Dave, you're only with Mark because you got stuck in a protracted thing where one of the parties should have known better and refused to withdraw. Instead, the other one did after it became obvious the situation sucked. Imagine (Lennon, anyone?) if the Corinthian was back in racing.

Mark - I think the claim that the small tear in the sail cost a position-per-inch was absurd and would have been laughed at out loud if there had been other board sailors "in the room" when evidence was given. I also think that the "proof" there wasn't five knots at the second the race started at Hampton Beach would have been laughed at. In both cases, one side got to have a closed hearing wherein their testimony led to a "fact found." Once the fact-found is done, the other side gets a chance to reopen the hearing, but the see-saw is waaaay tilted to the previous "facts." Those facts weren't challenged before they were established, but should have been. USOC's recommendation is to short-circuit the absurd appeals process by getting interested parties in the room for the first inning - that, IMO, makes it much more likely that better "facts" are found and that the process will take less time. 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.