Jump to content

oracle cheating, ac45 one design modified without permission


Guest

Recommended Posts

Also from Lat 38 (I need that app on my phone)

 

Kingpostgate Slogs On

 

August 16, 2013 – San Francisco Bay

 

Some things start small and seemingly innocuous, but grow big and nasty. Just ask the ghost of Richard Nixon about his early denials of having anything to do with the little burglary at Watergate. Or Anthony Weiner about his emphatic denials about having anything to do with photos of his junk being sexted to women. Or the San Francisco Fire Department, which ever so slowly and agonizingly confessed to having twice run over the young Chinese girl who survived the Asiana plane crash, thus besmirching their reputation.

 

We'd like this whole mess of Oracle Team USA having illegally modified their AC45s and the accusations of cheating to just go away so we can get on with the Louis Vuitton Finals, the Red Bull Youth America's Cup, the America's Cup Finals and the Superyacht Regatta. But the mess and the accusations won't go away. A big reason is that Oracle's Russell Coutts, unfortunately, sounds as prevaricating as Nixon, Weiner and SFFD.

 

In today's Chronicle, Tom Fitzgerald asked Coutts why Oracle Team USA employees would take it upon themselves to break the rules, if the payoff was insignificant and the risk of punishment so great?

 

"That’s a really good question," Coutts responded.

 

As Coutts is the honcho of the OTUSA America's Cup effort, does anyone believe that he doesn't know exactly what was done to the AC45s, who did it, and why?

 

"We don't know the facts," Coutts went on to say, causing the Bullshit Detector app on our iPhone to red-line and the phone to catch fire in our hand.

 

Excuse us, Mr. I Think Everybody Else in the World Is a Brain Dead Moron, but do you really think anybody believes your responses? Or that they don't make you look like a complete idiot? But maybe that's why you have been reported to get paid more than $1 million a month.

 

Coutts told Fitzgerald that he had "a fair idea" who might have been responsible for the illegal modifications, but couldn’t identify them because of state employee-confidentiality rules.

 

A friend ran that statement through the Bullshit Detector on his Android phone, and the less expensive smartphone simply vaporized. One of the best ruses politicians use to explain why they can't give you an explanation for a simple — but devastating question — is that it breaks some phony confidentiality rule and/or gag order.

 

We still can't get our head wrapped around this whole mystery/scandal, as no explanation seems to make much sense at all, but we do know that the longer OTUSA pussyfoots around in giving a believable explanation, the worse they look and the more suspicions grow. As they say when you're caught flagrantly breaking a rule during a race, if you gotta eat sh*t, you may as well take big bites.

 

- latitude / richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a laugh......... :lol: :lol:

 

Withdraw all the boats because they all had additional weight added, at some stage, but can't remember which boats had it removed. :oops: :oops:

 

I thought Disney Land was in LA. :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

But wait...there is more

 

Oracle have protested ETNZ and Luna Rosa as per extract below

 

OTUSA claims Luna Rossa Challenge 2013 (LR) and Emirates Team New

Zealand (ETNZ) breached Protocol Article 37.2(a) ‘when team members of both

Competitors trespassed onto OTUSA owned AC45 Yachts in an attempt to gain

information about OTUSA.’

 

They must be desperate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting all of those items YY.

 

Seems that it is becoming almost impossible to maintain the "individuals acting without the knowledge of..." defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comment from the comments section

The International Jury has signaled that commercial considerations will be the guiding principal for the disposal of this matter in the short term.
That, if correct, is just wrong considering what the event is held up to be.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting comment from the comments section
The International Jury has signaled that commercial considerations will be the guiding principal for the disposal of this matter in the short term.
That, if correct, is just wrong considering what the event is held up to be.

Someone please tell me that the translation of that comment isn't: "we are ready to receive offers - what's it worth to make this unpleasant incident go away and get the focus back on the racing?".

 

Time to get a sweepstake underway perhaps? I will start the bidding with something along the lines of three low-ranked team members thrown under the bus, plus a self-imposed donation to a sailing-related charity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact the words "commercial considerations" and "guiding principle" [not -al] don't belong together in the same sentence. You have to choose one path or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alternative translation- if there's enough money in it then cheating is OK???

 

That's how I read it.

 

So if the ruling is effectively a slap with a wet tram ticket and a fine (or "donation") does that not "bring the America's Cup into disrepute"? How can a jury make a ruling that allows it to have the same or worse effect as they are ruling on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The discovery of the new modifications indicates that the alterations to the kingposts were far more complex than just stowing a bag of lead. The materials involved - and the way they were applied - suggest that the modifications had to be designed, built and installed. In other words, they clearly raise the issue of deliberate cheating within the team, planned and executed by more than one person.

 

The jury, in referring this matter directly to the second of two hearings now to be heard on Friday, NZT, indicates that. The first hearing will investigate gross misconduct by an individual or individuals. The second hearing, to be heard under Article 60 of the Cup protocol, is to do with bringing the Cup into disrepute - and is where penalties could be applied against the team."

 

more here

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11114585

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...