At our annual sailing event in 2007 we had a very strange protest - a sailor came up to me on the fourth day claiming he was not aware that he had been involved in a protest and could I tell him why he was given a DSQ. This on itself is not very strange, as many protest are done under rule 63.3(b) After studying the papers I told him what the committee had found as fact and their decision. The sailor was very surprised because he wasn't involved in the hearing. On the protest form however his boat was represented by such and so. How was this possible?
After I asked the panel chairman to join us, we quickly came to the conclusion that someone else had pretended to represent his boat. Further investigation revealed that this person wasn't even a competitor but a total bystander. There was even a witness claiming to have sailed on the same boat!
After a lot of discussion in the jury morning meeting, we decided to
ask around if we could find the culprits. No luck.
We investigated the rest of the week without success.
What do you think?
If the presence of the true representative was not unavoidable and
there was no reason to reopen on those grounds, do you think the panel should?
Or should the committee find that they may have made a mistake (RRS 66) and reopen the protest on those grounds?
Give me your opinion. We asked our national Appeal Board for the answers. I'll publish them in a couple of days.
Continued in this post