Australian Sailing

[LB 15]

Sunseeker posted

I have had LOSER BOY 15 (which probably stands for 15 millimeter cock) on ignore for several years. He is one of the worst trolls here.

Putting aside his sparkling wit and clever barb, If he has me on ignore, how does he know what I posted? Noting better than a pussy who screams 'i am putting you on ignore!' and then peeks to see what I have posted.

Fuck I love this place.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

I'm trying to walk away from here, but not even ditching RRS will prevent people from being banned for daring to sail as they want to sail.

The way it works is this;

RRS 89.1 requires events to be run by affiliated bodies. Whether or not they use RRS is irrelevant according to the rule. There's nothing that says that using IRPCS allows anyone to escape the ambit of 89.1.

Regulation 19.15 (d) says that any event that breaches 89.1 (ie is run by a non-affiliated body) is a "Prohibited Event". Whether or not an event uses RRS is irrelevant under this reg.

Regulation 19.14 (a) (ii) says that anyone who sails in a "Prohibited Event" may have their Competition Eligibilty revoked.

Regulation 19.2 says that "An individual who does not have Competition Eligibility....shall not compete in any competition in the sport of sailing to which the RRS or these Regulations apply in whole or in part."

19.3 says that a boat with a crew that does not have Competition Eligibility will be DSQd.

19.24 says that you can't apply to have Competition Eligibility restored for three years. Even after three years, the sailor guilty of the heinous crime of sailing in an unaffiliated event must prove that they have changed their way to get a hearing; 19.24(a).

SO - anyone who takes part in a race held by a non-affililiated body is taking part in a prohibited event, and can therefore be suspended for three years or more.

No other sport seems to have these draconian restrictions that require ALL events to be held by an affiliated body, or the contestants to be banned from ALL affiliated events for years or potentially for life.

We've probably all played football, snooker, cricket, baseball or other games in comps of one sort or another. Sailing seems to be the only sport that says that ALL comps must be run by bodies paying cash to the ruling bodies.

I bet 1000 to one that everyone on WS and AS committees and involved in these rules has played many competitions in sports and games that have not been run by affiliated bodies. In sports like football, for example, there are major non-affiliated leisure comps. But apparently what's good for all other sports is not good for sailing.

Although it's out of my area, I would say that it's likely that a court would rule against AS banning anyone for a couple of reasons (it's not worth going into more detail on SA, where lying would-be bullies are allowed to run rampant) but who wants to be dragged through court and pay legal bills just to go sailing?

But apparently letting LB15's lies go unchallenged is more important than all of this stuff. I'll try to walk away again but thought I should just point out how the banning process works.

As a bystander who doesn't race and never will, let me say that on this topic you're winning on points over LB15. You're in front by a mile. You can produce documentation and references, he's just pulling himself.

He's entertaining and all, but he's just winding you up and it's working.

FKT

 

[Curious2]

I have had LOSER BOY 15 (which probably stands for 15 millimeter cock) on ignore for several years. He is one of the worst trolls here.

Any organization with all of these rules designed to control and exclude by their very nature would be incapable of spelling fun if you spotted them the F and U.

While some say he’s a good guy, Alistar Murray is the President of your NGB and as such pressure needs to be put on him. Even though he now has some lofty title there now, best thing everyone can do is publicly boycott Ronstan.

World Sailing is toothless. They aren’t in any position to be spending time or resources chasing people who sail in some event that isn’t blessed by WS that doesn’t use the words World Championship. WS is a broke ass organization still dealing with the consequences of the move to London. The Chinese President of WS is not about to start litigation over this, and sure as shit doesn’t want to have to defend. A guy like that would never appear on the witness stand.

Why don’t you guys just be the tough cunts the world knows you to be and just tell AS to fuck off. You’ll go to sea in what is arguably the most brutal 600 mile race in the world, but you cower about some stupid words on paper written by people who have a need for control that shows their fundamental weakness.

The problem is that WS and AS aren't toothless, although it's likely that they could end up very badly bitten. All AS has to do is to write a letter to clubs and class associations giving the names of people who do non-affiliated races and that they are banned. The clubs and classes then have the option of getting into major issues with AS, or rejecting entries from those people.

For AS and WS it's simple and cheap. For the banned sailors it's going to take legal action to get the ban overthrown. I did that "most brutal 600 mile race in the world" for the first time when I was just 17 so I'm not a coward, but I don't want to drag my fellow members and my friends from other clubs and classes into the mess, and I can't afford to spend too much time away from growing my club and association.

I don't think AS and WS would have a leg to stand on. As far as I can see, they basically claim that (1) they have the right to monopolise the entire sport at all levels, although they have no legal basis from government for that; and (2) that monopoly is created because all club members have a contract to follow the WS rules.

The problem for AS and WS is (as far as I know) that they will have to convince a court or tribunal that every club member who joined a club therefore entered into a contract with another body (AS) that not only included over 350 rules in the main part of the RRS including 89.1, but also the separate 200+ pages of the Regulations.

AS and WS will have to convince the court or tribunal that the individual sailor could reasonably have realised that by joining a club, they were liable to being suspended for life for sailing in an unaffiliated race. Given that you can only find that out by leafing closely through 360 pages that aren't given to you when you join a club, and the way Australian law works, that's hard to see that courts or tribunals would accept that there was a genuine, fair contract for all members to follow all WS rules (although since I came out in a rash whenever I got involved with contract law, I'm not an expert in the area).

On top of that, the court or tribunal would probably have be convinced under Australian Consumer Law that AS/WS needed to impose the contractual condition giving it the right to control ALL sailing races and suspend anyone who sailed in an unaffiliated race, in order to reasonably protect AS/WS' "business". Given that no other sporting body seems to try to control ALL events and that AS suffers no significant losses if a small club is not affiliated, that's another high hurdle for AS/WS to leap.

The problem is not that AS and WS have a watertight case - the problem is that they can enforce their side by simply writing letters, while sailors and clubs have to head to courts or tribunals.

 

[Curious2]

As a bystander who doesn't race and never will, let me say that on this topic you're winning on points over LB15. You're in front by a mile. You can produce documentation and references, he's just pulling himself.

He's entertaining and all, but he's just winding you up and it's working.

FKT

Thanks. Yes, I do get wound up by lying would-be bullies like LB15. I spent too much of my career investigating and dealing with people like would-be bullies, liars, child molesters and murderers to have any patience with any of them.

This may be "anarchy" but it's not the year 3 playground and even a wanker like LB15 (and those who seem to be egging him on) should have grown up a little bit by now.

The final irony is that LB and his followers are trying to stick the boot into the representative of a small club who is up against the same body that they have been complaining about, yet they still act like fuckwits.

 

[duncan (the other one)]

I'm trying to walk away from here, but not even ditching RRS will prevent people from being banned for daring to sail as they want to sail.

The way it works is this;

RRS 89.1 requires events to be run by affiliated bodies. Whether or not they use RRS is irrelevant according to the rule. There's nothing that says that using IRPCS allows anyone to escape the ambit of 89.1.

I can't see how RRS 89.1 (or any part of the RRS) applies to races if you're not using the RRS.

RRS 89.1 applies because of RRS 3 - acceptance of rules.

3.1 (a) By participating or intending to participate in a race conducted
under these rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees to
accept these rules.

Don't sail under those rules? Then they don't apply.

 

[Se7en]

Is there a sailor out there who hasn't ever been involved in a "slab for whoever makes the next port first" type race? I've even turned up at the bar in a new marina on my family cruiser to be told it was my shout because we were last in - Apparently we were racing without even knowing it.

Given it is a truism that any two yachts in sight of each other are racing, then surely AS's position is nonsensical on the face of it. Seems strange that they would take such issue with one small club, you have to suspect that there is a bowman and an AS exec's daughter involved in the story somewhere.

Besides, I have at least 2 AS numbers, so if one got banned, I'd just use another one...

 

[Rambler]

I can't see how RRS 89.1 (or any part of the RRS) applies to races if you're not using the RRS.

RRS 89.1 applies because of RRS 3 - acceptance of rules.

3.1 (a) By participating or intending to participate in a race conducted
under these rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees to
accept these rules.

Don't sail under those rules? Then they don't apply.

Interesting question is what happens if you sail under only a few of those rules - say rules 10 through to 20 or there abouts. That's about five pages out of - what did someone say above - 300 odd. A trivial amount.

 

[sunseeker]

The problem is that WS and AS aren't toothless, although it's likely that they could end up very badly bitten. All AS has to do is to write a letter to clubs and class associations giving the names of people who do non-affiliated races and that they are banned. The clubs and classes then have the option of getting into major issues with AS, or rejecting entries from those people.

For AS and WS it's simple and cheap. For the banned sailors it's going to take legal action to get the ban overthrown. I did that "most brutal 600 mile race in the world" for the first time when I was just 17 so I'm not a coward, but I don't want to drag my fellow members and my friends from other clubs and classes into the mess, and I can't afford to spend too much time away from growing my club and association.

I don't think AS and WS would have a leg to stand on. As far as I can see, they basically claim that (1) they have the right to monopolise the entire sport at all levels, although they have no legal basis from government for that; and (2) that monopoly is created because all club members have a contract to follow the WS rules.

The problem for AS and WS is (as far as I know) that they will have to convince a court or tribunal that every club member who joined a club therefore entered into a contract with another body (AS) that not only included over 350 rules in the main part of the RRS including 89.1, but also the separate 200+ pages of the Regulations.

AS and WS will have to convince the court or tribunal that the individual sailor could reasonably have realised that by joining a club, they were liable to being suspended for life for sailing in an unaffiliated race. Given that you can only find that out by leafing closely through 360 pages that aren't given to you when you join a club, and the way Australian law works, that's hard to see that courts or tribunals would accept that there was a genuine, fair contract for all members to follow all WS rules (although since I came out in a rash whenever I got involved with contract law, I'm not an expert in the area).

On top of that, the court or tribunal would probably have be convinced under Australian Consumer Law that AS/WS needed to impose the contractual condition giving it the right to control ALL sailing races and suspend anyone who sailed in an unaffiliated race, in order to reasonably protect AS/WS' "business". Given that no other sporting body seems to try to control ALL events and that AS suffers no significant losses if a small club is not affiliated, that's another high hurdle for AS/WS to leap.

The problem is not that AS and WS have a watertight case - the problem is that they can enforce their side by simply writing letters, while sailors and clubs have to head to courts or tribunals.

I don’t disagree with you.

What would it cost in legal bills to get this rule overturned? Though I know nothing about Aussie law, and don’t know what the cause of action would be, or jurisdiction. Just wondering if there is a legal way to challenge this, and if so, the cost.

IYRU/USYRU used to be about providing enabling infrastructure for the sport. WS/USSailing are about taxing and regulating the sport.

 

[Curious2]

I can't see how RRS 89.1 (or any part of the RRS) applies to races if you're not using the RRS.

RRS 89.1 applies because of RRS 3 - acceptance of rules.

3.1 (a) By participating or intending to participate in a race conducted
under these rules, each competitor and boat owner agrees to
accept these rules.

Don't sail under those rules? Then they don't apply.

One problem is, Duncan, that even if the unaffiliated Little Puddle Cruising Yacht Club raced under IRPCS rather than RRS, if the club is not affiliated it's a "Prohibited Event" and anyone who races in it can be suspended.

WS Regulation 19.20 classes a ‘Prohibited Event’ as any race that "(d) that does not conform to the requirements of RRS 89.1 and is not otherwise approved by World Sailing".

A race run by an unaffiliated club is therefore classed as a "Prohibited Event' even if it doesn't use the RRS. Anyone from an affiliated club, or anyone from LPCYC who races at their own club, has therefore raced in a 'prohibited event' despite the fact that the LPCYC races don't use RRS.

WS Regulation 19.19 (which I may have mistakenly referred to as 19.14 earlier) states that a sailor's Competition Eligibility "may be suspended or revoked: (a) by a National Authority (for events within its own jurisdiction) or by World Sailing......(ii) for competing, within the preceding two years, in an event that the competitor knew or should reasonably have known was a Prohibited Event".

So if LPCYC runs a race under the IRPCS or anything else, it's defined as a "Prohibited Event" by Reg 19.20 and therefore anyone who sails in the race can be suspended. WS also adds the helpful note that Rule 69 can be used in addition to the suspension power, and that even if the sailors didn't actually know it was a "prohibited event" they can still be banned.

Just to add a further sting, under Reg 19.23 a banned competitor has to wait a three-year ban, then apply to the World Sailing Judicial Board to be allowed to play the game again, and then show "substantial, changed circumstances" justifying the lifting of the ban.

So LPCYC can run races under IRPCS, but basically anyone who enters any such race can be banned from any affiliated race for three years (and then they have to apply for re-admission).

In the case of my club, there's some evidence that AS committed (or claimed to have committed) a major breach of its own Code and of the basics of natural justice, which is an interesting side issue. But to me the major point is that AS and WS effectively claim an effective absolute monopoly of the sport at all levels, which no other sporting body seems to do.

The other thing is that AS and WS claim they get this control because when people become club members they allegedly contract to follow a few dozen words in 360 pages of rules that they don't get given when they sign up. I really can't see that one flying in court or a tribunal.

 

[Curious2]

I don’t disagree with you.

What would it cost in legal bills to get this rule overturned? Though I know nothing about Aussie law, and don’t know what the cause of action would be, or jurisdiction. Just wondering if there is a legal way to challenge this, and if so, the cost.

IYRU/USYRU used to be about providing enabling infrastructure for the sport. WS/USSailing are about taxing and regulating the sport.

I have some ideas, on the legal, political and PR side. But as someone who is an obedient AS member (although my main club isn't affiliated I join other clubs to race major events) and who is soon to get a club affiliated, I am shocked, shocked to find anyone thinking of anything like that.

 

[Rantifarian]

If my local sea kayaking group organises a race and allows sails to be used, would that be a prohibited event?

 

[duncan (the other one)]

One problem is, Duncan, that even if the unaffiliated Little Puddle Cruising Yacht Club raced under IRPCS rather than RRS, if the club is not affiliated it's a "Prohibited Event" and anyone who races in it can be suspended.

WS Regulation 19.20 classes a ‘Prohibited Event’ as any race

The wording is "A ‘Prohibited Event’ means an event"

WS Definitions for 'Event' list the following:
Event, Class; Event, Graded; Events, International; Events, World Sailing; Events, Major; Events, National; Events, Recognized

25.8.12 has some more words as to what things like 'major' and 'recognized' events mean. None of these match a description of PCYC running their own shindig, so I would therefore argue their little on-water exercise is not an 'event' as defined by WS.

To take the contrary view (that they're using the general definition of 'event'), would mean they are also regulating all other activities which fall under the dictionary definition of 'event', be they sailing or otherwise.

Are WS policing the local cribbage club social events, too? Clearly not.

Its a pity that (anon) regional club didn't have the resources to tell AS to go fuck themselves, use the IRPCS and ask where exactly in the regs their race fell under one of the above definitions of 'event'.

 

[Curious2]

If my local sea kayaking group organises a race and allows sails to be used, would that be a prohibited event?

Probably; they've prohibited events that race with kites and boards, and they claim to be the world governing body for all sailing.

Loading…

www.sailing.org

The wording is "A ‘Prohibited Event’ means an event"

WS Definitions for 'Event' list the following:
Event, Class; Event, Graded; Events, International; Events, World Sailing; Events, Major; Events, National; Events, Recognized

25.8.12 has some more words as to what things like 'major' and 'recognized' events mean. None of these match a description of PCYC running their own shindig, so I would therefore argue their little on-water exercise is not an 'event' as defined by WS.

To take the contrary view (that they're using the general definition of 'event'), would mean they are also regulating all other activities which fall under the dictionary definition of 'event', be they sailing or otherwise.

Are WS policing the local cribbage club social events, too? Clearly not.

Its a pity that (anon) regional club didn't have the resources to tell AS to go fuck themselves, use the IRPCS and ask where exactly in the regs their race fell under one of the above definitions of 'event'.

I get the point and thanks for the input, but (as in the kiteboard race linked to above) WS clearly reckon that races are among those things called "events", and AS clearly does too in the case of the anon club.

The point has been backed up in an appeals case, here;

Loading…

www.rfev.es

It was a similar case, where an unaffiliated club ran a local race. The appeals body found;

"Rule 75.1 requires a person who enters a boat in a race to be either a member of a World Sailing member national authority or of a club or other organization affiliated to such a national authority. Also, if a boat is entered by a club or organization, that club or organization is required to be affiliated to such a national authority. Rule 75.2 requires competitors to comply with World Sailing Regulation 19, Eligibility Code. Regulation 19.20(d) states that an event that does not comply with rule 89.1 is a ‘Prohibited Event’. When A entered the race organized by the unaffiliated club, she, perhaps unwittingly, participated in a Prohibited Event, as defined in Regulation 19.20. Competing in such an event could have serious consequences for a competitor’s eligibility to compete in other events (see Regulation 19.19(a)(ii))."

I wish you were right, but I think AS and WS come to the same conclusion as the appeals body in the case above.
"

 

[duncan (the other one)]

Probably; they've prohibited events that race with kites and boards, and they claim to be the world governing body for all sailing.

Loading…

www.sailing.org

I get the point and thanks for the input, but (as in the kiteboard race linked to above) WS clearly reckon that races are among those things called "events", and AS clearly does too in the case of the anon club.

The point has been backed up in an appeals case, here;

Loading…

www.rfev.es

It was a similar case, where an unaffiliated club ran a local race. The appeals body found;

"Rule 75.1 requires a person who enters a boat in a race to be either a member of a World Sailing member national authority or of a club or other organization affiliated to such a national authority. Also, if a boat is entered by a club or organization, that club or organization is required to be affiliated to such a national authority. Rule 75.2 requires competitors to comply with World Sailing Regulation 19, Eligibility Code. Regulation 19.20(d) states that an event that does not comply with rule 89.1 is a ‘Prohibited Event’. When A entered the race organized by the unaffiliated club, she, perhaps unwittingly, participated in a Prohibited Event, as defined in Regulation 19.20. Competing in such an event could have serious consequences for a competitor’s eligibility to compete in other events (see Regulation 19.19(a)(ii))."

I wish you were right, but I think AS and WS come to the same conclusion as the appeals body in the case above.
"

right - but the case you cited specifically says
Rule 89.1 specifies the types of organizations that are authorized to be the organizing authority for races governed by The Racing Rules of Sailing.

.. and it came about due to someone wanting to appeal a protest to the MNA, of which the OA was not a member.

Toss out the RRS, and I think you're ok.

The IFKO/WS battle is intriguing -- sounds like the IOC went in to bat for WS and screwed over IFKO ?

 

[trt131]

A few here are suggesting racing not using RRS but using IRPCS instead. That is laughable, you cannot physically run a race using these rules. There is No way to start a race, no way to overtake, no way to round a mark under those rules. If someone broke a IRPCS during your race how can you adjudicate on this, do you take the boats to the Marine Courts, do you get a Marine Law barrister to make your case. Its just not practical to use IRPCS instead of the proven RRS.

The Pittwater Club mentioned earlier in the thread also had a problem in that if a boat had a collision and received damage during one of thier non-sanctioned races, one of the larger insurance companies would not look at a claim from the boat.

 

[Curious2]

That is the issue with IRPCS. They are designed to keep vessels well away from each other, not to work with boats at close quarters. And if you look at the actual judgments, there's a huge emphasis on doing things like slowing down to "seamanlike speed" to stay well away from other boats.

It would be great in some ways if Dunc's approach worked, but as you say it's got issues.

I don't see how the insurer at the Pittwater club allegedly got away with not paying and I'd like to know more. It's very well settled law that skippers enter into a contract to obey the rules when they enter the race, and has been since 1897. Why does the fact that the use of the RRS may be unofficial change anything? The fact that there may be a copyright breach is irrelevant as far as I know. There could very well be a clause in the individual insurer's contract that meant it didn't have to pay out for unaffiliated races, but that's different.

One very interesting thing, though, is that the unaffilliated Pittwater club still has one of the biggest fleets in the country. It made enough, inadvertently, to buy a rescue boat to give to the nearby dinghy club. It's probably doing more for sailing in that area than AS does.

 

[Livia]

Having looked closely at this issue recently for a major club it is just an insurance issue to race under something other than the RRS
To further confuse matters the major marine insurer I insure 3 different boat with has 3 different policy wordings about racing
One says cover if World Sailing affiliated event
One says cover if any set of rules approved by the applicable marine permit
One says racing under col regs and no spinnakers
Read your policy carefully

Lucky I did because all policies had an new exclusion for third party liability property and personal injuries if vessel under command of a paid delivery skipper
Delivery crew need own cover now

 

[duncan (the other one)]

IPRCS is just a straw man, let's assume there's some other set of rules for the sake of discussion, please.

btw - pittwater club in question now states races are under RRS. AS still avoiding the conflict, preferring to strong-man smaller less well resourced clubs?

 

[Livia]

A few years ago a few of us sat down and wrote a set of rules reflecting the col regs
Essentially the rrs reflect the col regs except for 2 rules that is starting and mark rounding
Except for boy racer fuckwits normal col regs can work
Remember the purpose of the col regs is to keep boats apart not to gain some tactical advantage
Protests where really easy
Contact means both boats are dsq
Harsh but fair one for failing to give way and the other for failing to avoid the collision
The purpose of the rules was to prevent damage with boats travelling at different soeeds not to allow tactical advantage.
Rrs deals with issue very poorly really and this is usually to most common issue in big mixed fleet pursuit type racing

You want to sail one design go race under the rrs
You want to safely sail in a mixed fleet we need a better system
Have a look at a recent AS appeal
30 footer a 50 footer and a 65 footer at a mark rounding in a Wednesday afternoon fun race
Seriously
And TRT do some miles as a master of a commercial vessel and you might see that the col regs work pretty well

 

[LB 15]

I see the pichfork waving lunatics have their ignorance of the IRPCS on display for all to see. Curious the 2nd clearly has never been curious enough to ever read them. RQ Wags race ran for decades under the Col regs. Although the rules do not speak to going around corners, rules12 and 13 cover every conceivable situation. It certainly gets the fleet to approach the top mark on starboard.

There is clearly a lot more to Curious's tale than he is telling, regardless it is a serious over reach by AS. They do not own the sport of sailing, and as long as they continue to not recognize the end user of their decisions (the sailors) as members (and thus stakeholders) they can not be taken seriously.
But they can be put in their place as they learnt the hard way by taking on the commercial sail training industry 20 years ago. The situation was exactly the same to what they are claiming in sail racing in that letter.
We owners of commercial sail training schools were happily delivering the old AYF TL4 and TL6 schemes when a couple of bright sparks at AYF came up with a new model for sailing schools. They stole an outdoor education sylbus from the the 4wd industry and told us that this is what we would teach from now on. They also created YATL (Yachting Australia training limited) and their idea was that any student who wanted to learn to sail (our customer) would have to sign up with YATL and then the school would be appointed as their trainer. We the schools told them they were never getting hold of our customers contact details and they could bash it up their arses. And then the letters flew, threats that we would be banned from training, threats that we would be sued, and i was personally threatened with legal action for speaking the truth about what they were up to. I removed as an Offshore examier and was dragged into a 'disciplinary' hearing at QYA were they threatened me with a rule 69.
As I recall my lawyer ripped them a new one at the meeting. So we said fuck you, I contacted my old mates at the RYA and we brought them out here to accredit schools and within 4 months AYF were out of the Adult yacht training game. To this day we have nothing to do with them and life is great. This was a long, expensive and mentally taxing fight, but we had our livelihoods on the line.

For the curious's and sunseekers (he dosen't even live in this country FFS) to be suggesting taking legal action shows just how naive they are. You will need to 'goad' AS into taking action as implied in their letter and for the person or persons banned to then sue them. If you want to really fuck with them, get a Pro banned and then it becomes a restraint of trade issue.
But who is ponying up with the money for this legal battle? Who has a lazy couple of hundred grand and the time to be fucked, simply to prove a point.
I will tell you one thing for free - bitching about them on SA ain't going to change a thing.
All those people who were involved in the YATL fuck up are long gone from AS (and in the case of one arsehole is thankfully dead), but this mindset of 'owning' sailing remains. And that is why so many of us sold our race boats and walked away from the sport. Its up to you kids now...wait. There are no kids in the sport.