The Redress Decision

The 2008 RS:X Women’s USA Olympic Trials Redress Decision

The argument why granting Rios redress was wrong can be summed up in two facts that the jury themselves provide and what is seen in two pictures taken within 15 seconds after the start.

The two facts are: Rios was in second place before the collision (April reopening decision), and Monica Wilson did her penalty turn 20 seconds after the collision (October redress decision).

Click to Enlarge Photo
Moments before the collision, Monica Wilson (on port tack) will collide with Farrah Hall (starboard tack and windward) and then Nancy Rios (starboard tack leeward) will collide with Monica Wilson

The first picture shows the relative position of all six competitors seconds after the start and before the collision, and the second picture shows that Rios, after the collision, was still in second place. Based on comparing Rios’ relative position with her competitors, she only lost a few seconds in the collision.

Click to Enlarge Photo
Seconds after the collision, Nancy Rios (USA 323) is sailing away in second place and Monica Wilson is recovering her sail from the water. The other two competitors visible are in 4th and 5th place behind Rios. The damage (which can't be seen) is in the forward section of the clear panel above the boom.

If Rios is in second place after the collision, and she was able to maintain a 20 second advantage over Monica Wilson, a top competitor, during the 30 minute race, then how did the jury determine her score was made significantly worse? That is the $145,000.00 question.

The same jury decided the damage you see in the picture below was not serious damage. The board belongs to the eventual winner of the Men's Windsurfing Olympic Trials, Ben Barger, who caused a high speed collision and also exchanged his board with another competitor between the first and second race because he said it was not usable.

Click to Enlarge Photo underthesunphotos.com
According to jury members Larry White, Doug Campbell and Chris Luppens this is not serious damage

Click to Enlarge Photo
BUT this is serious damage

The Jury heard Rios’ request, inspected the sail and granted her redress. They did not hear from any of the competitors listed as witnesses in Rios’s request form, including the sailor who caused the incident, the sailor who fell into the water, nor from Hall, who was also impacted by the collision and especially by the Jury’s decision. Two Jury members saw the collision and witnessed for Rios, but they only saw the collision and remained at the start/finish line and didn’t see Rios sailing the course.

Farrah Hall was pulled out of the shower, brought into the jury room and told the decision. After questioning the jury for 25 minutes and hearing them tell her why the decision was proper she asked if there was anything she could do. The Jury Chairman stated that their decision was final.

The Decision

The written decision of the jury is badly flawed and riddled with errors. The jury failed to establish the case for redress and their facts and the rule they applied, 62.1e B7.2 don’t match up. Of the 6 facts found and the 3 conclusions, there are at least 9 errors and oversights made by the jury.

1. They did not determine that the damage was “through no fault of her own”
2. The sailor who fouled was not disqualified
3. They found the damage was “Serious Damage”
4. They stated the port tack sailor had left the venue when she was sitting up the stairs from the jury room and stayed through to the end of the trophy presentation
5. They did not determine how much time Rios lost because of the sail tear
6. They did not determine how far behind the second place board Rios finished
7. They said the first race of the day in which Rios finished 2nd had similar conditions – which it did not.
8. Failed to consider all boats affected---rule 64.2
9. The rule they used 62.1e B7.2 does not apply based on the facts found or conclusions

In the written decision, the only fact found that addresses Rios’ performance was in the earlier race that day Rios had finished in 2nd place. The jury seems to be setting the foundation to apply rule 62.1b, but they fail to establish those basic thresholds. The Jury never established the damage was caused through no fault of her own, and they conclude the foul caused “Serious Damage” (which they later retracted when they reopened the hearing six months later) but they didn’t disqualify the port tack competitor.

The rule they used to grant redress, 62.1e appendix B 7.2, is not supported by any of the facts except that Monica Wilson "failed to keep clear". Beside the fact she needed to either retire or be disqualified, the jury needed to establish time lost due to the foul that significantly worsened Rios's score.

What was the significance of Rios’ performance in race 15, and is it germane to granting redress in another race? Perhaps as a point of comparison, but it appears to be the main fact this jury relied on to reach their conclusion.

The big question is why didn’t the Jury bring in witnesses who were all sitting outside the door? Competitors, coaches, race committee, and the event photographer were all available to help establish the facts. Those witnesses would have supplied all of the information they needed to do a thorough investigation.

The bigger question is did the Jury do everything they should have to come up with the right decision and what does their performance say about their competence?

Isn't it obvious the jury was starting with a conclusion and backing into it with a cursory review. And the extraordinary move of bringing Farrah Hall into the jury room to announce the decision was to make sure they closed the book on their decision.

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge