Wednesday, 13 August 2008

Olympic Protest | 3

With all due respect for the expertise of the International Jury at the Olympic event, I think an opportunity is missed.

On the web site a list of protest is published as it would appear on any notice board at any event. We get information about who is protesting whom, the time of the hearing, witnesses if any etc. etc. When the hearing is conducted a little more appears; a conclusion, the rules involved and a decision. Even the names of the judges in the panel. 

You can read the complete list at : Protest Decisions

So far we can glean a little about what is happening. But no information is published about why or about what. The actual facts found are not provided. We have to "speculate" about the situation.

As an example: Protest #30:

Event:  Finn - Open Race: 7
Protestor: CAN
Protestee: NOR
Protest details: RRS18.2(a)

Facts found:

Conclusion: NOR failed to give room as an outside boat and broke RRS 2
Rule(s) applicable: RRS 18.2(a), RRS 14, RRS 63.3(b), RRS 2
Decision: CAN protest upheld. NOR to be scored DNE in race number 7 (RRS 18.2(a), RRS 2)
Short decision: NOR DNE in race 7 (RRS 18.2(a) and 2)

Jury: Jan Stage – Chairman, Quanhai Li, Ana Maria Sanchez, John Doerr, Zofia Truchanowicz,
(from the ISAF Website)

"Rule 18.3(a)" & "Failed to give room as outside boat" means it is about a incident at a mark. RRS 63.3(b) means NOR or CAN did not come to the hearing and it was conducted in his absence. I'm guessing NOR.
But what about RRS 14? Nothing in the conclusion about 14. Did CAN break it, but was not punished because there was no damage? Or did he not?

And then there's rule 2. NOR broke RRS 2. How? Why? What happened?
He was penalized with a Disqualification (other than DGM) not excludable under rule 89.3(b)! What did he do?

All the more intriguing is the rule 69 hearing scheduled against NOR as Protest # 33, with CAN and IRL as witnesses. Separate incident or still tied to this mark rounding?


It would be very nice and also educational to learn a bit more about the Olympic protests. If the protest details from the protestor are published, or at least the facts found by the Jury we could better understand what is happening. Protest are an normal part of the sport of sailing as much as what happens on the water. Everybody writes about who does what on the water and we get video's and analysis from every news gatherer.

I think it is a missed opportunity that not the same free flow of information is applied to the protest and hearings in Qingdao.

What do you think?


  1. I definitely agree. I would have thought they would want the public to know all the facts, not half of them and speculate and guess the rest. That's how rumours get started

  2. I do also agree. But our comments on this blog serves no useful purpose. So Jos, feel supported to do something. As an IJ and IU and with your international (ISAF) contacts you know the way for an effective action. The jury over there has sufficient manpower. Call chairman John. Tell him what you did during Sneekweek. They can complete the decisions already made and do a better job with the coming protests. Rules maniacs all over the world will be grateful.

  3. A change!
    In the title of the protest detail page additional information is now appearing. Because it's only one line the information in incomplete.

    I've written an E-mail to John Doerr about this. Perhaps he can help. (good suggestion Adriaan)

  4. I agree with your views about the protest information coming from the Olympic Games. More information would be helpful to all of us.Thanks for the interest.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...