Jump to content

2018 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race: The Race Committee has lodged a protest against Wild Oats XI


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In loving memory of Clark and Daw We welcome this evening Mr Richard the skipper of the winning power boat. Hello Brian. Mr Richard, may we call you Dick? Sure Brian, most

If Matt Allen as President of AS has any balls he should put Harburg/Bradford and Oatley/Richards in a room and read them the riot act. Harburg for not protesting but having a cry on national TV and O

Ok I am now caught up on this thread. Yes I went live - first actually - with the news direct from Shipwright Arms where WOXI were having lunch in one room, and BJ in the other. Was the best place to

Posted Images

Absolutely nothing will change the mind of most posters on an internet forum.  They have an opinion which they repeat over and over in the mistaken believe other forum readers will eventually come around to their point of view.  They even argue with themselves through sock puppets to try and get a point across.  This happens even when they are presented with factual evidence that they are wrong.  If you want to see more of this strange behavior head up the corridor to PA, Random loves it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

To Hamilton Island Yacht Club.

Attention Mr Sandy Oatley.

Dear Sandy, it has been brought to my Attention that your are paying people on sailing forums to protect your brand- kind of shills for big Shiraz...

That was very polite of you LB.

I would have said 'Dear Cunt'. Though that may have detracted from the thrust of your request to be recognised as a Hamilton Island ambassador.

Hint. Be quick to get to the trough, I understand there is quite a line up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DFL1010 said:

Post 797:

Assuming the above is true, would that change your outlook on this situation?

Even Trumps team produce more convincing spin than that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dash34 said:

I think we'll find out in the end what the real story is.  I bet most or all of the WOXI crew know what really happened and don't like the idea of having to avoid answering "the question" every time they walk into the bar from now on.

Mate..correction. They are not "crew". They are employees, some have already collected 3 gold watches. Bob's chair has already been modified to accommodate the big fella as a throne in waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. The notion that the cameraman's transmission fried the AIS transmitter doesn't hold much water. 

Fry the AIS receiver maybe, but kill the transmitter and leave the receiver working takes some remarkable physics. Nor does the excuse match the point where it is apparent the AIS went off. And last of all, it doesn't match the AIS coming live again. 

Personally I'm quite happy to believe there was a fuck up. MR's statement about it not being mandatory is just as likely a reflex response to a blindsiding question about it not working as evidence of premeditated action. 

Most of this little story isn't about WOXI, it is about the nature of the culture, the players, and how the failure has been handled. No party comes out well. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I was actually very partial a trillion years ago to Rosemount wines that Bob kicked off, then sold did very very well and his boat program, let's buy an island for the idiot son etc program went up a notch or two.

The Wild Oats label he started post that unfortunately is absolute cats piss. I think their market was China though.

Rosemount Roxburgh Chardonnay from the Hunter Valley.  Lovely golden colour. It was a genuine chardonnay not like 90% of the others that where around at the same time.  Drank magnificently after two years of aging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comeon this is a big fairytale!

We’re not talking about an inshore Optimist regatta and the sailors and crews are not dumb idiots never put at step on a boat before.

I participated in a few of unfamous ocean regattas and our AIS was always checked on the gate entering the start field. We got approval via radio. BTW this happenend as well when I participated in Rolex Fastnet Race. They had 3 gates to enter the starting field.

a) I wonder how WOXI could enter the race ?

b) I wonder that nobody recognise this from race controle. Even when WOXI ran down Derwent river.

c) since it is part of sailing instructions that AIS must be active there seems to me no space for interpretation. I wonder that there are any discussions.

WOXI was still the fastest boat in 2018 but not by following the rules. If anybody is convinced that WOXI is a fair winner than this nothing else than giving a shit about rules. Keep in mind that all others follow the rules.

I have the impression that race committee  won’t  hurt WOXI after the history of last year. Others in this forum still mentioned favouritism. Bad, worse, worst decision! Now this world famous regatta has a flavour of untrustworthy. Applause, applause to the race committee  what an outstanding job!

Edited by braunle
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Absolutely nothing will change the mind of most posters on an internet forum.  They have an opinion which they repeat over and over in the mistaken believe other forum readers will eventually come around to their point of view.  They even argue with themselves through sock puppets to try and get a point across.  This happens even when they are presented with factual evidence that they are wrong.  If you want to see more of this strange behavior head up the corridor to PA, Random loves it.

It didn't take long for a cockwarbeller to appear.

Now son other than casting a quite slanderous spray over those in this room, do you actually have anything meaningfully to contribute?

Sort of treat it as a price of admission to a Beyonce concert you don't want to be at, but you then tell people you were there. No contribution is not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Mate..correction. They are not "crew". They are employees, some have already collected 3 gold watches. Bob's chair has already been modified to accommodate the big fella as a throne in waiting.

Listen to Nic's interview of Lump o' Lard after the race.  He says something like "I don't do anything.  I just sit there."

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, WOXI crew does admit it broke at the start - and simple check of marinetraffics or vessel finder apps would have shown they weren't 

The real question - is not transmitting a viable safety transgression? Did they check they were receiging AIS so their local MOB AIS devices worked? (I bet they did) and should the RC be responsible for managing the safety regs - now that we know they mis reported at the end of the race that everything worked, should that be enough to reopen the RC protest?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nimbus said:

Drank magnificently after two years of aging.

How in the fuck do you keep alcohol sitting there for two years without knocking the top off? Do you have some sort of cage with multiple locks and keys, like one you send to a relative in Latvia?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Hmmm. The notion that the cameraman's transmission fried the AIS transmitter doesn't hold much water. 

Fry the AIS receiver maybe, but kill the transmitter and leave the receiver working takes some remarkable physics. Nor does the excuse match the point where it is apparent the AIS went off. And last of all, it doesn't match the AIS coming live again. 

Personally I'm quite happy to believe there was a fuck up. MR's statement about it not being mandatory is just as likely a reflex response to a blindsiding question about it not working as evidence of premeditated action. 

Most of this little story isn't about WOXI, it is about the nature of the culture, the players, and how the failure has been handled. No party comes out well. 

Lets add in, if not start with World Sailing and Australia Sailing. AIS is either a required safety feature, or it’s not. It should not be subject the gentleman’s agreement of a self policing sport if in fact it is to be a required safety feature.

If the organizing authority is going to require its use, then they should police the use of it, and penalize appropriately for non-compliance. Rail Meat has a good post about his experience in Europe with that very thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because I crawled over some messages like ‘it is normal practice within the rules to shut off AIS transmit while racing’.

1. This is Rolex Sydney to Hobart Regatta. Participants spent weeks to meet the entry criteria. Serious stuff, not fun on the fishing lake next door.

2. The sailing instruction are clear: AIS turned on, transmitting and receiving during the whole race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever considered this discussion is lost on the Woxi's of this world? They simply will not understand what the fuss is about

After all surely everyone intelligent knows that the seriously wealthy of this world are entitled to a set of special ethics and rules of behavior which are quite different from those which apply to ordinary mortals. I expect this has been quietly explained to those who dismissed the "protest that never was", hence the ruling which the qualified elite will have expected, but which, understandably, leaves mere ordinary mortals a little puzzled.

Put simply, if I had sailed as Woxi did it would have been right for me to retire.

For the skipper of Woxi it was right not to retire.

I am sure this would all be very clear to, say, the likes of the current President of France, for example. It seems he understands this rather better than his subjects though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sunseeker said:

If the organizing authority is going to require its use, then they should police the use of it, and penalize appropriately for non-compliance.

This is where it gets messy. In general it isn't the OA's responsibility to police rules. As has been noted before, in terms of the RRS the sport is self generally policing. Now AIS is a safety add on. IMHO that gets it something of a leave pass on the self policing, in much the same manner as the compulsory Green Cape HF check does, so there is potentially an argument for something similar for AIS. It gets murky when AIS becomes valuable for racing tactics, which it is.

BJ's complaint was that they were disadvantaged because WOXI's safety system was not working properly. Phrased like that it sounds stupid. But therein lies the difficulty. The OA's job is to make sure the race is run safely, and they do have a role in enforcing safety related requirements. If we ignore BJ, and anything related to racing, and only focus on safety the question is perhaps clearer. The OA, should work out a mechanism for checking AIS compliance and work it in, minimally adding it to the list of checks for the Green Cape check. And with the same teeth. However since it can be deliberately disabled for competitive advantage, further checking may be justified. It should not be up to the self policing of the sport to provide the teeth for safety questions. But because the system has competitive implications it gets confused. 

Things were not handled well this time. And the smell will take a while to clear. But I do hope the CYCA can learn for this.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

This needs to be answered not just for WOXI, but going forward will/can AIS be required since there is no way to 'prove' they turned it off or they just have faulty gear on board (probably can't protest on negligent maintenance, but lawyers can sure jump on it if there is a death).

I have no dog in the fight, and have no way of knowing the facts - but it should be investigated, else AIS is dead as a 'requirement' going forward.

 

And considering that the next race is something of a milestone, to clear this up for next year could the RC (in the Si's) stipulate that on off switch for Tx is illegal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, frant said:

I just had a look at the Racing Rules website to check on definition of “conflict of interest”. Isn’t it slightly ironic that the cover page contains an image of Comanche and WOXI. May be an explanation as to why they are above the rules.

it now appears to me that the Protest Committee may be obliged to open a hearing in light of information that WOXI filed an invalid declaration of compliance. They now appear to have been aware that their AIS was “fried” for the duration but don’t seem to have made a declaration to that effect.

The oats cover up is just digging the hole deeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

This is where it gets messy. In general it isn't the OA's responsibility to police rules. As has been noted before, in terms of the RRS the sport is self generally policing. Now AIS is a safety add on. IMHO that gets it something of a leave pass on the self policing, in much the same manner as the compulsory Green Cape HF check does, so there is potentially an argument for something similar for AIS. It gets murky when AIS becomes valuable for racing tactics, which it is.

BJ's complaint was that they were disadvantaged because WOXI's safety system was not working properly. Phrased like that it sounds stupid. But therein lies the difficulty. The OA's job is to make sure the race is run safely, and they do have a role in enforcing safety related requirements. If we ignore BJ, and anything related to racing, and only focus on safety the question is perhaps clearer. The OA, should work out a mechanism for checking AIS compliance and work it in, minimally adding it to the list of checks for the Green Cape check. And with the same teeth. However since it can be deliberately disabled for competitive advantage, further checking may be justified. It should not be up to the self policing of the sport to provide the teeth for safety questions. But because the system has competitive implications it gets confused. 

Things were not handled well this time. And the smell will take a while to clear. But I do hope the CYCA can learn for this.

I dont think you cam lump AIS checks at Green Cape the same as HF checks.  The Hf is not required to be on for the whole race, only to do the scheds and the Gren Cape call.  The AIS can be switched on at Green Cape and then off again if that was the case.  It is a difficult item to check 24/7 but maybe that will be a task the OA has to take on in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

This is where it gets messy. In general it isn't the OA's responsibility to police rules. As has been noted before, in terms of the RRS the sport is self generally policing. Now AIS is a safety add on. IMHO that gets it something of a leave pass on the self policing, in much the same manner as the compulsory Green Cape HF check does, so there is potentially an argument for something similar for AIS. It gets murky when AIS becomes valuable for racing tactics, which it is.

BJ's complaint was that they were disadvantaged because WOXI's safety system was not working properly. Phrased like that it sounds stupid. But therein lies the difficulty. The OA's job is to make sure the race is run safely, and they do have a role in enforcing safety related requirements. If we ignore BJ, and anything related to racing, and only focus on safety the question is perhaps clearer. The OA, should work out a mechanism for checking AIS compliance and work it in, minimally adding it to the list of checks for the Green Cape check. And with the same teeth. However since it can be deliberately disabled for competitive advantage, further checking may be justified. It should not be up to the self policing of the sport to provide the teeth for safety questions. But because the system has competitive implications it gets confused. 

Things were not handled well this time. And the smell will take a while to clear. But I do hope the CYCA can learn for this.

Well, ocean regatta sailors use weather routing tools. There are a lot discussions about the usage of those tools due to real saling. But it is saver and sailing is more than reading the weather.

I think it is similar to the usage of AIS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, trt131 said:

I dont think you cam lump AIS checks at Green Cape the same as HF checks. 

The intent is that there should be an onus on the skipper to ensure that the AIS is transmitting properly at the check. By codifying this, we avoid equipment failure - both real and as an excuse for bad behaviour. The check would include a confirmation that the AIS signal was being received. No reception, no pass the check.

As to turning it on and off, well now we are talking about cheating pure and simple.

Given the availability and low price of SOTDMA class B AIS units now, I think there is probably a very good argument for mandating them for the S2H. These can be seen by the satellites, whilst the lower power CSTDMA class B units usually can't. This would improve every aspect of their use. It would make cheating behaviour trivial to monitor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BooBoo said:

Just seen this facebook post from one of the crew on wild oats. 

Saddened by the fact a few of my old mates would have thought we would use our AIS system onboard to our advantage by turning it off during the great race.
The fact is the system got fried when our onboard cameraman went live at the start, we had no idea at all during the race till we finished .
The Wild Oats team is one of the best loyalist teams I have sailed with in my whole sailing career .

 

So it got "Fried" and they managed to get it working or replaced it just after they docked !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

It would make cheating behaviour trivial to monitor. 

The idea of the RRS is that it is self policing.

What went wrong here was that BJ refused to follow the rules and protest.  Seems karma on them that it backfired.

I have to admit that I did not expect the RC to file an invalid protest.  We had the right to expect that they had done their homework.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So hypothetically, if a boat was not transmitting, other than the guy who flicked an AIS transmit switch off  and the guy who told him to, would anyone else on the boat have HAD to have known they were not transmitting ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

The idea of the RRS is that it is self policing.

What went wrong here was that BJ refused to follow the rules and protest.  Seems karma on them that it backfired.

I have to admit that I did not expect the RC to file an invalid protest.  We had the right to expect that they had done their homework.

Yup, there's a lot of eggs on a lot of faces.  Nobody involved should walk away feeling good about anything.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DFL1010 said:

Post 797:

Assuming the above is true, would that change your outlook on this situation?

If true, then the next question is - did they know about the failure before or after they filed their finishing report, and if before, was it included in the finishing report?  If they knew about it before filing the report and didn't report it, they cheated.  If they found out after filing the report, then they still broke the rule, but didn't "cheat", which implies a dishonest act.  

I hope there are some folks in Hobart getting WOXI crew good and drunk so we can get to the truth here!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeedAClew said:

So hypothetically, if a boat was not transmitting, other than the guy who flicked an AIS transmit switch off  and the guy who told him to, would anyone else on the boat have HAD to have known they were not transmitting ?

Hypothetically, why would that matter other than a few of your crew mates fucked it up for everyone?  So much for being a team.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BooBoo said:

Just seen this facebook post from one of the crew on wild oats. 

Saddened by the fact a few of my old mates would have thought we would use our AIS system onboard to our advantage by turning it off during the great race.
The fact is the system got fried when our onboard cameraman went live at the start, we had no idea at all during the race till we finished .
The Wild Oats team is one of the best loyalist teams I have sailed with in my whole sailing career .

 

System got fried... WTF... How come it came back to life after arriving in Hobart? How possible is it that it was half of the AIS (Transmitter only) was fried, but assumable the rest of the electronics survived?

Utter BS, no doubt concocted by Trump's spin doctors!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill E Goat said:

Works fine now

image.png.80f3ebbaf228326b736cd7b5186fb1a6.png

 

I logged in to Marinetraffic yesterday ( 29/12 ). It showed WO perfectly clearly at the dock in Hobart. The transmission was so accurate that it showed a track of WO moving around with the tide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hoppy said:

Non sailing media will have already forgotten this AIS issue by the time we hit 2019. In sailing magazines there will be an article or two about it and of course and editors rant on the AIS subject.  

Then this whole AIS thing will just blow over and never be brought up again.

Except on SA where this thread will keep going for ages. Then it will quieten down before idiots like Random, his socks and similar posters will start banging on about it in the 2019 S2H thread.

In other news, they just ran an article on Hoppy’s achievements. I’ll post it here verbatim. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trt131 said:

You have no rights at all in this.

Oh but I do.  Who do you think all the advertising is aimed at?

I am part of the consumer audience, I am part of the sailing community and I drink wine and occasionally visit the Whitsundays.

But the wine and the resort can get fucked based on the behaviour linked to the brands.

Cue the trolls!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bill E Goat said:

So it got "Fried" and they managed to get it working or replaced it just after they docked !!

 

Especially interesting given that the transmit function of every cclass B AIS is carried out by the VHF antenna at the top of the mast.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hoppy said:

Non sailing media will have already forgotten this AIS issue by the time we hit 2019. In sailing magazines there will be an article or two about it and of course and editors rant on the AIS subject.  

Then this whole AIS thing will just blow over and never be brought up again.

Except on SA where this thread will keep going for ages. Then it will quieten down before idiots like Random, his socks and similar posters will start banging on about it in the 2019 S2H thread.

Fucking good fodder isn't it?

The rest of the media will shut the fuck up or they will never get another single $ from the Oately's.

That's how it works.  Just ask Sailor Girl.

Edit: But here in SA we don't care, we are ungovernable!

image.thumb.png.d9e3dc1d7a2b9ce657b0ed6c59382cb5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Hypothetically, why would that matter other than a few of your crew mates fucked it up for everyone?  So much for being a team.  

Hypothetically, % active vs passive/unaware cheaters

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Absolute contrived horseshit. That is contained in media releases coming out of mission control ever since the protest announcement. It (the wording/wording) was released to sailing publications over 12 hours ago.

Join the dots. First we didn't need to have it on. Then it was it was on but we didn't know it was off. Now it is we knew it was broke in Sydney Harbour but forgot to tell anyone.

This is like a train smash in slow motion.

 

" Now it is we knew it was broke in Sydney Harbour but forgot to tell anyone. "

If this statement is a correct statement of what happened then WO signed a false declaration upon finishing. Tsk tsk

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Absolute contrived horseshit. That is contained in media releases coming out of mission control ever since the protest announcement. It (the wording/wording) was released to sailing publications over 12 hours ago.

Join the dots. First we didn't need to have it on. Then it was it was on but we didn't know it was off. Now it is we knew it was broke in Sydney Harbour but forgot to tell anyone.

This is like a train smash in slow motion.

When you’ve missed the chance to do the honorable gesture, anything subsequent is pathetic self serving drivel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Paps, you need to find a rule book, you cant protest RRS 69.  You have no skin in the fight therefore you cant protest for anything.

You need to check the rule book.

69.2
Action by a Protest Committee
 
  1. A protest committee acting under this rule shall have at least three members.
  2. When a protest committee, from its own observation or from information received from any source, including evidence taken during a hearing, believes a person may have broken rule 69.1(a), it shall decide whether or not to call a hearing.
  3. When the protest committee needs more information to make the decision to call a hearing, it shall consider appointing a person or persons to conduct an investigation. These investigators shall not be members of the protest committee that will decide the matter.
  4. When an investigator is appointed, all relevant information he gathers, favourable or unfavourable, shall be disclosed to the protest committee, and if the protest committee decides to call a hearing, to the parties.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Random, competitors cannot protest under RRS 69,  A protest committee can have a hearing (not a protest hearing) under certain conditions.

Seriously?  DO I have to skool you?

Non-competitors can supply the PC with information, there is no time limit.  They can launch an investigation, call hearings, it's serious.

In this case though there is enough information in the public domain that they brought to sport into disrepute that they could well do it themselves anyway.  The reason that no one wants to go there is that it opens the RRS up to the civil legal system.  But sometimes it is worth it to clean the sport up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Hmmm. The notion that the cameraman's transmission fried the AIS transmitter doesn't hold much water. 

Fry the AIS receiver maybe, but kill the transmitter and leave the receiver working takes some remarkable physics. Nor does the excuse match the point where it is apparent the AIS went off. And last of all, it doesn't match the AIS coming live again. 

Personally I'm quite happy to believe there was a fuck up. MR's statement about it not being mandatory is just as likely a reflex response to a blindsiding question about it not working as evidence of premeditated action. 

Most of this little story isn't about WOXI, it is about the nature of the culture, the players, and how the failure has been handled. No party comes out well. 

The notion that WOXI would have been unaware that they weren't transmitting also doesn't hold water.  They have the best satcomms money can buy on board and the chance that they weren't able to look at say marinetraffic.com is zero.  Sure they'd have been monitoring all the other supermaxis via an AIS feed into Expedition / Deckman whatever and maybe not monitoring marintraffic.com but I find it hard to believe they weren't looking at that too.

Applying a little root cause analysis would help.  Let's have an expert go over WOXI's Nav setup and see what particular AIS gear it has onboard and whether there even are mechanisms availble to switch off the transmit function.  Then we can rule in or out a few scenarios.

We could also dig up historic AIS data from last yar's S2H - maybe the cameraman didn't fry the AIS last year?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TPG said:

Jack jack jack, turn down the tens unit on your balls, you're making a scene. My bad for the statement, why did they cry to the media and not suck it up and file a formal protest is what I meant.

 

Harburg refused to protest. He was on TV news in Sydney directly after the hearing and said as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, savoir said:

 

Harburg refused to protest. He was on TV news in Sydney directly after the hearing and said as much.

Stupid of him not to.  Sure, no-one wants to be a dick in the secret society of uber-rich gentlemen but sometrimes you just have to take one fo rthe team in the name of integrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AIS deliberately switched off, AIS accidentally switched off or AIS fried, it doesn’t matter. The signed race declaration is false, and WOXI, the RO and the PC knew and found a way to do nothing about it.

Shame on all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, savoir said:

 

Harburg refused to protest. He was on TV news in Sydney directly after the hearing and said as much.

Total bullshit.  Fuck him.  I put him one rung down on the ladder from MR and the ladder goes downhill.  What a bunch of shit.  They cheated but I'm not going to protest? Seriously?  You have an obligation to the fleet to protest when you see wrongdoing.  Protect the fleet.  So, what if Oats had flown an oversized chute in the middle of the night and only BJ noticed?  No protest?  Fuck them, they don't get it.  And Butterball was on board, fry him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DickDastardly said:

Stupid of him not to.  Sure, no-one wants to be a dick in the secret society of uber-rich gentlemen but sometrimes you just have to take one fo rthe team in the name of integrity.

Agreed.

Harburg said something like " We never protest ".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, savoir said:

Wrong.

Every competitor has 6 hours from finishing as per sailing instruction 27.3.

But the protest would likely be invalid as they have to inform the protested boat as soon as they knew there was an issue.  You cant come ashore have a discussion with other people and then lodge a protest (I guess you can but it would be invalid)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trt131 said:

But the protest would likely be invalid as they have to inform the protested boat as soon as they knew there was an issue.  You cant come ashore have a discussion with other people and then lodge a protest (I guess you can but it would be invalid)

So how's that rule book check going on 69.2?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sunseeker said:

I’d suggest that “traditionally, at the Corinthian level, the sport is self policing.”

Where the sport has gone wrong is in not having a more active police force for all pro racing, like in match racing and TP 52’s.

to try and think it possible to maintain the “Corinthian spirit” with a bunch of paid whores pulling ropes for rich owners” is like thinking the hooker is really a virgin.

You do have a point sunseeker and in actual fact more and more regattas have officials on the water..

Trouble is most events use judges and not umpires and actually call it "On the Water Judging".

And here I should mention a "conflict of interest";-). I a an aspiring umpire but with only around 700 races under my belt so far. 

I say trouble with judges not because I would doubt their rules knowledge but because in most cases their skill set is different.

Their knowledge of procedure (validity and all that) is right up there but they normally have the luxury of being able to take their time to reach a decision. As an umpire, you have seconds - typically 3-5 of them - to make a call. Add to that the boat handling ability and positioning to be in the right place at the right time to view potential incidents and flags.

Add to that, certainly out our way some of them wouldn't recognise an ooch or a rocket if it bit them in the ass having never been sailors themselves.

It is sad to even be writing this as someone who grew up in a sport where I witnessed someone retiring because they broke a rule but were unseen by other competitors (yes I am that old) but that appears to be the world we live in.

Having said that most of the calls we make on the water are because people DO know the rules and ARE playing fairly. It is rather because the competition is so intense and because they are pushing the limit more that they are slipping over the limit and believe they are right.

Perhaps more "Go-Pro" type devices might help, not because they DO catch the action but because they MIGHT catch the action but many PCs are loath to allow their evidence so I am unsure on that. Or perhaps PCs need to move with the times?

One thing I am certain of, and that is if we don't address the situation it will only become worse. Do examples need to be made of? Probably!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Random, you suggested joining some to protest under RRS 69.  Again you cannot lodge a protest for that rule.  The protest committee are the only ones that can decide to have a hearing.  It is pointless carrying on with you as you are just too stupid to understand.  I love the way LB puts you down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Random, you suggested joining some to protest under RRS 69.  Again you cannot lodge a protest for that rule.  The protest committee are the only ones that can decide to have a hearing.  It is pointless carrying on with you as you are just too stupid to understand.  I love the way LB puts you down.

Weasel words, all you got?

You read 69.2 and it is so clear that even a fuckwit like you could understand it.  No protest required.  Just have to provide the PC with eveidence that the sport has been bought into disrepute and they do the rest.

But you got that i''m sure, you are just playing fucking dumb, not that you have to try hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, random said:

Weasel words, all you got?

You read 69.2 and it is so clear that even a fuckwit like you could understand it.  No protest required.  Just have to provide the PC with eveidence that the sport has been bought into disrepute and they do the rest.

But you got that i''m sure, you are just playing fucking dumb, not that you have to try hard.

Instead of spouting on this forum why dont you do just that.  Come back later and report the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the above is immaterial as they were not even eligible to start due to non-compliance with the clause in the SI's that required all competitors to have a functioning AIS that both received and transmitted.

End of story!~

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

You do have a point sunseeker and in actual fact more and more regattas have officials on the water..

Trouble is most events use judges and not umpires and actually call it "On the Water Judging".

And here I should mention a "conflict of interest";-). I a an aspiring umpire but with only around 700 races under my belt so far. 

I say trouble with judges not because I would doubt their rules knowledge but because in most cases their skill set is different.

Their knowledge of procedure (validity and all that) is right up there but they normally have the luxury of being able to take their time to reach a decision. As an umpire, you have seconds - typically 3-5 of them - to make a call. Add to that the boat handling ability and positioning to be in the right place at the right time to view potential incidents and flags.

Add to that, certainly out our way some of them wouldn't recognise an ooch or a rocket if it bit them in the ass having never been sailors themselves.

It is sad to even be writing this as someone who grew up in a sport where I witnessed someone retiring because they broke a rule but were unseen by other competitors (yes I am that old) but that appears to be the world we live in.

Having said that most of the calls we make on the water are because people DO know the rules and ARE playing fairly. It is rather because the competition is so intense and because they are pushing the limit more that they are slipping over the limit and believe they are right.

Perhaps more "Go-Pro" type devices might help, not because they DO catch the action but because they MIGHT catch the action but many PCs are loath to allow their evidence so I am unsure on that. Or perhaps PCs need to move with the times?

One thing I am certain of, and that is if we don't address the situation it will only become worse. Do examples need to be made of? Probably!

A big part of the problem is that the “protest committee” of old has morphed into a lot of things it probably has no place being involved in.  The rules don’t deal well enough with technology, employment or maritime law, and yet the “protest committee” is God, or at least a lot of them act that way.

things need to really be broken down into actual racing issue, the fundamental rules, then separately there needs to be technical experts handling things like whether or not this AIS was actually broken, and all sorts of other things. To have this catch all of a protest committee where people are certified but often haven’t sailed in years, it just makes the sport a lot less fun. 

And pros are going to cheat until they get caught and penalized. The whole issue of financial penalties needs to be addressed too, that’s the only thing that’s going to stop this crap, though Oatley might not care about about a $100,000 fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, trt131 said:

Instead of spouting on this forum why dont you do just that.  Come back later and report the outcome.

Do I take that as conceding to the point?  That I successfully skooled you on the RRS?  Hahshahhaaaaa.

I might just do that.  All the evidence is here, including people claiming that the sport has been tarnished, including the AIS logs.  Great idea tr!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Instead of spouting on this forum why dont you do just that.  Come back later and report the outcome.

This is the internet, we all have 12" cocks and date movie stars.  Don't you dare introduce reality to the situation.  Shameful.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

Do I take that as conceding to the point?  That I successfully skooled you on the RRS?  Hahshahhaaaaa.

I might just do that.  All the evidence is here, including people claiming that the sport has been tarnished, including the AIS logs.  Great idea tr!

Random, I was pointing out the word PROTEST and the fact that a competitor cannot PROTEST under that rule, but I am sure you understood that but as usual you were being obtuse for the sake of an argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sunseeker said:

The rules don’t deal well enough with technology, employment or maritime law, and yet the “protest committee” is God, or at least a lot of them act that way.

Before you get anymore off the track .... Read the fucking rules!   You have no excuse not to understand them, but you do not.

3.3
Acceptance of the rules includes agreement
  1. to be governed by the rules;
  2. 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;
  3. with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal not provided for in the rules; and
  4. by each competitor and boat owner to ensure that their support persons are aware of the rules.

Edit: There is no requirement for you or anyone else to agree with the Rules.  If you do not, do not sign on to the race, if you do then in effect it is a legally binding contract between you and the Organising Authority.  It is the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a requirement in the sailing instructions, and such requirement is not met, surely it shouldn't matter whether it was on purpose or not? If one doesn't honor a mark and finishes and says "oops, I didn't realize that was a mark", not knowing doesn't absolve them. 

Whether or not the AIS is a necessary safety feature, whether or not WOXI shut it off on purpose, or it got damaged, or if Black Jack had protested correctly shouldn't matter.

 

The bigger problem seems to be that there is a rule in the sailing instructions that is very clear, and that was broken. Subsequently the Race Committee finds a technicality so they (likely) don't even discuss the issue.  What if a boat had raced without the required number of life jackets, or life rafts on board, and were found out afterwards? One would think that Black Jack, or any competitor for that matter- wouldn't have to protest properly for that to be dealt with...

 

It's troubling that a rule was broken and nothing was done about it. I would have thought that the AIS requirement would have been considered a safety item, and as such that the RC would have been able to deal with any (not just WOXI) yachts that infringed the requirement to have it transmitting for the duration of the race. 

If it's not that important, which their attitude seems to convey, then perhaps they will change the rule for subsequent years to not require it to be on? Whats the likelihood of that happening? 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Captain Jack Sparrow said:

If there is a requirement in the sailing instructions, and such requirement is not met, surely it shouldn't matter whether it was on purpose or not?

It's not, only fan boys claim it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And about the rest of the crew not knowing

3.3
Acceptance of the rules includes agreement
  1. to be governed by the rules;
  2. 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;
  3. with respect to any such determination, not to resort to any court of law or tribunal not provided for in the rules; and
  4. by each competitor and boat owner to ensure that their support persons are aware of the rules.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bayboy said:

Best part its been dealt with and a few have their knickers in a knot about the ruling, Sandy Oatley promises to give you a reach around next year, Wild Oats still won line honors and Alive Overall end of story.

Duh

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I wonder if the ais will be on for the trip back to Sydney. ..

 

Fair question.

WO has left Hobart and at this very minute is almost at Tasman Island. The AIS information displayed by Marinetraffic shows that the unit appears to be working perfectly.

Damn those Tasmanian electricians are good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, savoir said:

Damn those Tasmanian electricians are good.

Devils they are.  So long as no one hits the switch.  The S2H is now a distant 2nd to the Fastnet in my book.  No testicles on the RC/PC/IJ.  Shameful.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you implement something, you must be able to measure/monitor it, or it will die.

 

The measure/monitor for AIS transmission compliance can only consistently be done on the water. 

So this means us. We're a self policing sport, so all good. 

But stop right there. This. means . us. I think we need to get our heads in the game that it really is us. By not protesting, the default position for nearly everyone who sails, we're blowing off the responsibility of self policing. 

No regulation and enforcement? Then the concept of racing under rules will die. 

 

Looking forward regards monitoring AIS, I'm sitting here thinking:

  • How the fuck do I determine when a boat has broken the rule? (Without a WoXI full length of race instance) Is the decision threshold when it's Intermittent? Or 10 mins? An hour? In total?  Should it be cumulatiive? 
  • How do I know without watching the tracker all the time? 
  • Will I wait for some other boat on the water to protest so I don't go to the room, or have to look bad?
  • Do we need to add some clarification of expectations to the meagre one line mandatory requirement in the SI's? 
  • What about distance? Will another boat 5nm away protest me for going silent when it's  because I''ve got a little mast?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites