Jump to content


Brass

Member Since 07 Mar 2007
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:06 PM
-----

Topics I've Started

Welcome Back Jos

09 April 2014 - 11:21 PM

After a 'sabbatical', Jos Spijkerman's (Spyderman) invaluable Look to Windward rules blogsite is back in operation

 

http://rrsstudy.blogspot.com.au/

 

Welcome back Jos.


Rule 69 - Disagreeing with a protest committee versus Abusing a protes

28 February 2014 - 02:32 AM

It has gone very quiet with regard to DdR. I see that ISAF have dealt with the case of Mr Al Schonborn in Canada that was brought before them at the end of December. Unlike everybody else on the list at the moment, Mr Schonborn's been banned from all racing ("competition eligibility"), not just ISAF events. Ban until August. 
A couple of copy/pastes from the decision regarding Mr Schonborn:
 

8.5  It is well established that the hearing process used under RRS 69 is not adversarial in nature and is an inquisition by the hearing panel into the facts of the case and the report it has received. By participation in the event, the Respondent entered into a contract agreeing to the procedure permitted by the relevant rules (see RRS 3). The Respondent received the report before the hearing in writing and was represented at the hearing. The fact his preferred choice of counsel was not available is unfortunate but it was well within the case management powers of the panel to refuse an application to adjourn on this ground – alternative counsel can always be instructed in such circumstances if the Respondent wished legal representation.
 
8.6  The Panel is mindful of the principle of ISAF Case 48 (interpreting RRS 63.2, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing; Time for Parties to Prepare) which is clear that the RRS aim to prevent miscarriages of justice and not provide loopholes for parties to attack decisions. The overriding duty on Sail Canada was to conduct a fair process and the Panel considers it has done so, including:

(a )  the Respondent was given written notification of the report being considered;
 
(b ) the Sail Canada panel was independent and qualified in the RRS;
 
(c )  the Respondent was present throughout the hearing, able to address the panel on all evidence presented and able to make submissions to the panel;

(d )  the Respondent was represented and supported at the hearing;
 
(e )  the panel was presented with all relevant material; and

(f )  the panel did not consider any irrelevant material.

 
 

8.10  To publicly refer to the Committees as “incompetent” or “lazy” and to suggest that, “Any asshole could put the two facts found together, as well as it was a sad realisation that the supposed experts needed to be led through the course of events like little children being led across the street” is totally unacceptable and is clearly a gross breach of good manners and sportsmanship. The Panel notes that the Respondent admitted he made these statements and published them.

 

The Disciplinary Panel's Decision is well worth a read, particularly by those enthusiasts who want to pull out rule 69 on every occasion.

 

Key things about commenting on a protest committee's decision:

 

8.7  With respect to the first issue (the dissent from the decision of the appeals Committee), the Panel is mindful of the need for decisions of officials in sport to be respected and not open to abuse. ...

 

[but]

 

It is always acceptable to have a difference of opinion with officials, and indeed it is inevitable that from time to time officials and competitors will disagree on decisions made. However, differences of opinion must be raised in a respectful manner and at an appropriate time and place.

 

So any reasoned discussion of a protest or appeal committee's decision, even by a party, provided it avoids bad language or abuse, and provided it is not expressed in some inappropriate context, such as allinternationaljudgesarebastards.com. will not breach rule 69.

 

Key things about bringing the sport into disrepute

8.12 ... In order for the sport to be brought into disrepute, there must be evidence that it has so been and findings made by the hearing panel accordingly. The rule does not refer to the possibility or opportunity for it to be brought into disrepute; it refers to a situation where it has been.

 

8.13 In the Court of Arbitration of Sport case, D’Arcy v Australian Olympic Committee CAS 2008/A/1539 , the Court of Arbitration of Sport defined the concept of disreputable conduct by stating that “Bringing a person into disrepute is to lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of ordinary members of the public to a significant extent”. RRS 69.1(a) requires in respect of this limb, “conduct bringing the sport into disrepute”. The Panel does not believe there is any actual evidence of the bringing of the sport into disrepute and this limb requires evidence of disrepute. The mere making of such derogatory comments does not of itself amount to conduct bringing the sport into disrepute. 

8.14 In addition, the period of time during which the Respondent’s comments were available was short and the website was not by all accounts a popular one frequented by the general public. The mere fact that the website was open to the public is insufficient in our view to found a charge of disrepute.

 

8.15 Therefore, the Panel is not comfortably satisfied that the Respondent brought the sport of sailing into disrepute and he has not committed gross misconduct in this respect.

So, no guys, farting in church while wearing a regatta T shirt does NOT open you up to rule 69.


Rule 69 - Disagreeing with a protest committee versus Abusing a protes

28 February 2014 - 02:31 AM

It has gone very quiet with regard to DdR. I see that ISAF have dealt with the case of Mr Al Schonborn in Canada that was brought before them at the end of December. Unlike everybody else on the list at the moment, Mr Schonborn's been banned from all racing ("competition eligibility"), not just ISAF events. Ban until August. 
A couple of copy/pastes from the decision regarding Mr Schonborn:
 

8.5  It is well established that the hearing process used under RRS 69 is not adversarial in nature and is an inquisition by the hearing panel into the facts of the case and the report it has received. By participation in the event, the Respondent entered into a contract agreeing to the procedure permitted by the relevant rules (see RRS 3). The Respondent received the report before the hearing in writing and was represented at the hearing. The fact his preferred choice of counsel was not available is unfortunate but it was well within the case management powers of the panel to refuse an application to adjourn on this ground – alternative counsel can always be instructed in such circumstances if the Respondent wished legal representation.
 
8.6  The Panel is mindful of the principle of ISAF Case 48 (interpreting RRS 63.2, Hearings: Time and Place of the Hearing; Time for Parties to Prepare) which is clear that the RRS aim to prevent miscarriages of justice and not provide loopholes for parties to attack decisions. The overriding duty on Sail Canada was to conduct a fair process and the Panel considers it has done so, including:

(a )  the Respondent was given written notification of the report being considered;
 
(b ) the Sail Canada panel was independent and qualified in the RRS;
 
(c )  the Respondent was present throughout the hearing, able to address the panel on all evidence presented and able to make submissions to the panel;

(d )  the Respondent was represented and supported at the hearing;
 
(e )  the panel was presented with all relevant material; and

(f )  the panel did not consider any irrelevant material.

 
 

8.10  To publicly refer to the Committees as “incompetent” or “lazy” and to suggest that, “Any asshole could put the two facts found together, as well as it was a sad realisation that the supposed experts needed to be led through the course of events like little children being led across the street” is totally unacceptable and is clearly a gross breach of good manners and sportsmanship. The Panel notes that the Respondent admitted he made these statements and published them.

 

The Disciplinary Panel's Decision is well worth a read, particularly by those enthusiasts who want to pull out rule 69 on every occasion.

 

Key things about commenting on a protest committee's decision:

 

8.7  With respect to the first issue (the dissent from the decision of the appeals Committee), the Panel is mindful of the need for decisions of officials in sport to be respected and not open to abuse. ...

 

[but]

 

It is always acceptable to have a difference of opinion with officials, and indeed it is inevitable that from time to time officials and competitors will disagree on decisions made. However, differences of opinion must be raised in a respectful manner and at an appropriate time and place.

 

So any reasoned discussion of a protest or appeal committee's decision, even by a party, provided it avoids bad language or abuse, and provided it is not expressed in some inappropriate context, such as allinternationaljudgesarebastards.com. will not breach rule 69.

 

Key things about bringing the sport into disrepute

8.12 ... In order for the sport to be brought into disrepute, there must be evidence that it has so been and findings made by the hearing panel accordingly. The rule does not refer to the possibility or opportunity for it to be brought into disrepute; it refers to a situation where it has been.

 

8.13 In the Court of Arbitration of Sport case, D’Arcy v Australian Olympic Committee CAS 2008/A/1539 , the Court of Arbitration of Sport defined the concept of disreputable conduct by stating that “Bringing a person into disrepute is to lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of ordinary members of the public to a significant extent”. RRS 69.1(a) requires in respect of this limb, “conduct bringing the sport into disrepute”. The Panel does not believe there is any actual evidence of the bringing of the sport into disrepute and this limb requires evidence of disrepute. The mere making of such derogatory comments does not of itself amount to conduct bringing the sport into disrepute. 

8.14 In addition, the period of time during which the Respondent’s comments were available was short and the website was not by all accounts a popular one frequented by the general public. The mere fact that the website was open to the public is insufficient in our view to found a charge of disrepute.

 

8.15 Therefore, the Panel is not comfortably satisfied that the Respondent brought the sport of sailing into disrepute and he has not committed gross misconduct in this respect.

So, no guys, farting in church while wearing a regatta T shirt does NOT open you up to rule 69.