Comparing the new facts to the original facts will shed light on how the Jury tried to fix the deficiencies of the original written decision, and how they dealt with the photos and witness testimony. The only fact that didn't change was that Nancy Rios finished 4th in race 16. Otherwise, every fact and conclusion is new and more importantly they significantly change the basis for the original redress decision which was the collision caused serious damage.
Some of the new facts found by the jury that significantly changed from the original decision (and comments)
- The wind speed was 10-12 knots at the start of Race 16 (why does the windspeed at the start matter when redress is based on the complete race?)
- The tear was 4-5 inches and it grew during the race. (what proof do they have that it grew during the race when the original fact said the collision caused an 8-10 inch tear?)
- Rios lost 30-40 seconds due to the collision (this new fact is completely proven to be false by the photographic evidence)
- Monica Wilson was scored RAF (unprecedented and it allowed the jury to grant redress independently of protesting and disqualifying Monica Wilson)
New conclusions that significantly changed:
- Rios’ score was made significantly worse by physical damage (not “serious damage” which was the foundation for the original decision)
- Rios’s score was made significantly worse by Wilson’s failure to keep clear (new conclusion based on the new fact of 30-40 seconds lost that the photos prove is false)
New Rules: RRS 10, RRS 14, RRS 62.1(b), RRS 64.2
The “Tells” of the Jury
In the game of poker, a “tell” is a behavior that gives other players information about your hand. The new facts found are the jury’s “tells.”
Tell #1:
“At the start of Race 16, the wind speed was 10-12 knots.”
Why would the wind speed at the start of a race have anything to do with granting redress? The foundation of Rios’s argument is that she would have finished second in race 16 because “in similar conditions (Race 15) she finished 2nd”.
The Jury ignored the testimony from the witnesses that the conditions in Race 16 were not similar to Race 15. In fact, the witnesses stated that at the start there was a momentary lull but Race 16 was in fact the second windiest race of the regatta with windspeeds of 15-18 knots- and Rios’s worst condition.
Tell #2:
“The collision caused a 4-inch tear that grew during the race.”
The jury’s original finding was that “the collision caused an 8” to 10” long tear.” This is a significant change that the jury glosses over. The photo taken at the first weather mark, over 12 minutes after the collision, shows a faint 4 inch line that is determined to be the tear. Rios is in 4th place at the time and closely pursued (14 seconds) by the third ranked competitor, Monica Wilson. Rios was not passed by Wilson for the remainder of the race. If the tear grew it didn't cause Rios to lose her current position in the race. The Jury ordered Rios to sail with the tear to get photographs of the sail in similar conditions. In 45 minutes of sailing in 18 to 20 knot winds, the tear grew ½ inch. If the tear were in a high load area it would have quickly failed all the way to the seam.
The reality is that Rios received redress for her performance in the first leg of Race 16. However, two competitors that are both known to be faster in heavy air passed her. If Rios truly had a problem with her sail, she surely would have been passed by Monica Wilson, who finished third in the Olympic Trials.
Additionally, what evidence did the Jury have to support the claim that the "tear" grew? Did Rios change her story, or did the Jury assume it must have grown? No witness saw the "tear"on the water and at least one witness testified that when she saw it on the shore, it was only 4 inches and consistent with what is seen in the photo.
click on to enlarge
The 4 inch "tear" 12 minutes after the collision
The 4 inch "tear" 12 minutes after the collision
Tell #3
“Due to the collision, Rios lost approximately 30-40 seconds shortly after the start.”
This new finding is patently wrong and the proof is provided by the Jury themselves*, by the photos** with metadata time stamps, and witness testimony. Regardless, time lost cannot possibly be a factor in giving Rios redress because she was in second place AFTER recovering from the collision! How can the Jury possibly claim that her score “had been made significantly worse” by time lost (rule 62.1e) if she was in 2nd place after the incident? Moments after the collision Rios is sailing while Monica Wilson is recovering her sail, the 4th place competitor, Lisa Kremer, told the jury she fell into the water avoiding a collision with Wilson, and the and 5th place competitor is still clearing the start line.
The irony is that Rios was actually in a better position because of the collision. Monica Wilson took 20 seconds to do her penalty turn after Rios recovered and was sailing again, a fact found in the jury’s earlier decision*. The next closest competitor fell into the water to avoid the collision with Wilson, so if anything, Rios benefited by having a bigger head-start on her closest competitors.
click on to enlargeMoments after the collision Rios is sailing
and the 4th and 5th place competitors are
still clearing the start line
* two Jury members witnessed the collision and they testified at the earlier hearing. The facts found that state Monica Wilson completed her penalty turn “within 20 seconds of the collision” could have only come from their testimony.
** a photograph shows Rios sailing after the collision before Monica Wilson has done her penalty turn and other competitors are still clearing the start line. For Rios to lose 30-40 seconds she would have been sailing 10-20 seconds AFTER Wilson completed her penalty turn.
Tell #4:
“USA 71 (Monica Wilson) was scored RAF”
The Jury has broken new ground with accepting Wilson’s RAF (retire after finishing) six months after the race. Why would Monica Wilson all of a sudden wake up six months after the race and decide that her penalty turn was not the appropriate penalty? She wouldn't! The Jury needed her to retire to be able to give Rios redress. No RAF or DSQ, no redress. The Racing Rules of Sailing don't allow a competitor to be penalized twice (penalty turn and DSQ). So the only option left would be for the jury to hold a hearing and find that Monica Wilson either caused “serious damage” to Rios’ sail or the foul itself was so severe as to significantly worsen her score. By forcing Wilson to RAF was another example how this jury and US Sailing denied Farrah Hall the opportunity for a fair hearing.
Tell #5: Serious Damage
The jury’s first conclusion in the October decision was that Monica Wilson caused "serious damage" to Rios’ sail. This is conspicuously absent in the new decision. Why? It would be extremely difficult even for this jury to make the claim that a 4 inch slit in a fully battened, rigid sail would be considered “serious damage.” Serious damage would have been the only way the jury could nullify Wilson’s self-imposed penalty turn and disqualify her from the race.
The jury could argue Rule 62.1e B7.2 can be interpreted to mean that taking a penalty turn is the same as “was penalized.” However, the last published authoritative reference, the ISAF Q&A, specifically addresses that question and states a penalty turn is not the same as "was penalized" in connection with the rules. The only solution the jury had in order to give Rios redress was if Monica Wilson retired. Otherwise, why did they accept her RAF six months after the regatta?
Tell #6: How much time did Rios lose?
The Jury failed to establish the basic fundamental threshold fact of this case: how far behind 2nd and 3rd place was Rios at the finish. This would establish how much time she lost during Race 16 and that her redress was appropriate. Witnesses said Rios finished over 2 minutes behind the third-place finisher and over 4 minutes behind second-place, which was a normal performance, given the conditions. The jury never established time lost due to the sail tear and to bolster their case, came up with the new fact that she lost 30-40 seconds due to the collision (which the photographs prove was false).
The only "proof" that Rios's score was made significantly worse was offered in the original decision by the fact found that Rios finished 2nd in the earlier race #15 which they mistakenly said was in similar conditions. That fact was eliminated from the new facts because race #16 was not similar but was much windier. So the jury and Rios never produced any credible evidence that the sail damage significantly slowed her.
Tell #7: The Smoking Gun
The jury didn't accept the fact that the photos showed Rios lost at worse only lost a matter of seconds due to the collision, and was in fact 14 seconds ahead of Wilson at the first mark. They box themselves in with their own (two) sets of facts. If Rios lost 30-40 seconds, and if two of the Jury members saw Wilson finish her penalty turn within 20 seconds (a fact in the original decision), then Rios would have been behind Wilson by 10-20 seconds when she recovered after the collision. The fact escaped them that Rios beat Wilson to the windward mark by 14 seconds. That would be a net gain to Rios of 24-34 seconds!
It's certain Rios had a 20 second head start on Wilson, and also that she was never passed for the entire race. That is the only proof needed to show the error of the jury.
click on to enlarge
click on to enlarge
Rios 1 second after rounding weather mark
Rios 1 second after rounding weather mark
click on to enlarge
15 seconds later Monica Wilson arriving at the first windward mark
15 seconds later Monica Wilson arriving at the first windward mark
Tell #8: Changing the rules and a complete new set of facts
If the original decision to grant Rios redress was right and proper, why did the jury and US Sailing force a competitor to RAF, hold the hearing "de novo" (contrary to the rules) which allowed them to come up with a completely changed and new set of facts? Because the original written decision was completely flawed and didn't make any sense. The one and only fact in the original decision one could point to as a basis for awarding redress was that Rios finished 2nd in the earlier race that day. Is that the new standard for granting redress?
It is obvious the jury failed to do a proper investigation at the Olympic Trials of Rios's claim that her score was significantly worse because of the incident with Monica Wilson at the start. Faced with the upcoming arbitration hearing the reopening of the original hearing was a way for the jury to perfect their flaws without any risk of oversite or peer review.
The facts and the jury's errors
- Race 16 was the second windiest race, and Rios suffers in windy races.
- The "tear" in Rios’s sail was only a 4 inch slit. In the second hearing, the Jury gave Rios a "pass" and didn't use this change to the facts against her credibility. They could do this because the second hearing was de novo, a new hearing, violating the procedural standards set out in the Judges Manual for reopening hearings.
- Rios did not lose 30-40 seconds due to the incident, but the jury needed to have this fact so they could accept Wilson's RAF and wouldn't have to prove she caused "serious damage," using RRS 62.1e B7.2 instead
- Monica Wilson could never overtake Rios for the entire race.
- Getting Monica Wilson to RAF cleared the decks for the jury and allowed them to come up with a set of facts that supported their conclusion. Otherwise, her testimony would have been problematic and they would have had to deal with facts that showed Rios lost seconds in the collision and maintained normal speed throughout the race.
- Rios did not have any supporting witnesses or evidence outside of the sail to prove her score was significantly made worse.
New facts found and conclusions
click on to enlarge
The original redress decision
The original redress decision
