Volvo Ocean Race- Jury finds two Race Committee errors in Camper case
by Sail-World on 22 Apr 2012
The International Jury has found that there were two omissions by the Race Committee for the Volvo Ocean Race, but that Emirates Team NZ was not entitled to redress, as she could not have carried a sail that she did not own at the start of Leg 4.
Camper trails Telefonica by 93 seconds Volvo Ocean Race, Leg 4 Finish © Richard Gladwell www.richardgladwell.com
The Jury decision comes following a hearing and decision issued on 21 April in Itajai, Brazil, over the use of a square top storm jib by overall race leader, Telefonica, who beat Camper into Auckland by just 93 seconds.
The full Jury Decision is as follows:
Volvo Ocean Race 2011-2012 Case #8: Camper Request for Redress
1 Facts Found
1.1 Prior to 18th February representatives of Telefonica asked questions to the Race Director and Chief Measurer regarding the number of storm jibs that could be carried. They were answered that the NoR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried.
1.2 The answers given were not posted to the electronic notice board.
1.3 Telefonica sailed leg 4 with 10 sails including 1 pin-head Storm Jib, 1 square-head Storm Jib (and no Staysail).
1.4 Camper sailed leg 4 with 10 sails including 1 pin-head Storm Jib and 1 Staysail (and no square-head Storm Jib).
1.5 Some other boats elected to sail leg 4 with 10 sails including 1 square-head Storm Jib and 1 Staysail (and no pin-head Storm Jib).
1.6 Camper did not possess a square-head Storm Jib at the time of leg 4.
1.7 Telefonica finished leg 4 in third place 1 minute 33 seconds ahead of Camper.
1.8 The Jury protested Telefonica for an alleged breach of NoR 5.2.2(b) during leg 4. This protest was dismissed for the reasons given in Volvo Ocean Race 2011-2012 Case #5.
2.1 The failure to post the answers given to Telefonica on the electronic notice board was an omission of the Race Committee.
2.2 The failure of the Race Committee to identify and resolve the inconsistency in application of NoR 5.2.2(b) until after the conclusion of leg 4 was an omission of the Race Committee.
2.3 These omissions would entitle Camper to redress if they caused her score to be made significantly worse through no fault of her own.
2.4 The evidence presented highlighted the effectiveness of the square-head Storm Jib. It did not substantiate the claim that the outcome of leg 4 was decided by Telefonica not carrying a Staysail and carrying a pin-head Storm Jib in addition to a square-head Storm Jib.
2.5 The omissions by the Race Committee did not prevent Camper or any other boat from carrying a square-head Storm Jib in leg 4.
2.6 The Jury is therefore not satisfied that the omissions by the Race Committee made Camper’s finishing score in leg 4 significantly worse.
3.1 Request denied
Decision given Itajai, 18.08pm, Saturday 21st April
International Jury: Bernard Bonneau (FRA), Chris Atkins (GBR), Ricardo Lobato (BRA), John Mac Call (ARG), Flavio
Naveira (ARG), Peter Shrubb (BER).
If you want to link to this article then please use this URL: www.sail-world.com/96354