This all stemmed from one of the women's windsurfing championships in the US where one of the 1st or 2nd place women was hit on the start line just before the last race. She stayed on her board but later claimed that a tear in her sail caused her to finish poorly. The woman that won that race and claimed (a short lived) victory for taking the US Olympic seat was informed, while taking her shower, that a file for redress had been heard which put her 2nd giving the the win and the berth to the woman that was hit on the start line.

Later, there was a lot of evidence provided that questioned the validity of the redress claim - the tear in the sail wasn't nearly as large as the fact found, photographic evidence seemed to show that the lost time claimed wasn't factual, etc.

The debate is that her career was significantly affected by a hearing to which she wasn't allowed to be a party. at the '05 NAF18 NA's (yes, I'm still sore) an entire race was thrown out in a closed hearing where only those lodging the complaint were allowed. It really had a big affect on the outcome of the event for EVERYONE (would have kept us in the overall top 10) and I really felt that it was strange that such an important decision that affected everyone was closed to all but those who stood to gain.

As far as having athletes on the jury, I have mixed emotions. It does add some expertise but it will most certainly be problematic to fulfill that obligation - though we have had some good ones and managed to pull it off, finding a qualified jury is tough ... now we have to find a sailor that's registered as an athlete, not competing in the event, and interested in giving up a week of sailing time to sit around most of the week waiting for something to happen (since jury's are so bored during that week anyway )