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.
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.
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.
Apparently an equally likely scenario. I once complained that the beer was warm - I might be banned for life! Seems they don't think they have to give you any right of reply ...
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
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 we are both happy to be corrected - but no-one is stepping up to do the correction!
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?
1- What process is there that deals with someone making unsportsmanlike comments outside of competition?
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.
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.
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.
