That is interesting, in my view each one of these teams would do whatever they could to gain an advantage. In this case OR happens to get the bad press.

In my motorsports past, many would say that rules were created to be bent. They would also say that if you were not bending the rules as much as possible, you weren't winning.

Here's the only thing I think anyone can believe at this point:

The jury will have the last word. Until someone takes it to court.

The more things change...

Even if there is no intentional foul play on any side (which is actually conceivable), the differences of opinion, fueled by the egos and wealth at this level, put the playground dispute on a different plane.

Mike

They all agreed when they signed the protocol that going to court means automatic DSQ for that challenger.

True - but that clause doesn't always hold up in the US legal system.

Today's time trials cancelled due to high winds.

I don't wanna race, I wanna protest!

More here.

and here.

Really?

Coutts answers directly with the media

This gets better by the minute.
[i][b]"spoilt rich kids dressed in Prada gear."[/b][/i]

Damn Jake, I almost smacked my screen to kill that bug (thAT ended up being your new avatar)

The following two paragraphs are quoted from an "America's Cup on SFGate" article by Tom FitzGerald:

Murray, who is employed by all the teams, acting in a partnership, insisted he isn’t going to resign. “I don’t like to leave things unfinished,”

If the jury agrees with New Zealand and Luna Rossa, Murray said he’ll go back to the Coast Guard, which issued a racing permit this week, and say he doesn’t think the racing would be safe. In that case, the Coast Guard would almost certainly withdraw its permit. “Without a permit to race on San Francisco Bay, there will be no regatta,” Murray said.

Clearly, we're not being told the whole story. Something is driving Iain Murray to act irrationally. One moment, he insists he's acting fairly to benefit all the competitors. Another he threatens to shut the whole event down if he doesn't get his way.

Apparently, Murray is utterly convinced that larger rudder elevators with adjustable rake are necessary safety features required for an AC72 to sail. Yet, he has also said (regarding Luna Rossa's threat not to race) "It's been indicated to them that the boats are in measurement trim, are ready to race and can race". How is it possible for the boats to be both measured-in and also unsafe?

Max Sirena has taken a not-unreasonable position, saying he wants to know what the rules will be before he starts racing. After all, how can you compete if you don't know whether or not the boats are legal?

Murray has responded with personal attacks on the teams, disavowal of responsibility, and more rule change proposals, as shown in the following four quotes:

"Now, however," he said, New Zealand and Luna Rossa “want to cherry-pick the parts that don’t suit them out of it.” (also many diatribes against Grant Dalton that I haven't quoted)

"The jury are part of the International Sailing Federation, not the America's Cup," Murray said. "They make their own rules and they make their own schedule. (This is clearly untrue - The America's Cup is not run under the Racing Rules of Sailing and is not under ISAF's control in any way. The AC Jury is employed by the Americas Cup organizer, just like Murray).

"It's been suggested that I direct a lot of people," Murray said today. "But I can be clear, that I don't direct anyone." (If the Regatta Director doesn't direct anyone, what does he do?)

Murray said that under the current rules a team must complete the course to get their point, but hinted that their had been discussions with the teams about changing that rule. (How can one fix a disagreement about changing rules by changing rules?)

I think I understand how larger elevators and deeper rudders might help a boat recover from a foiling nosedive. To that extent I agree that they are an important factor in boat architecture. That tradeoff, however, is the responsibility of the individual design teams, not the Regatta Director. Iain Murray has taken a giant leap of hubris by insisting that he must step in to correct the competitors' designs.

And finally, something is fishy with Team Oracle's behavior. They might not be directly influencing Murray's actions, but Coutts and Spithill sure are lining right up behind Murray - including making misleading statements about safety vs. performance and issuing personal attacks on the other competitors.

Surely, something is going on behind the scenes.

more editorial noise

"Here we have some of the wealthiest people on Earth, yet for all of their fortunes and alleged smarts, they can't get their act together any better than us nonwealthy schlubs trying to organize an RV family vacation to Pismo Beach."

I'm bringing 8 people who have never sailed a day in the lives to the AC finals. Friends and family who I've been peppering with youtube videos of insane machines that fly over the water on curtains of fine mist.

My current crewmember is a friend who got hooked on the sport when he ran across the ACWS in Venice. Thats a direct benefit of the Americas Cup to the sport of sailing.

Take it back to slow, boring, unexciting monohulls and you lose the people that are getting into the sport because of the spectacle.

Furthermore, I don't really see how Oracle is "Cheating" here. They've said that they are ready to race no matter what the jury decides.

Ok, I'll backpedal here. "Cheating" was too harsh a word. I don't accuse Oracle of cheating, but I used the term to oppose the notion that Oracle would be right to win "by hook or by crook". The ends don't justify the means.

Of all the video interviews I've seen, I'm most impressed with Tom Slingsby's. He didn't pedal any PR story; he didn't badmouth any other teams - he just said (in paraphrase) 'here is our current elevator, here is a big one for the proposed rule change, and here is an asymmetric one. We'll use whatever elevators the jury decides'. Tom showed real class in that video.

John Kostecki, when asked about the adjustable rudder rake, explained how the system worked, but sidestepped a reply to the question of whether it was a performance or safety control. At least he had the grace not to pitch the corporate line.

I have the utmost admiration for Jimmy Spithill's talent, but I'm disappointed with his assertion that adjusting rudder rake between races is "definitely needed for safety". Clearly, it isn't. Oracle could set the rake on shore for the highest expected wind speed that day and be every bit as safe. The boat just wouldn't be quite as fast early on when the winds are lighter. Therefore, it's a performance control. Jimmy is selling the PR story.

Again, I have great respect for Russell Coutts' ability, but am saddened by his descent into name-calling. It doesn't help his team nor the sport to make personal attacks on the other teams.

Spithill and Coutts appear to be aligning Team Oracle up squarely behind Iain Murray. Certainly they have supported his claims and his actions - despite how outlandish his statements have become. That makes me distrust Oracle's motives, and possibly suspect their involvement. Certainly, Oracle is the principle beneficiary of Murray's subversion of the rules.

I'm going to watch the racing - most definitely - despite these antics.

Regards,
Eric

Luna Rossa confirms they will not compete on Sunday

Where are the keys to the shed... I'll take the ****ing boat out for them if they don't want to race.

Assh0les.



How did Iain come to be regatta director? Was he appointed by GGYC - or was he agreed upon by all the participants? I believe its the latter.

Why does everyone seem to think that there's some kind of conspiracy between Oracle and Murray? Murray is saying "we need to change the class rule to get clearance from the coast guard." Great. If that doesn't happen, then the event doesn't happen because the CG won't sign off of the event.

Oracle wants the event to happen. ETWankerZ and Spoiled Rotten Toddlers don't apparently.

I think ETNZ are on the same page as Oracle now, they will race no matter what the jury decides.
For them to boycott a race could also be bad publicity for their sponsors.

If they are going to race how do you watch it? Can't find anything on the TV schedule.

Luna Rossa simply wants to know what the rules will be before they start racing. I don't think that's unreasonable. Consider this: if ETNZ and LR sail with their existing rudders and the Jury sides with Murray, will both teams be disqualified for equipment violations?


According to what Iain Murray says, all teams agreed to his appointment as Regatta Director and he is working for the benefit of every team. According to what Iain Murray does, he is certainly not acting fairly for all. When words and action disagree, believe action.


I haven't seen any direct evidence of a premeditated conspiracy. Murray has, however, unilaterally mandated a rule change that favors Oracle. It was done in the name of "safety", but is really a performance tweak. People suspect collusion because Oracle publicly sides 100% with Murray against the other teams. At the very least, Oracle has condoned a subversion of the rules simply because the change benefits them.


Murray has said if the Jury does not accept every single one of his rule changes, then instead of filing an amended permit request with the differences, he will go back to the Coast Guard and ask them to revoke the permit. He's not just saying he'll take his bat and ball and go home - Murray is threating to close the ballpark.

So, Luna Rossa says they want to race but need to know the rules before they begin. Murray says if he doesn't get his way, he'll shut down the America's Cup Regatta entirely. Which one is acting childishly?

If the RC/ Race director decides to change something that benefits you, why would you argue. Anyone would support it, or at the least, not comment.

You have twisted what Murray stated as to what would happen if the rules weren't agreed to in the end( which they originally had been). He said he would inform the Coast Guard that the "safety rules" that had originally been agreed to now are being argued, which would negate the permit as it had been issued.Result being the CG would rescind the permit, that's just obeying the law. A considerable difference to asking them to revoke it. If the terms don't meet the permit a new one would have to be issued (or not) under the new terms.