| Australia. Volvo Ocean Race jury decision not to look at Ericsson evidence causes furore |
|
|
|
|
; "Photo from ABN AMRO video")
| Friday, 10 February 2006 | |
|
BYM Melbourne: The International Sailing Jury’s decision not to even open the evidence in Team Ericsson’s appeal against its recall in the Volvo Ocean Race in port event has created a furore, not just in Melbourne, but in sailing circles worldwide. At the start of the in port race in Melbourne, on Saturday 4 February, Ericsson was recalled by the Race Committee for a premature start and had to sail back to the starting line in order to re-cross it. From that moment on, debate raged on the waterfront and then spread worldwide. An overwhelming majority believed that Ericsson had not crossed the line ahead of the start and should not have been recalled. The Ericcson crew fought its way back from the rear of the pack and ended up fighting finishing fourth, behind ABN Amro One, Pirates of the Caribbean and movistar, less than two minutes behind the victor. Whilst ABN AMRO Two, the other boat recalled that day got it’s “about turn” orders seconds in to the race, it was about 1 minute before Ericsson heard a recall order, which meant that when Ericsson did begin racing it was about 2.5 minutes behind the leader, Brasil 1. Clearly, there is a strong possibility that, but for the recall, Ericsson would have won the race. On February 6, the Ericsson Racing Team said it had strong reasons to believe that there was confusion on the Race Committee boat, which resulted in Ericsson being erroneously recalled and the team had, therefore, decided to submit a claim for redress to the International Jury. An Ericsson spokesperson said "There was confusion on the race committee boat, which resulted in Ericsson being erroneously recalled. The return to the start clearly affected Ericsson's finishing position in this race; hence the team's decision to submit a claim for redress to the international jury." Starter, Ross Wilson, denied that there had been confusion, saying that he had made no mistake and that it was clear in his mind and from his audio tape that there were two boats over, prematurely, ABN AMRO Two and Ericsson. He described Brasil 1 as “dead in the water”, with Ericsson out in front underneath Brasil. That is not the perception of a majority of those who were there, not does it appear to be the case in the above still picture from an ABN AMRO video and it certainly does not fit the transcript of the footage filmed on the Race Committee Boat at the moment of the start, released by Ericsson: Peter Moor: “I called Brazil. You didn’t call Brazil?” Race Officer: “Um” Peter Moor: “You did not call Brazil?” Race Office: “No” Peter Moor (presumably over the radio): “JT…JT…..apparently there was only one boat called over” Race Officer: “Two boats” Peter Moor: “Two boats who were they?...I called Brazil” Peter Moor (over the radio): “I called Brasil” Ericsson says the video, accompanying that audio dialogue, between the Race Officer and a Volvo Ocean Race official, clearly shows that the person who called the line and was standing at the mast, only called Brasil 1 (and did not mention Ericsson). The statement adds “It is the Race Officer, who was (wrongly) standing in front of the mast, who called ABN Amro Two and Ericsson.” So, why wasn’t Ericsson’s evidence even opened? We are told it was because the international jury, chaired by New Zealander Jack Lloyd, found that Ericsson did not raise a red flag and waited too long – until 2200 Sunday local time – to claim redress. Thus not meeting the requirements of the regulations, Appendix Q5.1 which states: “A boat intending to request redress because of circumstances that arise before she finishes or retires shall clearly display a red flag as soon as possible after she becomes aware of those circumstances, but not later than two minutes after finishing or retiring.” “She shall keep the flag displayed until she has informed the umpires after finishing or retiring.” However, 9.23 Requests for redress appears to provide for the very situation that Ericsson found itself in, saying: ”The time limit must be extended when there is an acceptable reason for the request having been received outside that time limit.” ”Requests for redress are often received outside the protest period and a decision as to whether the time delay was reasonable (for example, after the posting of provisional results) has to be made.” ”When the protest is accepted as valid, the protest committee should then proceed to take evidence from the representative of the boat requesting redress, his witnesses if any, the race committee and its witnesses, and any witnesses the jury decides to call.” ”Questioning by the jury may be necessary to ascertain whether the request satisfies the requirements of rule 62, namely whether the boat's finishing position (either in the race in question, or in the series as a whole) has been significantly worsened by: an improper action or omission of the race committee; mistiming or incorrect signals; improper notification of changes to the Sis; incorrect scoring; incorrect identification; missing or drifting marks. Concerning the red protest flag, Ericsson skipper, Neal McDonald said “It is true that we didn’t hoist our red flag, but we had no objective reason to do so. It was only after the end of the race that we found out that there was confusion on the Race Committee boat and that we thought it was legitimate to request a redress.” So why did Ericsson take so long to request a redress, once it had heard that there was confusion? Richard Slater, who advises on rules and hosts the official Volvo Ocean Race Notice Board on the Slater Consulting pty ltd website, told the jury that the footage from the committee boat was available on Saturday night when it was transmitted to TV networks. It was also made available to all the teams as a package at 1500 on Sunday. Ericsson says “In order to use this footage as evidence in its request for redress, the team had to officially obtain permission from the Race Committee. However, and despite numerous attempts, it was not possible to reach the Race Committee and get the necessary approval until Sunday afternoon. The team issued a request for redress on Sunday at 08.00pm, after having acquired the conviction that there was solid ground for a request for redress.” When Neal McDonald presented Ericsson’s case to the jury, he alleged that starter Ross Wilson had confused Ericsson with Brasil 1. The consensus, in real and virtual places where yotties gather, is that McDonald was right and an overwhelming majority of VOR followers say that the jury should have used its powers, under 9.23 , and examined Ericsson’s evidence. If you would like to join in the debate, try Sailing Anarchy - VOR See race pictures in the Ericsson Photo Album Click on Last Additions to view most recent pictures. |
|
| Last Updated ( Friday, 10 February 2006 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|