Unless you can PROVE theft or vandalism on shore or deliberate attacks on the water, I figure that whatever happens to you is your own fault.

<**** with the rules, sail exchanges, etc etc to get the desired outcome was disgusting.



No, I think the USOC knows that the US Olympic was cheating.... has been cheating and has reputation for trying to manipulate the game to get the results that US Olympic has wanted. Cat sailors have been going to USOC for redress for the BS Olympic selection process for at least TWO cycles. How many of the trials could be argued were won or lost in the protest room (Tornado's, Boards, 470's). It's absurd and this is USOC's attempt to fix the problem with a process.
I also think that, since we pretty much all know each other, some of the things said in the closed hearings would be self-censored.

My agreement with Mark is in regards to his position on rendering assistance.

As for the redress debate that is contained within this thread, I think we have all seen were redress was abused and where evidence was not allowed that would or could have made a direct impact to the redress awarded.

The redress system is broken and needs to be addressed this is the first step in that process... IMO.

This is really taking off...

Let's back up a bit regarding redress for assistance. While redress for assisting others is a "nice-to-have" (and as Pat said, most people don't even ask for it), we generally do this without question.

To Mary's point, the "undress" is covered right at the beginning of the RRS, Rule 1.1:

"A boat or competitor shall give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger."

This is for ALL races, not just distance races. Although, it is probably even more critical (not more important) in a distance race due to the nature of where you are, with no one else around, etc.

"Shall" means "must" and anyone who knowingly sails by someone needing help without rendering (or at least offering) assistance, should be protested, and can expect to be brought up for unsportsmanlike conduct, and perhaps a Rule 69 hearing. This would inclde a monohull helping a cat, and vice-versa.

Mark is right, whether or not there are mark boats on the course, has no bearing on this. Very often, other cats are better able to assist people in the water than the mark boats (and operators).

Mary is on the right path, generally speaking, redress is NOT an easy thing to get. RRS 62.1 lists the only times this is even considered, and I can tell you that most juries really beat up on the "through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse" part of the rule.

However, giving help is typically generously rewarded to avoid the type of concern Mark has above (his example of monohulls not wanting to help cats).

Now, having said all of that, when has anyone seen anyone actually break this rule?

As for the USOC stuff, a good number of certified judges are also competitive sailors. One of the requirements for USSA Judge certification states "Be an active sailor (not necessarily an active racer." Maybe that will get tightened up as a result of this?

I don't know the particulars of the case in question (as I'm sure most others here do not), but I'd be shocked if the judges used for an Olympic Trials were anything less than highly experienced and qualified. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, just hard to believe.

Mike

To Dave's last points, this is why we need to be using certified, and qualified (experienced) judges, especially for high-level events. I don't see too much of that at cat events, except for Hobie NAs (and Madcatter).

And, since we have to use people to do this, we're at the mercy of people getting it wrong sometimes. There are appeals procedures for this.

Obviously, the system can probably never be perfect, and like any court case, you can only make 50% of the participants happy...

Mike

Mike just nailed the solution... Qualified judges for our branch of the sport.

He's absolutely correct... one of the NA's I attended... did not even have a judge on call... much less on the water.

One of the outcomes of cat sailors running their own little regatta world is that we have not joined our regional sailing associations. No problem if we also bothered about getting judges trained up. But we haven't done that either.

It's always the same old rant... Why should I join CBYRA (my RSA) .... what do they do for me.

Well, The RSA is usually the group that takes on getting judges trained, assigning judges to an event, training RC PRO's. etc etc. They manage the appeals process up through USSA. All of these details that are important... when they are important.

Think about it... When was the last major event that you attend where they introduced the judge for the event.

The PRO, the Chief Judge, and the OA regatta chair are the three essential people that make an event Fabulous on the water, Fair through and through, and Fun on the beach.

If we settle for half assed solutions We will get what we deserve. Adding more process to a system that we do not abide by now seems silly.

It will not solve your redress issue, your OCS issue, your damaged sail and want an exchange issue.

Joh, Do you think that the PC should hear the entire fleets points of view on the imnpact of giving XXX redress on the OCS call that was made? How about a fleet vote on my damaged sail.... and on and on and on.

It's a corinthian sport. If you have an issue with a cheater... file a 69 and deal with it.

Hi Mark - you keep morphing my point into something it isn't. For your example of OCS, the rest of the fleet isn't brought into the room because you have both sides of the issue already represented - competitor says "it wasn't me" and the line-spotter says "yes it was," or "I'm not sure." Decision rendered, and reopening extremely unlikely. In the Hall v. Rios issue, the committee heard one side only. Perfectly legitimate under the current rules, but almost guarantees a reopening request from the side not heard. I don't necessarily accept that judges aren't qualified - I do feel that they're a little bit hamstrung. If Hall had been in the room instead of the shower, would we have seen this protracted, expensive, still-not-over circus?

Regarding your red herring; You want me to 69 every cat guy that's full of crap? I like the white hat, but I'm not out to ruin anyone's fun. There is absolutely no fun anywhere in a 69 hearing, and the un-fun spills out all over the place. You put all the interested parties in the room and I guarantee some of the specious stuff will fall away. I know for a fact that some people have said things in the room that they would never have said if they had to look their friends in the eye when they said it.

I really don't know what to say.....

LOLZ! Thanks, Jerry - I needed a laugh. Lesson learned.

Hi JW,

I agree with your frustration over this, but unfortunately, I do believe that even if both parties were in the room, there's an excellent chance that the Ringling Bros would still be involved. There's simply too much at stake, and neither one of the competitors involved (or their coaches, etc.) would likely have been willing to back off without exhausting all possible roads to China. Obviously, we'll never know...

I do agree with you that a potential "flaw" in the system is that until the decision is made, the other sailors aren't a party, and won't be invited to the protest. I don't know of a good way to fix that, it would be tough for the jury to identify (and deal with) all potential parties who may file for redress as soon as the results of the first hearing are posted.

Mike

post the hearing and allow others to come. Have the typical (but not closed) hearing but before it's complete allow other parties to briefly state that they want to be heard and why they should be permitted to. Jury is allowed a brief opportunity to deliberate and decide if the parties wishing to be heard should be heard (some guidelines here would be nice to have in writing). After brief deliberation, interested parties are heard or not heard, jury deliberates and comes back with a ruling.

Only parties that can contribute to the eventual facts found should be able to comment.

We need a better chance to have a just decision before the trophies are handed out.

I dunno, Mike - I think that you can get to a resolution if you "nip it in the bud." Would the "fact found" have happened if there had been someone to present the other side? You don't need to poll the whole fleet. Rios' case was, "the tear slowed me down." Nobody was there to say, "no it didn't." So you get a potentially flawed "fact" that cannot be challenged. If it had been an open hearing, would someone else have said something?

It's all a big can of worms.

The problem is, if the jury truly wasn't capable of understanding the impact of that sail damage to the speed of the boat, who are they going to ask (assuming they would even admit that to themselves)? They can't ask the person who is most interested in the outcome, she has a vested interest in the redress being squashed.

So, you're back to the USOC point, make sure there are people on the jury that know what they're doing. I'm not going to say that wasn't the case, because I wasn't there, but opening these hearings to input from the competition "probably" isn't going to solve this.

EDIT: What we need is a "sail-off" provision for this sort of thing. No one wins outright in the room. You go back on the water and match race until there's a clear winner. Well, we can dream, right?

Mike

Jake said "Parties" 4 times.
This is why there should be no protets. Fix it on the water.
We should be at "Parties"

You could still be there all night - redress after redress.

Mike and Mark,
If you guys want to brain f#%* this to death like the rest of your rules threads, how about defining "in danger" is it 1)a dismasted boat off of cape canaveral,2) a flipped cat with 2 people swimming around it, on a 1/4 mile W/L course in a river or 3) 3 drunk fat bastards on a Hobie 16 in a lake. All those people are in danger, they were in danger when they left their house and got on a boat, the only one I'd be concerned about is #1(been there),Id keep an eye on # 2 and I'd stay faraway from #3. This was what I was talking about in my post. If there is a safety(I never said mark boat,Mark)boat on scene with a flipped boat I'm not going to jump in the way and render assistance.
So you 2 have at it define "in danger" and be careful what you say or you might lose your sailing priveleges 'cause it's just too dangerous.
Todd

Todd,

Why is a definition of "In Danger" required? Or are you just trying to bust Mike and Mark's balls?

If someone is down it's typically not a contolled event and if I'm in the area I'm going to check in on them. Anything can happen during a capsize, and if I could have helped and chose not to I'm not sure I could live with that.

For the record, the three drunk fat guys will probably need your help the most. Just because they are fat and drunk doesn't mean we don't give them assistance.

At the end of the day it's just a boat race.

What David said, times 1000...

Todd, obviously you don't know me, and you've completely missed my point. I only referenced the rules because people were looking to find ways to punish people for ignoring those that need help. I can't believe that anyone would actually do that.

Mark may be interested in playing your little game and defining danger, but personally, I think anyone who leaves someone in the water should be shot.

Hopefully, that clears things up for you.

Jake, with my plan, there is no redress after redress. If you can convince the jury that you deserve redress, fix the boat, then have a sail-off (sort of like a hockey shoot-out)...

Mike

What Dave said!

It's a bright line and you want all racers to recognize it.
Redress is given when fate says it falls to you to stop racing and do your duty to check out the flipped boat. As Mike says... He is liberal with the use of redress because he wants to support this standard.

The notion that the fleet will now sit in on a formal hearing and worse stand up and offer testimony that the redress requested is not warranted seems to me a nightmare.

Even worse, I can see how it will undermine the bright line standard we have now.

Try this one.
I asked for redress for my assistance. I was in 5th place at the time and request a finish of 5th.

Competitor 2. Yes he offered assistance but the race had 5 legs to go and he would never have held his position. He should be given actual time he stood by or a finish position at least 5 boats further back.

Judge to competitor. how much time?... Answer.. 2 minutes
Judge to PRO. subtract two minutes from his elapsed time.
PRO to Judge. Ugh... we don't record elapsed times for a One Design race. Judge... well we have a problem here, tommorow please record elapsed times for all one design boats.

Judge, OK, how about his average finish position for the series.

Competitor 3 rises from the crowd, If you award him average points, it will effect the trophy positions. I think he should be awarded 5th place or 10 place or give him the two minutes but don't effect the overall standings with your arbitrary decision and on and on and on and on and on.

The next time you have to tack and check out a flipped boat... the possibility exists that you will have second thoughts and that this is just not right.

I am much happier with the judge taking a stand that safety will always trump racing and then making his best call on the amount of redress awarded is the best that he can do. The impact on the fleet is secondary.

Mike ,
Your right ,I don't know you, nor you me, and yeah I may have missed your point,it happens on the interweb.
So Ding from now on you'll be seen beside EVERY flipped boat that is sailing on the same course(why even the same course)same regatta(no that won't work either)same body of water as you. Your not gonna finish many races.I don't recall you checking on us when we flipped on the flats at Steeple,right next to you, a few years ago.My guess is you were laughing to hard.
I always look, and if there's no apparent boat damage and the skipper and crew are moving around, I race on.If they're over an extraordinate amount of time I check on them.
As anyone who has ever sailed with me will attest,I'm usually over the top when it comes to worrying about my fellow competitors.I have gotten re-dress in 2 Tybees and one Worrell and detoured or stopped numerous other times without worrying about the time.I have seen boats sail by people I would consider in trouble,I stopped.I'm not advocating selfishness,but you have to draw the line somewhere. Cats flip that's part of the game.As posted earlier, if anyone is not up to the task and is depending on someone to help them out,that just seems to open things to more litigation and BS.What happens when someone uses that kinda BS to have a competitor disqualified so they can move up a spot.
Maybe I made my point clearer this time.
Todd