they don't. These matters can be discussed at that point. Right now, Anderlini is just running up their bill. I wonder who is paying?

69.2 Action by a National Authority or Initial Action by the ISAF
(a) When a national authority or the ISAF receives a report alleging a gross breach of a
rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or a report alleging conduct that has brought
the sport into disrepute, or a report required by rule 69.1© or 69.1(e), it may conduct
an investigation and, when appropriate, shall conduct a hearing. It may then take
any disciplinary action within its jurisdiction it considers appropriate against the
competitor or yacht, or other person involved, including suspending eligibility,
permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event held within its
jurisdiction, and suspending ISAF eligibility under ISAF Regulation 19.

 

What is amusing to me is that guys like you think everyone inside ISAF is pleased with the way this process was run.  

As a general rule anybody who has an association with ISAF is a gasbag.

 

The guys who are on the IJ and umpires and Race officials are at these top events because the sailors like and respect them.

 

Actual ISAF members in general. WASTE OF SPACE.



#28 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,639 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:33 PM

What is amusing to me is that guys like you think everyone inside ISAF is pleased with the way this process was run.  

 

"Guys like me". So you are psychic now Huston? Spooky. What colour am I thinking of now?

 

I haven't said a thing about what ISAF thinks or feels. How the hell would I know? I doubt the question even has a meaningful answer at this moment.



#29 bob202

bob202

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:38 PM

When a law company acting for someone who thinks they've been wronged by some judicial process/system they are wrong about 99% of the time.

 

A law company has no rhyme or reason telling a yachting "court" how they ought to do their business. Nor is there any expectation whatsoever that sporting tribunal-type organisations benchmark themselves against the highest investigative systems.

 

To say the International Jury's findings were not supported by "competent evidence" is the same as saying they believe the International Jury is incompetent and/or didn't understand the situation. If what we heard out of both teams - and every pundit who cared to comment on it (including people here) - prior to the investigation and hearing we were led to believe that they were of the utmost integrity, experience and knowledge on these matters and no stone would be left unturned to find out what went on. We were also told that the IJ didn't take kindly to any attempts to take the piss or mislead them. I didn't believe that for one second - organisations like that have little experience in investigations and there would have been ample opportunities for OR to mislead, obfuscate etc. Their ruling even alludes to that fact when they said there were many unknowns.

 

DDR is perhaps a little unlucky in that the IJ probably didn't have a lot of stuff to go on, especially since it happened a year ago...which makes me wonder how they came to conclusion they did. Sailor X perhaps? Or did they consider other evidence which they haven't told us about (again, I don't look at the ruling and consider that a summation of everything, more a statement of their final position).

 

The letter however covers some ground that a slow turnip could comprehend. In item 1 they actually try to go down the "but the ACWS wasn't related to the AC..." bla  bla. and then goes onto say the punishment has hindered the defence of the cup bla bla. Just who are they representing there, de Ridder or Oracle Team USA? The relationship between the ACWS and the cup has little or nothing to do with what the IJ says he is guilty of. If there was no AC and this had happened - he would be banned from competitive sailing anyway, and for probably a lot longer than just the America's Cup (his own sailing federation penalty yet to come notwithstanding).

 

In item 3 they basically pull the "fraud" card in claiming the IJ is biased and with conflicts of interest. Item 5 they complain about adequate time to put together a defence, now they're basically applying a judiciary mindset on a sporting body which can actually operate as it bloody well pleases (within reason).

 

This wont go far imo.



#30 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,925 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:44 PM

What is amusing to me is that guys like you think everyone inside ISAF is pleased with the way this process was run.  

 

Becauce Bryan, for one, has so little knowledge and experience of 69 hearings and issues related to cheating in sailing. Oh, hang on. (Page 13 onwards)



#31 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,273 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:48 PM

Right or wrong lawyers can stir-up a lot of trouble. Just ask any major corporation or professional around. Ever wonder why a doctors visit is so expensive?

 

Liability insurance costs.



#32 bob202

bob202

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:52 PM

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

Nailed it.

 

Pulling the IJ bias card was a particularly good one I thought.



#33 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,076 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:54 PM

What is amusing to me is that guys like you think everyone inside ISAF is pleased with the way this process was run.  

 

Becauce Bryan, for one, has so little knowledge and experience of 69 hearings and issues related to cheating in sailing. Oh, hang on. (Page 13 onwards)

 

 

Why are you focused on ISAF?  This will end up being in a different venue. 



#34 bob202

bob202

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:57 PM

Completely wrong at point1: AC45s & ACWS events are explicitly under the AC Protocol & Jury -> absolutely associated with AC.

I wouldn't consider it helping a law company do their job but maybe if 5, 10 or people emailed that law company explaining the basics of the protocol to them.... :D

 

Their email is on the pdf.

 

 

Fact remains that there is physical evidence of more than just a minor accident, OR internal investigation reported team member involvement, there are still probably more questions left open than answered + clear lack of procedure/oversight which should have picked up a line 'fill kingposts' in the task list -> team fault -> team punishment.

Holy cow... it just dawned on me that he might have been nailed by Oracle's own internal investigation report... which of course they supplied to the IJ. Right?...

 

Nope.



#35 WhiteLightnin'

WhiteLightnin'

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:Anacortes, Wa
  • Interests:Seriously, when was the last time you read the Constitution? Bill of Rights?

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:08 PM

If this is going to go down the "legal loophole" road, what is to stop OTUSA from puting Dirk back on board and racing. Then fighting the DNS out in court? At this point they are needing a "hail mary".

 

Just my .02

 

WL



#36 insider

insider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:everywhere
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:13 PM

If this is going to go down the "legal loophole" road, what is to stop OTUSA from puting Dirk back on board and racing. Then fighting the DNS out in court? At this point they are needing a "hail mary".

 

Just my .02

 

WL

I think that this is Dirk fighting for future income as much as anything.



#37 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,639 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:18 PM

^

 

I don't doubt it. Do you think this letter helps and if so, why?



#38 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,925 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:23 PM

Why are you focused on ISAF?  This will end up being in a different venue. 


Lausanne? So? 2 hopes, both hail marys. 1) The IJ didn't follow the book. 2) The book's wrong.

#39 flojo

flojo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:26 PM

If this is going to go down the "legal loophole" road, what is to stop OTUSA from puting Dirk back on board and racing. Then fighting the DNS out in court? At this point they are needing a "hail mary".

 

Just my .02

 

WL

Yeah !!!!  If you can't win on the racecourse, you can do it in the courtroom. Ever seen that before ????



#40 nemesis

nemesis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:28 PM

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.

Those arguing that procedure doesn't matter... You are simply wrong. It's the only thing that matters. Without procedure, you have no structure for challenging a wrongdoer or defending yourself when wronged.


Without it you have a bunch of idiots screaming from the rooftops to burrrrrrnnnnnn himmmmmmm..... Wait... Sorry. Forgot where I was.

#41 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:35 PM

LLL  Lawyers Looking for Loopholes

 

The facts are not in dispute. Team oracle cheated. Team members knew they were cheating and they continued to cheat for more than one event.

 

The IJ should have banned everyone on the ACWS team from participation in the AC.

 

The IJ's logic was flawed in that they are not certain who to penalize. The situation is very much like an OCS call. You pull the individual flag if you are *certain* you can identify the OSC boats. If you are *certain* that boats are OCS and *not* certain you can identify them individually you pull the general recall flag.

 

This should have been a general on the entire Oracle ACWS team and support crew. There is testimony that all the facts are not before the jury due to an 'uncooperative' Oracle employee. The IJ is *not* certain they can and have identified all the individuals involved.

 

The only mistake the IJ made was trying to leave the Oracle team whole enough to mount a defense. They should have tossed the lot of them.

 

I'll wager that the legality of the process had been tested before. Someone is billing for a forlorn hope. If poor hard done by Dirk has a civil action it is against his fellow team members for tossing him under the bus.

 

R



#42 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,925 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:40 PM

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.


What did the IJ actually do? (Different thing entirely from what DdR says they did.)

#43 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,057 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:41 PM

The important thing is that the Kiwis get the Cup back.  Let them have it, pat them on the head, and then get back to this, and give the guy a chance at a fair hearing for a chance to defend his reputation.  Once the Cup is in Auckland, the folks around here will forget about the need to hammer DDR.  


Between Ernesto, Larry and their legal fireworks, and snotty Kiwi fanboys, I'm surprised anyone gives a shit about the AC anymore.  They should have put it up for grabs at the Youth AC.  



#44 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,639 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:42 PM

Those arguing that procedure doesn't matter...

 

Yes it does matter and the next step in the procedure that ISAF decides whether to review or not and if they review, whether to hold a further hearing or not.

 

Lawyers stern letters to the IJ signify nothing at this point.



#45 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,925 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:46 PM

I do note that his defense isn't "he didn't do it."

#46 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,639 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:49 PM

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.


What did the IJ actually do? (Different thing entirely from what DdR says they did.)

 

Afaik witnesses believed they were making confidential statements which were released more widely than they expected. Not, however, to the general public.

 

What I think about any confidentiality as to processes of a sailing jury, I'm not too sure. Presumably without these assurances nobody would have said anything.



#47 blakie

blakie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:50 PM



What is amusing to me is that guys like you think everyone inside ISAF is pleased with the way this process was run.

 
Becauce Bryan, for one, has so little knowledge and experience of 69 hearings and issues related to cheating in sailing. Oh, hang on. (Page 13 onwards)


 
 
Why are you focused on ISAF?  This will end up being in a different venue.


hmmm. wasn't you that brought all the articles about how this was an ISAF jury?
all the time being a ACEA/ACRM appointed jury with the assistance of ISAF...big difference
a different ISAF jury will rule on this in the future

i have a question for you? what i read i that letter does not offer ANY evidence that all cases do not use similar procedures
for example: is it the first time that a jury member does some of the investigation?
who should have they used? a third party investigator? with no knowledge of sailing?

didn't the jury ask Oracle to come clean and at more than one step they were found with more negative evidence, were uncooperative and for that reason they had NO choice but to do their OWN investigation?

and remind me again about the short notice....this has been going on for over a month...the persons involved could have hired attorneys a long time ago.

i don't see all the red flags that you do
but on the other hand, i think the attorney DESERVES a response.
that would be unethical not to

and if the jury was not fair, then so be it....hang them too

#48 nemesis

nemesis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:56 PM

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.


What did the IJ actually do? (Different thing entirely from what DdR says they did.)


Sharing daily transcripts that were agreed to be confidential is a big no no, especially if they were given while the process was ongoing.. That fact alone should obviate the ruling by ISAF until it gets sorted.

And, if this is true, why were they shared with TNZ at all? Shouldn't TNZ have found out the details of this the same way the rest of us did? Or were the transcripts given to their lawyer to check for errors prior to publishing or relying? If so, did OR or DdR get the same professional courtesy? Again guys... This gives the appearance of impropriety and, frankly, it's the only part of this letter I think has any teeth.

I'm not arguing that DdR is correct and that OR is without fault here. I'm just saying that the IJ needs to stay out of the muck and these, allegations, if true, do exactly the opposite.

#49 blakie

blakie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:57 PM


If this is going to go down the "legal loophole" road, what is to stop OTUSA from puting Dirk back on board and racing. Then fighting the DNS out in court? At this point they are needing a "hail mary".
 
Just my .02
 
WL

Yeah !!!!  If you can't win on the racecourse, you can do it in the courtroom. Ever seen that before ????


yeah, good point? what would happen if DdR gets on board in defiance? that would be interesting

another point is:
i believe the jury was sharing the information of the first jury decision so that the article 60 case could be heard and all the parties listed were going to participate in one shape of form on that second case. how could they provide evidence if they did not know the results from the first case?

perhaps a statement instead of all the findings is all the other parties needed?

#50 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:00 PM

I can feel another wookie defence coming on!



#51 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:13 PM

AC RRS 3:

ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each Competitor agrees to be governed by the rules; to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under the rules; and with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal

#52 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:18 PM

AC RRS 3:

ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each Competitor agrees to be governed by the rules; to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under the rules; and with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal

That disclaimer has never stopped anyone ... go back to 1988 or 2007 for proof that no one abides by this.  One of the issues is that the AC runs under a NY trust. The Protocol cannot be in conflict with NY trust law. No beneficiary of a trust can sign away their rights. Thus the disclaimer has the same value as toilet paper. 



#53 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:26 PM

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.

Those arguing that procedure doesn't matter... You are simply wrong. It's the only thing that matters. Without procedure, you have no structure for challenging a wrongdoer or defending yourself when wronged.


Without it you have a bunch of idiots screaming from the rooftops to burrrrrrnnnnnn himmmmmmm..... Wait... Sorry. Forgot where I was.

You are saying that procedure is the only thing that matters, I couldn't disagree more. What really matters is if people honest and fair, and DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 



#54 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:36 PM

AC RRS 3:
ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each Competitor agrees to be governed by the rules; to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal and review procedures provided in them, as the final determination of any matter arising under the rules; and with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal

That disclaimer has never stopped anyone ... go back to 1988 or 2007 for proof that no one abides by this.  One of the issues is that the AC runs under a NY trust. The Protocol cannot be in conflict with NY trust law. No beneficiary of a trust can sign away their rights. Thus the disclaimer has the same value as toilet paper. 

"Rules are rules" . . . . Sure people have and will break them . . . . But they are then "cheating" . . . . Oh wait a minute :)

#55 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:05 PM

There is the cheating, and then there is the lying.

 

...and then there is the coverup, the denial, and the post decision acrimony.

 

I think we are reading the later part of this act.

 

The jury could not punish (more) individuals in the team because the team member who knew more was found to be less than truthful. Team punishment was the best option for the IJ. This letter is an attempt to rehabilitate DDR, not to argue the team penalty was unfair.

 

Pretty obvious that if DDR had been forthcoming he would have had a warning, someone(s) higher up would have taken the heat, and the punishment to the team would have been the same.

 

End of story.



#56 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,057 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:15 PM

 DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  



#57 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,639 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:28 PM

 DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times. 

 

Let's not become confused. Most of those in this thread, myself included,  who have commented on the lack of defence, other than procedural, were commenting on the lawyer's letter, not what was said to the IJ.



#58 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,712 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:42 PM

I wonder if those transcripts led to leaks, that led to some of the more incendiary rumors posted here anonymously here with specificity, and published in NZ press as innuendo that nevertheless smeared a lot of reputations, absent any proof at the time and still absent proof after the IJ ruled? Was all that muck really just made up, only to be viscous? Or derived from Q's and A's from transcripts of IJ interrogations?

#59 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,712 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:44 PM

Btw, doubt the lawyer will get anywhere with it, regardless any merits.

#60 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:51 PM

Kind of amusing that the same people that are slamming the judges for their 'bad' ruling is 'pushing the button' most often, for more rulings on the race course.

 

It's a pitiful cry for help!

 

It's my impression that OTUSA is still waiting for the judges to come 'round and start making rulings in OTUSA's favor. They still think they hired them, and so should get favorable treatment.

 

Could work for them in the long run, if they can wear the judges down.

 

Sew some seeds of doubt, and undermine the judges authority at the same time.

 

Worth a try if you know it's your only option...



#61 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:55 PM

I wonder if those transcripts led to leaks, that led to some of the more incendiary rumors posted here anonymously here with specificity, and published in NZ press as innuendo that nevertheless smeared a lot of reputations, absent any proof at the time and still absent proof after the IJ ruled? Was all that muck really just made up, only to be viscous? Or derived from Q's and A's from transcripts of IJ interrogations?

What smeared reputations was the dirty deeds uncovered, and the pissy response by the perps. It's almost like the letter was written for your benefit, SR. Gives you some rope to hang on, while sliding down the cliff.



#62 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,712 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:58 PM


It's my impression that OTUSA is still waiting for the judges to come 'round and start making rulings in OTUSA's favor. They still think they hired them, and so should get favorable treatment.
 ..
Worth a try if you know it's your only option...

Your thoughts and impressions must be reflected from in your own crooked mirror.

There has been ~nothing~ to suggest the ACRM or the IJ have been in any way, shape or form beholden to the Defender.

#63 couchsurfer

couchsurfer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,090 posts
  • Location:NA westcoast
  • Interests:...pimping HOOTs
    ...i550 NW circuit

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:02 PM

.

 

.....dumb question #2.......why do penalties incurred in the 45's apply to the ACfinals??

 

...did the 45crews earn some points that get carried over to the AC finals??



#64 Van Schakel

Van Schakel

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:11 PM

@dogwatch: The conclusion says it all: Anderlini suggests mistrial and suggests retrial AFTER AC34


Trial? What trial?

figure of speech.. I should say hearing of course.

 

Same goes for the title of this thread. dirk's defense simply has a nice ring to it, although it isn't really a defense.



#65 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,712 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:16 PM


I wonder if those transcripts led to leaks, that led to some of the more incendiary rumors posted here anonymously here with specificity, and published in NZ press as innuendo that nevertheless smeared a lot of reputations, absent any proof at the time and still absent proof after the IJ ruled? Was all that muck really just made up, only to be viscous? Or derived from Q's and A's from transcripts of IJ interrogations?

What smeared reputations was the dirty deeds uncovered, and the pissy response by the perps.
Nope, I was pointing to allegations made well before the IJ ruled. It's ~possible~ that some sense of those transcripts were being intentionally leaked.

#66 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:19 PM

 DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  

Please either use the full quote or at least show that you have taken the quote out of context.

 

The letter from the lawyer does not claim he didn't do anything wrong.



#67 Van Schakel

Van Schakel

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:26 PM

I've been thinking, (Yes I know, I shouldn't) but if I had sent the letter, I wouldn't say I'm not guilty either. DdR already said that in his hearing which was deemed untrue.

His laywer could (and I think should) be saving those arguments for a new hearing, or for the ISAF and KNWV.

 

But first he needs a new hearing..

 

Could it even be that he is actually innocent? Of course as a fellow dutchy, knowing some people who know Dirk and say he is really a good guy and this all came as a huge surprise,  a bit, I'm a little biassed..



#68 Scrubhunter

Scrubhunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake, VA

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:30 PM

 

"Dirk's defence"? There's no "defence" there at all, only procedural complaints.

The fact that this will now go to ISAF seems to have passed by Anderlini entirely. The process has only started.

 

Exactly.  Half the complaints are essentially "its not fair" and to a very large extent ignore the elephant in the room.  There was, and is, no doubt that the transgressions occurred and DdeR was responsible.  The letter complains that the rule 69 punishment is only appropriate of DdeR knew it was against the rules.  Seriously???  They are trying to make out DdeR didn't know it was against the rules?   Thus implicitly acknowledging that he was responsible anyway.  It is nothing more that the usual lawyer bluster.  The IJ will not, and should not ever, reply to letters like this. 

 

You think at some point the IJ isn't going to be compelled to reply?  Seriously?

Err, who has the authority to compel the IJ to respond.

 

Yeah - exactly - no one. No authority. No response can be compelled.



#69 jhc

jhc

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:34 PM

DDR is going to get a hearing with the Dutch authority. He could be innocent, but he will have to come across as credible to get anywhere. Would guess the Dutch sailing authority would be more compassionate that the IJ towards one of their own. This letter is probably more focused on that future hearing, than it is tilting at the windmill that is the AC34 IJ.

Facts found by AC34 IJ are found, and done is done.



#70 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,057 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:38 PM

 

 DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times. 

 

Let's not become confused. Most of those in this thread, myself included,  who have commented on the lack of defence, other than procedural, were commenting on the lawyer's letter, not what was said to the IJ.

Why would the lawyer assert such a thing in a letter seeking a new hearing before an impartial body?  DDR's denials are of record.  Counsel is trying to get a hearing before a different panel, not argue the merits of the case.  



#71 Scrubhunter

Scrubhunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake, VA

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:39 PM

If this is going to go down the "legal loophole" road, what is to stop OTUSA from puting Dirk back on board and racing. Then fighting the DNS out in court? At this point they are needing a "hail mary".

 

Just my .02

 

WL

They would be DSQ'ed once he stepped on board the ORACLE boat. ORACLE could be on the course, but they won't be considered racing. It would be Game Over. That is why they won't let him near the boat.



#72 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,057 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:40 PM

 

 DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  

Please either use the full quote or at least show that you have taken the quote out of context.

 

The letter from the lawyer does not claim he didn't do anything wrong.

Where did I quote anything?  I provided a link to the cite where you can see that what you claim is not true.  See my prior post for your second red herring.  



#73 insider

insider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:everywhere
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:41 PM

^

 

I don't doubt it. Do you think this letter helps and if so, why?

As Presuming Ed mentioned. In Switzerland at the CAS. 

 

IANAL but it seems to me that the proceedure outlined in the letter has quite a few holes in it.

 

I am not arguing if DDR was guilty or not (it does not surprise me that it was him to be honest - I have met and spoken to him (shared beers) enough times to have formed my own opinions rightly or wrongly). Merely that the process as outlined seems a bit wiffy to me.



#74 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:43 PM

 

 

 DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  

Please either use the full quote or at least show that you have taken the quote out of context.

 

The letter from the lawyer does not claim he didn't do anything wrong.

Where did I quote anything?  I provided a link to the cite where you can see that what you claim is not true.  See my prior post for your second red herring.  

You deleted part of my post!!!!  



#75 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:49 PM

was some noticeably coincidental language appearing both in the press and forums during the investigation, difficult to prove but could point to porosity

#76 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,057 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:50 PM

 

 

 

 DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  

Please either use the full quote or at least show that you have taken the quote out of context.

 

The letter from the lawyer does not claim he didn't do anything wrong.

Where did I quote anything?  I provided a link to the cite where you can see that what you claim is not true.  See my prior post for your second red herring.  

You deleted part of my post!!!!  

Something that had nothing to do with whether DDR denied doing the acts of which he was accused.  I addressed the part of your post that was false.  Face it, you repeated falsehoods that others posted, which were clearly not true and easily discovered.  Had you done so while sworn to tell the truth in front of the panel DDR was before, you might be taking a seat for a few races.  



#77 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,057 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:54 PM

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.

Those arguing that procedure doesn't matter... You are simply wrong. It's the only thing that matters. Without procedure, you have no structure for challenging a wrongdoer or defending yourself when wronged.


Without it you have a bunch of idiots screaming from the rooftops to burrrrrrnnnnnn himmmmmmm..... Wait... Sorry. Forgot where I was.

You are saying that procedure is the only thing that matters, I couldn't disagree more. What really matters is if people honest and fair, and DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

Here, to assuage your butthurt, I will quote the whole post, and still point out that you have repeated the same falsehood repeated by others.  

 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  

 

Recognizing falsehoods and not repeating them is important, is it not, in a world where people are honest and fair?  



#78 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:56 PM

 


I wonder if those transcripts led to leaks, that led to some of the more incendiary rumors posted here anonymously here with specificity, and published in NZ press as innuendo that nevertheless smeared a lot of reputations, absent any proof at the time and still absent proof after the IJ ruled? Was all that muck really just made up, only to be viscous? Or derived from Q's and A's from transcripts of IJ interrogations?

What smeared reputations was the dirty deeds uncovered, and the pissy response by the perps.
Nope, I was pointing to allegations made well before the IJ ruled. It's ~possible~ that some sense of those transcripts were being intentionally leaked.

Would leaking the transcripts make Oracle less guilty of cheating?

 

Didn't think so ...



#79 Van Schakel

Van Schakel

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:07 PM

 

 


I wonder if those transcripts led to leaks, that led to some of the more incendiary rumors posted here anonymously here with specificity, and published in NZ press as innuendo that nevertheless smeared a lot of reputations, absent any proof at the time and still absent proof after the IJ ruled? Was all that muck really just made up, only to be viscous? Or derived from Q's and A's from transcripts of IJ interrogations?

What smeared reputations was the dirty deeds uncovered, and the pissy response by the perps.
Nope, I was pointing to allegations made well before the IJ ruled. It's ~possible~ that some sense of those transcripts were being intentionally leaked.

Would leaking the transcripts make Oracle less guilty of cheating?

 

Didn't think so ...

Nope, but it could result in different rulings for the individual sailors.. 



#80 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,712 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:08 PM


 



I wonder if those transcripts led to leaks, that led to some of the more incendiary rumors posted here anonymously here with specificity, and published in NZ press as innuendo that nevertheless smeared a lot of reputations, absent any proof at the time and still absent proof after the IJ ruled? Was all that muck really just made up, only to be viscous? Or derived from Q's and A's from transcripts of IJ interrogations?

What smeared reputations was the dirty deeds uncovered, and the pissy response by the perps.
Nope, I was pointing to allegations made well before the IJ ruled. It's ~possible~ that some sense of those transcripts were being intentionally leaked.
Would leaking the transcripts make Oracle less guilty of cheating?
 
Didn't think so ...
The leaking of transcripts, if it happened, relates directly to the letter in the OP, especially paras 4 and 6.

His point about none of the ~exculpatory~ having been published by the IJ is an interesting one too, unless you are already blind to the possibility of the mods being anything short of 'the worst cheating in the history of sports' or similarly hysterical claims made through hot rhetoric by some who very possibly were leaked only carefully selected senses derived from those transcripts.

#81 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:20 PM

 

 


 



I wonder if those transcripts led to leaks, that led to some of the more incendiary rumors posted here anonymously here with specificity, and published in NZ press as innuendo that nevertheless smeared a lot of reputations, absent any proof at the time and still absent proof after the IJ ruled? Was all that muck really just made up, only to be viscous? Or derived from Q's and A's from transcripts of IJ interrogations?

What smeared reputations was the dirty deeds uncovered, and the pissy response by the perps.
Nope, I was pointing to allegations made well before the IJ ruled. It's ~possible~ that some sense of those transcripts were being intentionally leaked.
Would leaking the transcripts make Oracle less guilty of cheating?
 
Didn't think so ...
The leaking of transcripts, if it happened, relates directly to the letter in the OP, especially paras 4 and 6.

His point about none of the ~exculpatory~ having been published by the IJ is an interesting one too, unless you are already blind to the possibility of the mods being anything short of 'the worst cheating in the history of sports' or similarly hysterical claims made through hot rhetoric by some who very possibly were leaked only carefully selected senses derived from those transcripts.

The point for me is that cheating happened, people (including sailors) knew about it and let it go until they were caught. That is damning IMO.

 

Do not forget that the IJ has to continue in the sport also. The likelihood of them letting obvious bias lead to a bad ruling is very small. It is much more likely that they got it right, they want to work again too.

 

For what you want to be true to be true the five members of the IJ have to be wrong. Did the organizers get a bad IJ or the best they could find?

 

This is grasping at straws stuff to air here and now. The Rule 69 will be reviewed and there will be a hearing. There is a process and it is being followed. We can't expect hourly lawyers to know how sailing works.



#82 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,712 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:24 PM

I don't see why the lawyer would be requesting a new hearing unless he believed he had a case to make that would reach a conclusion different than from that IJ's process. Unlike us, he would know also the exculpatory evidence DDR provided.

#83 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:29 PM

I do not think that anzacor can or will reopen the cheating question, found guilty bynthe IJ, that is settled. But they and tehir team members will, going forward (n.b.) try to diminsh the impact of it. This letter is a first step. Whether it works or not who knows? Some very public positions were staked out which will be difficult to back away from, more difficult than writing contradictory postings on a forum. DdR said he was not guilty, was disbelieved, most of us will never read the evidence given.

I think that it was a fucked up scheme, not clear what was. going on but it was screwed up and should not have happened. Is it indicative of the pro racing culture? Based on the bllicosity of the outrage maybe yes. Some "top guns" I have met are based on smoke and mirrors, suck up kick down; some are pretty damn worthy of respect. Many wallets do not really get the level competition thing, and the idea of losing (which is a part of competiton) is anathema to them.

#84 RHough

RHough

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,740 posts
  • Location:Mexico or Canada
  • Interests:The basic principle of sportsmanship and fair play, friendly competition ...

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:30 PM

I don't see why the lawyer would be requesting a new hearing unless he believed he had a case to make that would reach a conclusion different from that from the IJ process.

That is not part of the process. The process is not to find an IJ that will rule your way. The process is that when a jury hands out a Rule 69, you bring your case to your home sailing authority. AFAIK that process is going to happen. As I stated before, if Dirk feels hard done by, he should be adding the names of people that threw him under the bus to a civil action in the US. This would be defamation of character if he can prove his innocence. If he wins that he could then go after the AC34 organizers for picking an incompetent IJ.

 

Lawyers will request anything you pay them to request. Look at the shit that was argued during AC33. 



#85 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:31 PM

 

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.

Those arguing that procedure doesn't matter... You are simply wrong. It's the only thing that matters. Without procedure, you have no structure for challenging a wrongdoer or defending yourself when wronged.


Without it you have a bunch of idiots screaming from the rooftops to burrrrrrnnnnnn himmmmmmm..... Wait... Sorry. Forgot where I was.

You are saying that procedure is the only thing that matters, I couldn't disagree more. What really matters is if people honest and fair, and DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

Here, to assuage your butthurt, I will quote the whole post, and still point out that you have repeated the same falsehood repeated by others.  

 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  

 

Recognizing falsehoods and not repeating them is important, is it not, in a world where people are honest and fair?  

Point is that I believe that DdR is guilty of cheating, and furthermore I believe he and MM wasn't the only sailor or OR manager involved in it. 

The jury's ruling point 71 and 72 says enough for me. You may view this differently, but it's not the same as claiming my view as a falsehood. 



#86 edouard

edouard

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts
  • Interests:Leisure sailing for 35 years with anything windpowered from Hobies to Classic Keelboats

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:34 PM

I haven't read all the comments here, but the official story: i.e. Dirk De Ridder on his own behalf told the shore crew to do the modifications,  makes no sense to me.

 

Either it was just a huge screw-up of an organization grown to big for its own good with people switching from development to racing with no clear guidelines, or management was involved in a deliberate optimization/cheat.

 

The former seems to me the most likely, which in my view justifies sanctions to the team but not the individuals.

 

It is unfortunate that this misconduct wasn't identified earlier so OTUSA could be penalized during the ACWS. It would have been better for both the AC and OTUSA who would have benefited from the exposure of their internal policies failures.

 

P-S: Bets are still open on who Sailor X is.



#87 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,363 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:50 PM

We should not forget that this protest is a career killer for Dirk, one that he has dedicated his life to the last 20 odd years or so.
Understandably he is taking this a bit more seriously than some average regatta DSQ protest.

#88 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,057 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:54 PM

 

 

No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.

Those arguing that procedure doesn't matter... You are simply wrong. It's the only thing that matters. Without procedure, you have no structure for challenging a wrongdoer or defending yourself when wronged.


Without it you have a bunch of idiots screaming from the rooftops to burrrrrrnnnnnn himmmmmmm..... Wait... Sorry. Forgot where I was.

You are saying that procedure is the only thing that matters, I couldn't disagree more. What really matters is if people honest and fair, and DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 

In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them. But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

Here, to assuage your butthurt, I will quote the whole post, and still point out that you have repeated the same falsehood repeated by others.  

 

That does not become true in real life if it is repeated enough times.  He most certainly did claim that, and the jury, the impartiality of which has been questioned, did not believe him.  That letter memorializes the objections his counsel raised already.  

 

http://noticeboard.a...11/08/JN116.pdf

 

In a world where people are cheating, lying, and using all other tricks, we should be careful to consider the factual record before making factual statements that are not supported.  

 

Recognizing falsehoods and not repeating them is important, is it not, in a world where people are honest and fair?  

Point is that I believe that DdR is guilty of cheating, and furthermore I believe he and MM wasn't the only sailor or OR manager involved in it. 

The jury's ruling point 71 and 72 says enough for me. You may view this differently, but it's not the same as claiming my view as a falsehood. 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and there are grounds to support it.  All I was saying is that the oft repeated canard that DdR did not deny the charges is not true.  He denied them, the jury did not buy his denial.  This latest letter would seem to memorialize objections made by his attorney at the hearing, based on writings in the document at the link I posted.  Those objections raise questions about the integrity of the process.

 

I have no problem with keeping him off of the boat, based on the jury's decision.  However, his attorney's allegations are serious, particularly so, considering that we are not just talking about taking him off of the boat, but taking away his livelihood for a period of time.  At some point in the not too distant future, someone other than the challenged jury needs to review those allegations and determine whether there were due process problems.  If there were, then he deserves a hearing before a fair and impartial body, for a chance to restore his reputation and save his career.  My suspicion is that once the Cup is on its way to Auckland, folks will be far less concerned with his efforts to get a fair hearing, and we can all get on with it.  



#89 Abraxas3

Abraxas3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:01 PM

^ DdR will get a new chance to clear his name before his ban is extended, so if that was the point of the attorney he didn't have to send this letter at all.



#90 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

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

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:38 PM

the Laywer of Dirk De Ridder wrote a letter to the jury regarding the ruling and the process. And I think it makes some sense..

 

How about you?

 

the letter:

 

http://www.clubracer...(origineel).pdf

That idiot lawyer has tried the same argument in front of the Jury and got nowhere - he even asked the Jury to recuse themseleves from the case (Yeah right!! - suggests he's an ambulance chaser), which resulted in an extra day of hearing.

This is not going anywhere.



#91 jhec

jhec

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:42 PM

I haven't read all the comments here, but the official story: i.e. Dirk De Ridder on his own behalf told the shore crew to do the modifications,  makes no sense to me.

 

Either it was just a huge screw-up of an organization grown to big for its own good with people switching from development to racing with no clear guidelines, or management was involved in a deliberate optimization/cheat.

 

The former seems to me the most likely, which in my view justifies sanctions to the team but not the individuals.

 

It is unfortunate that this misconduct wasn't identified earlier so OTUSA could be penalized during the ACWS. It would have been better for both the AC and OTUSA who would have benefited from the exposure of their internal policies failures.

 

P-S: Bets are still open on who Sailor X is.

Bugger off - DDR is on a video telling the world how the AC45 is a one design class.  All exactly the same he tells us.

 

Suggesting this is some giant mistake is buying into the spin.  I have followed cycling for too long not to know that really nice people (and I'm not talking LA) do stupid things that are cheating, with full knowledge.  At the time they do it they rationalise it in various ways, but that doesn't make it right.  DDR knows in his heart of hearts that the alterations were wrong - he just can't accept that he did wrong, because he knows that he is a nice guy and wouldn't consciously do something bad.  But he did.

 

Our mind is a very powerful thing when it comes to rationalising acts like this.  The fact that he is a nice guy is not a defense.



#92 jhec

jhec

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:45 PM

I find it interesting on one hand that the letter argues for confidentiality (release of transcripts), then on the other hand argues that all evidence should have been given to DDR.

 

Circulating witness statements certainly points to collusion in OR.



#93 nemesis

nemesis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:47 PM


No. 6 is pretty damning by all accounts, especially if any evidence can be shown acknowledging the confidentiality agreement. Moreso if it an be shown transcripts were shared with TNZ prior to the decision being handed down. It stinks of collusion and, even if it didn't affect the final judgement, it stains the perceived integrity of the entire process.

Those arguing that procedure doesn't matter... You are simply wrong. It's the only thing that matters. Without procedure, you have no structure for challenging a wrongdoer or defending yourself when wronged.


Without it you have a bunch of idiots screaming from the rooftops to burrrrrrnnnnnn himmmmmmm..... Wait... Sorry. Forgot where I was.

You are saying that procedure is the only thing that matters, I couldn't disagree more. What really matters is if people honest and fair, and DdR doesn't even try to claim that he didn't do what he accused of, so if he had been an honest man he would have taken the punishment and left competitive sailing forever. 
In a world where people are cheating, lying and using all other tricks, we should of course have procedures - and follow them.

But we must get things done, and we couldn't in anyway have this decision postponed until after the final. 

So give him a swift trial and a fair execution. Got it.

#94 Mudz

Mudz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Location:gods own

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:55 PM

I think OR got off lightly.

 

cheating is the single worse thing for any sport and all sports are littered with it.

 

Would be nice if Sailing was more honest.

 

The facts are OR cheated. They should be punished regardless of who did it. A teams culture should be to play a fair and honest game.



#95 edouard

edouard

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts
  • Interests:Leisure sailing for 35 years with anything windpowered from Hobies to Classic Keelboats

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:59 PM

I haven't read all the comments here, but the official story: i.e. Dirk De Ridder on his own behalf told the shore crew to do the modifications,  makes no sense to me.

 

Either it was just a huge screw-up of an organization grown to big for its own good with people switching from development to racing with no clear guidelines, or management was involved in a deliberate optimization/cheat.

 

The former seems to me the most likely, which in my view justifies sanctions to the team but not the individuals.

 

It is unfortunate that this misconduct wasn't identified earlier so OTUSA could be penalized during the ACWS. It would have been better for both the AC and OTUSA who would have benefited from the exposure of their internal policies failures.

 

P-S: Bets are still open on who Sailor X is.

Bugger off - DDR is on a video telling the world how the AC45 is a one design class.  All exactly the same he tells us.

 

Suggesting this is some giant mistake is buying into the spin.  I have followed cycling for too long not to know that really nice people (and I'm not talking LA) do stupid things that are cheating, with full knowledge.  At the time they do it they rationalise it in various ways, but that doesn't make it right.  DDR knows in his heart of hearts that the alterations were wrong - he just can't accept that he did wrong, because he knows that he is a nice guy and wouldn't consciously do something bad.  But he did.

 

Our mind is a very powerful thing when it comes to rationalising acts like this.  The fact that he is a nice guy is not a defense.

 

I never said DDR doesn't know the alterations were wrong. What I say is I don't believe for a second it was his sole initiative to have these modifications done.

 

I don't buy in spin either, and by that I mean the OTUSA spin that it was the act of a few "misguided individuals", since I say penalizing the whole team is the right thing to do.

 

Even if DDR was a perfect A-Hole I wouldn't buy the official line because I know that "our mind is a powerful thing when it comes to rationalizing acts like this" and the lone scapegoat just doesn't do it.



#96 crashdog

crashdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 08:20 PM

This is just a first step, a feint, if you want, direction which is likely to be ignored by the IJ.  This will then open the door to an elevation to a civil action.  Time is of the essence, so an injunction against racing is the next likely step.  Procedure in hearings that have hundreds of millions at stake and many millions of future income for impacted parties is a very touchy question.   



#97 AC Hammer!

AC Hammer!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • Location:Paros
  • Interests:challenging idiots since 1993

Posted 08 September 2013 - 09:50 PM



How on earth is it appropriate for McKenzie to be one of the two investigators?  I mean seriously you Kiwi's, lets hear your defense of that one.

 
You can talk while you have RC's dick in your mouth? You are talented Hooston
 
It's Huston, thank you.
 
And glad to see you keepin' it classy, as always, while having no response to a legitimate question.
Yip! That's that's kiwis for ya! Next they will call you a troll for giving a logical thought and Input, while they come back with troll comments like that.

I think it reflects on their culture of putting sexual connotations on everything.

#98 Peelman

Peelman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,120 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC
  • Interests:Too many to list and to save post space.........

Posted 08 September 2013 - 10:17 PM

IMO they are using ISAF Rules and DDR has lost his "Competition Eligibility" hence the process he must follow is - 

 

Appeals 
19.19 A competitor may appeal a decision to suspend, revoke, or impose conditions on his Competition or ISAF Eligibility to the Review Board. The competitor shall be advised of the right to appeal and be provided with a copy of the Review Board Rules of Procedure. 
19.20 A National Authority or ISAF may ask for a review of its decision by the Review Board. The Review Board Rules of Procedure shall govern all appeals and requests for review. 
19.21 Upon an appeal or request for review, the Review Board may confirm, revise or annul the decision, or require a hearing or rehearing. 
19.22 Decisions of the Review Board may be appealed only in accordance with Article 82. 
19.23 The Chief Executive Officer shall promptly notify all National Authorities, ISAF Class Associations and other ISAF affiliated organizations of all Review Board decisions made pursuant to this Regulation. The Chief Executive Officer may do this by publishing an appropriate notice on the ISAF website. 
 
Reinstatement of Competition and/or ISAF Eligibility 
19.24 A competitor may apply to ISAF for his Competition Eligibility and/or ISAF Eligibility to be reinstated, or have any conditions imposed upon it removed or amended, if (a) he establishes substantial, changed circumstances justifying the change; and (B) a minimum of three years has passed since the original decision. 
19.25 A competitor may appeal a refusal to grant such an application to the Review Board, in which case the procedures set out in Regulations 19.19 to 19.23 shall apply. 
 
Class Eligibility
19.26 Any competitor whose eligibility has been suspended, denied, or revoked by an ISAF 
Class may appeal that decision to the Review Board in accordance with Articles 79, 81 
and 82 and the procedures set out in the Review Board Rules of Procedure 
 
 


#99 ibsailn

ibsailn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 191 posts
  • Location:Auckland / Newport / Ottawa

Posted 08 September 2013 - 10:40 PM

Seems like a weak defense to me and the language used is blustery and rediculous.  They call the IJ, the executioner....really who did they kill?  last time i checked DDR was still breathing and will get his chance to determine if he will loose the ability to race beyond the event he was found guilty of cheating within when his case is reviewed by the dutch and ISAF.  All th jury did was suspend him from the Event he was found guilty in.  The fact that he and Oracle can't read the protocol and don't realize that the ACWS is part of the Americas Cup event per that protocol doesn't mean it isn't.  The Protocol is VERY clear on this.

 

Further, they want an investigation independant of the jury, but who do they want to do that...Oracle?  Their investigation didn't seem to get anywhere.  I don't know the standard procedure for investigations into Rule 69 infractions, but I would doubt that the IJ didn't follow standard procedure.  Clearly ACEA being lapdogs of Oracle weren't going to investigate this.  It isn't the job of race operations.  That leaves the MC and IJ which is exactly what they did.



#100 Lat35sowth

Lat35sowth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts
  • Location:Aotearoa
  • Interests:Sea ,Sun,Sports

Posted 08 September 2013 - 11:14 PM

....Somebody cheated cause lead doesnt just form itself in the bottom of the mast.....






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users