What happened with the old unwritten rule that made our sport a gentleman sport: protest or keep your mouth shut. When you chat: he breached a rule (Ericsson 3 fouled us) and you do not lodge a protest or withdraw a protest, the other party cannot be cleared by an independent group of competent persons (the jury). This action of Richard Slater must be disapproved. He is the man to blame. Unsportsmanlike behavior can be under discussion. When someone really wants to win on the water: he must not spread the rumor: he did wrong.And I like the principle: when there is no written protest (anymore), there is no protest. Journalists, annalists, and so called competent observers must keep that in mind. They must not stir up the case. That is not good for the sport.
I forgot to mention the reason of my comment: Jos, I agree.
It should be remembered that whilst a competitor may request to withdraw a protest that has been lodged the Jury is under no obligation to accept this request. In this case the Jury acceptedIf there had been damage to either boat, or if the protested boat had gained a significant advantage I would expect the Jury to have refused the request to withdraw.Gordon
Jos,The first three posts in this topic all seem to be about the VOR Protes Withdrawl topichttp://rrsstudy.blogspot.com/2009/01/three-protest-in-vor-2008-2009-2.htmlBrass
@Brass;Yes, you are right. Because I had a double post on Wednesday the commentators used the second comments button.I am unable to change the position of the comments - unless I type them again...