Jump to content

2021 Sydney to Hobart


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY This is SPORTSMANSHIP SPORTSMANSHIP SPORTSMANSHIP MAYDAY SPORTSMANSHIP Our position is untenable We are beaten, battered, holed and sinking We are abandon

A good point. After every on-deck action, at every watch change, and in any case at every hour, I as watch captain (and this was the boat's standard practice) would call "Count off". My watch members

Posted Images

20 hours ago, Livia said:

Question?

1. Wasn’t IB obliged to inform Celestial on the VHF exchange to the hand held,  that IB intended to protest, that was the earliest opportunity.

2. To give redress, didn’t the jury have to find prejudice before giving redress, not that there may have been prejudice.

3. Hasn’t the jury no elevated maintaining a listening watch to an obligation to respond to every transmission immediately.

Lastly, seems just an attempt at better optics, not giving enough redress to win but imposing the penalty to get the same result.

Logic of the jury seems quite dishonest.

Actually the amount of redress given is really quite clever. if they had given more than 3 minutes there would be little or no point in an application for re-opening

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Varan said:

Did any other vessels hear IB's VHF broadcast?

According to the IJ, yes

8.    Quest, who heard Ichi Ban’s VHF radio call to Celestial, also attempted to contact Celestial on VHF 16 but no response was received.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shanghaisailor said:

Actually the amount of redress given is really quite clever. if they had given more than 3 minutes there would be little or no point in an application for re-opening

Right guys,

In about 6 hours filling comments 6 pages SA forum. at about a very nasty case is ridiculious.

Cool off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

This really is very funny, and you apparently have not the foggiest idea why. :D

 

You could get your 'Eagle street law firm partner' to send him a concerns notice Jack. You know the one you claimed was coming after me for 'harming the reputation' of your anonymous SA account name Jack Sparrow.

Fuck I love this place.

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

You could get your 'Eagle street law firm partner' to send him a concerns notice Jack. You know the one you claimed was coming after me for 'harming the reputation' of your anonymous SA account name Jack Sparrow.

Fuck I love this place.

Sorry Lb this is rubbish.
I retreat. See you next time.

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

Actually the amount of redress given is really quite clever. if they had given more than 3 minutes there would be little or no point in an application for re-opening

I make it a point to avoid the room at all costs, of course sometimes to no avail. 

So I am at a loss to understand your comment wrt the 3 minutes.  Are you intimating that the IJ deliberately left the door open?  If they had given a 4 minute would that have closed the door?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My maths might be wrong but original corrected times were

IB: 4-10-21-51

C: 4-10-18-40

IB after redress 4-10-17-38, leaves me wondering whether the IJ have screwed the pooch and actually intended that it be 3 minutes redress on corrected time 4-10-18-51. Either that or no one on the IJ did the maths properly before handing down the findings because 3 minutes has no relevance to anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, trt131 said:

It should be noted that is was the RC that protested, not IB. IB sought redress for the time lost investigating

No. That is not what happened. Ichi Ban both applied for redress and protested Celestial. See the official Notice.

17 hours ago, nroose said:

I am jealous of everyone that got to participate. They are all lucky and privileged. Getting upset that they didn't win is not something I care for.

+1.

I feel badly for all on Celestial, it’s a tough break. But Haynes needs to get a sense of perspective. Going from first to second in a sailing race is the very definition of a ‘First World problem’ ... especially during a global pandemic in which people have died and so many more have lost their livelihoods.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, random. said:

I really do give a fuck what you think!

I'm really sorry Randumb, but your memes are taking up way too much real estate on my monitor. Therefore I have to send you back to the dungeon, this time at Port Arthur, while we party on at Constitution Dock.

But no worries mate, your old master LB is there too, and he is very woke, even more than you. But beware, don't Shaggie that homo loving Royal Q  convict, since the bugger got Ohmygod Covid 15 Aids.

Sincerely wish you both a not so happy New Year, we will ignore and forget you forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mccroc said:

You do understand that on deck speakers, unless totally separate from any deck or cockpit structure can actually affect your stability and capsize numbers, as they are considered a hull entry.

Yeah right, certainly some boats don't have them, but a lot do....

 

Chutzpah

cyca-rshyr-salty-dingo-2021-cg-cg013484.jpg.b019e8fffb1acc032cfa696dee1d1105.jpg

 

Mills41

183155843_Mills41.thumb.jpg.141a6653915ff760a297123fcde4eadd.jpg

 

TP52 Stay Calm

887751754_StayCalmTP52.thumb.jpg.7a0a86e6c00848b02d0adeb1369ae5e8.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2021 at 4:07 PM, random. said:

If the claims on the protest are correct, sounds like the alleged behaviour was about to launch a SAR chopper, adding cost and risking the lives of others in the search effort.

There is a possibility of course that there is a valid and forgivable reason for the 90 min blackout. 

BASIC PRINCIPLES
SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.

But I'm interested, are some people here saying that someone breaking a rule should be ignored, because if you protest you are a cunt?

Is there anywhere in the reporting that indicates what the hails were from the other boats?  If you want to enforce these vaguely written rules in this chicken shit manner then the defense should be just as chickenshit….the rule requires listening not replying.  Prove they were not listening.

This should have been dismissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor sportsmanship from Matt Allen ex cyca commodore I believe. He says he prefers to win on the water yet protests when he doesn’t have to. Question is of course did he influence the rc to protest? He says he’s only been to the room 6 times (guess its 7 now). He doesn’t realise 6 is a lot

Going to be tough to be proud of that one on the mantlepiece

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

Listening to but choosing to ignore calls on channel 16 would most likely raise other awkward questions.

Yeah, but you can only enforce against what is written, and I think it’s a valid argument that a requirement to simply “listen” may be unenforceable. As @sailman states, it’s “chickenshit,” but potentially valid. I deal all the time with government regulations that sometimes say to “notify” the responsible office, and other times say that you need a response in writing before proceeding. The difference between the two is nontrivial. “Notify” does not imply “get permission,” just as “listen” does not necessarily imply “respond to all hails.” Common sense may dictate the latter, but common sense is immaterial to most procedural matters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall reading that some of the boats that had Plb triggers also too substantial time to respond to the calls from the RO, 20 minutes plus.

I think it would be reasonable for Celestial to question why those boats were not protested by the RO. 
 

the RO should have protested the other boats as a matter of principle but withdraw the protest.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

It's not up to AMSA, however the RO would be able to see that Celestial is continuing to race at full speed and advise AMSA to stand down.

AMSA is in charge of ALL live EPIRB events and not the CYCA. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2021 at 8:48 AM, Livia said:

As for pissing, it is a WOKE world, and you get 18 months for a Hilter meme.

Woke refers to becoming aware of racism occurring around you - awakening from the ignorance of racism is hardly anything to do with either having or taking the piss...

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

Woke refers to becoming aware of racism occurring around you - awakening from the ignorance of racism is hardly anything to do with either having or taking the piss...

WOKE covers way more than racism

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dim Duck said:

AMSA is in charge of ALL live EPIRB events and not the CYCA. :)

That quote was taken out of context. With info from AMSA, the RO is in a position to confirm that the active PLB is clearly onboard the competing yacht. The CYCA can advise but AMSA will decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to SG Nic it was the race director who contacted Celestials skipper to advise they may have grounds to reopen. It will be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Boatbeard said:

Woke refers to becoming aware of racism occurring around you - awakening from the ignorance of racism is hardly anything to do with either having or taking the piss...

No woke now is a word that most people use to ridicule leftards virtual signaling. Like you just did. Let me guess - you have tats and a man bun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You people know shit, so here’s a coupla questions. 
1) why does Stefan/ ex Beau Geste have canards that have lower tips point ing towards the centreline whereas most seem the opposite. 
 

2) at least one canting keel boat seemed to have no canards, is that for real? If so how, how do they get upwind?

3) why do most/many monos yachts with assys seem to gybe the sheet around the out side and dingy and multis on the inside. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LionIsland said:

You people know shit, so here’s a coupla questions. 
1) why does Stefan/ ex Beau Geste have canards that have lower tips point ing towards the centreline whereas most seem the opposite. 
 

2) at least one canting keel boat seemed to have no canards, is that for real? If so how, how do they get upwind?

3) why do most/many monos yachts with assys seem to gybe the sheet around the out side and dingy and multis on the inside. 

4) Does the light in the fridge really go out when you close the door?

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly the request for a reopening has not made it on to the news tab on the official race website.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

4) Does the light in the fridge really go out when you close the door?

5) tide comes in tide goes out, you can't explain it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sisu3360 said:

Yeah, but you can only enforce against what is written, and I think it’s a valid argument that a requirement to simply “listen” may be unenforceable. As @sailman states, it’s “chickenshit,” but potentially valid. I deal all the time with government regulations that sometimes say to “notify” the responsible office, and other times say that you need a response in writing before proceeding. The difference between the two is nontrivial. “Notify” does not imply “get permission,” just as “listen” does not necessarily imply “respond to all hails.” Common sense may dictate the latter, but common sense is immaterial to most procedural matters.

Hence the fact that they spoke to the people on the boat and confirmed that they didn't hear. If you didn't hear a hail that happened, you weren't listening.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Interestingly the request for a reopening has not made it on to the news tab on the official race website.

Been trying to raise awareness on Rolex's FB posts. Nothing I could find there neither,... not that I spend much time on that media. Nothing on the official website in their news section. Another white wash?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lahana said:

Been trying to raise awareness on Rolex's FB posts. Nothing I could find there neither,... not that I spend much time on that media. Nothing on the official website in their news section. Another white wash?

Was posted on the Notice Board in the Tas Yacht Club. As per the SI's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boatbeard said:

Woke refers to becoming aware of racism occurring around you - awakening from the ignorance of racism is hardly anything to do with either having or taking the piss...

But it is not that anymore is it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

“Conflict of Interest with the jury”

@shaggybaxter @LB 15

how does that normally pan out?

The decision disappeared from the AS website some months ago.

The RQYS v. Active Again decision is still there.

It considers conflict of interest.

Mr Tillett was a member of the panel 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nroose said:

Hence the fact that they spoke to the people on the boat and confirmed that they didn't hear. If you didn't hear a hail that happened, you weren't listening.

I’m drifting into insufferably pedantic territory here, but one can listen without hearing.

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

Does anyone know if the requirement to listen to VHF was amended for the 2 handers? Would have thought it would be pretty much impossible not to be in breach of the rule if that applied to them as well?

In all races that I organised for solo and two-handers we had the mandatory requirement that all competitors have a remote VHF at the helming station. I used to run radio skeds solo, with the tiller in the other hand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

Personally I think they should ditch the PLB for all crew and make AIS MOB mandatory.

This has been a complex issue on the table for years. The PLB alerts go to the global SAR system; AMSA's joint rescue coordination centre. The AIS MOB go to anyone with the compatible systems within VHF range. The ideal situation is that the PLB and AIS MOB devices are integrated into one device and compliant with Australian standards, and therefore a device recognised by AMSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, grs said:

This has been a complex issue on the table for years. The PLB alerts go to the global SAR system; AMSA's joint rescue coordination centre. The AIS MOB go to anyone with the compatible systems within VHF range. The ideal situation is that the PLB and AIS MOB devices are integrated into one device and compliant with Australian standards, and therefore a device recognised by AMSA.

In the event of a MOB on a fully crewed boat, I would presume that one crew member would be given the job of getting on the radios/satphone to call AMSA.

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

This has been a complex issue on the table for years. The PLB alerts go to the global SAR system; AMSA's joint rescue coordination centre. The AIS MOB go to anyone with the compatible systems within VHF range. The ideal situation is that the PLB and AIS MOB devices are integrated into one device and compliant with Australian standards, and therefore a device recognised by AMSA.

Or you could let the owners decide which is most appropriate for their circumstances.

Areas a long way from rescue assets go AIS as rescue will come from other boats not the ‘fat controllers.’

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Matt Allens' protest even valid.

"Ichi Ban arrived in Hobart with its red protest flag raised but skipper Matt Allen didn't initially indicate whether one would be lodged."

From R.R.S. 61.1 (1)

61.1 Informing the Protestee (a) The protesting boat shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,

 

(1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;

So once they are tied up next to Celestial and do not inform them of their decision to protest they have not complied with 61.1. (1). You can always withdraw a protest, but the need to inform at "first reasonable opportunity" is a rule.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the RQYS v. Active Again appeal, the chairman was Murray Jones (yep that Murray Jones) and David Tillett was a panel member.

Today, Mr Tillett is the Chairman of the Jury, wonder what Mr. Jones is doing today!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question…..why not after using the Handheld VHF to acknowledge Ichi Ban and confirm the PLB had now been turned off……CelestIal should have tried to hail IB and Quest using the installed VHF…….that would have answered at least the question

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm putting my money on RC protest stands, IB's protest invalid. Looking to be fair without changing the result again. I feel it could now all be about optics and keeping face?! I could be wrong though.

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

Question…..why not after using the Handheld VHF to acknowledge Ichi Ban and confirm the PLB had now been turned off……CelestIal should have tried to hail IB and Quest using the installed VHF…….that would have answered at least the question

Maybe the mic fell off it's caddy in the lumpy seas and wedged with mic open? Would be a reasonable excuse to think of first up. That said, no reason has been forthcoming as to what happened, from Cel's camp, that I have heard of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Is Matt Allens' protest even valid.

"Ichi Ban arrived in Hobart with its red protest flag raised but skipper Matt Allen didn't initially indicate whether one would be lodged."

From R.R.S. 61.1 (1)

61.1 Informing the Protestee (a) The protesting boat shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,

 

(1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;

So once they are tied up next to Celestial and do not inform them of their decision to protest they have not complied with 61.1. (1). You can always withdraw a protest, but the need to inform at "first reasonable opportunity" is a rule.

They were speaking to them on the radio too.

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

So in the RQYS v. Active Again appeal, the chairman was Murray Jones (yep that Murray Jones) and David Tillett was a panel member.

Today, Mr Tillett is the Chairman of the Jury, wonder what Mr. Jones is doing today!

Maybe having lunch and a beer with GRS?

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

The first thing the IJ does is decide that.  So it was.

Everyone still excited about MA protesting, forgetting that the RC did too.

In the end it is not IB/MA that decides if they breached a rule, the IJ does.

watch this video:

At 1:57 M.A. states they haven't decided what to do about the protest, while standing next to protest flag, and tied up next to protestee....

 

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

Only if you are in the habit of bullshitting you way out of trouble.

You really are the one that every village has at least one of! Maybe read it again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Is Matt Allens' protest even valid.

"Ichi Ban arrived in Hobart with its red protest flag raised but skipper Matt Allen didn't initially indicate whether one would be lodged."

From R.R.S. 61.1 (1)

61.1 Informing the Protestee (a) The protesting boat shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,

 

(1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;

So once they are tied up next to Celestial and do not inform them of their decision to protest they have not complied with 61.1. (1). You can always withdraw a protest, but the need to inform at "first reasonable opportunity" is a rule.

From the first hearing.......

 

 

Friday 31 December 2021

 

Following protests by Ichi Ban versus Celestial (including Request for Redress) and the Race Committee versus Celestial, held at the Royal Yacht Club of Tasmania this evening.

Date of incident: 27-0130 28 December, 2021

Ichi Ban v Celestial

FACTS FOUND:

1.    Ichi Ban was beyond hailing distance at the time of the incident and notified Celestial of their intention to protest at the dock immediately after clearing biosecurity.

2.    Ichi Ban displayed a red flag promptly after the incident and continued to display the flag until she finished.

CONCLUSION: Ichi Ban notified Celestial at the first reasonable opportunity. All other requirements for a valid protest were satisfied.

DECISION: Protest is valid.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sisu3360 said:

I’m drifting into insufferably pedantic territory here, but one can listen without hearing.

That really depends on how long one has been married.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, paps49 said:

FACTS FOUND:

1.    Ichi Ban was beyond hailing distance at the time of the incident and notified Celestial of their intention to protest at the dock immediately after clearing biosecurity.

2.    Ichi Ban displayed a red flag promptly after the incident and continued to display the flag until she finished.

CONCLUSION: Ichi Ban notified Celestial at the first reasonable opportunity. All other requirements for a valid protest were satisfied.

 

Ichi Ban were in radio communication with Celestial, wouldn't that have been the first opportunity. 

It does beg the question from a protest I was in 20 years ago about the relevance of that rule in some cases.  It is not as if Celestial could have taken a penalty before finishing to offset not monitoring the radio.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be very surprised if they would reverse the decision even if it’s found that they should. 
And who’s the poor bastard who has to go and take the trophy back ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, paps49 said:

1.    Ichi Ban was beyond hailing distance at the time of the incident and notified Celestial of their intention to protest at the dock immediately after clearing biosecurity.

Thats weird, why would you have to clear biosecurity to hail the boat tied up next to you, that you intend to protest them. By his own words, he has not complied with 61.1 (1)

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

Thats weird, why would you have to clear biosecurity to hail the boat tied up next to you, that you intend to protest them. By his own words, he has not complied with 61.1 (1)

Maybe Mr Haynes was rejecting the calls when he saw the incoming name?

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

Thats weird, why would you have to clear biosecurity to hail the boat tied up next to you, that you intend to protest them. By his own words, he has not complied with 61.1 (1)

And why would you give an interview to the media before clearing biosecurity? MA's video confirms that he hadn't decided whether to go through with the protest. So the FACTS FOUND don't seem to match the FACTS OBSERVED.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So while we’re waiting for the outcome can someone tell me how much these “pro” sailors make for doing a Hobart and perhaps what roles a “pro” might fill ?

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

Now I know this has been discussed here over the years, but isn't the word SHALL  advisory, and MUST is compulsory.

No, "shall" means "must". The word you're looking for is "may".

Sounds like the new evidence from Celestial was rejected by the IJ and won't be heard.

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

No, "shall" means "must". The word you're looking for is "may".

Sounds like the new evidence from Celestial was rejected by the IJ and won't be heard.

Yeah, sorry I changed my post to look for more definitive definition regards the two words, found this from the F.A.A.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may, and must."

We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory. Also, "must not" are the only words you can use to say something is prohibited. Who says so and why?

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black's Law Dictionary wrote that "In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency … which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language."

Those are some of the reasons why these documents compel us to use the word "must" when we mean "mandatory:"

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, atnan said:

No, "shall" means "must". The word you're looking for is "may".

Sounds like the new evidence from Celestial was rejected by the IJ and won't be heard.

Source?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Redreuben said:

So while we’re waiting for the outcome can someone tell me how much these “pro” sailors make for doing a Hobart and perhaps what roles a “pro” might fill ?

I'm not sure for AUS, but the ones I've been sailing with over the past two years or so are getting between $800.00 and $1,000 US per day.  That's "PRO" bow, trimmers, drivers, nav and tactician.  "PRO" switch flippers and button pushers are extra.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good point made by SH about scrutiny of one boat (Celestial) when there were many other instances. That to me is the crux of the problem here - the RRS are there to be applied fairly to all competitors and in so many cases we’ve seen them be applied selectively to gain a favourable outcome for the chosen few. Little wonder I resigned as an IJ.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Predictable outcome, placed in the 'too hard' basket. Well done to Sam and crew however. MA should be the sportsman he claims to be and not accept first position either. He's the instigator and should forfeit the Tattersal cup as the incident had no real bearing on his performance. In his own words, he said that Cel raced brilliantly right off the bat and that IB made mistakes in the 1st 24h and were trying to get back in the game. Shows just what these guys are made of, piss and vinegar.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you exactly why the don’t want to hear new evidence  

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA !

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, lahana said:

Predictable outcome, placed in the 'too hard' basket. Well done to Sam and crew however. MA should be the sportsman he claims to be and not accept first position either. He's the instigator and should forfeit the Tattersal cup as the incident had no real bearing on his performance. In his own words, he said that Cel raced brilliantly right off the bat and that IB made mistakes in the 1st 24h and were trying to get back in the game. Shows just what these guys are made of, piss and vinegar.

And check out what the crew of IB said about CEL right after they finished 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites