|
SCUTTLEBUTT No. 799 - April 23, 2001Scuttlebutt is a digest of yacht racing news of major significance; commentary, opinions, features and dock talk . . . with a North American emphasis. Corrections, contributions, press releases and contrasting viewpoints are always welcome.
REACTION - Tom Donlan I hope sailors notice that the real point of the membership requirement is to be sure that (elite) sailors who break (drug) rules can be effectively banned from sailing right down to the local beer can race. A kid who gets high on pot during an Olympic regatta will never see the race course for the duration of his punishment. Look for the words in parentheses to be deleted as time goes on. Anyone who reads the summary of the drug rules on the ISAF web site will see that the world's athletic nannies are getting ready to ban alcohol, and the ISAF is getting ready to enforce it. (It's a PDF document, so I couldn't cut and paste here, but read article 3 A of the International Olympic Committee's anti-doping code.) We already know that ISAF would like to sink a needle into the America's Cup. It's no flight of fancy to imagine that if ISAF demands that sponsors of international professional regattas pay big bucks to ISAF for the right to use the racing rules, it will enforce its demand by threatening to ban all participants from other sailing events. Perhaps it's mere fantasy to imagine such a penalty being extended to world championships of international classes, national championships, district championships, regattas sponsored by yacht clubs that discriminate, and, of course, any sailors in events that refuse to exclude banned sailors. As Mr. Henderson suggests, if everyone isn't a member, the whole thing falls apart. I take that as an invitation. I have been a member of US Sailing for more than 25 years, because I thought I should help pay for the preparation and administration of the racing rules and the appeals process. But I don't want to help pay for Olympic sailing, the profusion of handicap systems, the classification of sailors by occupation, the encouragement of advertising, sponsorship and professionalism, or the administration of blood tests at international regattas. These are things that the participants can do for themselves, if they must. Should I still be a member of US Sailing? Should the yacht clubs and yacht racing associations continue to give discounts on entry fees to US Sailing members? - Tom Donlan, TG.Donlan@barrons.com
SWMBO
THE JUBILEE Every single America's Cup winning skipper, or helmsman if different, from 1970 onwards is expected to be in Cowes, including:
1970 - Bill Ficker - Intrepid Reaching further back, Briggs Cunningham, the winning skipper in 1958 on board Columbia and Olin Stephens who helmed Ranger for some of the last America's Cup race in 1937, will also be in present. Additionally, skippers from campaigns that were on the loosing side of several America's Cup Matches, will also be sailing Solent this summer - with Noel Robbins (Australia), Iain Murray (Kookaburra), Francesco de Angelis (Luna Rossa) and Paul Cayard (Il Moro and Young America), among those due to participate. - Excerpt from the Louis Vuitton website. Full story: http://www.louisvuittoncup.com
LETTERS TO THE CURMUDGEON * From Peter Isler: (edited to our 250-word limit) As Craig Fletcher's comments in Scuttlebutt 798 indicate, there's a lot of folks that don't understand how a boat with a ballast strut moved by the push of a button (activating a battery driven hydraulic ram) - or a water ballasted boat can be legal under the Racing Rules. Like most sailors, I was brought up with the understanding that moveable ballast and using stored energy for trimming sails etc. was a no, no - and it is for most traditional types of boats. I had to go through an education process, but thanks to the help of the late Mary Pera, Bryan Willis, Dick Rose and Dave Perry, I am now - by necessity - somewhat of an expert on this subject. Bottom line - water ballasted boats, like Volvo 60's and moveable ballast boats, like the Schock 40, are legal under the racing rules of sailing because their class rules specifically permit these systems by making changes to RRS 51 (Moving Ballast) & 52 (Manual Power). (RRS 86.1c provides for this class rule changing mechanism) This doesn't mean these types of boats are allowed to race under all handicap systems. For example, I don't think IMS permits moveable appendages outside of the vertical plane. But many handicap systems, including PHRF, make no restrictions on such systems - they place that burden on the RRS - and the various class rules. So a Schock 40 is "rated" under PHRF assuming it is using its class-permitted CBTF system. * From: Richard Kempe As an International Judge I make the following comments on the lack of eligibility requirement in the Newport to Ensenada Race. It should be remembered that the ISAF Codes were put into effect on January 1, 2001, are mandatory, and cannot be amended. Since they came into effect before the 2001-2004 rules came into effect, they thus amended the 1997-2000 rules, so using that set of "old" rules does not do away with the requirements under the eligibility code. As the USSA Prescriptions to the rules pertaining to the Eligibility Code are to the 2001-2004 rules, that is of no help. The only way out is to amend the rules (in the NOR and SI's) pertaining to ability of a competitor to protest under the code, or to prescribe in the NOR and SI's what the penalty shall be. What a mess. It would be much easier on juries if organisers applied the rules as prescribed without trying to get around what they see as the onerous provisions. CURMUDGEON'S COMMENT: It's because of administrative snafus like this that the Scuttlebutt Sailing Club was founded. Just go to our website and download a membership card. It's absolutely free, and this problem simply goes away: http://www.sailingsource.com/scuttlebutt/default.html * From Bill Leary (In response to Paul Henderson's explanation of the ISAF's new codes): Mr. Henderson did a good job in provided some of the missing pieces to the ISAF code puzzle that generated so much controversy recently. But it leaves little doubt, at least in my mind, that the code was written for professional sailors, and not the majority of us that race recreationally. I enjoy the Thursday evening race with a beer in one hand and a spinnaker sheet in the other. Our crew consists of whoever shows up at the bulkhead before the start. Many have never been on a boat before, and some of those have gone on to become good friends, avid sailors, and club members. This is one way we recruit outsiders to our sport and our yacht club. Weekend racing is more serious, but the goal is camaraderie both on our boat and with other crews through friendly competition. I'm probably considered a criminal under the new codes. Does the Budweiser in my hand violate the advertising code, the alcohol in my system violate the medical code, and allowing non-members on the boat violate the eligibility code? Perhaps we need two sets of codes. Use the new codes for "Grand Prix" events and develop a second set that makes sense for the rest. * From David White: My hat's off to Vince Brun for publicly thanking the CISA clinic instructors and organizers. Those Clinics do a fantastic job of working with the kids. I would like to add two points. (1) Susie Trotman and her people are also to be thanked for running a similar clinic at Kings Point in New York. That clinic has been run successfully for a number of years (2) Local sailing associations and clubs should copy the format, and run local one or two day clinics for the "semi-advanced" kids. Zack Leonard, Scott Icle, and others have instructed at a number of such clinics for our club in Maine - it works - the level of competition and spirit has greatly improved, and we have had a number of kids in the finals of the Sears and Bemis Cups in recent years. * From Kevin Hall: (edited to our 250-word limit) I first participated in the CISA clinic at the age of 13, as a wide-eyed, very incompetent Laser 2 helmskid. The instructors then were Dave Perry, Peter Isler, Charlie McKee, Steve and Ron Rosenberg, and some young sailors fresh out of winning the youth championships. I cannot emphasize enough what the four days did for my sailing abilities, confidence, but perhaps most importantly, my appreciation for the gift of the sport we all share. Dave had a way of keeping 75 teenagers silent, on the edge of their seats, even during a rules talk! And we all came away not only more likely to avoid having to do a 720, or to protest, but also more likely to strive to be honorable competitors. For this I am forever in his debt. I look forward to CISA every year. Tim Hogan, Robbie Haines, Peter Wells, and the CISA board have once again done an incredible job making it all come together. There is other person who deserves not just recognition, but a standing ovation: Marylee Goyan. She has been making sure kids get to and from the club, housed, fed, kept warm, sunscreen on, stern plugs and lifejackets remembered, the list goes on - since CISA clinic #1. Anyone who has seen Marylee in action knows how dear the kids all are to her, and how generous she is with her time and energy. I would not be nearly as well-traveled today as a result of sailing without all she has done. * From John Rousmaniere: Peter Johnson's Yacht Rating, which you mentioned the other day, is a superb survey of rulemakers' problems, proving that (at least in this arena) everything "new" is old again. Anybody interested in rating rules and handicapping should read it. The book is published by Fernhurst Books in England and distributed in the U.S. by Motor Books (http://www.motorbooks.com). * From Chris Mitchell. I have read and understood the various frustrations with the rating/handicap rules. Another approach might be to take a length limit and race for line (class) honours. Rules could be limited to one A4 sheet. We might limit beam and total height above and below water, and add safety requirements. For those racing at club level there are the various systems which are fine, including IMS. BUT for Grand Prix yachts these could be avoided. It would be type forming to use LOA as opposed to LWL, I suggest using LOA in 20, 30, 40, 50' bands. Obviously it is a matter of aesthetics as to whether you like long overhangs or straight stems; I have seen both done beautifully. Grand Prix teams have to fool around spending money on design to work around the rule. I think most rule-based attempts at limiting budgets have been a failure; if a team wants to look for an edge it has. Currently designers create boats that the rule thinks are slow, but it does not matter so long as the yacht is actually faster than the rule thinks it is. Wouldn't it therefore make for more progress (fun) to put Grand Prix racing in Length classes? Older Grand Prix boats will still end up club racing just like they always have and this is in fact where a lot of one design classes have sprung from over the years too. * From George Bailey: Like Kenny Robertson said, a perfect rating rule would mean that a junk rigged junk could, with the right skipper, beat a state-of-the-art racer. And how would those spending millions on their boats like that? What if big cup races like the America's Cup had rules that made it possible for my little Freedom 21 to win (on vastly corrected time, of course!). Could I generate millions in sponsorship on this possibility? How would my winning in a little old 1983 Cat-rigged boat impact the business end of this "sport?" But my potentially winning a handicap regatta when racing against vastly newer and more expensive hot-rods is exactly what a rating rule like the IRC is supposed to make possible, is it not? I am skeptical that this is what the self-appointed 'serious' side of the racing community wants in a rating rule. (I have in mind the people who in Scuttlebutt define "serious" as a function of the amount of money spent and the people who state in the latest issue of Sailing World magazine that the high point in their around-the-world race was when the other boat broke!) As to one-design only as the ultimate solution for "serious" racers: does anyone really think that any two boats of a given one design class are on average any where near equal once tricked out for racing as best the owners know how and can afford? Right. * From Janet C. Baxter: Federal Funds? To US Sailing? That is a great idea! I was chairman of the budget committee for several years and I've never even thought of that! Shame on me. US Sailing does request grants for projects like training children at summer camps or for safety research. They do get some money for Olympic Sailing from the US Olympic Committee. USOC has to fund themselves, as the US is one of the few (only?) countries in the world that does not use federal funds for Olympic Development. Their money does come partly from donations, which are tax deductible, but most of their money comes from broadcasting and sponsorship. USOC has designated US SAILING as the National Governing Body (defined by an Act of Congress) for the sport of sailing. Currently, no federal funds come from that status. * From Gregory Scott: I can't accept the simplistic comment from the the Mumm 30 US Class President. Yes One Design racing is wonderful and is experiencing halcyon days in big boats. To say it's cheap isn't true. Current popular One Design big boats aren't "cheap". Without the boat you can't take advantage of the other "savings". This approach lays to waste every boat that isn't "one design" and leaves those skippers and crew on the dock. You won't find a sailing club or region that hasn't championed some one design only to find someone breaks from the pack and buys something else. If one of these someone's hadn't bought a J24, we would all be sailing Sharks. One Design looks great right now because owners are willing to drag 24 - 40 foot boats around the world and compete in large numbers. We currently have 3-4 Farr 40s on Lake Ontario, as the Admiral's Cup committee found, that's not a regatta. * From Ken Carpenter: In 1989 I decided I would buy a J-24, I was at lunch at the St Pete Yacht Club with Tony Johnson, he told me it did not make any difference how much I paid for the boat because by the time I had it ready to go racing I would have $15,000 into it. I bought the boat for $8600 and kept track of my expenses such as fairing the bottom, sail comp, new sails, etc and when it was all said and done I had $14,983.00 into it. The beauty of a J-24 is you can still do that today!
INDUSTRY NEWS * Nautor's Swan new website http://www.nautorgroup.com is now fully operational. The new site hosts offers from people who would like to be part of a Swan, crew and where Swan Owners may request crew for their yachts. It also gives regular reports from the Swan Regattas, which can also be accessed directly through http://www.swanregattas.com. * Nikon, Inc. has become the official supplier of binoculars to the US Sailing Team through 2001. The arrangement continues a relationship that began when Nikon supplied the 2000 U.S. Olympic Sailing Team with high-tech binoculars for use during the Sydney Olympic Games. The Team will be supplied with the Nikon Fieldscope III; the Nikon 8x25 Mountaineer II binoculars; and both versions of the Nikon 7x50 Ocean Pro binoculars. * The Olympic Sailing Committee of US Sailing been provided with a Chevrolet Tahoe by General Motors. US Sailing Team Coach Skip Whyte (Bristol, R.I.) took possession of the Chevrolet Tahoe in Germany and first used the vehicle to support the U.S. sailors competing at the Princess Sofia Trophy in Mallorca, Spain, and then at Semaine Olympique Francaise in Hyeres, France.
OLYMPIC TEAM Mack and Lowry are March Team of the Month - US Sailing Team members Andy Mack (Seattle, Wash.) and Adam Lowry (San Francisco, Calif.) won all but one of their 15 races to dominate the 15-boat 49er fleet at the ABYC Olympic Classes Regatta (Long Beach, Calif.). The win not only vaulted Mack and Lowry to the top of the rankings in the class, it also earned them a nomination as USOC Team of the Month. They placed third overall in the USOC voting, behind teams from Archery and Track & Field. - Jan Harley
ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE?
QUOKKA Amid the tumble of dot.com companies filing various forms of bankruptcy in recent months have been rumors about the impending demise of Quokka Sports, the innovative sports website. Those rumors became fact this week when principals at the company's Bay Area headquarters informed their 220 employees that the ride was over. According to a story by The Industry Standard, Quokka intends to file for bankruptcy next week. Industry analysts say that the writing has been on the wall for some time. In early March, company officials announced that they were discontinuing their coverage of sailing, which came as sad news for sailors and even worse news for Quokka stockholders. As an online sports broadcaster, Quokka had its roots in sailing, first jumping on the map during the last Whitbread Race in '97-98 when the company pioneered live coverage of that 'round the world event. In the sailing arena, Quokka's editors went on to offer visually enhanced coverage of the 1998-99 single-handed race Around Alone, the 2000 Summer Olympics, and the BT Global Challenge, among other events. A final indication of the company's demise came earlier this week when Quokka executed a 50-to-1 reverse stock split to boost its stock price. Quokka currently produces two other sailing websites: one for the BT Global Challenge and one for the Volvo Ocean Race. As of early today, SailNet was unable to discover what plans are in place for the future of these two sites. - SailNet website, http://www.sailnet.com/
THE CURMUDGEON'S OBSERVATIONS |
