Jump to content


Podmajersky


  • Please log in to reply
311 replies to this topic

#1 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,808 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:04 PM

BEFORE THE U.S. SAILING REVIEW BOARD

In the matter of: August 14, 2007

John Podmajersky
US SAILING File Number:
v. 03-14-06

Chicago Yacht Club

OPINION

This matter comes before the U.S. SAILING Review Board as a result of a complaint filed by John Podmajersky related to the 2002 Chicago Yacht Club Race to Mackinac organized under the authority of the Chicago Yacht Club (the “Race”). This action is by no means the first action between the parties related to the Race (see Exhibit A attached hereto). As set forth in the official record, including the exhibits, there have been a number of hearings, appeals, and state court actions related to this matter.

Jurisdiction

Mr. Podmajersky initiated this action pursuant to Article 14 of the Bylaws of US SAILING (now Bylaw 701 and US SAILING Regulation 15). Specifically, Mr. Podmajersky alleged that US SAILING had failed to fulfill its obligations as the national governing body for the sport of sailing to the extent that Illusion did not receive a fair hearing of its dispute regarding the Race. US SAILING’S obligation to consider the allegation stems from its Bylaws, its National Governing Body responsibilities to United States Olympic Committee and the requirements imposed by the Stevens Amateur Sports Act. All of which require that such a dispute receive a fair hearing.

Furthermore, this case has elements of the three sections of Bylaw 701 (and Regulation 15); administrative, grievance and disciplinary. The Hearing Panel has considered all of the standards included therein in its decision.

Burden of Proof

As the complainant, Mr. Podmajersky bears the burden of proof in this matter. As a result, to be successful Mr. Podmajersky must prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.


Undisputed Facts

While this matter has been a long dispute amongst the parties, surprisingly there is no dispute as to what happened on the water. All parties, John Podmajersky, Robert Brandenburg and the Chicago Yacht Club agree that the boat, Illusion, won the Race and that John Podmajersky was the individual most responsible for Illusion’s success. He was the helmsman for approximately 30 of the 35 hours it took Illusion to complete the Race and he had the authority vested in a captain, skipper or “person in charge” with respect to all matters concerning the operation of the vessel for the entire period that Illusion was participating in the race.

The disputes between the parties, instead, focus solely on what happened before and after the Race.

Issue

The first issue in this matter is whether or not Illusion received sufficient due process with respect to its underlying claims. As explained at the hearing, there are basically three ways to satisfy this due process requirement: (i) an adequate hearing on the merits; (ii) a waiver by the claimant; or, (iii) forfeiture of the claimant’s right to a hearing. Mr. Podmajersky claims that the Race organizing authority and the Chicago Yacht Club failed to show that any of these requirements were satisfied. The Chicago Yacht Club, on behalf of itself and the Race organizing authority, maintains that Illusion either waived or forfeited its right to a hearing.

Findings of Fact

On April 18 and 19, 2007, the Hearing Panel heard evidence from Mr. Podmajersky and the Chicago Yacht Club, each represented by counsel. In addition to witness testimony, the parties introduced numerous written exhibits, all of which are part of the official record. As indicated above, the parties agreed as to what occurred on the water; namely that Illusion won the Race and Mr. Podmajersky was the leader of that effort.

The witness testimony as to what happened before and after the Race, however, differed thus requiring the Hearing Panel to determine which testimony it found most credible. Ultimately, it is these credibility determinations which dictate the outcome in this matter. The material findings are set forth below.

The Entry of Illusion in the Race

The first material difference in testimony relates to how and why Illusion was entered into the Race. Mr. Podmajersky testified that as of June 13, 2002, he had not decided whether or not he or his boat, Illusion, would participate in the Race but since the last day to enter the Race was June 14, 2002, he asked Mr. Brandenburg to enter Illusion in the Race. 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 23-24; 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 19-21. Mr. Podmajersky further testified that he specifically told his crew that they could not charter Illusion for the Race (4/18/07 Tr. p. 23) and did not authorize Mr. Brandenburg to insert his (Brandenburg’s) name as the “owner/charter” on the entry application form for the Race. 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 22.

Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony directly contradicts Mr. Podmajersky’s testimony on these points. Mr. Brandenburg testified that Mr. Podmajersky agreed to allow Mr. Brandenburg and other members of the regular crew to sail Illusion in the Race provided that they caused Illusion to be delivered to Muskegon, Michigan for a race that was to be held there the following weekend. 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 123. Mr. Brandenburg further testified that he believed he had “chartered” or “borrowed” Illusion for the Race and that he was responsible for it throughout the Race. 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 121, 135, 146; 164; 172; 182. Both Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Podmajersky agree that no written documentation exists (or ever existed) confirming a “charter” or “borrowing” of Illusion. Furthermore, the Chicago Yacht Club did nothing to confirm Mr. Brandenburg’s right to use Illusion, which he did not own.

Based on all of the evidence presented at the hearings, both through witness testimony and documentary evidence, the Hearing Panel finds Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony to be more credible. For example, the Race is an invitation only race and it is clear that Mr. Brandenburg, not Mr. Podmajersky, received the invitation for Illusion, and Mr. Brandenburg called Don L. Glassel, the individual in charge of invitations, to receive an invitation to the Race. 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 121-122. During this call, Mr. Brandenburg had to detail his sailing experience in order to receive an invitation. Then after receiving the invitation, (faxed on June 13, 2002), Mr. Brandenburg promptly completed it - listing himself as “owner/charter”. CYC Ex. 32. Similarly, Mr. Podmajersky was not listed as a crew member on the initial application.

Conversely, Mr. Podmajersky did not receive the invitation for Illusion, did not know that Mr. Glassel was in charge of invitations, claims that he has “yet to see that invitation” and was otherwise evasive when asked about how Illusion was entered into the Race. 4/19/07 Tr. pp. 48-54. Remarkably, Mr. Podmajersky’s only clear memory on this point was that he “had not designated Mr. Brandenburg as the person in charge” - the precise fact that would be helpful to his case.

Podmajersky Decides to Participate in the Race

The parties agree that approximately one week after Mr. Brandenburg entered Illusion, on or about June 20, 2002, Mr. Podmajersky decided that he would participate in the Race. 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 24; p. 129. It is also clear that once he decided to participate in the Race, Mr. Podmajersky began to exercise control over Illusion. For example, he directed Mr. Brandenburg to make changes to the crew. 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 24-25; p. 130. Mr. Brandenburg, however, testified even though Mr. Podmajersky was going to be on Illusion for the Race, Mr. Brandenburg was still to be responsible taking care of all aspects with respect to entering the boat and complying with all entry requirements. 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 134-135. Documentary evidence corroborates Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony. For example, Mr. Brandenburg paid the entry fee for the Race with a personal check on June 26, 2002. CYC Ex. 36. Also, testimonial evidence indicated that Mr. Brandenburg performed all of the various tasks to prepare Illusion for the Race.

The Hearing Panel further notes that Mr. Podmajersky knew for more than one month that he would be participating in the Race on Illusion, yet none of the pre-Race documents are signed by Mr. Podmajersky, and he took no action to amend any of the entry documents, including the crew list to which he requested changes. 4/18/07 Tr. at 73-74; 134; 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 63. Mr. Podmajersky’s actions (or inactions) are consistent with Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony that he [Brandenburg] was to be responsible for these actions.

Podmajersky Learns that He is Not Listed as Owner of Illusion

Both Mr. Podmajersky and Mr. Brandenburg testified that the day before the Race, July 19, 2002, they reviewed the “scratch sheet” which listed Mr. Brandenburg - not Mr. Podmajersky - as the “owner/charter” of Illusion. 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 25; 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 63; p. 133. Their testimony, however, differs greatly as to Mr. Podmajersky’s response to seeing the “scratch sheet.”

Mr. Podmajersky testified that Mr. Brandenburg “brought” him (Podmajersky) the scratch sheet, pointed out that it listed Mr. Brandenburg as the owner of Illusion in “error”, that Mr. Brandenburg “didn’t know how this happened but that he was going to work on correcting it.” 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 25; 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 63. Mr. Podmajersky then further testified that he took no action before the Race to change the “owner/charter” of Illusion to his name because Mr. Brandenburg had indicated that he was “going to work on correcting it.” Id; 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 74.

Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony on the incident was quite different. He testified that:
“the whole crew was together at the boat. I believe it was the Friday after work. And we had the scratch sheet and passed it around at that point.” 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 133. “I brought it [Brandenburg listed as owner/charter] up. I said, hey, that looks funny with my name on your boat. And he said - We all sort of laughed at it. Not much was said, though. We did talk. He said - I said what happens if we win. It’s going to be funny. And he [Podmajersky] said we’ll worry about that after we win.” Id.

Mr. Brandenburg further testified that at no time prior to the Race did Mr. Podmajersky ask Mr. Brandenburg to change the entry forms to remove Mr. Brandenburg’s name and insert Mr. Podmajersky’s as the owner of Illusion. 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 136-137; 156;

The Hearing Panel finds Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony on this point to be more credible. There was no evidence presented to suggest why Mr. Brandenburg would not have made the change if requested. Mr. Podmajersky requested that other members of the crew be changed, which Mr. Brandenburg did when he picked up the skipper’s bag before the race. 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 127. Similarly, if Mr. Brandenburg had requested that the name of the “owner/charter” be changed prior to the Race, the Race Committee likely would have done so. 4/19/02 Tr. at p. 460-461. Moreover, as more fully set forth below, the Hearing Panel notes that both before the Race and upon completion of the Race, it was Mr. Brandenburg - not Mr. Podmajersky - who signed in Illusion, consistent with the entry application that Mr. Brandenburg was the “person in charge” for Illusion and in compliance with Race requirements.

By finding Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony on this point more credible, the Hearing Panel wants to underscore that it is in no way endorsing or approving of Mr. Brandenburg’s behavior. To the contrary, the Hearing Panel finds Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony to be an admission that he (and the rest of Illusion’s crew, including Mr. Podmajersky) knowingly sailed under a false/incorrect entry and took no action to correct that entry or advise the Race organizing authority. Accordingly, if it had the authority to do so, the Hearing Panel would disqualify Illusion for violating Racing Rule 75 and the requirements of the Notice of Race and the Sailing Instructions.

Sign In Requirements

The Notice of Race (“NOR) and Sail Instructions (“SI”) for the Race clearly set forth who may sign in a boat before and upon completion of the Race. NOR 5.1j and SI 18. The NOR and SI further expressly state that a boat that fails to comply with these requirements “shall be penalized 3 places in section and shall have her corrected time adjusted…” NOR 10.4; SI 18. Based upon the entry form submitted for Illusion only Mr. Brandenburg was authorized under the NOR and SI to sign in Illusion, which is what happened, or authorize another, in writing, to do so. CYC Ex. 38 and 39; 4/19/07 Tr. at p. 60-61.

Both Mr. Podmajersky and Mr. Brandenburg were aware that there were penalties for failing to comply with the sign in requirements. 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 76-77; 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 136. The Hearing Panel notes that Mr. Podmajersky - a very experienced sailor - was evasive when asked about when he read the NOR (4/18/07 Tr. at pp. 76-79; 139-140), which included these provisions. Also, if Mr. Podmajersky’s testimony is to be believed, he displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude toward race requirements, particularly who is to sign in the boat before and after the Race. 4/18/07 Tr. at pp. 134, 137-138, 189-190; 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 69-71. The Chairman of the Race Committee on the other hand testified that the sign in requirements are very significant. 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 269-270.

The Hearing Panel finds that the sign in requirements for a boat before and after a race are material and race authorities are justified in requiring compliance. Sailors who fail to comply with such requirements whether negligently or intentionally do so at their own risk and are potentially subject to the penalty published in the NOR and SI.

While the Hearing Panel agrees with the testimony of the Chairman of the Race Committee as to the significance of sign in requirements, the Hearing Panel specifically notes that the evidence at the hearing clearly demonstrated that the Race Committee and the Chicago Yacht Club failed to exercise proper diligence with respect to the entry applications and compliance with entry requirements. 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 73-118. The Hearing Panel believes that if the Race Committee and Chicago Yacht Club had exercised proper care prior to the Race, this matter would not be before it now because the inaccuracies in Illusion’s entry documents would have been discovered and either corrected or Illusion would have not been allowed to participate in the Race.


Podmajersky’s Post-Race Actions

The testimony of Mr. Podmajersky and Mr. Brandenburg differ greatly as to the efforts taken after the race to change the person listed as the “owner/charter” of Illusion. Mr. Podmajersky testified that on the morning of July 22, 2002, approximately 9 or 10 hours after completing the Race, he went to the race tent where he noticed that Mr. Brandenburg was listed for Illusion, at which point he then found Mr. Brandenburg, who told him that “he [Brandenburg] was already speaking with member of the Mac Committee and the Race Committee and that this was a clerical error and it was going to be sorted out.” 4/18/07 Tr. at pp. 28-29. This testimony, however, is contrary to the draft affidavit that Mr. Podmajersky had prepared for Mr. Brandenburg in the fall of 2002. That document stated:
“Upon my return from sign in, John Podmajersky asked if I had made the necessary corrections to “Illusion’s” entry form. I informed him that I had neglected to do so and that I would immediately take steps as necessary to correct the entry.” Podmajersky Ex. 38 at p. 303.

Mr. Brandenburg testified that that representation in the affidavit was not correct (that “did not happen”) and was one of the reasons Mr. Brandenburg refused to sign that affidavit. 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 159-160. Mr. Brandenburg further testified that Mr. Podmajersky did not request that Mr. Brandenburg cause his [Brandenburg’s] name to be removed and replaced by Mr. Podmajersky’s name until 2 or 3 days after the Race, when Mr. Brandenburg retrieved a voicemail on his cell phone while driving back to Chicago. 4/29/07 Tr. at p. 137.

The Hearing Panel finds Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony on this point to be more credible. The Hearing Panel further notes that in addition to being inconsistent, Mr. Podmajersky’s testimony is highly implausible. If Mr. Podmajersky’s testimony is to be believed then (a) before the Race he told - and solely relied upon - Mr. Brandenburg to correct the entry paperwork and then (B) after learning after the Race that Brandenburg had failed to do as he had allegedly been told and allegedly said he would do, Mr. Podmajerky again relied solely upon Mr. Brandenburg to correct the entry documents. Such testimony strains credulity - particularly in light of Mr. Podmajersky’s actions and very active participation throughout this matter.

Podmajersky’s Efforts to be Listed as the “Owner” of Illusion

As set forth above, prior to the Race Mr. Podmajersky did not personally take any action to change the party listed as the “owner/charter” of Illusion from Mr. Brandenburg to Mr. Podmajersky. After Illusion won the Race, Mr. Podmajersky began speaking with individuals about changing the party listed as the “owner/charter” of Illusion from Mr. Brandenburg to Mr. Podmajersky, but did not initiate any formal actions or requests.

NOR 2.2 authorized the Race Jury to resolve questions of eligibility and/or compliance with entry requirements. Podmajersky Exhibit 1. Mr. Podmajersky, however, did not initiate any action with the Jury until more than 9 months after the Race and approximately 6 months after filing a complaint in state court against the Chicago Yacht Club and Mr. Brandenburg. After a thorough review of the record, it appears to the Hearing Panel that Mr. Podmajersky may have made a tactical decision not to file an action with the Jury for fear that Illusion would either be disqualified for having submitted a false application or being penalized 3 positions in section pursuant to NOR 10.4 and SI 18.

Mr. Podmajersky’s testimony as to why he did not file an action with the Jury is inconsistent and not credible. Mr. Podmajersky has asserted that US SAILING has failed to provide adequate due process to him in connection with his alleged claim against the Chicago Yacht Club and the Race organizing authority. When directly questioned upon which complaint he should have received a hearing, Mr. Podmajersky struggled to provide an answer, ultimately agreeing that the first document he filed with the Chicago Yacht Club or the Race Jury requesting a hearing was on April 10, 2003, nearly 6 months after he had sued the Chicago Yacht Club. 4/18/07 Tr. at pp. 180-183. Mr. Podmajersky also noted that Mr. Brandenburg had sent a letter to the Mac Committee asking that his (Brandenburg’s) name be removed and replaced with Mr. Podmajersky’s. That letter, however, did not request a hearing and the Chicago Yacht Club’s and the Race Jury’s treatment of that letter has been fully appealed through US SAILING and the LMSRF Appeals Committee.

Mr. Podmajersky testimony on why he filed suit rather than an action with the Race Jury is inconsistent. At one point, he testified that between August 13, 2002 and October 25, 2002, his efforts to have his name replace Mr. Brandenburg’s name was “almost a part-time job” and that he had communicated with numerous people including “a previous winner of the race who happened to be an attorney.” 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 45. During this same time period, he also hired a different attorney who represented him in his state law action. Mr. Podmajersky further testified that he did not file anything with the Race Jury before the Spring 2003 because: “We didn’t think that there was anything in the Racing Rules or the Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions that in any way addressed our issue. We felt that this was a clerical matter that truly was the venue of the organizing authority.” 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 49.

When asked whether he had read NOR 2.2, however, Mr. Podmajersky’s answers were evasive with him repeatedly stating he could not recall when he had first read the NOR and could not recall specifically if he had read NOR 2.2. 4/18/07 Tr. pp. 78-80. Then at one point, Mr. Podmajersky testified that in consultation with his attorneys and other advisors between August 13, 2002 and October 25, 2002, they had reached the conclusion that there was no provision in the NOR or SI to address his situation. 4/18/07 Tr. at pp. 98-102. Approximately an hour later, Mr. Podmajersky testified that he had not reached this conclusion with his attorneys. 4/18/07 Tr. at p.139-140. Then, again later, upon questioning by his attorney, Mr. Podmajersky again stated that he had made this decision with some consultation with his attorney.

Mr. Podmajersky’s testimony about whether he was aware that Illusion could be penalized for failing to comply with the requirements in the NOR and the SI was also evasive and inconsistent. For example, at one point Mr. Podmajersky testified that he was “familiar” with the NOR and SI requirements that the failure to timely apply, do certain things in the entry procedures could knock a boat down one, two, or three positions. 4/18/07 Tr. at pp. 76-77. He then later testified that he was not concerned about being penalized and such concern “was the furthest thing from his mind.” 4/18/07 Tr. at p. 189; 4/19/07 Tr. at pp. 64-65. He then further testified that at some point between August 13, 2002 and his filing his state court lawsuit, someone from the Chicago Yacht Club had threatened that his yacht could be disqualified because of the improper entry application. 4/18/07 Tr. at 185-186.

The Hearing Panel finds it difficult to believe that Mr. Podmajersky and his numerous advisors were not keenly aware of the possibility that Illusion could be either disqualified or penalized positions for having sailed under knowingly incorrect documentation and that such concerns did not impact their strategies.

Regardless, it is clear that Mr. Podmajersky had ample time to file an action with the Race Jury prior to initiating his state court action. It is equally clear that Mr. Podmajersky had numerous advisors assisting him, including paid attorneys. As such, Mr. Podmajersky’s decision to seek the aid of the state courts rather than the Race Jury may only be deemed a knowing and strategic decision. Whether that decision was correct or incorrect is irrelevant here. Mr. Podmajersky knowingly chose to pursue his claims in state court and not before the jury.

In support of Mr. Podmajersky’s contention that Illusion did not receive, waive or forfeit the right to a hearing is the fact that his friend and long time crew, Mr. Brandenburg, had filed with the Mac Committee a request to have his (Mr. Brandenburg’s) name replaced with Mr. Podmajersky’s name. Mr. Podmajersky was aware of this request. The hearing held by the Mac Committee on August 13, did not meet the requirements of a fair hearing in that Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Podmajersky were not permitted to both be present at the same time and to hear each other’s testimony. Furthermore, in order to have Mr. Podmajersky withdraw his case in the Illinois court, the attorney for the Chicago Yacht Club assured Mr. Podmajersky’s attorney that he would arrange for Mr. Podmajersky to have a hearing for Illusion before the Mac Jury. Although that attorney for the Chicago Yacht Club had been a member of the Mac Jury, he recused himself from participating. The Mac Jury, in spite of the assurances made by the Chicago Yacht Club’s attorney, only reached a decision that the matter was filed too late and that they would not hear the matter on the merits. Thus, Illusion never did receive a fair hearing on the merits of the request to have Mr. Podmajersky’s name, rather than Mr. Brandenburg’s name, appear on the Mac Trophies.

It was clear from the testimony at the hearing that Mr. Podmajersky did not intentionally waive the right of Illusion to a hearing; it was also clear to the Hearing Panel that he should not be deemed to have forfeited Illusion’s right to a hearing on the merits before the Mac Committee or the Mac Jury. While he did not himself file a prompt request with the Mac Committee or the Mac Jury, he relied on Mr. Brandenburg’s assurances that he would take care of the matter. Furthermore, the Chicago Yacht Club, by deciding that Illusion was entitled to a hearing and holding that hearing in August of 2002 (without procedurally meeting the standards established by US SAILING for a “fair hearing” - see Rule 61 of The Racing Rules of Sailing) clearly determined not only that both were entitled to the hearing but also that neither had waived or forfeited their rights to one.

Thus, as Illusion did not receive a fair hearing and Mr. Podmajersky did not either waive or forfeit Illusion’s rights to a hearing, the Hearing Panel itself became the body to make the ultimate decision as to whose name should appear on the Mac Trophies.

Conclusion

Under the provisions of Article Fourteen, paragraph 1.©, the Hearing Panel has no authority to “alter the standing of any boat in an event as determined by the Race Committee or the Protest Committee for the event.” Had it the power to do so, the Hearing Panel would disqualify Illusion because each party, claiming to be the “person in charge”, at various times knowingly sailed the race under a false entry form.

By knowingly allowing Illusion to sail the race under that false entry form, both Mr. Podmajersky and Mr. Brandenburg, each of whom claimed to be the “person in charge” at various times, violated the principles of sportsmanship and compliance with the Rules included and emphasized in the Racing Rules of Sailing (Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules) and specifically violated Rule 75.1 and the NOR and the SI. Mr. Podmajersky came before the Review Board Hearing Panel requesting the Panel to take action under the US SAILING Bylaws and Regulations when he himself was not able to demonstrate that he was without fault.

As between Mr. Podmajersky and Mr. Brandenburg, the Hearing Panel believes that both of them were fully knowledgeable of the facts that Illusion was competing under an improper entry form which did not comply with the requirements of the organizing authority. The Hearing Panel thus believes it is not proper for Mr. Brandenburg’s name to be on the trophies when he participated in the preparation and filing and ultimately sailing with an incorrect entry form. In like fashion, because Mr. Podmajersky knowingly participated in the Race with an incorrect entry form, the Hearing Panel also believes it is not proper for Mr. Podmajersky’s name to appear on the trophies.

The sport of sailing places great emphasis on compliance with the Rules as “an individual responsibility” including acknowledgement of a violation of any rule and the taking of the appropriate penalty, which may be to retire (see Basic Principle - Sportsmanship and the Rules - a preamble to Part I).

By knowingly sailing under a false entry form both Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Podmajersky violated the NOR, SI, the Racing Rules of Sailing and the standards stated under the Disciplinary section of the Bylaws and Regulations of US SAILING.

Decision

In rendering its decision, the Hearing Panel would like to express its extreme disappointment that this matter was not resolved amicably between the parties. As indicated in the Undisputed Facts above, there is no dispute between the parties that John Podmajersky was the owner of the Illusion at the time of the Race and that Mr. Podmajersky was the ultimate authority on the boat throughout the Race irrespective of the title used (e.g., owner, person-in-charge, skipper, captain, etc.) In light of these undisputed facts, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship endemic to the sport of sailing, the Hearing Panel believes that the parties should have been able to reach a satisfactory resolution without the involvement of the numerous judicial and administrative bodies that have been required to expend significant time and resources to this matter.

The Hearing Panel would further like to express its dissatisfaction with the actions of Mr. Podmajersky, Mr. Brandenburg and the Chicago Yacht Club. If any party had exercised proper diligence before the Race, this matter would have been avoided.

Pursuant to Article Fourteen of the US SAILING Bylaws in effect at the time of the filing of the request for the hearing (now US SAILING Regulations 15.01.B), the Hearing Panel lacks the authority to alter the standing of any boat in any event. The Hearing Panel notes that this limitation on its authority precludes it from issuing what it believes would be the proper result in light of the inappropriate behavior by Mr. Podmajersky, Mr. Brandenburg and the Chicago Yacht Club - disqualification of Illusion.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Panel directs that the names of both Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Podmajersky be excluded from the race results and directs that the only name to appear on the Mac Trophies for the Race is the name of the boat, Illusion.

Respectfully Submitted,

Gail Bernstein
Ted Everingham
Noel M. Field, Jr.
Robert H. Lane, Chairman

See Exhibit A Attached

Footnote:

The Hearing Panel, Review Board and US SAILING reaffirm the right to assess a charge against either or both parties for reimbursement of costs related to this case.

EXHIBIT A

ACTIONS PRIOR TO THE HEARING


1. In 2002, the Chicago Yacht Club, as organizing authority, conducted the Chicago-Mackinaw race.
2. The yacht Illusion participated in that race with both Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Podmajersky on board. The yacht Illusion won the race.
3. A dispute arose as to whether Mr. Brandenburg or Mr. Podmajersky was the party whose name should be on the trophy in conjunction with the yacht name Illusion.
4. The Chicago Yacht Club determined that Mr. Brandenburg should have his name on the trophy along with the yacht name Illusion.
5. Mr. Podmajersky sought to overturn that decision.
6. At various times the Chicago Yacht Club, acting as the organizing authority, the jury for the race, the Review Board for US SAILING and the court system were used as vehicles to attempt to affect the required change.
7. The Review Board of US SAILING received Notice of a Grievance in the fall of 2002 and in accordance with its enabling Bylaws determined that a hearing panel should be appointed to hear the case.
8. The Review Board determined that it should stay any further consideration until such time as all other avenues available for relief within US SAILING or the Chicago Yacht Club were exhausted.
9. Although proceedings were conducted by the organizing authority and the jury (including appeals where appropriate) no resolution of the matter was reached.
10. During the summer of 2004 (generally June through September) the mediator appointed by the Hearing Panel, Terry Harper, attempted to arrange for an in-person mediation session which he hoped would lead to a resolution to the problem. Mr. Harper was singularly unable to arrange for a meeting of the parties. Without that meeting no meaningful discussion of the merits of the case could be held. After multiple extensions of the mediation time limit, it was determined, by Mr. Harper, that it was pointless to continue the attempt.
11. Following the mediation attempt it was learned Mr. Podmajersky’s court case had been re-activated which lead the Hearing Panel to again stay the case until such time as the matter was no longer in front of the courts.
12. Because Mr. Podmajersky’s resort to the court system was a violation of the US SAILING Rules, the organizing authority filed a report with the race jury who held a hearing, determined that Mr. Podmajersky had violated the rules and penalized him with a warning. Under the Rules a warning is not reportable to the National Authority. Therefore, no further action was possible, by the National Authority, as a result of the resort to the court system by Mr. Podmajersky.
13. In the fall of 2006, the lawsuit against the Chicago Yacht Club was dismissed without prejudice and the one against Mr. Brandenburg was dismissed with prejudice as a result of Mr. Brandenburg signing an affidavit, a copy of which is included in the exhibits from the hearing.
14. With the dismissals of the two lawsuits, the failure of the mediation attempt and the exhaustion of any possible resolution through hearings with the organizing authority or the jury for the race, the Hearing Panel of the Review Board determined that it was time to schedule and hold its hearing.
15. The initial decision of the Review Board of US SAILING to accept jurisdiction for this case resulted from the organization’s responsibility under its Bylaws, its obligations to the US Olympic Committee and its requirements under the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act to insure that a dispute resulting from a “significant” event be heard in such a manner that the parties obtained a fair hearing. To be considered a fair hearing the elements, required under the US SAILING rules, must be present.

#2 flaps15

flaps15

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,837 posts
  • Location:dna level c

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:18 PM

wow

#3 SaboJ35

SaboJ35

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:34 PM

I don't think he was expecting that...

#4 Slow Ed

Slow Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,951 posts
  • Location:Lower Lake Huron and now Lake St. Stupid

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:34 PM

There went two beers I'll never get back. :blink:

A 5 year old shit fight with a finding that all parties were at fault.

At least I got a long sleeve Tee out of the deal. FREE JOD!!

#5 MaxHeadroom

MaxHeadroom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Location:20 Minutes into the future

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:38 PM

A 5 year old shit fight with a finding that all parties were at fault.


And what did you expect out of useless ailing - A spine? A real decision?

#6 Cement_Shoes

Cement_Shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,580 posts
  • Location:A to Z

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:40 PM

Decision

The Hearing Panel would further like to express its dissatisfaction with the actions of Mr. Podmajersky, Mr. Brandenburg and the Chicago Yacht Club. If any party had exercised proper diligence before the Race, this matter would have been avoided.

Pursuant to Article Fourteen of the US SAILING Bylaws in effect at the time of the filing of the request for the hearing (now US SAILING Regulations 15.01.cool.gif, the Hearing Panel lacks the authority to alter the standing of any boat in any event. The Hearing Panel notes that this limitation on its authority precludes it from issuing what it believes would be the proper result in light of the inappropriate behavior by Mr. Podmajersky, Mr. Brandenburg and the Chicago Yacht Club - disqualification of Illusion.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Panel directs that the names of both Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Podmajersky be excluded from the race results and directs that the only name to appear on the Mac Trophies for the Race is the name of the boat, Illusion.


So what is next? Does Pod sue his own boat?

#7 some dude

some dude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:40 PM

There went two beers I'll never get back. :blink:

A 5 year old shit fight with a finding that all parties were at fault.

At least I got a long sleeve Tee out of the deal. FREE JOD!!



a classic "split the baby" ruling-and you bet against it?
if you think up any bets you wanna make with me, I'm in

#8 eerie sailor

eerie sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,350 posts
  • Location:DEEETROIT

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:42 PM

I always like it when our ultimate sailing authority steps up to the plate and swings the bat hard <_< . What an outcome. :blink: Now we can have a shit fight over what font should be used to put Illusions name on the trophy

#9 jo-mama

jo-mama

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,207 posts
  • Location:milwaukee - beer capital of the world

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:45 PM

invisible ink...

#10 MaxHeadroom

MaxHeadroom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Location:20 Minutes into the future

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:48 PM

Now we can have a shit fight over what font should be used to put Illusions name on the trophy


Perhaps something in a 1 point font?

#11 Cement_Shoes

Cement_Shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,580 posts
  • Location:A to Z

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:52 PM

I think they should raffle or auction off the rights to have your name inscribed alongside Illusion.

or just go with 'dumbass.'

#12 JDL

JDL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:55 PM

In the dismissal of the original suits against CYC/JOD, they are without and with prejudice, respectively. In JOD's case due to his signed affadavit. Could a lawyer type explain the differences and what if any implications they have?

#13 This Is My Alternate Identity

This Is My Alternate Identity

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Location:Seabrook, TX

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:59 PM

Way to go Gail!!! Beautifully handled!

#14 class flag up

class flag up

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 28 August 2007 - 09:59 PM

how very solomonic. good for us sailing.

#15 JJ-

JJ-

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 10:09 PM

In the dismissal of the original suits against CYC/JOD, they are without and with prejudice, respectively. In JOD's case due to his signed affadavit. Could a lawyer type explain the differences and what if any implications they have?


Dismissals, without more, are always considered to be "with prejudice," meaning the case can never be refiled. Dismissal WITHOUT prejudice in Illinois gives the plaintiff one year from the date of the dismissal to refile. If it is not refiled within one year, the original dismissal becomes final and the case cannot be refiled.

JJ

(disregard my auto-signature--it takes lawyers a couple of years to get the hang of this)

#16 some dude

some dude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 10:10 PM

In the dismissal of the original suits against CYC/JOD, they are without and with prejudice, respectively. In JOD's case due to his signed affadavit. Could a lawyer type explain the differences and what if any implications they have?



without prejudice means suit can be re-filed against the same party (unless statute of limitations has run)

with prejuidice, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Res_judicata

#17 JDL

JDL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 10:11 PM

Thanks.

#18 porno party guy

porno party guy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Kanada
  • Interests:fuck'n tellin peple to fuck'n fuk off...

Posted 28 August 2007 - 10:15 PM

you know the name of the boat on the trphy says it all: Illusion.

the skipper(s) charterer/ owner ...an illusion

a very appropriate name....under the circumstances..

#19 bluekiwi

bluekiwi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Location:Edgewater Yacht Club, Cleveland, Ohio
  • Interests:J-22, J-105, Jet-14, J-24

Posted 28 August 2007 - 10:36 PM

And what did you expect out of useless ailing - A spine? A real decision?


Hang on ... they very clearly said that if it was within their rights they would have DSQ'd the boat. The regulations that don't allow them to do it might be spineless, but as far as decisions go, this is one of the more forceful I've read. They definitely reached the right conclusions - (a) that the boat didn't have a valid entry and should have been DSQ'd, and (B) that any one of the parties could have resolved the whole thing prior to the race if they'd bothered to act.

Solomon would be proud. :-)

#20 amolitor

amolitor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,462 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 10:50 PM

Podmajersky was the helmsman for 30 of the 35 hours?

I know almost nothing about this case, and what I remember from the various shit-slingin' is probably wrong, but I am having a little trouble seeing how this particular fact would be in the Undisputed Facts section on its own merits.

It is true? Was he a complete basket case by the finish? Am I confused about something?

#21 This Is My Alternate Identity

This Is My Alternate Identity

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Location:Seabrook, TX

Posted 28 August 2007 - 11:03 PM

From the sound of the report, JOD (Brandy) did one hell of a job in his part of the presentation. How many times in the report was it quoted "...The Hearing Panel finds Mr. Brandenburg’s testimony on this point to be more credible...". That took preparation, confidence, and poise. For any of us facing a protest hearing or a hearing of this magnitude, we can only hope to emulate the professionalism and presentation skills that Brandy has exhibited not only at this hearing, but throughout the entire process.

JOD, you drink free anytime you're in Houston!

#22 dumbass

dumbass

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 11:42 PM

I think they should raffle or auction off the rights to have your name inscribed alongside Illusion.

or just go with 'dumbass.'

Sounds good to me!

#23 G-Bub V3

G-Bub V3

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 28 August 2007 - 11:45 PM

so the big question is, will MUMM 30 and MELGES 24 classes continue condoning the conduct this lying scum POD by allowing him to participate in their competition?

s.


Maybe he should buy a Finn so Kern has a training partner.... :lol:

#24 This Is My Alternate Identity

This Is My Alternate Identity

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Location:Seabrook, TX

Posted 28 August 2007 - 11:51 PM

so the big question is, will MUMM 30 and MELGES 24 classes continue condoning the conduct this lying scum POD by allowing him to participate in their competition?

s.


Didn't someone post over in the Bad Andy Finn thread some portion of the Melges 24 Class By-laws that has a provision from giving a POD-like character a boot in the nuts out of the Class?

#25 43577

43577

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Location:Central Illinois

Posted 28 August 2007 - 11:52 PM

HA HA H AH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

whew.

I am going to get a time machine and go back to 2002 and stop the race all together, whish me luck and BRB.

#26 jsmin

jsmin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,566 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 12:17 AM

at least the committee realized pod is pond scum and a liar.
to bad they didn't have the balls to make a statement that might have helped in some future case.
but hopefully nobody will be as big of a asshat as pod to sue everybody ever again.
mumm30 class - will keep letting him sail as will the melges 24's. m24's have the numbers to toss him aside, but probably won't.
m30 - needs every boat they can get, class and stagg would let OJ join as long as his check cleared.
we as sailors are the only one who can voice are concerns that a scum person like this shouldn't be allowed to sail with us. boycot any regatta that he enters.
so when can the rule 69 hearing start?

#27 Heaven can wait

Heaven can wait

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,591 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie, Australia

Posted 29 August 2007 - 12:32 AM

I have a question, as a Regatta Organiser a "Currency of Insurance" Certificate is mandatory, effectively "Illusion" was uninsured if JOD didn't have the owners Authority to enter the boat.

I've been following this case and believe that JOD has gone over and above what is asked of common decency, however, should JOD and Illusion have crashed during the Race, what then??

#28 another 505 sailor

another 505 sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,680 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 12:43 AM

I have a question, as a Regatta Organiser a "Currency of Insurance" Certificate is mandatory, effectively "Illusion" was uninsured if JOD didn't have the owners Authority to enter the boat.

I've been following this case and believe that JOD has gone over and above what is asked of common decency, however, should JOD and Illusion have crashed during the Race, what then??



Most policies allow occasional borrowing of the boat. It can't be a regular thing, and I don't know if money is allowed to change hands.
Good thing too, because I was on a borrowed boat that sunk during a race. Insurance covered it.

#29 Cement_Shoes

Cement_Shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,580 posts
  • Location:A to Z

Posted 29 August 2007 - 12:57 AM

i have no idea about backwards time travel but i have plenty of experience jumping forward in time.

you just need to drink enough and whammo you are transported anywhere from 4 to 16 hours into the future. i would do this more often but this type of time travel is very tough on the body and never fails to leave me feeling like shit.

#30 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,977 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:06 AM

See, "back in the day" when you say "I demand satisfaction" is when you duel somebody. Now we get these rich fucks with lawyers.

#31 This Is My Alternate Identity

This Is My Alternate Identity

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 886 posts
  • Location:Seabrook, TX

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:07 AM

Melges 24? Hmmmmmm...... Let me see...... AllStar Crew?

POD on the helm.
Brodie Cobb mast and foredeck.
Bad Andy Kern trimmng.

Who do we get for a 4th?

#32 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:18 AM

Charles Manson.

Drive on.

#33 HNL2ORD

HNL2ORD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 653 posts
  • Location:Go Cubs Go....

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:20 AM

WHOOOHOO
Now who wants to model my "FREE JOD' thong? (they didn't have any t-shirts at the time)

#34 DEAD MONEY

DEAD MONEY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,958 posts
  • Location:Long Island Sound

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:30 AM

Your fourth should be that bad ass Rick James Bitch....

#35 jsmin

jsmin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,566 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:40 AM

pod seems to never have a problem finding crew - as long as his checks clear

Edited by jsmin, 29 August 2007 - 01:41 AM.


#36 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:41 AM

Your fourth should be that bad ass Rick James Bitch....


I'm gonna hazard a guess he's smelling a little ripe these days.

BTW - What would Mr. James be doing right now if he were alive?




































Scratching at the inside of his coffin.

Drive on.

#37 JoeO

JoeO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,294 posts
  • Location:Mid-Michigan

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:47 AM

so the big question is, will MUMM 30 and MELGES 24 classes continue condoning the conduct this lying scum POD by allowing him to participate in their competition?

s.

I don't see anywhere in that US Sailing action where Pod has actually been sanctioned/ruled 69-d/etc. Basically he's gotten off scott free.. I mean, he didn't win anything, but what did he lose (other than his integrity and "international accolades" which he lost ages ago) ?

What "legal " basis does the M30 or M24 class have to sanction him now - at least, basis provided by the US Sailing action?

It seems that US Sailing has only acted on Pod's Article 14 action, but have not initiated or followed through on any Rule 69 action based on his lawsuits. The sport of sailing in the US has been diminshed, as a result.

#38 Janer

Janer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,646 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbarian

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:58 AM

The whole debacle is an embarrassment to the sport.

#39 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:59 AM

What "legal " basis does the M30 or M24 class have to sanction him now - at least, basis provided by the US Sailing action?

Apparently you haven't received the latest copy of the rule book.

Rule 792.1 - B: The event organizer reserves the right to refuse entry to any competitor that meets the following defintions: Asshat; Douchebag; Lawsuit-Happy Fuckstick.

I probably wasn't supposed to mention the new rules before they were published, but it just seemed worthwhile.

#40 caribou

caribou

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Location:chicago

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:05 AM

Apparently you haven't received the latest copy of the rule book.

Rule 792.1 - B: The event organizer reserves the right to refuse entry to any competitor that meets the following defintions: Asshat; Douchebag; Lawsuit-Happy Fuckstick.

I probably wasn't supposed to mention the new rules before they were published, but it just seemed worthwhile.


When do they go into effect, hopefully be Nationals!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#41 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:06 AM

I hope somebody appeals this weak willed decision.

but at least they did not say both names should go on the plaque; in that sense its more of a punishment than a reward.

#42 caribou

caribou

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Location:chicago

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:08 AM

He will definately be a target in Detroit!!!! I have sailed with some assholes but that must be tough at the dock!

#43 43577

43577

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Location:Central Illinois

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:37 AM

well i am back from my trip to 2002 to stop the race.

I failed in stopping the entire race but I was able to screw uo Illusions entry form so that should keep them from competing...

did it work? I'll check later.

#44 Skull & Bones

Skull & Bones

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,204 posts
  • Location:Lake Huron

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:46 AM

Start with a case of Natural Light and a couple trips to Taco Bell before Nationals........................... :blink:

#45 caribou

caribou

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Location:chicago

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:04 AM

Walter<

You signed your post and I appreacite those who do that. For that reason, I did not post my return rant ..

I went overboard. I deleted my name calling raging rant at your (ex[pletive deleted) post.
You ARE a stand up guy!!

But for crissakes Walter. How the hell could the committee have done anything more??

The committee wrote almost a page whining about how much they hated the fact they could not do anything more. They interjected numerous other suggestions and complaints about their lack of authority to take the actions they would have otherwise taken.
YOU SHOULD THANK THEM!!!

How the hell can you criticze a group of fellow grown people, who obviously had many better things to do when they looked as hard as they could at the rules, and applied as brutal a penalty as they could posibly figure out how to apply??

Should they have gone and shot the asshole? ...well yes. But as they said. They ahd no authority to shoot the assholke and they didn't operate outside their authority!!
THANK THEM!!!

If you don't like the rules, CHANGE THEM!!! But don't accuse good people of being weak willed when they thunder down as hard as they are allowed to thunder.
The Committeee rendered a hell of a decision about a bullshit event and was restricted from making a better decision ONLY by the fact that no better decision existed.
THANK THEM!!

Last: there is no way anybody would ever write, in advance, a rule to cover what happened. Who in the hell would believe anybody would give a sufficient shit that HIS name be on a damn trophy to alienate ANYONE??...

much less all his sailing buddies.

Rules come from, believing there might be a need, or learning there might be a need.

Now, do you think this could EVER happen again??

if so, campaign for a frickin rule.

But..DO NOT criticize people who apply the only rules we have as well as those rules can possibly be applied.

Thank them!!!

End rant!!

Thaks to all the folks whho took hours from tehir lives because this POD ashole actually decided he was willing to protest his friends who had sailed with him.

His is the ONLY crime here.


ouch, good point!!!! It almost sounds like you were there. THanks for your hard work!!!! You summed it up in one angry post!!!!! I love it and agree with everything you say!

#46 Mid

Mid

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,409 posts
  • Location:long way from the poles
  • Interests:T 'n A ,

    S D 'n R&R

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:51 AM

invisible ink...



Game OVER ...............

we have a winner

:lol:

#47 WonderWoman

WonderWoman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:55 AM

I don't see anywhere in that US Sailing action where Pod has actually been sanctioned/ruled 69-d/etc. Basically he's gotten off scott free.. I mean, he didn't win anything, but what did he lose (other than his integrity and "international accolades" which he lost ages ago) ?


It doesn't seem that he's gotten off completely 'Scott free'. Hell, I wouldn't want this many folks reading, thinking and talking about me. Especially if I have to face off with those same folks at the dock, let alone on the water. It is truly unfortunate that greed for glory forced completely unsportsmanlike behavior in this case. It is even worse that sailing is a sport that relies on sportsmanship to maintain the integrity of results and the fun.

#48 (p)Irate

(p)Irate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts
  • Location:Where the streets have no name

Posted 29 August 2007 - 05:59 AM

It doesn't seem that he's gotten off completely 'Scott free'. Hell, I wouldn't want this many folks reading, thinking and talking about me. Especially if I have to face off with those same folks at the dock, let alone on the water. It is truly unfortunate that greed for glory forced completely unsportsmanlike behavior in this case. It is even worse that sailing is a sport that relies on sportsmanship to maintain the integrity of results and the fun.

The prick doesn't seem too pissed off here with his hands on a trophy that most likely has his name on it. I don't know anything about Nelson Stephenson but I do know Bruce Eddington who has done a great deal to build the Mumm 30 class here in Oz. I know that I would feel very uncomfortable having to stand next to a guy who has done more to give the Mumm 30 class a bad name than anyone else. Not that I would ever have a chance in hell of winning a regatta like that though! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Attached Files



#49 BillJe

BillJe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 29 August 2007 - 06:33 AM

Is POD as gay as those shorts? Not making a judgement, just asking...

#50 proOC

proOC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 11:38 AM

I think we should have a jack-off regatta. He is the only one to participate and A. Teske can be the judge to determine whether or not he gets the winning trophy.

#51 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,251 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 29 August 2007 - 12:19 PM

It doesn't seem that he's gotten off completely 'Scott free'. Hell, I wouldn't want this many folks reading, thinking and talking about me. Especially if I have to face off with those same folks at the dock, let alone on the water. It is truly unfortunate that greed for glory forced completely unsportsmanlike behavior in this case. It is even worse that sailing is a sport that relies on sportsmanship to maintain the integrity of results and the fun.


The difference is that the perceptions of those people matter to you, and to most of us. Pod cares only about getting his name on a a plaque of a dusty old trophy and it doesn't matter what absurd lengths he has to go to get it, or who he harms. He has demonstrated that being a pariah doesn't faze him in the least. As long as he can still show up and sail, nothing has changed.

The only way to really stop him in the way sailing works is for people to refuse to sail with and against him until he agrees to drop all lawsuits and appeals and stops being an asshat. And the odds of that happening in a sport where most people just want to go sailing and not deal with b/s is pretty low. The USS opinion was about as strong a statement that they can make, and really means nothing to someone without shame.

#52 Marie Laveau

Marie Laveau

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,339 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 12:29 PM

I'm trying to understand something here...

If I understand correctly, there is implication that it was Chicago YC's/RC responsibility to make sure that the entry application was correct?
If this is so, there are implications, this case is precedent, for ALL YC/race organisers. Right?

And if this is not so, then why is this situation not a clearcut case of "Boat didn't fill out the entry form correctly, therefore is DSQ. Period." ?

Or...
is it that, by not immediately making the "you didn't make sure your entry was correct" assertion, that ChicagoYC/race organisers _assumed_ responsibility? And they are just morons for doing so?


One hopes that abject prickhood like Podmajersky demonstrated doesn't raise its ugly head everywhere, but as a sometime race organiser, this case really gives me second thought. What if something REALLY bad had happened, like the guy above said? And insurance refused to pay? This case would imply that race organization becomes a responsible party, and damn the waiver in the entry form. The waiver, which we all know if pursued, doesn't really hold water anyway.

thanks in advance

#53 Callahan

Callahan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 628 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:01 PM

What we have here is a classic pissing match. POD on one side, the CYC on the other. POD wanted his way and stopped at nothing to get it. By sueing JOD, POD was trying to leverage CYC to give him his way figuring that they would feel sorry for JOD and cave in to his demands. Obviously that just pissed off the powers at CYC even more as they dug their heels in. Bottom line POD not only threw his former friend and crew under the bus, but he ran over him a couple of times for good measure, got out of the bus, started a chainsaw and went looking for a gas can and matches.

Unmitigated failure and doom to POD and any of the asshats who are stupid enough to crew for him including Mr. Skelly and the boys from Ullman. POD and his PODHOs should be be shunned until he apologizes to JOD and writes him a check for his time and legal bills.

PS- USSA decision in several instances describes PODs testimony as not credible. Uh, nice way of saying he is a lying scumbag.

Edited by Tommy Boy, 29 August 2007 - 01:03 PM.


#54 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,251 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:05 PM

Podho. Outstanding. I think this needs to be added to the SA vernacular and urban dictionary. Can we get a definition?

#55 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:34 PM

Bottom line POD not only threw his former friend and crew under the bus, but he ran over him a couple of times for good measure, got out of the bus, started a chainsaw and went looking for a gas can and matches.


Speaking for all bus drivers here, we strenuously object to your implication that this POD is among our brethren. We are highly trained professionals and would never consort with such a despicable example of a biped. By the way, the North American Bus Drivers Association (NABDA) is in no way connected, associated with, nor even tolerant of, NAMBLA (of which one Mr. POD might be a member).

Drive on.

#56 JOD

JOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:I'm a Libra who likes lawsuits and Cooking with spice

Posted 29 August 2007 - 01:42 PM

Actually, I'm fine with everything they decided, including the part where they call me an asshole and acuse me of 'knowingly doing something wrong'...I truly don't understand what I [or the crew] did wrong, but if any of you judge types have any suggestions, I'd love to hear it...
Apparently they've glossed over the fact that until 2 days after the race was over, nobody knew anything was 'wrong'...



And as far as the question about what would've happened if something went wrong on the water?

This question was asked at the hearing. Bob asked me that. I looked him square in the eye and said, "at the time I believed that if something on the boat got fucked up, it would be MY responsibility. Looking back, with the knowledge I now have, I can guarantee you that if I didn't voluntarily accept responsibility for it, I'd have been sued for it!"

and while I'm at it, although I'm glad that USS FINALLY GOT INVOLVED AND FUCKING DID SOMETHING, (I've only been begging for that for 5 years), their process and execution were deplorable.

I've quit US Sailing and will not be returning.

#57 j24vt

j24vt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,855 posts
  • Location:Vermont
  • Interests:J24s

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:06 PM

Time to start boycotting events that Podmajersky races in (and to make sure you tell the organizers why you are not attending)?

I also wonder if an Ullman Sails boycott might also be in order?

#58 j24vt

j24vt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,855 posts
  • Location:Vermont
  • Interests:J24s

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:09 PM

Podho. Outstanding. I think this needs to be added to the SA vernacular and urban dictionary. Can we get a definition?


PODHO - Anyone who sails with or against POD

Edited by j24vt, 29 August 2007 - 02:09 PM.


#59 Shife

Shife

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,034 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:16 PM

Podho. Outstanding. I think this needs to be added to the SA vernacular and urban dictionary. Can we get a definition?

PODHO -noun An individual who sails with one John Podmajersky, knowing full well that he is a gigantic douche who has brought the sport into ill repute.

#60 OneFifty

OneFifty

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 833 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:22 PM

JOD,

I've read the whole finding. You've handled this situation with integrity. My hat is totally off to you. I'm sorry that you got mixed up with such a scumbag.

150

#61 MauganNacra20

MauganNacra20

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,062 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:30 PM

Actually, I'm fine with everything they decided, including the part where they call me an asshole and acuse me of 'knowingly doing something wrong'...I truly don't understand what I [or the crew] did wrong, but if any of you judge types have any suggestions, I'd love to hear it...
Apparently they've glossed over the fact that until 2 days after the race was over, nobody knew anything was 'wrong'...



And as far as the question about what would've happened if something went wrong on the water?

This question was asked at the hearing. Bob asked me that. I looked him square in the eye and said, "at the time I believed that if something on the boat got fucked up, it would be MY responsibility. Looking back, with the knowledge I now have, I can guarantee you that if I didn't voluntarily accept responsibility for it, I'd have been sued for it!"

and while I'm at it, although I'm glad that USS FINALLY GOT INVOLVED AND FUCKING DID SOMETHING, (I've only been begging for that for 5 years), their process and execution were deplorable.

I've quit US Sailing and will not be returning.


I feel that you got shafted dude. But I'm guessing that you want closure on this matter more than your name on the trophy.

#62 JOD

JOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:I'm a Libra who likes lawsuits and Cooking with spice

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:37 PM

I feel that you got shafted dude. But I'm guessing that you want closure on this matter more than your name on the trophy.


Truer words were never spoken

#63 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 29 August 2007 - 02:39 PM

Walter<

You signed your post and I appreacite those who do that. For that reason, I did not post my return rant ..

I went overboard. I deleted my name calling raging rant at your (ex[pletive deleted) post.
You ARE a stand up guy!!

But for crissakes Walter. How the hell could the committee have done anything more??....His is the ONLY crime here.


Stand up guy? Awwww... shucks...you're only saying that 'cause it's true...

But let me ask: if they found his testimony not credible (do they mean lying?) and if as you say "his is the ONLY crime here" then should he not be somehow sanctioned by US ailing?

Geting 69'd is not always fun?

I guess I just find the decision was designed to avoid the matter, not resolve it. Just as everybody can't be wrong, everybody can't be right.

#64 Call Me Boomvang

Call Me Boomvang

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,519 posts
  • Location:Southside of a north facing boatyard
  • Interests:Breaking Wind
    Shirking Work
    Passing Blame
    Irritating Strangers
    Cracking Wise
    Composing Haiku
    Cold Chillin
    Knocking About

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:06 PM

US sailing did all that they could do under the rules since they could not alter the race result. I think it is a great decision because it disregards the idiocy and lunacy afterward and memorializes what is important. IMHO it is worth remembering and respecting that for 35 hours in July 2002, a Mumm 30 named Illusion achieved near perfection and hauled ass for 333 miles from Chicago to Mackinac Island. It was an incredibly fast downwind race and the waves were big and steep and the wind built to a gale.

#65 Callahan

Callahan

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 628 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:07 PM

US Sailing isn't going to sanction POD. like a bad You Bet your Life rerun, he invoked the magic word, Article 14. USSA is so deathly afraid of violating any provision of the Ted Stevens Amateur Athletic Act that they shy away from anything that hints at denying the right to compete. They don't want to risk losing their Olympic funding which would be a substantial blow to their treasury and standing as the national organizing authority.

#66 Pete M

Pete M

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,869 posts
  • Location:So Cal

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:25 PM

Apparently they've glossed over the fact that until 2 days after the race was over, nobody knew anything was 'wrong'...


I agree JOD - Neither you, nor CYC did anything wrong - and as such should not be censured, nor in any way have your integrity impugned. Your entry was valid, the race result was valid, and all was just fine 'till Pod showed his true dickhead colors.




As an aside, how do you like my use of them big words up there?

#67 JOD

JOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:I'm a Libra who likes lawsuits and Cooking with spice

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:32 PM

I agree JOD - Neither you, nor CYC did anything wrong - and as such should not be censured, nor in any way have your integrity impugned. Your entry was valid, the race result was valid, and all was just fine 'till Pod showed his true dickhead colors.
As an aside, how do you like my use of them big words up there?



dickhead, censured, integrity, or impugned ?

actually, I like them all

#68 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,808 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 03:37 PM

Phrases applicable to Pod:
directly contradicts
took no action
differs greatly
was otherwise evasive
was evasive
cavalier attitude
inconsistent
highly implausible
strains credulity
inconsistent and not credible
Podmajersky struggled to provide an answer
answers were evasive
he could not recall
evasive and inconsistent
was not able to demonstrate that he was without fault.

Hey JOD, where was the hearing at, and how many hours or days was it?

#69 JOD

JOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:I'm a Libra who likes lawsuits and Cooking with spice

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:01 PM

Phrases applicable to Pod:
directly contradicts
took no action
differs greatly
was otherwise evasive
was evasive
cavalier attitude
inconsistent
highly implausible
strains credulity
inconsistent and not credible
Podmajersky struggled to provide an answer
answers were evasive
he could not recall
evasive and inconsistent
was not able to demonstrate that he was without fault.

Hey JOD, where was the hearing at, and how many hours or days was it?



It was held in Chicago, at the Chicago Athletic Club....

There was the panel, (2 or 3 of which were lawyers I think)
USS lawyer
CYC lawyer
court reporter
+ Pod's team (4 lawyers and an associate)

Did I mention I don't like being around lawyers, no less 10 of them! with 9 of them out to get me!

anyway, the grilling part of it lasted about 3 or 4 hours, and they made me wait for 2 hours beforehand...and man, did they get mean and personal...at one point they said had trouble believing that any Doctor would've given me permission to skip radiation for 4 days to race!! I damn near had to pull my pants down to prove it to them!!

They found it 'disappointing' that I didn't make any protests on Pod's behalf in the previous 3 years because it would've saved them time and effort.
I said I had a real hard time helping the guy suing me for >$1mm! Sorry if it sounds childish, and I'm sorry if their time was wasted, but if he wanted my help, he could've dropped the suit at any time...I had ZERO leverage in this



and the final outcome was one of the ones offered to Pod back in September of 2002...5 years and more than $400k ago !! (cumulative from all parties so far)

#70 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,251 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:06 PM

"because it would have saved them time and effort"

Could USS possibly be more out of touch with reality or the sailors they claim to represent.?

It was rhetorical, no answers required.

#71 noDriver

noDriver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Location:Any where my ex-wife is not!

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:09 PM

WTF?

POD is now known as PUD.

what a jackass.......

#72 rob-john

rob-john

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,149 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:47 PM

It will be interesting 20 or so years down the road when someone looks at the trophy and sees just a boat
name and asks the question "why???"

#73 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 29 August 2007 - 04:54 PM

They could just access this thread. It'll still be active.

Drive on.

#74 more cowbell

more cowbell

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Location:Detroit/Brighton

Posted 29 August 2007 - 05:09 PM

POD,

God is watching, and boy is he pissed-off!

Attached File  cloud_finger.jpg   13.14K   16 downloads

#75 jo-mama

jo-mama

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,207 posts
  • Location:milwaukee - beer capital of the world

Posted 29 August 2007 - 05:17 PM

its time to draft the "hold harmless agreement" for the crew which all owners are required to sign.

I wouldn't crew without one...

don't forget to ask the owner for the certificate of insurance, listing you as the certificate holder.

#76 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,441 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 29 August 2007 - 05:32 PM

WTF?

POD is now known as PUD.

what a jackass.......


Funny, when I think of a PUD, I don't associate that with an overstretched, skabby and putrid cunt dripping with all mannner of infection and ripe with disease. When I think of a POD on the other hand...

apologies in advance to LR for attempting ,however weakly, to borrow from his syntax and style :-)

#77 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,808 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 05:44 PM

It was held in Chicago, at the Chicago Athletic Club....

There was the panel, (2 or 3 of which were lawyers I think)
USS lawyer
CYC lawyer
court reporter
+ Pod's team (4 lawyers and an associate)

Did I mention I don't like being around lawyers, no less 10 of them! with 9 of them out to get me!

anyway, the grilling part of it lasted about 3 or 4 hours, and they made me wait for 2 hours beforehand...and man, did they get mean and personal...at one point they said had trouble believing that any Doctor would've given me permission to skip radiation for 4 days to race!! I damn near had to pull my pants down to prove it to them!!

They found it 'disappointing' that I didn't make any protests on Pod's behalf in the previous 3 years because it would've saved them time and effort.
I said I had a real hard time helping the guy suing me for >$1mm! Sorry if it sounds childish, and I'm sorry if their time was wasted, but if he wanted my help, he could've dropped the suit at any time...I had ZERO leverage in this
and the final outcome was one of the ones offered to Pod back in September of 2002...5 years and more than $400k ago !! (cumulative from all parties so far)



I'm looking at this kinda stunned. I suspect that the U.S. Sailing Review Board was all volunteers, but had their travel, housing and meals reimbursed. While U.S. Sailing probably paid for the attorney 100% and the attorney was the one who wrote the draft that we ended up reading. U.S. Sailing's cost for this had to $8,500, all because Pod never went to registration and filled out some forms on his own. What a waste of dues.

#78 Lift

Lift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,051 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach VA, USA
  • Interests:OPB

Posted 29 August 2007 - 06:04 PM

NOOD=Rape
No wonder entry fees are so high.

#79 another 505 sailor

another 505 sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,680 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 06:25 PM

I'm looking at this kinda stunned. I suspect that the U.S. Sailing Review Board was all volunteers, but had their travel, housing and meals reimbursed. While U.S. Sailing probably paid for the attorney 100% and the attorney was the one who wrote the draft that we ended up reading. U.S. Sailing's cost for this had to $8,500, all because Pod never went to registration and filled out some forms on his own. What a waste of dues.



Not my dues anymore, 2 years on the wagon here. As long as they continue to lose the plot, and this case is only one example, they won't get money from me. And I used to be a big fan of US Sailing.
I'll gladly pay the extra 5 bucks a few times a year for regatta registrations.

#80 fixent0

fixent0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Lake Erie

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:10 PM

I wouldn’t criticize the U. S. Sailing Review Board that heard the complaint for being reimbursed for their expenses, especially if they are volunteers. Their personal time and effort was sufficient contribution as volunteers. Hammer the decision all you want but not the efforts of volunteers because without them most of us would not be at a starting line doing what we like to do most

#81 Delta Blues

Delta Blues

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,808 posts

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:14 PM

I don't see anywhere in that US Sailing action where Pod has actually been sanctioned/ruled 69-d/etc. Basically he's gotten off scott free.. I mean, he didn't win anything, but what did he lose (other than his integrity and "international accolades" which he lost ages ago) ?

What "legal " basis does the M30 or M24 class have to sanction him now - at least, basis provided by the US Sailing action?

It seems that US Sailing has only acted on Pod's Article 14 action, but have not initiated or followed through on any Rule 69 action based on his lawsuits. The sport of sailing in the US has been diminshed, as a result.



That Rule 69 thing has been stuck in my craw for a long time too. The review board buried it at the bottom of the page and didn't cite RRS 69 or "unsportsmanlike" to make it stand out:
12. Because Mr. Podmajersky’s resort to the court system was a violation of the US SAILING Rules, the organizing authority filed a report with the race jury who held a hearing, determined that Mr. Podmajersky had violated the rules and penalized him with a warning. Under the Rules a warning is not reportable to the National Authority. Therefore, no further action was possible, by the National Authority, as a result of the resort to the court system by Mr. Podmajersky.

So here is the first time in print that U.S. Sailing could not sanction Pod for RRS 69 because the local jury only gave him a "warning" not a "penalty." See RRS 69 for clarification. U.S. Sailing's hands were tied in this one because of the local jury.

#82 Lift

Lift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,051 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach VA, USA
  • Interests:OPB

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:25 PM

I agree that we should thank the US Sailing officials who had to wrestle with this matter, I was just having fun with an adjacent thread. This is not what they signed up to do, and that is what has bothered me about this all along: it isn't right to use US Sailing, let alone the judicial system to resolve a retroactive adminstration racing matter. I think that, with the options available to them, US Sailing landed on about as good a resolution as they could. No one ever disputed that Illusion won the race, so even if US Sailing could DSQ them, it wouldn't make sense. The only thing that lingers in my head is, when we are bound by the RRS not to seek resolution outside the auspices of US Sailing, what do we do when someone ignores that and goes legal? POD refused to adhere to this principle, so can't US Sailing disallow him from participating in US Sailing-sanctioned events?

#83 Cement_Shoes

Cement_Shoes

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,580 posts
  • Location:A to Z

Posted 29 August 2007 - 10:50 PM

The only thing that lingers in my head is, when we are bound by the RRS not to seek resolution outside the auspices of US Sailing, what do we do when someone ignores that and goes legal? POD refused to adhere to this principle, so can't US Sailing disallow him from participating in US Sailing-sanctioned events?



If the mechanism to do this wasn't in place at the time of this event. They should put it in place now. I would think that they could draft a rule that would not run afoul of their position in regards to the Olympics.

#84 dannyv1986

dannyv1986

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,442 posts
  • Location:cleveland ohio

Posted 29 August 2007 - 11:16 PM

so, for someone that knows little if anything about this... it can described as soemthing completly childlish and meaningless which spent a lot of time and effort?

#85 oneguyfromdetroit

oneguyfromdetroit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,196 posts
  • Location:Detroit
  • Interests:Sailing, Sex Drugs and Rock and Roll, Motorcycles

Posted 29 August 2007 - 11:57 PM

Trust me, they're bought and usually have an agenda.


Strong statement. Proof? Facts? Half-truths? Innuendos? Whatcha got?

Edited by oneguyfromdetroit, 30 August 2007 - 12:04 AM.


#86 Polaris

Polaris

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,681 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 12:02 AM

Call me, let's sit down sometime over a beer and I'll enlighten you.

Edited by Polaris, 30 August 2007 - 12:02 AM.


#87 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,954 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 30 August 2007 - 02:44 AM

so, for someone that knows little if anything about this... it can described as soemthing completly childlish and meaningless which spent a lot of time and effort?


Don't forget - $$$$$.

Drive on.

#88 Sandstone

Sandstone

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,600 posts
  • Location:Saugatuck, MI

Posted 30 August 2007 - 03:06 AM

So here is the first time in print that U.S. Sailing could not sanction Pod for RRS 69 because the local jury only gave him a "warning" not a "penalty." See RRS 69 for clarification. U.S. Sailing's hands were tied in this one because of the local jury.


But was not that warning for the first suit? There is now a second suit that is, imo, a separate rules violation even though it arises from the same incident. A second violation would require a second 69 hearing. Correct me if I am wrong.

Edited by Sandstone, 30 August 2007 - 03:11 AM.


#89 More Faster

More Faster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts
  • Location:Bayfield, Wisconsin
  • Interests:Sailing, Windsurfing, Hogfarming, Skiing, Snowboarding, Diving,Curing Herpes.

Posted 30 August 2007 - 04:15 AM

FUCK POD. GO JOD. Damn glad to hear this is finally wrapped up for ya.

#90 Jib Man

Jib Man

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 05:07 AM

Rule 792.1 - B: The event organizer reserves the right to refuse entry to any competitor that meets the following defintions: Asshat; Douchebag; Lawsuit-Happy Fuckstick.


No thread hijack intended here, but would it be ok to give a shout out to Dear Leader, Brad Robinson, for his lawsuit-happy behaviour among the scowbillies?

B-rad has rattled his quiver of lawyers more than even POD.

Down with POD :-(

Edited by Jib Man, 30 August 2007 - 05:10 AM.


#91 SailDry

SailDry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,048 posts
  • Location:Detroit

Posted 30 August 2007 - 12:19 PM

Phrases applicable to Pod:
directly contradicts
took no action
differs greatly
was otherwise evasive
was evasive
cavalier attitude
inconsistent
highly implausible
strains credulity
inconsistent and not credible
Podmajersky struggled to provide an answer
answers were evasive
he could not recall
evasive and inconsistent
was not able to demonstrate that he was without fault.


I heard about the POD and his HO's testimony at the recent TC M24 regatta where he received a DSQ. All of the above applied except for a witness on his own boat who buried him because he was naive to POD's process and told the truth. I would love to see the testimony and facts found from that one.

#92 Lift

Lift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,051 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach VA, USA
  • Interests:OPB

Posted 30 August 2007 - 12:59 PM

Seem to have lost Edit feature, but here's the out I'm thinking that US Sailing has at its disposal, if you don't know:

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each
competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;
(b)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
(c) with respect to such determination, not to resort to any court or
other tribunal not provided in the rules.


#93 Laylines R4 Pussies

Laylines R4 Pussies

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 30 August 2007 - 01:24 PM

What a fucking joke. A 3-way fucking joke.

#94 barleymalt

barleymalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,251 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 30 August 2007 - 01:47 PM

I heard about the POD and his HO's testimony at the recent TC M24 regatta where he received a DSQ. All of the above applied except for a witness on his own boat who buried him because he was naive to POD's process and told the truth. I would love to see the testimony and facts found from that one.


Odds on whether Pod sues the miscreant Ho? Pain and suffering, Midwest accolades, etc.

#95 justonemoreboatplease

justonemoreboatplease

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 01:50 PM

No thread hijack intended here, but would it be ok to give a shout out to Dear Leader, Brad Robinson, for his lawsuit-happy behaviour among the scowbillies?

B-rad has rattled his quiver of lawyers more than even POD.

Down with POD :-(

Crybaby, pussie, girlieboy who can't play by the rules. No, not Brad. Go stick your hijack up your *** and go back to your own thread.

#96 JOD

JOD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,665 posts
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:I'm a Libra who likes lawsuits and Cooking with spice

Posted 30 August 2007 - 01:57 PM

Odds on whether Pod sues the miscreant Ho? Pain and suffering, Midwest accolades, etc.



If he starts throwing them around, it might cheapen the significant sacrifice he's making with this round of lawsuits, you know, being David in a world of Goliaths out to get him, being a man of principle in a world of miscreants! <_<

#97 Revenge

Revenge

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Location:Detroit

Posted 30 August 2007 - 02:15 PM

I heard about the POD and his HO's testimony at the recent TC M24 regatta where he received a DSQ. All of the above applied except for a witness on his own boat who buried him because he was naive to POD's process and told the truth. I would love to see the testimony and facts found from that one.


We're leading the regatta and POD flagrantly disobeys all rules and tacks right in front of us within 1 BL of the windward mark causing us to luff. No circles, no acknowledgement of us whatsoever despite us yelling "don't go in there" well before and "protest" while we're within a BL of eachother. We lose 7-9 boats by not being able to get left downwind (outside of pinwheel at this point) and effectively lose the event. We flicked him so maybe, maybe he thinks about it next time.

Edited by Revenge, 30 August 2007 - 02:15 PM.


#98 Marie Laveau

Marie Laveau

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,339 posts

Posted 30 August 2007 - 02:37 PM

While I sympathise with the hatefest going on, I'm truly interested in answers to my questions quoted below.

Please?


I'm trying to understand something here...

If I understand correctly, there is implication that it was Chicago YC's/RC responsibility to make sure that the entry application was correct?
If this is so, there are implications, this case is precedent, for ALL YC/race organisers. Right?

And if this is not so, then why is this situation not a clearcut case of "Boat didn't fill out the entry form correctly, therefore is DSQ. Period." ?

Or...
is it that, by not immediately making the "you didn't make sure your entry was correct" assertion, that ChicagoYC/race organisers _assumed_ responsibility? And they are just morons for doing so?
One hopes that abject prickhood like Podmajersky demonstrated doesn't raise its ugly head everywhere, but as a sometime race organiser, this case really gives me second thought. What if something REALLY bad had happened, like the guy above said? And insurance refused to pay? This case would imply that race organization becomes a responsible party, and damn the waiver in the entry form. The waiver, which we all know if pursued, doesn't really hold water anyway.

thanks in advance



#99 noDriver

noDriver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Location:Any where my ex-wife is not!

Posted 30 August 2007 - 02:39 PM

As much of an asshole, cheater, liar and whatever else this guy seems to be, why pump up his ego by continueing to talk about him.....


We should banish him from our pages and lives FOREVER!

#100 IRC Rocket Rider

IRC Rocket Rider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,397 posts
  • Location:Great Lakes
  • Interests:The avatar previously know as PHRFBrickRider

Posted 30 August 2007 - 02:40 PM

That Rule 69 thing has been stuck in my craw for a long time too. The review board buried it at the bottom of the page and didn't cite RRS 69 or "unsportsmanlike" to make it stand out:
12. Because Mr. Podmajersky’s resort to the court system was a violation of the US SAILING Rules, the organizing authority filed a report with the race jury who held a hearing, determined that Mr. Podmajersky had violated the rules and penalized him with a warning. Under the Rules a warning is not reportable to the National Authority. Therefore, no further action was possible, by the National Authority, as a result of the resort to the court system by Mr. Podmajersky.

So here is the first time in print that U.S. Sailing could not sanction Pod for RRS 69 because the local jury only gave him a "warning" not a "penalty." See RRS 69 for clarification. U.S. Sailing's hands were tied in this one because of the local jury.

So help me to understand this. The organising authority CYC, protested POD under RRS 3c and gave him a warning? What do you do in someone resorts to the courts regarding a regatta? The organising authority should protest under 3c, a hearing should be held, and if upheld the sailor should be thrown out?

3 ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULES
By participating in a race conducted under these racing rules, each
competitor and boat owner agrees
(a) to be governed by the rules;

b ) 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
c) with respect to such determination, not to resort to any court or
other tribunal not provided in the rules.

Edited by PHRFBrickRider, 30 August 2007 - 02:42 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users