New US Sailing prescriptions.

[johnnysaint]

NEW US SAILING PRESCRIPTIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010

Prescription to rule 60:

US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, any boat may participate in the hearing provided she makes a written request before the hearing begins. When she does so, the protest committee shall act under rule 60.3(b. to consider redress for her at that hearing.

Prescription to rule 63.2:

US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, the protest committee shall make a reasonable attempt to notify all boats of the time and place of the hearing and the nature of the request or the grounds for considering redress. Before holding the hearing, the committee shall allow reasonable time for boats to make written requests to participate.

Prescription to rule 63.4:

US SAILING prescribes that when practicable:

(a) no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence at the hearing shall be a member of the protest committee; and

(b, if a boat files a request for redress based on a protest committee decision, her request for redress shall be heard by a new committee that contains no members of the original committee.

The story.........

 

[Dr_Crash]

NEW US SAILING PRESCRIPTIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010

Prescription to rule 60:

US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, any boat may participate in the hearing provided she makes a written request before the hearing begins. When she does so, the protest committee shall act under rule 60.3(b. to consider redress for her at that hearing.

Prescription to rule 63.2:

US SAILING prescribes that when redress has been requested or is to be considered, the protest committee shall make a reasonable attempt to notify all boats of the time and place of the hearing and the nature of the request or the grounds for considering redress. Before holding the hearing, the committee shall allow reasonable time for boats to make written requests to participate.

Prescription to rule 63.4:

US SAILING prescribes that when practicable:

(a) no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence at the hearing shall be a member of the protest committee; and

(b, if a boat files a request for redress based on a protest committee decision, her request for redress shall be heard by a new committee that contains no members of the original committee.

The story.........

It is interesting that the press release was not also e-mailed to the membership of U S Sailing. Racers in Australia know about it before those in the USA.

I get regular e-mails describing the weekly markdowns on items in USSA's store, but not of an important change in the RRS.

Very disappointing!

 

[Remodel]

NEW US SAILING PRESCRIPTIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010

(a) no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence at the hearing shall be a member of the protest committee; and

The story.........

WTF?

 

[johnnysaint]

NEW US SAILING PRESCRIPTIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010

(a) no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence at the hearing shall be a member of the protest committee; and

The story.........

WTF?

That one will cause problems. Any IJ (or Umpire - who usually are IJs) who witnesses an incident, can be called to give evidence, but is then excluded from the Jury.

That will require additional Judges and more expense - to be covered by higher entry fees.

 

[Brass]

NEW US SAILING PRESCRIPTIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010

(a) no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence at the hearing shall be a member of the protest committee; and

The story.........

WTF?

This is all the result of the Farrah Hall v Nancy Rios disputes, and the application in the USA of the Ted Stevens Act. Search for the several exhausting threads in SA.

 

[flatearth]

NEW US SAILING PRESCRIPTIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010

(a) no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence at the hearing shall be a member of the protest committee; and

The story.........

WTF?

This is all the result of the Farrah Hall v Nancy Rios disputes, and the application in the USA of the Ted Stevens Act. Search for the several exhausting threads in SA.

http://media.ussailing.org/US_SAILING_Media_Home/Latest_News/Protest_and_Redress_Hearing_Procedures.htm

 

[Remodel]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

 

[johnnysaint]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

Yes, if called as a witness or if you are protesting the boat as a Judge, or you are an Umpire. Brought about by the USOC and the application of the Ted Stevens Act.

That's what happens when interests outside a sport get involved.

 

[Dr_Crash]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

Yes, if called as a witness or if you are protesting the boat as a Judge, or you are an Umpire. Brought about by the USOC and the application of the Ted Stevens Act.

That's what happens when interests outside a sport get involved.

Theoretically, the Stevens Act is limited in its scope to certain regattas bearing on Olympic eligibility. A big part of the Salk arbitration was over what regattas qualify as "protected" from exposure to the act and what do not. By leaving the resolution of the issue to Gary Jobson on behalf of USSA and Farrah Hall on behalf of competitors, this question was not addressed in the settlement. It wasn't an issue in Hall v. USSA.

Generally, the plan should be to include as many events as possible in the protected status where these prescriptions would be unnecessary. They should only apply to un-"protected" regattas and therefore be inconsequential to the vast majority of racers.

As a private agreement between two private parties, I would guess that this puts no restraints whatever on a competitor's right to arbitration under the Stevens Act, so it does nothing to reduce the liabilities of OAs running regattas that someone might think belongs in the unprotected category. Acting as an OA, I would assume the Stevens Act (U S Federal Law) trumps anything in this decision. The prudent course might be for an OA to act in accordance with the USOC athlete's bill of rights and ignore the RRS, where they conflict. Faced with getting your hand slapped by the National Appeals Committee or paying huge legal fees, I'd vote for the slap on the hand.

The other alternative is to not host protected regattas and totally avoid the problems and liabilities.

 

[Hobie Anarchy]

It is interesting that the press release was not also e-mailed to the membership of U S Sailing. Racers in Australia know about it before those in the USA.

I get regular e-mails describing the weekly markdowns on items in USSA's store, but not of an important change in the RRS.

Very disappointing!

I got it the press release from US Sailing as an e-mail at 2:29 PM EDT. I get all their press releases because I opted in for it a long time ago.

It was also sent to all the US Sailing Race Officials - I got mine at 4:55 PM EDT.

I don't think it warrants an immediate notice going to the entire membership. The press release will be parroted by all the media over the next couple of months.

 

[Throatwarbler-Mangrove]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

Save me from having to look this up... can RRS 63 be changed by the NOR? If so, you have the answer to your question.

 

[johnnysaint]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

Save me from having to look this up... can RRS 63 be changed by the NOR? If so, you have the answer to your question.

Yes (I think) but it's not relevent. Are you thinking of another rule?

 

[Randall Flagg]

I got my notice in the afternoon. I think these are all good, and a step in the right direction.

 

[Dr_Crash]

It is interesting that the press release was not also e-mailed to the membership of U S Sailing. Racers in Australia know about it before those in the USA.

I get regular e-mails describing the weekly markdowns on items in USSA's store, but not of an important change in the RRS.

Very disappointing!

I got it the press release from US Sailing as an e-mail at 2:29 PM EDT. I get all their press releases because I opted in for it a long time ago.

It was also sent to all the US Sailing Race Officials - I got mine at 4:55 PM EDT.

I don't think it warrants an immediate notice going to the entire membership. The press release will be parroted by all the media over the next couple of months.

I repeat, we seem to have totally ignored the Salk arbitration! Salk won hers. Hall lost, but we put the opinions of Ms. Hall above those of Ms. Salk.

As a past organizer of a ladder event for a U S Sailing National Championship, I would appreciate as much lead time as possible to discuss the consequences of this with the Board of Directors of my club. The NOR for the event finals went out ages ago. Management by press release and through the yachting press introduces a time lag and puts a distance between U S Sailing and its already estranged membership. The members pay the salaries of the bureaucrats in Newport, not the yachting press.

God only knows how the USOC is going to react to this. Does anyone have a clue? Has anyone talked to the USOC? The whole impetus was the threat to de-certify USSA as the NGB for the sport of sailing.

 

[often speechless]

Also, many of the new requirements are prefaced by "When practical..."

 

[Brass]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

Save me from having to look this up... can RRS 63 be changed by the NOR? If so, you have the answer to your question.

No need, there is a get-out, particularly applicable for small clubs:

US SAILING prescribes that when practicable:
(a) no person who brings an incident to the attention of the protest committee or who will give evidence at the hearing shall be a member of the protest committee; and

 

[PeterHuston]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

This does not apply to small club events, only to protected competitions as defined by the USOC and the only within the US.

I have a story on how all this all went down, and ISAF President Goran Petersson and Secretary General Jerome Pels involvement behind the scenes, along with the other implications of this whole saga. Scot will post that story probably some time today.

As for the Dr. Crash - this has nothing to do with the Natalie Salk case, other than the fact that Ed Williams, who represented Natalie, was helpful to Gary Jobson in getting the Hall matter resolved. The common link is that Williams beat US Sailing's lawyer (and Olympic PRO) Charlie Cook in the Salk case, and, Cook also represented US Sailing against the USOC, at least until he lost round one and was then replaced by former USOC General Counsel Jeff Benz, who also lost to his own former employer. Tells you how much of a case US Sailing, under the direction of former President Jim Capron, and led in litigation by Charlie Cook, really had.

JohnnySaint - you seem worried about the implications of this case half a world away from the US. The implications of this case as it applies to the subject of due process for redress is something that everyone around the world should want. The way this prescription is written is the way any really good jury chair would run a redress hearing in the first place. This just eliminates the gray area.

The thing you should be far more concerned about is the way the President of ISAF and the Secretary General tried to get involved in the way a country sets up the rules as to how their Olympians get selected. If Petersson and Pels tried to do this in the US, they will try to do it anywhere else around on the world for anything they want to stick their nose in (or in the case of the conduct of SNG's sailors and Race Committee in Race 2 of the America's Cup, seemingly not getting involved in what was obvious to the whole world as a major violation of fair sailing). Stay tuned for the exact evidence in my coming article.

 

[Dr_Crash]

So, in my local club, I'm the only witness to an infraction, at say a mark rounding. We are a small club, and I am serving as a protest committee member for that series or regatta. I'm supposed to recuse myself? I appreciate the sentiment, but it's total BS as far as small clubs are concerned where there aren't enough members to make this feasible.

Good intention, but bad rule in my opinion.

This does not apply to small club events, only to protected competitions as defined by the USOC and the only within the US.

I have a story on how all this all went down, and ISAF President Goran Petersson and Secretary General Jerome Pels involvement behind the scenes, along with the other implications of this whole saga. Scot will post that story probably some time today.

As for the Dr. Crash - this has nothing to do with the Natalie Salk case, other than the fact that Ed Williams, who represented Natalie, was helpful to Gary Jobson in getting the Hall matter resolved. The common link is that Williams beat US Sailing's lawyer (and Olympic PRO) Charlie Cook in the Salk case, and, Cook also represented US Sailing against the USOC, at least until he lost round one and was then replaced by former USOC General Counsel Jeff Benz, who also lost to his own former employer. Tells you how much of a case US Sailing, under the direction of former President Jim Capron, and led in litigation by Charlie Cook, really had.

JohnnySaint - you seem worried about the implications of this case half a world away from the US. The implications of this case as it applies to the subject of due process for redress is something that everyone around the world should want. The way this prescription is written is the way any really good jury chair would run a redress hearing in the first place. This just eliminates the gray area.

The thing you should be far more concerned about is the way the President of ISAF and the Secretary General tried to get involved in the way a country sets up the rules as to how their Olympians get selected. If Petersson and Pels tried to do this in the US, they will try to do it anywhere else around on the world for anything they want to stick their nose in (or in the case of the conduct of SNG's sailors and Race Committee in Race 2 of the America's Cup, seemingly not getting involved in what was obvious to the whole world as a major violation of fair sailing). Stay tuned for the exact evidence in my coming article.

You seem much, much better informed than I, but I still don't see why the Salk arbitration doesn't apply as it seems that ladder events for USSA national championships are in the class of events to which the Stevens Act does apply. The Salk arbitrator ruled so.

As to the concerns of the international community, I wonder if the Stevens Act played any part in the rejection of the Chicago 2016 bid. The President of the IOC is a Belgian sailor and likely would have been aware of the controversy.

Eligibility issues are part and parcel of the Olympics. If I remember correctly, there was a dispute in Beijing over the age of a Chinese gymnast. (Thank you Canada and Joannie Rochette for the Vancouver Games!!!! You certainly cleansed the palate). I would guess that if the USA were ever again to become the host for the Olympic Games, that the Stevens Act would apply to eligibility issues for athletes of all nations. If so, an American arbitrater could seemingly overrule the selection committee of any member nation. I do not think that would go down well anywhere in the world, certainly not any easier than the Act is going down in the USA (it seems capable of choking a horse). Once again the Law of Unintended Consequences makes the U S Congress look foolish.

Repeal of the Act and a public humiliation by the IOC of any NGB that deals unfairly with its athletes seems a better course of action. Once again, less government intrusion in non-governmental affairs would yield better results.

 

[PeterHuston]

You seem much, much better informed than I, but I still don't see why the Salk arbitration doesn't apply as it seems that ladder events for USSA national championships are in the class of events to which the Stevens Act does apply. The Salk arbitrator ruled so.

As to the concerns of the international community, I wonder if the Stevens Act played any part in the rejection of the Chicago 2016 bid. The President of the IOC is a Belgian sailor and likely would have been aware of the controversy.

Eligibility issues are part and parcel of the Olympics. If I remember correctly, there was a dispute in Beijing over the age of a Chinese gymnast. (Thank you Canada and Joannie Rochette for the Vancouver Games!!!! You certainly cleansed the palate). I would guess that if the USA were ever again to become the host for the Olympic Games, that the Stevens Act would apply to eligibility issues for athletes of all nations. If so, an American arbitrater could seemingly overrule the selection committee of any member nation. I do not think that would go down well anywhere in the world, certainly not any easier than the Act is going down in the USA (it seems capable of choking a horse). Once again the Law of Unintended Consequences makes the U S Congress look foolish.

Repeal of the Act and a public humiliation by the IOC of any NGB that deals unfairly with its athletes seems a better course of action. Once again, less government intrusion in non-governmental affairs would yield better results.

The Salk and Hall cases are only generally similar in that there was arbitration. The issue in both cases was abuse of process by US Sailing. But the Hall case, and the USOC directive, revolves only around redress, except to the extent about judges not being both a witness and a judge, which on the very face of it is just plain common sense.

Chicago losing the 2016 Olympic bid had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Stevens Act. simply put, Chicago put together a lousy package.