Australian Sailing

Curious

Anarchist
798
383
Dear oh dear. You may as well have signed that post with your real name. The plot thickens... 

You must be feeling warm and safe hiding behind your little sock spreading lies and innuendo and making threats against a persons livelihood?  You are morally bankrupt as well.
What hypocrisy.  You spend hour after hour slinging shit and hate around here, much of it at RQYS, and then you whine and throw a tanty when people ask questions.

I made no threats. You on the other hand throw slurs and insults all the time but complain when any return fire comes your way.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
Still no one will answer the simple question about whether the non-competitor was involved in the abuse of the same club’s officials and volunteers, and if so, why a club should cater for them 
There is a process.  That doesn't involve unsubstantiated allegations.  That process hasn't been followed.  If someone thinks there has been actionable conduct - take the appropriate action and if the complaint is upheld, there is justification for excluding the person responsible for the conduct.

Without a complaint, and a process that upholds the complaint, the exclusion is unjustifiable.  

What's so hard?

 

stufishing

Member
395
19
Brisbane
What Recidivist said

Perhaps the "competitor" was actually excluded for complaining about the RQ restaurant on FaceBook or Tripadvisor. @Curious,Why are you so convinced it was for "abusing a volunteer"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
As I understand it, the OA is the club running the event - SA is never an OA cos they don't run anything, so RQ must be the OA - for running state/nat champs, the club only needs for the event to be sanctioned (allowed) by SA.  I could of course be wrong.
I don't know for sure, and certainly no-one at AS is interested in clarifying, but in my view a host club cannot bestow on itself the power to be OA other than for it's own events.  The legal principle is that one cannot clothe oneself with authority - authority must be granted/bestowed by someone above who holds that authority.

A host club can be appointed by a class association that invites the host club to conduct a state/national/world championship on behalf of the class association, but in reality, the class association remains the OA. 

But for IRC there is no class association.  In AUS, IRC is "owned" by AS, so I expect they would be the OA for any IRC events above club racing level.  As you say, they don't run any events, so they presumably delegate the OA functions to the host club - in this case RQ.

I strongly suspect that neither AS nor RQ have the faintest idea what I'm talking about, and there are no understood roles of governance - which is why we have this shitfight.

 
I don't know for sure, and certainly no-one at AS is interested in clarifying, but in my view a host club cannot bestow on itself the power to be OA other than for it's own events.  The legal principle is that one cannot clothe oneself with authority - authority must be granted/bestowed by someone above who holds that authority.

A host club can be appointed by a class association that invites the host club to conduct a state/national/world championship on behalf of the class association, but in reality, the class association remains the OA. 

But for IRC there is no class association.  In AUS, IRC is "owned" by AS, so I expect they would be the OA for any IRC events above club racing level.  As you say, they don't run any events, so they presumably delegate the OA functions to the host club - in this case RQ.

I strongly suspect that neither AS nor RQ have the faintest idea what I'm talking about, and there are no understood roles of governance - which is why we have this shitfight.
You're over thinking it - any club can say, we propose to run a regatta next year, and call it the state/nat whatever champs - if it's IRC then AS must approve. Either way, the OA is the club issuing the NOR - it could be ORCV, CYCA, SYC or RQ

It may be more complicated than that, but as far as OA goes, I'll stand corrected

 

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
You're over thinking it - any club can say, we propose to run a regatta next year, and call it the state/nat whatever champs - if it's IRC then AS must approve. Either way, the OA is the club issuing the NOR - it could be ORCV, CYCA, SYC or RQ

It may be more complicated than that, but as far as OA goes, I'll stand corrected
I think we are both happy to be corrected - but no-one is stepping up to do the correction!

Edit:  I now see you are in Victoria - you have my sympathies!  But there are (used to be anyway) some good, sensible people at YV or whatever it's called these days - perhaps you might have some success in getting enlightenment from them as to how they see the OA stuff.

Cheers

 
Last edited by a moderator:

stufishing

Member
395
19
Brisbane
Because the competitor did it repeatedly here on SA. 
So surely if the club decided to exclude someone based on some posts on an internet forum, then that information should form part of the evidence against said person in the hearing to decide whether there is a right to exclude? Or do we actually have a situation where it perfectly acceptable for a club to exclude a competitor from a regatta based on compromising rule 69.xxx because they complained the beer was hot at the briefing?

 

Curious

Anarchist
798
383
There is a process.  That doesn't involve unsubstantiated allegations.  That process hasn't been followed.  If someone thinks there has been actionable conduct - take the appropriate action and if the complaint is upheld, there is justification for excluding the person responsible for the conduct.

Without a complaint, and a process that upholds the complaint, the exclusion is unjustifiable.  

What's so hard?
1-  What process is there that deals with someone making unsportsmanlike comments outside of competition?

2- if a club’s decision to ban you from club racing initially is the issue, then deal with that.  Do not do what the club tells you NOT to do and then complain when they take action because you chose to break their rules ? 

 

Livia

Super Anarchist
3,951
1,018
Southern Ocean
But isn’t the point that there is no requirement or right to have a hearing.

An untested allegation is enough and not subject to review.

At least that is the position of the angevin kings at Australian Sailing which we don’t get to vote for so can’t change.

Clever point to make.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Curious

Anarchist
798
383
I have no dog - i'm in victoria where it's usually too fucking cold to run regattas.  Anyway, don't know who or what CC is, and I don't pretend to answer for LB. But you are the one demanding answers, thus my retort
I think there were calls for open discussions and answers from AS and RQ in the other thread and the FP piece. The point is that If they have to give answers, then so should the other side. 

 

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
But isn’t the point that there is no requirement or right to have a hearing.

An untested allegation is enough and not subject to review.

At least that is the position of the angevin kings at Australian Sailing which we don’t get to vote for so can’t change.

Clever point to make.
And, while wandering well outside their remit (considering the articles of Constitution of RQ, for example), the PC decided that the exclusion was neither arbitrary or capricious, being content to take the allegations at face value without those allegations ever having been tested!  This is the very definition of a Kangaroo Court. 

One can almost forgive  RQ for holding that view - they are but simpleton Queenslanders living in the past Bjelke Petersen Days - "Don't you worry about that!".  But I think we have a right to expect better of IJs - I am very disappointed that the Jury didn't bring a little more intellectual rigour to the matter.

And this started because someone wanted to go on a fun sail with a mate - you've got to be fucking kidding me!  Oh well, RQ will probably get what they seem to desire - a total absence of masts within their marina - it's been on the program for yonks.

 

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
I think there were calls for open discussions and answers from AS and RQ in the other thread and the FP piece. The point is that If they have to give answers, then so should the other side. 
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you seem pretty partisan in this matter.  I note that you aren't prepared to state your interest, but could you explain why you think the "other side" is obliged to provide explanations when RQ and AS don't appear willing to do the same?  Perhaps you are in a position to influence one of those parties to address the issues raised in this thread.

Please remember that, if proper process shows that the allegations are substantiated, your campaign for blood will be satisfied ... let's get on with the process!

 
Top