The '88 race was very litigated and one of the things that attracted me to race multihulls anyway. These boats will race, and on that day I will forget about all of this. Hey, both sides want a chance to win, and if they are throwing a ton of money into it, why shouldn't they try to have all of the bases covered? In my opinion, the courts are just another playing field for this particular competition, and it's fun to watch.

Geeze JC, did you actually write that with a straight face?

How can Alinghi know what will disqualify any challenger without first a measurement certificate?

Answer - They can't.

All they can do is respond to the challenge, which includes putting together their rules in due course and handing them over to the challenger. It is the challengers RESPONSIBILITY to meet those rules. It is not the duty of the defender to ensure the challenging boat measures, they have NO control over that.

Do you think BMWO sent Alinghi an email that said "here's the full drawings of our boat, make sure it measures in your rules"? Ofcourse not, that's absurd.

If the challenger has gone ahead and built a boat before knowing the rules, then that is their bad luck. They'll need to start grinding carbon soon.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

So as soon as BMWO hands over the certificate, SNG says "sorry doesn't meet your challenge based on this set of rules we just pulled from our dirty sphincters."

Alinghi needs to put down exactly what the measuring criteria are so that it leaves no ambiguity for BMWO to show up to the line in a boat that is DSQ'd by its very existence.

While BMWO may be trying to "win the America's Cup in Court" according to SNG - the way we see it, Alinghi is trying to not even race BMWO by declaring whatever it is they put in the water as illegal.

I saw a damn good quote.

"The only people who have to fear court judgement are the guilty and the evil"

90ft x 90ft sounds simple. Now if you can change how that is to be applied at the last hour who would ever offer a challenge. A minimum time period between finalising contest rules and start of competition should be prerequisite in the rules, but apparently not. With the amount of legal wrangling already completed you would have thought agreement could have been reached ages ago. This is not yacht racing this is just power play. If it was held under ISAF juristiction surely charges of unsportsmanlike conduct and bringing the sport into disrepute would be appropriate.


Cheshirecatman

How can you be serious? The rules have now been published, USA doesn't measure. Who's fault is that? ONLY the person that designed/built the boat to a set of rules that weren't published. It certainly isn't Alinghi's fault, they are complying with all the requirements of a defender WHICH HAS PLENTY OF PRECENDENCE FROM PREVIOUS AMERICA'S CUP DEFENCES BY USA. This includes publishing NOR and SI earlier than any other defence. So do you want Alinghi to write the rules before a DoG challenge? Despite his wealth, I doubt EB can predict the future, that's essentially what you're saying he would have needed to do.

My understanding is there are plenty of yacht measurement rules that include rudders in the waterline length. To ASSUME they wouldn't be included is an oversight and mistake by BMWO. Ofcourse the court may see it differently.

Good reply from Alinghi...
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=95540

This isn't a modern yacht race, it is a competition between BILLIONAIRE egos. They'd be playing marbles with asteroids if they could afford it.

I don't think Alinghi are fearing court judgement, they're just sick of it like the rest of us.

some history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_America%27s_Cup
"
Legal Battles

On May 5th 1988 the Cup returned to the courts with Michael Fay seeking a court ruling that the catamaran was an invalid defender. The court instead ruled that the cup should be contested on the water, and any further legal action should be delayed until after the race.[1]

After the completion of the races the battle returned to the courts and on March 28th, 1989 the cup was awarded to New Zealand.[1] However an appeal court eventually reversed the ruling and San Diego retained the cup, defending it again at the 1992 America's Cup.
"

This is heading in exactly the same direction as the last DoG challenge.

It sounds simple but isn't simple. Also, the AC looks like a sailing competition but isn't. It´s about who is willing to spend more.

ncick,

Actually if you have been following this through the entire deal you know that the issue is not that they built a boat without knowing the rules, instead it is an issue of the defender writing a set of rules that are contrary to how LWL has been defined to date. Rudders have always been excluded from LWL measurement. By changing them to include rudders which have no effect upon LWL in terms of boatspeed, they have written them intentionally to either dsq BMWO or to force modifications that would seriously impare the boats abilities in terms of handling and speed. I do not know what class you sail on, but I sail both Tornados and A-cats. If I were to show up and all of a sudden niether boat measured because the rules of measurement had changed, than i would feel that they were changed to dsq myself and all other competitors in favor of the hosting club that had modified their boats prior to the regatta to make them fit the new rule. The other rule that is being manipulated is the ballast rule. In interpretation, BMWO has to wiegh in with ballast needed to have it measure in on the b-max. Alinghi does not under these rules have to wiegh in under load. ballasted under load the boat measures much closer to 115' thann the 90' LWL required.

Yes, but those rules existed before you decided to participate in that race/class. Although having said that, what is happening with all the debate about banana boards in the A-class cats...early on boats were built to exploit the old rules which were changed to ban them (tip separation rule introduced from memory). It has happened in the moths as well (dihedral foils were banned, albeit through an interpretation and clarification of existing rules).

Rudders haven't always been excluded from LWL measurement. I can point to one international keel boat class that I'm fairly familiar with that includes them. A quick look at the 12m class rules indicates they also include the rudder in waterline length. Although that is a very hard rule to interpret.

With modern rudders, yes they should be excluded because they don't offer any hull speed benefit, but that is up to the rules. A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

Back to some points I made earlier, what is Alinghi supposed to do? They can't predict the future and BMWO are very unlikely to give them all the plans for USA...

THEY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED BUT SOME JACKOFF AT ALINGHI SAID "HEY WE CAN GET BMWO DSQ'D BY BEING DICKS AND MEASURING LWL THE STUPID WAY!!!

And you wonder why BMWO as to go to court? Its the only way that they can ****ing get a playing field thats not even level - but there at all.

The last DoG race was far from level...were you as vocal about a level playing field then?

Even the courts were undecided (hah, unintended pun) in 1988 and awarded the win to NZ after the racing, only later to reverse decision on appeal...

It's a huge freakin' mess!

Let's hope the courts continue to go down the route of defender has rights according to DoG, let's decide this on the water.

hey ahhh what Todd said . . . Keel Hulled - its a book read it.

BMWO thought the rules did exist and this is one point of contention. It's an absurd situation for the defender to be able to change the rules at will completely absent of any consent on part of the defender. It makes the entire Deed meaningless. At some point, there have to be stationary rules and BMWO had figured the rules in place at the time of the challenge would BE the rules. They didn't knowingly design in a vacuum.

What has screwed all this up is a very questionable ruling by Kornreich that gave Alinghi free wheel with the rules at any time. It would be like a French soccer (football) team going to play a match in Spain to find out at suddenly that spain was playing with different rules that include a physical 5'6" height limit on the goalie...and his height was measured including his shoes. It would be just as ridiculous a situation as what we have now with Alinghi's rule.

Who should really be ashamed is the international governing body that is supposed to oversee the rules...the ISAF.

Logical answer cut the rudders off of BMWO and no crew on Alinghi now we have a race!

Would it be any different if the roles where reversed?

The rules are clear as they are and IMHO the GGYC appeal regarding the LWL rule is a complete waste of time.
They should just suck it up and change the rudders, it is the risk they took by building a boat without knowing the rules up front.

LE will probably also complain about the venue, claiming it isn't safe because of its proximity to Iran. Like Spain doesn't have any terrorists!
Or would they prefer to sail in Valencia in February?
I have seen some of the worst storms on the Spanish coast in winter, you would not want to be there with a light weight gigacat.

I don't like either of these guys but what I do admire about Ernesto is his hands-on involvement in their campaign.
Do we have any pics of LE helming DZ?, has he even been out on it?

I was 8 years old at the time. So probably not.



Yes and Yes - he was on it for the morning show interview. He also is overseeing a bizillion dollar acquisition at the moment. He's just daddy warbucks signing the checks anyways.

So, you're actually suggesting that they should have waited until last month to start design and construction of a boat for a match in February? Again, this is absurd. Also keep in mind that the final measurement rule has NOT yet been published and probably won't be until October. For any of the provisions in the Deed of Gift to be operable, there are certain givens that need to be in place; one of the big ones is the rules of the racing. The challenger is SUPPOSED to specify the type of boat for the match - but this has changed since the defender can define the measurement rule ad hoc - as per the latest outcome, now the defender defines a large portion of the boat, the rules, the venue, and by causing legal delay, the date of the match. What's left? One thing for sure, however, Alinghi has played their legal hand well to this point. If the defender can here forward affect so many terms of the match, there is no point in ever filing a challenge...none. This was not the intent of the Deed.

What has really screwed this whole thing up is the delay that Alinghi was able to accomplish in the court system. The challenger is supposed to have the advantage of a 10 month notice to the match - which is not much time. When BMWO lost that advantage, they lost all of their leverage to get Alinghi to negotiate.

one other thing too - we keep hearing Alinghi profess that "it's a shame BMWO is trying to win through the courts". However, if you take a closer look at the actions taken by BMWO, they're actually intended to make SURE a match takes place....and one that they have some chance of being competitive.

+10000000000000000000000

This has been my point all along.

Your soccer analogy is perfect.

Tony,
I do not like the state of affairs going on right now. I do not personnally know either person so for me to state that I do not like either would be wrong. I do not like the state of the AC as it stands with both fighting over each and every issue conec ted with AC33. I do though give LE credit for standing up and saying that this is wrong. was there a time when this could have been resolved, probably but that is now long past and hope of resolution. LE does have the right to contest the venue, the rules, the measurement procedures and many more issues. What every Alinghi supporter sweeps under the carpet is the simple fact that this started with a sham yacht club and a very biased protocol. This allows them to put the blame of this being in court directly upon LE's shoulders. I want to see a race between these two mammoth beasts, but I want to see it happen with RRS that are true to what ISAF publishes. As to the LWL issue, this is a manipulation to insure that the yet to be named USA would not measure in. Rudders have never been a part of the LWL issue except in the A-Class and only then when the width of the rudder exceeds a certain measurement. I have never seen this happen and do not know how that would even be applied. I know that my a-cat and my tornado measure in and the LWL does not include the rudders. The daggerboards are included in the b-max though. This is for canted boards and c-boards which first cannot exceed b-max and second are limited as to how close the tips of c-boards can come together.