Ban Coach / Nannie Boats?? Already Illegal?

#81
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.
 
#83
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
 
R

Ross B

Guest
#84
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
 
#85
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
 
R

Ross B

Guest
#86
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
 
#87
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
 
#88
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.
 

Merrily

Administrator
Staff member
#89
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?
 
#91
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?
 
#93
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.
 
#94
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.
 
#95
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.
 
R

Ross B

Guest
#96
I hate to be rude, but can someone actually do more than talk, and get something done around here?
 
#99
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
 
Top