Class Politics Ban Coach / Nannie Boats?? Already Illegal?

As far as protesting support boats for providing "outside assistance" it would be REALLY hard to do, I think. Direct contact of any sort - physical or verbal - is illegal between the Prep signal and when the boat finishes, right? So, you're talking about stuff like when the coach tells his protegee' he'll always drive up the favored side of the course, or will anchor to the left or right of the windward mark to indicate which side to take going downwind . . . how the heck do you prove that?

Some kind of guideline or "directive" in the SI's or Class rules governing - i.e. limiting - the use of support boats is needed to make it possible to actually protest specific behavior. The stuff that really helps, like changes of clothes, food, drinks, advice, and towing to and from are impossible to stop without a rule. What are we going to do when Shark Kahn shows up to a Laser regatta with the 90-ft. yacht with the chef and hot tub out there supporting him. Oh, and Terry Hutchinson on retainer as coach? We'll wait a century if we want US Sailing or ISAF to write us a rule on this.

As far as the plastic pools reference in the RR's it's for one-design classes like the j's and Melges, that forbid hauling boats between races at the high level events like Key West Race Week. Guys were using plastic pool liners (with algaecide and other chemicals added to the water - where's the EPA when you need 'em) to park their boats in overnight, to prevent algae and stuff growing on the hull. Yes, in 5 days here in Florida and other warm-water venues, you get tiny little barnacles, and algae that's visible in less than 5 days.

As far as derailment goes, we're just about ready to burst into flames like the train wreck up in Cleveland today. Great pic, Chainsaw
 
The comments about swimming pools, countdown sequences and independence are relevent as analogies to describe concepts.

When talking about "an even playing field", if people cannot see the difference between using different starting sequences (where the entire fleet has exactly the same treatment) and use of relaxation/repair/recovery/etc. boats where only the few with adequate resources get the benefit - I am amazed, dumbfounded, etc.

Am I going mad or do people really not see the difference between some gaining advantage through their Mommy boats and everybody having to face the same starting sequence ??

Am I living on a different planet ?

Ian
 
Sailchris says M.B.s are not independent. I'm not convinced, especially if they have a coach on board. Identifying the level of independence is necessary to determine the agreed behaviour of the mommie boats or to lodge a protest.

I don't think you understand what the word "independent" means in this context. Yes, they are independent in the sense that they are acting independently from competitors that aren't paying for them, but they are not independent in the way the race committee is independent, i.e. acting on behalf of all competitors equally. Perhaps a better word would be impartial. Mommy boats are not impartial, so they should not be allowed to interfere during a regatta. If the organizers want to provide impartial support boats that serve some of the same functions as Mommy boats, then that's fine. Perhaps that would deal with some of the objections Mommy boat users seem to have about needing a cold drink between races, or somewhere to stash their spraytop.
 
Relevant(and tradgic) report http://www.imco.org/page0153v01news63.htm

Yet people here don't want to regulate these boats. Are you sure they are not dangerous and what if it happened to you.

Ian

From a link at the bottom of that page - it explains in better detail:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's time to move forward and plan new adventures," she said. "But I will be heartbroken if what happened that day is swept under a rug and no improved safety guidelines eventually evolve from it. Doesn't the cause of a serious accident merit investigation so the risk of it happening again can be reduced?"[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Indeed, a similar incident occurred in June involving a chase boat and a German crew sailing a Tornado catamaran.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is hard to comprehend how any sailor could be broadsided by a power boat in clear daylight," Birkenfeld wrote to Scuttlebutt, the sailing e-mail newsletter.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I'm very concerned about power boats out on the race course on sailing days," she said. "We can never reduce all the risks, but we should take steps to [do so] on race days. If there is a mistake by a power boat there's no chance for us. It's like a car hitting a pedestrian."
[/FONT]

All the story does really is highlight that dangerous mistakes can be made. But she hasn't proved anything yet and if moommy boats are to be regulated, there will need to be proof.

There is no concrete proof that using an M.B. will up your performance so much you will win everything. Look at those who use M.B.s and then look at their race results. If I go out tomorrow with an M.B. will I suddenly outsail Ben Ainslie? If I had a coach on board are you telling me he would be necessarily corrupt because he was on an M.B.? Would I do everything he suggested and how could you prove that you knew he suggest cheating to me?

There are just way too many variables and no proof. I would be against banning something based on heresay and innuendo.

So far the only easily provable advantage would be in measuring the muscle drain of saling to a course rather than being towed. Prove it - easily enough - and you can regulate that aspect. But sailing is a total sport. You can't win accolades by just being the best sailor. You must be the best person, the best sailor, the best connected, the best funded...

Gimme proof. Gimme facts.​
 
True. You have a highly competent person who is at the helm of a RIB. There are lots of sailboats (windsurfers) or whatever around so how come he causes such a horrific incident. Answer is he was not paying attention on what was happening around him as he was focusing on his student.

I would say that, were there no coach boats at the windsurfer event there would not have been such a collision. That is pretty black and white. Chainsaw - what sort of proof do you want. Do you want proof the Coach boat hit the windsurfer ? (if you do a bit of research they have already offered massive amounts of damages i.e. accepting they were in the wrong). I cannot understand what you want proven.

I'm still waiting for them to prove smoking damages your health. Actually we see this all the time - when people don't want something acted on they just demand more and more proof hoping the issue will just go away. In fact its a source of some amusement in Europe.

Ian
 
But she hasn't proved anything yet and if moommy boats are to be regulated, there will need to be proof.

She was injured. No further proof necessary. It doesn't matter whether she was hit by the Mommy boat or if she hit the Mommy boat. No matter how we choose or choose not to "regulate" Mommy boats they should never be close enough to competitors during a race to be involved in a collision.

There is no concrete proof that using an M.B. will up your performance so much you will win everything.

We don't need concrete proof of this because we are not asserting that Mommy boats will increase performance allowing you to win. We are only asserting that Mommy boats provide services to sailors who use them. The provision of these services is outside assistance.

If I go out tomorrow with an M.B. will I suddenly outsail Ben Ainslie?

I doubt it. But once again we are not asserting that Mommy boats make you a better sailor.

If I had a coach on board are you telling me he would be necessarily corrupt because he was on an M.B.?

No, he is not necessarily corrupt. But as soon as he provides any service to his sailors during a regatta, he is providing outside assistance.

Would I do everything he suggested and how could you prove that you knew he suggest cheating to me?

Irrelevant. He has provided outside information, and thus outside assistance, to you.

There are just way too many variables and no proof. I would be against banning something based on heresay and innuendo.

Assistance is provided between races. That assistance is provided to sailors unequally because the coaches are not impartial. We would like sailors to have equal access to assistance during a day on the water. One way to achieve this end is to limit the usage of coach boats.

But sailing is a total sport. You can't win accolades by just being the best sailor. You must be the best person, the best sailor, the best connected, the best funded...

Do we get to have an evening gown competition too?

Gimme proof. Gimme facts.

None needed. There are no relevant facts that are disputed.
1. Mommy boats exist.
2. Mommy boats provide various assistance to sailors.
3. The assistance is provided on the water.
4. Outside assistance is not allowed.

The only thing that remains to be decided is whether outside assistance provided between races should be proscribed by one or more of the sailing instructions, class rules, or sailing rules.
 
None needed. There are no relevant facts that are disputed.
1. Mommy boats exist.
2. Mommy boats provide various assistance to sailors.
3. The assistance is provided on the water.
4. Outside assistance is not allowed.

Add to that:

Mommy boats can be (very) bad for the health of other competitors (even when driven by highly competent and experienced people).

Ian
 
since trapeze hooks have been found to kill a couple of people, should trapezing be banned?

sailchris, I want to to work on making smoking illegal, since it is also a killer, the public need to know this
 
since trapeze hooks have been found to kill a couple of people, should trapezing be banned?

Again, you seem to have completely missed the point. For somebody who is campaigning for the Olympics (i.e. I would expect to be familiar with sailing concepts, risks, etc.) I find this quite astounding.

I really can only assume you are trying to mess up the discussion here (again).

Ian
 
yea I really hove found this to be so pointless since it will never be agreed upon that I'm just trying to sidetrack it lol
 
yea I really hove found this to be so pointless since it will never be agreed upon that I'm just trying to sidetrack it lol

Ross ,

I take exception to you and your attempts to wreck what was a good conversation.

The fact that you find it amusing to belittle people's time and effort in trying to improve the sport and the game speaks volumes as to your maturity and intellect. For someone who claims to want to improve the class and if some posts are to be believed, lead it, you seem to thrive on driving people away with your petty comments.

Please, go spread your particular brand of humor and lack of common courtesy somewhere else.

M
 
None needed. There are no relevant facts that are disputed.
1. Mommy boats exist.
2. Mommy boats provide various assistance to sailors.
3. The assistance is provided on the water.
4. Outside assistance is not allowed.

Since you won't address my questions, or i can't word them in a way you understand them, let's look at your undisputed facts:

1. M.B.s exist: agreed. Not too hard to prove.

2. M.B.s provide various assistance to sailors.

My point on this one is if you want to regulate M.B.s, you have to prove what that assistance is and what level of advantage is supplied. Without those facts, you will either fail at regulating, or regulate the wrong thing, or not be able to regulate at all. There is no factual evidence of assistance. There is anecdotal evidence mainly constructed from what people think coaches do or M.B.s supply, but that is just heresay.

3. The assistance is provided on the water.

How is this any different to another sailor reading the wind? The unsupported sailor may get it right. Coaches aren't right every time. M.B.s don't make you infalable. All the information is available to everyone on the course. Prove the advantage.

4. Outside assistence is not allowed.

Define the assistence. Prove the level of assistence is so great that is should be regulated. M.B.s exist now under the rules that allow no outside existence. How can that be? If it is true it must be proven. So prove it.

Show me the proof. You want me to accept your word simply because you offer it. I would if it pertained to your life in a casual setting - maybe a drink at the pub.... but you're asking people to accept suggestion as proof and then change their rules to suit unproven suggestion. I haven't added to my list of necessary proof. I not ducking the issues. Just prove that what you say happens, actually happens. Otherwise you won't be able to regulate anything.
 
3. The assistance is provided on the water.

How is this any different to another sailor reading the wind? The unsupported sailor may get it right. Coaches aren't right every time. M.B.s don't make you infalable. All the information is available to everyone on the course. Prove the advantage.

Wait, am I correct in understanding you to mean that you think that it's OK for a sailor to get wind reading assistance from a coach during a race?
 
Just as a coincidence, this story appeared in one of our national papers on 11 days ago:

http://tinyurl.com/2ovnwy

It's a brief glimpse into the Bruce Kendall side of the story. (ignore the emotional journalistic bias...it gets far worse in other stories)
 
Wait, am I correct in understanding you to mean that you think that it's OK for a sailor to get wind reading assistance from a coach during a race?
I approach this issue from a standpoint of upholding the existing rules. If they allow assistance now, is it legal? Should I follow the same rules?
 
Since you won't address my questions, or i can't word them in a way you understand them, let's look at your undisputed facts:

I responded to each and every one of your questions and dispensed with them. I either answered your question, or explained why it was not relevant to the discussion.

1. M.B.s exist: agreed. Not too hard to prove.

Good. At least we don't need to debate this anymore.

2. M.B.s provide various assistance to sailors.

My point on this one is if you want to regulate M.B.s, you have to prove what that assistance is and what level of advantage is supplied. Without those facts, you will either fail at regulating, or regulate the wrong thing, or not be able to regulate at all. There is no factual evidence of assistance. There is anecdotal evidence mainly constructed from what people think coaches do or M.B.s supply, but that is just heresay.

If a Mommy boat supplies a sailor with water, that is assistance. If a Mommy boat supplies a sailor with a place to store gear, that is assistance. If a Mommy boat supplies a sailor with a place to rest, that is assistance. Please try to argue that Mommy boats do not and have not supplied at least these things to sailors.

I have also personally heard Mommy boats dispensing tactical advice including such information as current at the windward mark, which is indisputably unavailable to other competitors.

This information is not "heresay" [sic]. Hearsay would be if I said that Joe Schmo told me that he saw a Mommy boat helping his sailors by leading the way to the favored side of the course. What you have here is eyewitness testimony, from me and other sailors.

3. The assistance is provided on the water.

How is this any different to another sailor reading the wind? The unsupported sailor may get it right. Coaches aren't right every time. M.B.s don't make you infalable. All the information is available to everyone on the course. Prove the advantage.

See my response to 3, above. Real-time weather reports might also be unavailable to other competitors. Advice on tactical situations might be unavailable. A drink of water might be unavailable to other competitors. It doesn't matter what it is, or whether it provides a measurable advantage, it is ASSISTANCE.

4. Outside assistence is not allowed.

Define the assistence. Prove the level of assistence is so great that is should be regulated. M.B.s exist now under the rules that allow no outside existence. How can that be? If it is true it must be proven. So prove it.

Show me the proof. You want me to accept your word simply because you offer it. I would if it pertained to your life in a casual setting - maybe a drink at the pub.... but you're asking people to accept suggestion as proof and then change their rules to suit unproven suggestion. I haven't added to my list of necessary proof. I not ducking the issues. Just prove that what you say happens, actually happens. Otherwise you won't be able to regulate anything.

Assistance is ANY contact, be it physical, verbal or whatever, between a competitor and any privately run Mommy boat (i.e. not provided by the race committee).

Mommy boats are allowed now because outside assistance is currently only regulated during racing (i.e. not before and after races). (See ISAF RRS, Rule 41). As I said before, the only thing that remains to be decided is whether outside assistance provided between races should be proscribed by one or more of the sailing instructions, class rules, or sailing rules.
 
I responded to each and every one of your questions and dispensed with them. I either answered your question, or explained why it was not relevant to the discussion.

LOL well if you say so...

The rest of your points are unproven heresay. Give me the transcripts of protest committee meetings. What goes on now is legal, because it is allowed to happen under the current rules. If you can't protest it you can't say it is illegal. If you knew how to protest it your suggestions would have factual base. Instead of taking the opportunity to investigate how you could protest it, you've decided to move on to regulation, citing that investigation of the actual nuts and bolts of your claim is "irrelevent". You've made a giant leap of process.

There have been all manner of implications in this thread ranging from opinion (completely allowable) to direct accusation and naming of names (slightly dodgy). But there is no proof of anything. It is not enough to say you think it isn't right. If you want to change the rules you need to prove it isn't right.
 
LOL well if you say so...

The rest of your points are unproven heresay.

No. Lookup hearsay. My points are based on my own observations, and as such, are not hearsay. You can try to argue that coach boats never give their sailors water, for example, but I think you would be laughed off this message board. Everyone has seen that happen. That is assistance.

Give me the transcripts of protest committee meetings. What goes on now is legal, because it is allowed to happen under the current rules.

You are correct. It is legal currently. That is the point of this discussion.

If you can't protest it you can't say it is illegal. If you knew how to protest it your suggestions would have factual base.

I know it can't be protested now. That is why we are debating making it illegal.

Instead of taking the opportunity to investigate how you could protest it, you've decided to move on to regulation, citing that investigation of the actual nuts and bolts of your claim is "irrelevent". You've made a giant leap of process.

No investigation is necessary to prove what I have seen with my own eyes. Assistance occurs. We propose a hypothetical rule that would proscribe assistance not only during races but also between races.

There have been all manner of implications in this thread ranging from opinion (completely allowable) to direct accusation and naming of names (slightly dodgy). But there is no proof of anything. It is not enough to say you think it isn't right. If you want to change the rules you need to prove it isn't right.

My position is that assistance between races should not be allowed. As the rules currently stand, if I run a regatta, I can write sailing instructions that forbid the use of coach boats. (See ISAF RRS J2.1(26) specifically providing that the sailing instructions can contain "restrictions on use of support boats...and on outside assistance provided to a boat that is not racing"). I don't have to present proof of why the coach boats should not be allowed to do this, any more than I have to present proof of why the official notice board for the regatta is located where I decide it will be located.
 
I hate to be rude, but can someone actually do more than talk, and get something done around here?
 
Just as a coincidence, this story appeared in one of our national papers on 11 days ago:

http://tinyurl.com/2ovnwy

It's a brief glimpse into the Bruce Kendall side of the story. (ignore the emotional journalistic bias...it gets far worse in other stories)
He was driving the boat. It was a power boat, there were no constraints that gave him any right of way (i.e. no narrow channel, no control issues, etc.). He could not have been looking where he was going.

Quite emotional that he is having such a problem getting over the incident and getting back into sailing - something his victim will never be able to attempt.

LOL well if you say so...

sailchris said:
I responded to each and every one of your questions and dispensed with them. I either answered your question, or explained why it was not relevant to the discussion

The rest of your points are unproven heresay.

I thought he had answered all your questions (or argued that they were not relevant. and re: Heresay - he addresses that comment as well.



Mawill - I echo your sentiment. On many forums its called Trolling and those doing it are often ..... But he/they have successfully destroyed the thread and the discussion of the subject. Shame really as I think it was an interesting and very valid subject. But there are always "spoilers" in life.

Ian
 
Mama!
 

Attachments

  • MAMA!.jpg
    MAMA!.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 55
ANY regatta organizer can ban (or strictly regulate) Mommy boats under the current rules. They do not need to prove anything to anyone to do this.
But they won't do it without proof of non-compliance or cheating or without reason. You can't change ILCA rules without same.
 
But they won't do it without proof of non-compliance or cheating or without reason.

Your statement represents an opinion. Please provide proof that they WON'T do it without proof of non-compliance, because they certainly CAN do it without any justification whatsoever.
 
Your statement represents an opinion. Please provide proof that they WON'T do it without proof of non-compliance, because they certainly CAN do it without any justification whatsoever.
LOL True, it's an opinion just like yours. Can you supply proof that every RC in the world is irrational and will ban or change rules simply because a guy rolled of the beach and asked them? No? So your opinion is your opinion, mine is mine. RC could also form a crime syndicate and etc etc etc...

The point is made. There are many other points to this issue that haven't been explored fully and should be. I'll leave those for someone else to discover before I end up clogging this thread up solely with my opinions.

and remember...don't get derailed! LOL
 
Can you supply proof that every RC in the world is irrational and will ban or change rules simply because a guy rolled of the beach and asked them? No? So your opinion is your opinion, mine is mine.

They don't need to change, circumvent, or break any rules to limit Mommy boats. I don't need to prove that every RC is "irrational," only that there is a compelling reason for limiting Mommy boats. So, let's get back to discussing whether Mommy boats are, as I have asserted, unnecessary, unfair, and unsportsmanlike; or whether they are not a problem, totally safe, and part of the game.
 
But they won't do it without proof of non-compliance or cheating or without reason. You can't change ILCA rules without same.

Links earlier in this thread showed steps that Hyers took to limit what Mommy Boats could do. They took those steps without any categoric proof of non-compliance or cheating. In fact there is no suggestion that any such (even) suspicion played any part in their decision.

Again, this issue of proof is just rubbish. Common sense can prevail.

Chainsaw, are you actually reading what others have posted or just disagreeing with the closest post to hand ?

Ian
 
If I go out tomorrow with an M.B. will I suddenly outsail Ben Ainslie? [/left]
NO!

First of all he already has a mommy boat of his own so you would only be catching up part way. A Mommie boat is a tool and like any tool, with repeated dedicated practice, the craftsman becomes better at using the tool.

Second:
Ben Ainslie could probably race 100 races against you without losing once.

Your example is incompetent.

Your debate score has just been lowered accordingly.

Next...
 
I'd love to disagree with you gov, but if I do I will be accused of having not read your post...but then if I hadn't read it, how could I be replying to you now? Oh dear, it's all just too difficult playing under heresay rules.

anyone wanting to think about this issue a little better can pop over to Sailing Anarchy where contributors are inclinded to think out some of the implications of the issue.

Best of luck with your "heresay" class, boys!
 

Back
Top