Scuttlebutt Website SCUTTLEBUTT
SAILING NEWS
ForumIndex CLASSIFIED ADS Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG IN         

Forum Index: .: Dock Talk:
America's Cup dialogue...NOT
Team McLube

 



The Publisher
*****


Sep 14, 2008, 10:04 AM

Post #1 of 5 (8136 views)
Shortcut
America's Cup dialogue...NOT Log-In to Post/Reply

WILL THE FLY ON THE WALL PLEASE STEP FORWARD
There has been so much “he said/she said” that has transpired between the American BMW Oracle Racing (BOR) team and the Alinghi team ever since the Swiss defended the America’s Cup in July 2007, and it has sadly taken the event down the corridors of courtrooms, left its workforce in dry dock, and frustrated its many unfailing fans. Unless the fly on the wall steps forward, we are forced to navigate through each team’s side of the story, with only a few documents to discern facts – most notably the Protocol intended for the next event, which started all this fuss.

While Scuttlebutt would prefer to steer clear of each team’s rhetoric, we will provide here a recent point-counterpoint for the most avid Cup followers. This exchange began with a recent interview with Swiss team leader Ernesto Bertarelli who made a compelling case for why they are being so wronged. The BOR team followed this interview with a statement to address the claims made by Bertarelli that in their view needed correction. Both items can be read on the Valencia Sailing website:

Bertarelli: http://valenciasailing.blogspot.com/2008/09/erensto-bertarelli-talks-about-americas.html
BOR: http://valenciasailing.blogspot.com/2008/09/bmw-oracle-replies-to-ernesto.html


The Publisher
*****


Sep 14, 2008, 10:07 AM

Post #2 of 5 (8132 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The Publisher] America's Cup dialogue...NOT [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Not sooner had BMW ORACLE Racing disputed the facts presented by Bertarelli, then his team sent out this release


Alinghi statement on September 14, 2008 in response to BMW Oracle Racing’s comments on the 33rd America’s Cup Protocol

Following yesterday's ‘Myth and Reality’ statement issued by BMW Oracle, Alinghi can only say that the team’s interpretation of the facts is perverse, partial and outdated.

Since the end of the 32nd America's Cup in July 2007, BMW Oracle has repeatedly proclaimed an unfair Protocol as justification for its destructive legal strategy. In its single-minded pursuit of a Deed of Gift Match against Alinghi, BMW Oracle has drastically weakened all 33rd America’s Cup challengers and when given the opportunity to get the America’s Cup back on the water the team refused Alinghi’s offer of a one-to-one multihull race in 2009 instead hoping for victory through forfeit.

The reality is that by the end of 2007, 12 challengers were ready to participate along with the Defender in a conventional multi-challenge event but BMW Oracle held the America’s Cup community hostage with its New York law suit. In August 2008, following the Appellate Division decision in favour of the Société Nautique de Genève (SNG) and Alinghi, BMW Oracle once again chose to continue with its self-serving pursuit of a Deed of Gift Match by extending its legal strategy despite delaying proceedings and keeping the challengers out of business.


Anyone interested in the 33rd America’s Cup Protocol might find Alinghi team skipper Brad Butterworth’s interview in this month’s Seahorse magazine insightful. BMW Oracle’s accusations are false and outdated; they do not take into consideration the many concessions that the SNG/Alinghi and the Challenger of Record, Club Náutico Español de Vela (CNEV), have made in order to achieve a resolution to this dispute nor do they consider the number of amendments to the original Protocol that were introduced in collaboration with the entered challengers. Since launching its legal attack, what has BMW Oracle ever brought to the table other than demanding every point in discussion be resolved to its advantage?


BMW Oracle should not forget that it is the right and duty of the Defender of the America’s Cup, together with the Challenger of Record, to set the terms of the competition and to organise the next event. Alinghi has won the America’s Cup twice ‘fair and square’ on the water. The 32nd America’s Cup organised by AC Management was recognised by many to be the most successful America’s Cup ever. Alinghi strongly suggests to BMW Oracle to drop its law suit and enter the 33rd America’s Cup as a challenger – like the majority of teams have done – and to improve its track record on the water.


Despite BMW Oracle's continued PR and legal strategy Alinghi will continue to work towards a conventional multi-challenger America's Cup and is organising meetings for all challengers to gather and discuss the terms of the next event.







The Publisher
*****


Sep 16, 2008, 11:23 AM

Post #3 of 5 (7671 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The Publisher] America's Cup dialogue...NOT [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Surprise... the BOR team has responded

More Myths and Reality: Brad Butterworth Seahorse interview

In statement posted September 14, 2008 Team Alinghi cited an interview in this month’s Seahorse magazine with Brad Butterworth as setting out their views on many of the key issues surrounding the next America’s Cup. The following summary provides factual commentary on the points raised in that interview.

Brad Butterworth: “They bark on about a one-sided Protocol and unfair rules favouring the defender. I tell them once and for all that is not the case. And 12 challengers support this fact.”
Fact: Seven teams said it was the worst protocol in the Cup’s history. Emirates Team New Zealand and Mascalzone Latino have continued to publicly oppose the protocol as grossly one-sided. The defender has never explained why it was necessary to make such a significant departure from the rules of AC 32.

Brad Butterworth: “The race officials are picked from a list given to the challenger and defender”
Fact: While this was true for AC 32, under the AC 33 protocol introduced by Alinghi the defender gets to select all officials. This most recent claim by Brad is at odds with his own earlier statement about the selection of officials that: “Once people see who we’ve selected they will be happy with them.”

Brad Butterworth: “The fact is the defender is the last to use the officials and so only rarely gets involved in picking them, as the challengers choose the best people through their elimination series”
Fact: Brad may be confusing the AC 32 protocol with AC 33. Under the AC 33 protocol Alinghi would also race in the challenger series and use the race officials at the same time as the challengers. Under Alinghi’s AC 33 protocol, the format and the schedule of all challenger racing is dictated by the defender for the first time in the history of the event. For the challengers in AC 33 it is therefore not “their” series any more as it was in all previous America’s Cups.

Brad Butterworth: “We have acknowledged that we are not without fault regarding the Protocol……but unlike our adversary, we have corrected these mistakes and have done that by working through the document with the challengers that have signed up”
Fact: At least three syndicates, ETNZ, Mascalzone Latino and BMWOR, do not share Brad’s view that the defender has worked through the document and corrected the protocol’s serious deficiencies. The reality is that seven syndicates (Luna Rossa, Mascalzone Latino, Areva Challenge, United Internet Team Germany, Emirates Team New Zealand, BMW ORACLE Racing, Victory Challenge) all wrote calling it the worst protocol in the history of the event. Mascalzone Latino and Emirates Team New Zealand have continued to strongly and publicly oppose the protocol as one-sided. ETNZ is suing Alinghi for exercising anti-competitive control over the event. Under the “new” protocol the following conditions still apply:

• The defender can change the protocol back at any time it wishes to the previous document

• Challengers gain no input on the appointment of neutral officials

• The defender and ACM are pointedly excluded from any binding obligation to act in a manner that complies with fair dealing, good sportsmanship or fair play

• The defender can still disqualify any competitor who disputes the protocol.

Brad Butterworth: “The defender racing in the challenger series: this was is due to wanting to curb costs."
Fact: It is not clear that this would have saved costs. However under the new protocol the defender’s ability to sail in the challengers’ series gives it very considerable new advantages. As they are already guaranteed a place in the America’s Cup, the defender can eliminate a team or influence the outcome of the series at no risk to themselves.

Brad Butterworth: “A schedule of sailing: to curb costs.”
Fact: Under Alinghi’s protocol the defender gained the new power to organize the challengers’ practice race schedule. It would decide when challengers were allowed to race and who they could practice racing against. No other sport permits a defending champion to do this. The schedule should be set by an independent body.

Brad Butterworth: “We wanted to have a one-boat campaign, again to aid entries”
Fact: The protocol allowed all teams to build two boats, which Alinghi would almost certainly have done. But Alinghi rescinded the Common Declaration that required defender and challenger to name their race boat at the same time. This allowed the defender to wait until just prior to the America’s Cup match to choose their race boat while the challenger was required to race the boat it had qualified in. This conferred a huge advantage in being able to select a boat suited to the short term weather forecast.

Brad Butterworth: “Throughout my career, the fairness of the regatta has increased, peaking in Valencia where we saw the closest modern event ever. It would be the same if we had a multi-challenger event now.
Fact: Why then was there a need to radically change the rules to an unfair event?

Brad Butterworth: “In May and the one on one DoG match seemed a clear possibility we sat down with them to try to agree a date for a fair regatta, giving us time to build our multihull, but they refused.”
Fact: Alinghi insisted that they be given the challenger’s right to set the race date. They wanted to delay the event to gain more time and an advantage outside the rules of the Cup.

Brad Butterworth: “However we are still open to discussion and very much welcome a resolution to this dispute”
Fact: Brad has never accepted any invitation to meet with BMWOR, and Alinghi have declined 10 offers of mediators. BMWOR have offered (and the offer still exists today) to return to an AC 32 protocol or the rules proposed by the challengers in November 2007.

Brad Butterworth: “To move things on we need to have a Challenger of Record firmly installed so that we can organize an event with the challengers and have a Cup similar to the one we had last time or even better”
Fact: Why then doesn’t the defender simply accept the reasonable proposal to return to rules like AC 32? It appears that instead the defender wishes to issue all rules on their terms to create an unprecedented level of control and advantage.




The Publisher
*****


Sep 16, 2008, 11:30 AM

Post #4 of 5 (7666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The Publisher] America's Cup dialogue...NOT [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Are we done yet?


tim minogue
**

Sep 16, 2008, 9:04 PM

Post #5 of 5 (7651 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The Publisher] America's Cup dialogue...NOT [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Man: Is this the right room for an argument about the America's Cup?
Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You didn't!
O: (breaking into the developing argument) Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

(pause)

M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!!

(pause)

O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an *argument*!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I 'argue' with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes, but it isn't just saying, "No it isn't".
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!

>DING!< The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.

O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?

O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....

(pause)
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now!
(pause... the Other Man raises his eyebrows)
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!
O: I told you...
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: (unable to talk straight he's so mad) I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah HAH!! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH!
Gotcha!

O: (pause) No you haven't!
M: Yes I have!
If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily.
I *could* be arguing in my spare time


Viewing the Forums: No members and guests
 


Search for (options) Contact Forum Forum FAQS Markup Tags Forum Rules