Select to expand quotejdfoils said..PhilUK said..
Maybe, I prefer giving someone the benefit of the doubt first, until proven cheating. He would have known the sail had been repaired, but would he have known it was out of spec?
There is a clearly outlined procedure for getting repairs approved before racing. It is included in the rules I posted earlier.
(But clearly this was not a repair)
I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and I also said I was also being generous with that.
As has been pointed out recently, it was initially said by P7 he didnt use the sail in Japan, but now he says he used it in a heat which was cancelled.
Feel free to quote me on these other points I have made and discuss if you like:
But rules are rules, and the sail was out of specification.
The way the PWA handled the DSQ was poor. But its quite obvious now. Correct decision.
Select to expand quotePhilUK said..
I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and I also said I was also being generous with that.
As has been pointed out recently, it was initially said by P7 he didnt use the sail in Japan, but now he says he used it in a heat which was cancelled.
Feel free to quote me on these other points I have made and discuss if you like:
But rules are rules, and the sail was out of specification.
The way the PWA handled the DSQ was poor. But its quite obvious now. Correct decision.
I'm perfectly agree with you; I was wrong to misjudge the PWA but Soe and Point7 said they hadn't used the sail; certainly the way in which the PWA handled the matter is poor, they should have left everything pending until the official press release where they clearly explained the reason for the disqualification; but the rules are rules and must apply to everyone
Good that the PWA finally put out a more detailed statement. On their insta account they attribute the tardiness of their fuller statement to the fact that people were traveling and in different time zones. Not convincing given the gravity of the situation. All the facts that are in the fuller statement were known to them at the time, so an effort could and should have been made to communicate them more fully at the time. The delay has allowed for rumors and innuendo to spread, to the detriment of all involved. This was avoidable.
What's important now, I think, is not to further vilify any party involved, any not speculate further about ulterior motives etc.
While we may never get to the bottom of all the details of what happened, we shouldn't forget that we're dealing here with a young person who has just gone through some of the most dramatic experiences that any aspiring professional sports person can go through. Regardless of what happened, he has shown himself to be an amazing racer and I hope he will bounce back stronger from this.
Select to expand quotefpw9082 said..
how much 25mm can improve speed?
It appears that improvements in sails can happen with changing less than one cm. But that's beyond the point: the sail was out of specs for 25mm over the margin of error (tolerances) for that sail.
Select to expand quotemmilhazes said..
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE PWA MANAGEMENT BOARD REGARDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DEN-37
The PWA is a rider and manufacturer governed association. Rules are set by the PWA Management Board that is elected from the industry and rider members of the association. The rider and industry representatives on the PWA Management Board consult with the members on all matters, including competition rules.
All PWA racing is run on registered production equipment. As such, sails, boards, and foils must be registered by the manufacturers before the start of the season. All participating brands and riders are aware of these requirements.
This is intended to ensure that any competitor has access to the same level of equipment, and so that any advantage through having additional wealth or funding is minimised, creating as level a playing field as possible.
This also creates an environment whereby recreational sailors can also obtain and enjoy using the same high-performance gear as the pros.
For 2023 competitors registered the 3 boards, 6 sails, and one set of foil components that they would compete on for the whole year, at the first event they participated at.
Not all equipment is checked at events as it is expensive and time consuming to do so, but riders are expected to abide by the rules and the responsibility is on the competitors themselves to make sure that their equipment is not in breach of the rules. If they are in any doubt they can request to have their equipment measured to check it for legality. Equipment is checked randomly at events across multiple brands and riders to help ensure that the rules are upheld.
As part of equipment checks at the PWA slalom finals in Japan, sails from top riders were inspected to check for rule compliance. Examples of sails from NeilPryde, Challenger, Severne and Point 7 were collected from the riders.
All of the sails collected were measured, with the battens and cambers removed, and on a flat hard surface with the sails being pulled flat to the ground.
On inspection the Point 7 sail belonging to DEN-37 showed clear and undeniable indications that the sail had been modified from its original factory construction. Marks left from the original construction, such as glue and stitching holes were clearly visible, and normal graphics printed on the sail were obscured where batten pockets had been moved. Neither Point 7 or DEN-37 have denied or challenged this fact.
The Point 7 sail was found to have leech measurements between the battens that were outside of the registered specification by more than 2 cm, and even with the production tolerances of 0.35% applied, were still 1.5cm outside of the registered specification.
To ensure fair consideration, a control sail from another rider using the same Point 7 production sails was also inspected. This sail showed none of the signs of modification that DEN-37's sail did, there was no glue or altered stitching and the graphics that had been obscured on DEN-37s sail were fully visible. All of the sails measurements were within the acceptable tolerances.
To ensure that all reasonable doubt was eliminated, the measurements of the other production sail were then taken as base measurements, tolerances were applied, but DEN-37s sail was still found to be more than 1.5cm out of spec even with the extra millimetres granted by the variances in the second production sail.
The judges then convened a hearing with DEN-37 to ask him if he could provide any information as to why his sail had been modified, why it was out of the tolerance of the registered specification and to allow him the chance to explain the situation from his point of view and put forward any mitigating circumstances that might justify the discrepancies discovered in the inspection.
The sail had been registered for competition by DEN-37 and therefore needed to be to the correct specification whether used or not, but it was found that it had been used through the year including in Japan.
After hearing DEN-37s evidence, and equipped with the findings of the inspections, the judges reconvened to discuss the situation and decide on whether the rules had been infringed and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
The judges were unanimous in their opinion that the sail did not - with all tolerances and reasonable doubt applied - meet the required specification and was therefore illegal for use in PWA racing. The committee found that although DEN-37 may not have used the sail in a counting heat in Japan, that he had used it in valid starts where he could not have known that the heat would subsequently be abandoned, so that this argument was not a valid defence. The committee also felt that although they did not have measurements taken from this particular sail at other events, he had used it in its current state throughout the season, and therefore whether he had used it in Japan or not was not the only consideration.
The judges therefore felt they had no option but to apply the rules which state.
{2.5.3} Equipment Scrutinizing (SLALOM)
(a) Scrutinizing of equipment will be performed either by a PWA Representative, or any member of the PWA Race Crew. A sailor must make his/her equipment available for scrutinizing at any time whilst the event is in progress. Failure to present equipment for scrutinizing may result in disqualification from the respective race or from the entire discipline.
(b) Equipment used by sailors must meet all registered specification and shall not have been modified in any way without prior approval from the protest committee. Modification from the normal specification as delivered by the manufacturer shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this rule, the addition of any extra tack or clew cringles or positions, puncturing of the sail to allow any attachment to provide tension other than devices supplied with the sail as standard or any other attachment or modification that is designed to alter the shape or performance of the sail from the standard supplied configuration shall not be permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, brochure / website specification and or the majority specification of other identical items of equipment may be used as evidence of the standard supplied specification by the protest committee.
(c) Batten types and tension, mast type and tension, adjustment of camber inducers including sanding / filing and the addition of any spacers or other optional devices that are supplied as standard for the adjustment of battens, masts or camber inducers, shall be excluded from this rule and may be adjusted at the discretion of the sailor in question.
(d) Any sailor found to have been using equipment that has not been registered, or equipment that does not meet the registered specification for that particular item of equipment, including the conditions outlined above, shall be disqualified from the entire race discipline for that event.
Therefore, the committee was left with little option other than to disqualify DEN-37 from the event in Japan.
As with any decision by the judges at an event, DEN-37 will have the right to appeal the decision and the hearing may be reopened if significant new evidence can be presented. DEN-37 has indicated that he intends to appeal, although no appeal has been presented at this time and as DEN-37 will be travelling home currently, he will be granted further time to lodge an appeal, should he choose to do so.
The PWA takes the application of the rules surrounding equipment registration seriously and competitors or brands who breach such rules do so with great disrespect to the vast majority of their contemporaries who strive to uphold the rules.
STATEMENT FROM POINT 7 SAILS
Point-7: It was not the first time that our brand has been at the top of the PWA podium and certainly not the last. We proved it in different disciplines and often with new young talents. We are very competitive and work hard on our development and for 2024, as Johan has already signed with us, we are even more motivated to take him back to the top, as he has shown amazing racing skills. We are happy to support PWA in the task in enforcing the checking of riders equipment throughout all events.
Good, now we can all go home. And maybe the PWA will learn how to deal with little things such as taking a world title from an athlete a bit better!!!!
PS And check sails a bit more often? This still seems like a repair to me, and it could have been found out months ago without making such a colossal ordeal on the last race of the season.
Select to expand quoteduzzi said..mmilhazes said..
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE PWA MANAGEMENT BOARD REGARDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DEN-37
The PWA is a rider and manufacturer governed association. Rules are set by the PWA Management Board that is elected from the industry and rider members of the association. The rider and industry representatives on the PWA Management Board consult with the members on all matters, including competition rules.
All PWA racing is run on registered production equipment. As such, sails, boards, and foils must be registered by the manufacturers before the start of the season. All participating brands and riders are aware of these requirements.
This is intended to ensure that any competitor has access to the same level of equipment, and so that any advantage through having additional wealth or funding is minimised, creating as level a playing field as possible.
This also creates an environment whereby recreational sailors can also obtain and enjoy using the same high-performance gear as the pros.
For 2023 competitors registered the 3 boards, 6 sails, and one set of foil components that they would compete on for the whole year, at the first event they participated at.
Not all equipment is checked at events as it is expensive and time consuming to do so, but riders are expected to abide by the rules and the responsibility is on the competitors themselves to make sure that their equipment is not in breach of the rules. If they are in any doubt they can request to have their equipment measured to check it for legality. Equipment is checked randomly at events across multiple brands and riders to help ensure that the rules are upheld.
As part of equipment checks at the PWA slalom finals in Japan, sails from top riders were inspected to check for rule compliance. Examples of sails from NeilPryde, Challenger, Severne and Point 7 were collected from the riders.
All of the sails collected were measured, with the battens and cambers removed, and on a flat hard surface with the sails being pulled flat to the ground.
On inspection the Point 7 sail belonging to DEN-37 showed clear and undeniable indications that the sail had been modified from its original factory construction. Marks left from the original construction, such as glue and stitching holes were clearly visible, and normal graphics printed on the sail were obscured where batten pockets had been moved. Neither Point 7 or DEN-37 have denied or challenged this fact.
The Point 7 sail was found to have leech measurements between the battens that were outside of the registered specification by more than 2 cm, and even with the production tolerances of 0.35% applied, were still 1.5cm outside of the registered specification.
To ensure fair consideration, a control sail from another rider using the same Point 7 production sails was also inspected. This sail showed none of the signs of modification that DEN-37's sail did, there was no glue or altered stitching and the graphics that had been obscured on DEN-37s sail were fully visible. All of the sails measurements were within the acceptable tolerances.
To ensure that all reasonable doubt was eliminated, the measurements of the other production sail were then taken as base measurements, tolerances were applied, but DEN-37s sail was still found to be more than 1.5cm out of spec even with the extra millimetres granted by the variances in the second production sail.
The judges then convened a hearing with DEN-37 to ask him if he could provide any information as to why his sail had been modified, why it was out of the tolerance of the registered specification and to allow him the chance to explain the situation from his point of view and put forward any mitigating circumstances that might justify the discrepancies discovered in the inspection.
The sail had been registered for competition by DEN-37 and therefore needed to be to the correct specification whether used or not, but it was found that it had been used through the year including in Japan.
After hearing DEN-37s evidence, and equipped with the findings of the inspections, the judges reconvened to discuss the situation and decide on whether the rules had been infringed and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
The judges were unanimous in their opinion that the sail did not - with all tolerances and reasonable doubt applied - meet the required specification and was therefore illegal for use in PWA racing. The committee found that although DEN-37 may not have used the sail in a counting heat in Japan, that he had used it in valid starts where he could not have know n that the heat would subsequently be abandoned, so that this argument was not a valid defence. The committee also felt that although they did not have measurements taken from this particular sail at other events, he had used it in its current state throughout the season, and therefore whether he had used it in Japan or not was not the only consideration.
The judges therefore felt they had no option but to apply the rules which state.
{2.5.3} Equipment Scrutinizing (SLALOM)
(a) Scrutinizing of equipment will be performed either by a PWA Representative, or any member of the PWA Race Crew. A sailor must make his/her equipment available for scrutinizing at any time whilst the event is in progress. Failure to present equipment for scrutinizing may result in disqualification from the respective race or from the entire discipline.
(b) Equipme nt used by sailors must meet all registered specification and shall not have been modified in any way without prior approval from the protest committee. Modification from the normal specification as delivered by the manufacturer shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this rule, the addition of any extra tack or clew cringles or positions, puncturing of the sail to allow any attachment to provide tension other than devices supplied with the sail as standard or any other attachment or modification that is designed to alter the shape or performance of the sail from the standard supplied configuration shall not be permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, brochure / website specification and or the majority specification of other identical items of equipment may be used as evidence of the standard supplied specification by the protest committee.
(c) Batten types and tension, mast type and tension, adjustment of camber inducers including sanding / filing and the addition of any spacers or other optional devices that are supplied as standard for the adjustment of battens, masts or camber inducers, shall be excluded from this rule and may be adjusted at the discretion of the sailor in question.
(d) Any sailor found to have been using equipment that has not been registered, or equipment that does not meet the registered specification for that particular item of equipment, including the conditions outlined above, shall be disqualified from the entire race discipline for that event.
Therefore, the committee was left with little option other than to disqualify DEN-37 from the event in Japan.
As with any decision by the judges at an event, DEN-37 will have the right to appeal the decision and the hearing may be reopened if significant new evidence can be presented. DEN-37 has indicated that he intends to appeal, although no appeal has been presented at this time and as DEN-37 will be travelling home currently, he will be granted further time to lodge an appeal, should he choose to do so.
The PWA takes the application of the rules surrounding equipment registration seriously and competitors or brands who breach such rules do so with great disrespect to the vast majority of their contemporaries who strive to uphold the rules.
STATEMENT FROM POINT 7 SAILS
Point-7: It was not the first time that our brand has been at the top of the PWA podium and certainly not the last. We proved it in different disciplines and often with new young talents. We are very competitive and work hard on our development and for 2024, as Johan has already signed with us, we are even more motivated to take him back to the top, as he has shown amazing racing skills. We are happy to support PWA in the task in enforcing the checking of riders equipment throughout all events.
Good, now we can all go home. And maybe the PWA will learn how to deal with little things such as taking a world title from an athlete a bit better!!!!
PS And check sails a bit more often? This still seems like a repair to me, and it could have been found out months ago without making such a colossal ordeal on the last race of the season.
this is not the fault of the pwa. If you are needing to blame then look at p7 and soe. Talk about victim blaming
Select to expand quoteduzzi said..mmilhazes said..
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE PWA MANAGEMENT BOARD REGARDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DEN-37
The PWA is a rider and manufacturer governed association. Rules are set by the PWA Management Board that is elected from the industry and rider members of the association. The rider and industry representatives on the PWA Management Board consult with the members on all matters, including competition rules.
All PWA racing is run on registered production equipment. As such, sails, boards, and foils must be registered by the manufacturers before the start of the season. All participating brands and riders are aware of these requirements.
This is intended to ensure that any competitor has access to the same level of equipment, and so that any advantage through having additional wealth or funding is minimised, creating as level a playing field as possible.
This also creates an environment whereby recreational sailors can also obtain and enjoy using the same high-performance gear as the pros.
For 2023 competitors registered the 3 boards, 6 sails, and one set of foil components that they would compete on for the whole year, at the first event they participated at.
Not all equipment is checked at events as it is expensive and time consuming to do so, but riders are expected to abide by the rules and the responsibility is on the competitors themselves to make sure that their equipment is not in breach of the rules. If they are in any doubt they can request to have their equipment measured to check it for legality. Equipment is checked randomly at events across multiple brands and riders to help ensure that the rules are upheld.
As part of equipment checks at the PWA slalom finals in Japan, sails from top riders were inspected to check for rule compliance. Examples of sails from NeilPryde, Challenger, Severne and Point 7 were collected from the riders.
All of the sails collected were measured, with the battens and cambers removed, and on a flat hard surface with the sails being pulled flat to the ground.
On inspection the Point 7 sail belonging to DEN-37 showed clear and undeniable indications that the sail had been modified from its original factory construction. Marks left from the original construction, such as glue and stitching holes were clearly visible, and normal graphics printed on the sail were obscured where batten pockets had been moved. Neither Point 7 or DEN-37 have denied or challenged this fact.
The Point 7 sail was found to have leech measurements between the battens that were outside of the registered specification by more than 2 cm, and even with the production tolerances of 0.35% applied, were still 1.5cm outside of the registered specification.
To ensure fair consideration, a control sail from another rider using the same Point 7 production sails was also inspected. This sail showed none of the signs of modification that DEN-37's sail did, there was no glue or altered stitching and the graphics that had been obscured on DEN-37s sail were fully visible. All of the sails measurements were within the acceptable tolerances.
To ensure that all reasonable doubt was eliminated, the measurements of the other production sail were then taken as base measurements, tolerances were applied, but DEN-37s sail was still found to be more than 1.5cm out of spec even with the extra millimetres granted by the variances in the second production sail.
The judges then convened a hearing with DEN-37 to ask him if he could provide any information as to why his sail had been modified, why it was out of the tolerance of the registered specification and to allow him the chance to explain the situation from his point of view and put forward any mitigating circumstances that might justify the discrepancies discovered in the inspection.
The sail had been registered for competition by DEN-37 and therefore needed to be to the correct specification whether used or not, but it was found that it had been used through the year including in Japan.
After hearing DEN-37s evidence, and equipped with the findings of the inspections, the judges reconvened to discuss the situation and decide on whether the rules had been infringed and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
The judges were unanimous in their opinion that the sail did not - with all tolerances and reasonable doubt applied - meet the required specification and was therefore illegal for use in PWA racing. The committee found that although DEN-37 may not have used the sail in a counting heat in Japan, that he had used it in valid starts where he could not have known that the heat would subsequently be abandoned, so that this argument was not a valid defence. The committee also felt that although they did not have measurements taken from this particular sail at other events, he had used it in its current state throughout the season, and therefore whether he had used it in Japan or not was not the only consideration.
The judges therefore felt they had no option but to apply the rules which state.
{2.5.3} Equipment Scrutinizing (SLALOM)
(a) Scrutinizing of equipment will be performed either by a PWA Representative, or any member of the PWA Race Crew. A sailor must make his/her equipment available for scrutinizing at any time whilst the event is in progress. Failure to present equipment for scrutinizing may result in disqualification from the respective race or from the entire discipline.
(b) Equipment used by sailors must meet all registered specification and shall not have been modified in any way without prior approval from the protest committee. Modification from the normal specification as delivered by the manufacturer shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this rule, the addition of any extra tack or clew cringles or positions, puncturing of the sail to allow any attachment to provide tension other than devices supplied with the sail as standard or any other attachment or modification that is designed to alter the shape or performance of the sail from the standard supplied configuration shall not be permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, brochure / website specification and or the majority specification of other identical items of equipment may be used as evidence of the standard supplied specification by the protest committee.
(c) Batten types and tension, mast type and tension, adjustment of camber inducers including sanding / filing and the addition of any spacers or other optional devices that are supplied as standard for the adjustment of battens, masts or camber inducers, shall be excluded from this rule and may be adjusted at the discretion of the sailor in question.
(d) Any sailor found to have been using equipment that has not been registered, or equipment that does not meet the registered specification for that particular item of equipment, including the conditions outlined above, shall be disqualified from the entire race discipline for that event.
Therefore, the committee was left with little option other than to disqualify DEN-37 from the event in Japan.
As with any decision by the judges at an event, DEN-37 will have the right to appeal the decision and the hearing may be reopened if significant new evidence can be presented. DEN-37 has indicated that he intends to appeal, although no appeal has been presented at this time and as DEN-37 will be travelling home currently, he will be granted further time to lodge an appeal, should he choose to do so.
The PWA takes the application of the rules surrounding equipment registration seriously and competitors or brands who breach such rules do so with great disrespect to the vast majority of their contemporaries who strive to uphold the rules.
STATEMENT FROM POINT 7 SAILS
Point-7: It was not the first time that our brand has been at the top of the PWA podium and certainly not the last. We proved it in different disciplines and often with new young talents. We are very competitive and work hard on our development and for 2024, as Johan has already signed with us, we are even more motivated to take him back to the top, as he has shown amazing racing skills. We are happy to support PWA in the task in enforcing the checking of riders equipment throughout all events.
Good, now we can all go home. And maybe the PWA will learn how to deal with little things such as taking a world title from an athlete a bit better!!!!
PS And check sails a bit more often? This still seems like a repair to me, and it could have been found out months ago without making such a colossal ordeal on the last race of the season.
The pwa didnt take it, he never had it and he never earned it.
Matteo almost had it taken from him, unfairly, so well done the pwa for rectifying that.
I don't know what sailmakers you hang out with, but they must be pretty **** if they can't repair a sail without changing its outline by 25mm
Comments about the initial lack of disclosure cuts both ways. At least the PWA were factual in their initial statement. The same could not be said for Soe and Point7.
So after the allowance for tolerances it ended up being 1.5cm difference, the PWA have now set a standard and should now test all sails at every event, they did say they cannot afford to do that so who in the past has benefited from modding their sails?
Select to expand quotebel29 said..
While we may never get to the bottom of all the details of what happened, we shouldn't forget that we're dealing here with a young person who has just gone through some of the most dramatic experiences that any aspiring professional sports person can go through. Regardless of what happened, he has shown himself to be an amazing racer and I hope he will bounce back stronger from this.
We will only know if Soe and or Point7 provide the information.
For whatever reason, they have brought this outcome on themselves. I suggest that taking responsibility for their actions is essential to coming back from this.
So, is it possible top athletes don't use "off the shelf" sails? Could we think their sails are modified for themselves to within the tolerances allowed? They must do a lot of sail prototype testing with small deviations compared to what goes into production.
I've heard the pros test many masts and keep the ones they want to use, because they are all a bit different. That alone would suggest they could manufacture intentionally slight differences for this reason. Calling it manufacturing tolerance and still being within the rules. I'm presuming the same goes for sails. I can see that it only takes a couple mm difference in panel size in the belly of the sail to make a big difference. Not to me, but to them.
All other forms of top-level sport and racing push the rules to the max.
Begs another question, .... In say Olympic class where everyone uses the same equipment, are they given the equipment to use, or can they test many and choose their favorite? If this is the case, it's still not fair because a wealthy sailor can then test many boards, masts and sails getting an unfair advantage.
The PWA don't test gear at every event on that basis you could contest the disqualification.
Select to expand quotechoco said..
The PWA don't test gear at every event on that basis you could contest the disqualification.
Huh?
The rules are clear. The penalty for violating the equipment rule is also clear.
Select to expand quoteJohn340 said..Maddlad said..
Definitely smacks of someone getting pissed off that a young kid sailed one less event than he did and won the world title to me. I agree rules are rules but if you havent used the so-called dodgy equipment you cant have gained an advantage. Either way it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth and doesnt look good for the sport.
Oh boy, another conspiracy theory. Maybe the PWA scrutineers were just doing their job!
They should have done their job before the competition started like most sailing championships do by having a measuring day before the regatta starts. If someone openly cheats they should be penalised 100%, but all of this could have been avoided if the guys in contention for the world title had their gear checked before racing starts, like what happens in national and international sailing regattas.
Then if something was not legal it either gets disqualified from use or it needs to be modified or replaced by a legal item. Bear in mind none of the other sails he actually used in that regatta were illegal.
To wait til someone wins the world championship before complaining of a technicality on a sail that wasnt even used to complete any races in that regatta, just comes across as they couldnt beat him on the water so started looking for other ways to beat him. Either way it doesnt look very good for the PWA to have a title decided this way.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..
So, is it possible top athletes don't use "off the shelf" sails? Could we think their sails are modified for themselves to within the tolerances allowed? They must do a lot of sail prototype testing with small deviations compared to what goes into production.
I've heard the pros test many masts and keep the ones they want to use, because they are all a bit different. That alone would suggest they could manufacture intentionally slight differences for this reason. Calling it manufacturing tolerance and still being within the rules. I'm presuming the same goes for sails. I can see that it only takes a couple mm difference in panel size in the belly of the sail to make a big difference. Not to me, but to them.
All other forms of top-level sport and racing push the rules to the max.
Begs another question, .... In say Olympic class where everyone uses the same equipment, are they given the equipment to use, or can they test many and choose their favorite? If this is the case, it's still not fair because a wealthy sailor can then test many boards, masts and sails getting an unfair advantage.
well I know for a fact that the pros test many production boards and fins of the same type to find the best ones. i know from sailing that I have had mains with flatter more twisted cuts and ones more deeper for lighter winds. All of our masts are different in windsurfing and sailing even though they might be the same and same with foils.
Select to expand quotejdfoils said..choco said..
The PWA don't test gear at every event on that basis you could contest the disqualification.
Huh?
The rules are clear. The penalty for violating the equipment rule is also clear.
True but they need to test at every event not pick and choose or because a salty "Pro" sounded out the winner
Select to expand quoteJohn340 said..
Comments about the initial lack of disclosure cuts both ways. At least the PWA were factual in their initial statement. The same could not be said for Soe and Point7.
(1) The organizers of the PWA have the responsibility to make public the reasons for their decisions. Individual Athletes or manufacturers do not have such responsibility: they are not deciding anything. (2) The PWA should check sails, boards and foils before the start of every single event. It is instead checking some equipment, somewhere, sometimes.
(1) is mostly a failure in public relationships. The press release they finally produced is somewhat better than their silence for two days, but it still leaves a lot of points very vague. (2) is the most troublesome. I cannot think of any other serious international event with equipment class rules that does not check that the rules are satisfied at every single race.
Soe was targeted, and we have no idea who else was checked during the season: where, when and how often? And frankly it is difficult not to wonder about what other athletes have been doing with their equipment. If a 1.5 cm change (somewhere in the sail) is enough to be disqualified, the number of people that might be using disqualifying equipment might be very large indeed.
But apparently that is ok with the PWA: some loose a world cup because their sail was somewhat off in a race that was not even completed, while others, for all we know, might run a whole season without ever being checked.
Many years ago, I used to race carts. They would randomly pull motors apart to see if people were cheating. I paid thousands to get a tuner to modify the engine to the absolute maximum to within the rules. It made a 14hp motor into 16hp. It doesn't sound a lot, but you had to do this to be competitive. I saw a guy get disqualified because he replaced a M4x6mm Phillips head screw with a M4x6mm flat blade screwdriver head screw. It held the butterfly in the carburetor. Carburetors had to be stock. He did this because it fell on the ground, and he couldn't find it. Same size head and no improvement to performance. But rules are rules and he got done.
Select to expand quoteMaddlad said..
They should have done their job before the competition started like most sailing championships do by having a measuring day before the regatta starts. If someone openly cheats they should be penalised 100%, but all of this could have been avoided if the guys in contention for the world title had their gear checked before racing starts, like what happens in national and international sailing regattas.
Then if something was not legal it either gets disqualified from use or it needs to be modified or replaced by a legal item. Bear in mind none of the other sails he actually used in that regatta were illegal.
To wait til someone wins the world championship before complaining of a technicality on a sail that wasnt even used to complete any races in that regatta, just comes across as they couldnt beat him on the water so started looking for other ways to beat him. Either way it doesnt look very good for the PWA to have a title decided this way.
They test at the end (or mid competition) to make sure nobody sneaks in a new sail after registration.
Soe admitted he used the 7.8 for some heats, but those heats were cancelled due to lulls. He used an illegal sail.
Its P7/Soe who dont look too good.
PWA could have made full details known to the public at the time.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..
Begs another question, .... In say Olympic class where everyone uses the same equipment, are they given the equipment to use, or can they test many and choose their favorite? If this is the case, it's still not fair because a wealthy sailor can then test many boards, masts and sails getting an unfair advantage.
For the actual Olympic event they give the sailors their kit to use. They can protest their equipment if they think it is duff.
www.facebook.com/reel/1004209930661140
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE PWA MANAGEMENT BOARD REGARDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DEN-37
The PWA is a rider and manufacturer governed association. Rules are set by the PWA Management Board that is elected from the industry and rider members of the association. The rider and industry representatives on the PWA Management Board consult with the members on all matters, including competition rules.
All PWA racing is run on registered production equipment. As such, sails, boards, and foils must be registered by the manufacturers before the start of the season. All participating brands and riders are aware of these requirements.
This is intended to ensure that any competitor has access to the same level of equipment, and so that any advantage through having additional wealth or funding is minimised, creating as level a playing field as possible.
This also creates an environment whereby recreational sailors can also obtain and enjoy using the same high-performance gear as the pros.
For 2023 competitors registered the 3 boards, 6 sails, and one set of foil components that they would compete on for the whole year, at the first event they participated at.
Not all equipment is checked at events as it is expensive and time consuming to do so, but riders are expected to abide by the rules and the responsibility is on the competitors themselves to make sure that their equipment is not in breach of the rules. If they are in any doubt they can request to have their equipment measured to check it for legality. Equipment is checked randomly at events across multiple brands and riders to help ensure that the rules are upheld.
As part of equipment checks at the PWA slalom finals in Japan, sails from top riders were inspected to check for rule compliance. Examples of sails from NeilPryde, Challenger, Severne and Point 7 were collected from the riders.
All of the sails collected were measured, with the battens and cambers removed, and on a flat hard surface with the sails being pulled flat to the ground.
On inspection the Point 7 sail belonging to DEN-37 showed clear and undeniable indications that the sail had been modified from its original factory construction. Marks left from the original construction, such as glue and stitching holes were clearly visible, and normal graphics printed on the sail were obscured where batten pockets had been moved. Neither Point 7 or DEN-37 have denied or challenged this fact.
The Point 7 sail was found to have leech measurements between the battens that were outside of the registered specification by more than 2 cm, and even with the production tolerances of 0.35% applied, were still 1.5cm outside of the registered specification.
To ensure fair consideration, a control sail from another rider using the same Point 7 production sails was also inspected. This sail showed none of the signs of modification that DEN-37's sail did, there was no glue or altered stitching and the graphics that had been obscured on DEN-37s sail were fully visible. All of the sails measurements were within the acceptable tolerances.
To ensure that all reasonable doubt was eliminated, the measurements of the other production sail were then taken as base measurements, tolerances were applied, but DEN-37s sail was still found to be more than 1.5cm out of spec even with the extra millimetres granted by the variances in the second production sail.
The judges then convened a hearing with DEN-37 to ask him if he could provide any information as to why his sail had been modified, why it was out of the tolerance of the registered specification and to allow him the chance to explain the situation from his point of view and put forward any mitigating circumstances that might justify the discrepancies discovered in the inspection.
The sail had been registered for competition by DEN-37 and therefore needed to be to the correct specification whether used or not, but it was found that it had been used through the year including in Japan.
After hearing DEN-37s evidence, and equipped with the findings of the inspections, the judges reconvened to discuss the situation and decide on whether the rules had been infringed and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
The judges were unanimous in their opinion that the sail did not - with all tolerances and reasonable doubt applied - meet the required specification and was therefore illegal for use in PWA racing. The committee found that although DEN-37 may not have used the sail in a counting heat in Japan, that he had used it in valid starts where he could not have known that the heat would subsequently be abandoned, so that this argument was not a valid defence. The committee also felt that although they did not have measurements taken from this particular sail at other events, he had used it in its current state throughout the season, and therefore whether he had used it in Japan or not was not the only consideration.
The judges therefore felt they had no option but to apply the rules which state.
{2.5.3} Equipment Scrutinizing (SLALOM)
(a) Scrutinizing of equipment will be performed either by a PWA Representative, or any member of the PWA Race Crew. A sailor must make his/her equipment available for scrutinizing at any time whilst the event is in progress. Failure to present equipment for scrutinizing may result in disqualification from the respective race or from the entire discipline.
(b) Equipment used by sailors must meet all registered specification and shall not have been modified in any way without prior approval from the protest committee. Modification from the normal specification as delivered by the manufacturer shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this rule, the addition of any extra tack or clew cringles or positions, puncturing of the sail to allow any attachment to provide tension other than devices supplied with the sail as standard or any other attachment or modification that is designed to alter the shape or performance of the sail from the standard supplied configuration shall not be permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, brochure / website specification and or the majority specification of other identical items of equipment may be used as evidence of the standard supplied specification by the protest committee.
(c) Batten types and tension, mast type and tension, adjustment of camber inducers including sanding / filing and the addition of any spacers or other optional devices that are supplied as standard for the adjustment of battens, masts or camber inducers, shall be excluded from this rule and may be adjusted at the discretion of the sailor in question.
(d) Any sailor found to have been using equipment that has not been registered, or equipment that does not meet the registered specification for that particular item of equipment, including the conditions outlined above, shall be disqualified from the entire race discipline for that event.
Therefore, the committee was left with little option other than to disqualify DEN-37 from the event in Japan.
As with any decision by the judges at an event, DEN-37 will have the right to appeal the decision and the hearing may be reopened if significant new evidence can be presented. DEN-37 has indicated that he intends to appeal, although no appeal has been presented at this time and as DEN-37 will be travelling home currently, he will be granted further time to lodge an appeal, should he choose to do so.
The PWA takes the application of the rules surrounding equipment registration seriously and competitors or brands who breach such rules do so with great disrespect to the vast majority of their contemporaries who strive to uphold the rules.
STATEMENT FROM POINT 7 SAILS
Point-7: It was not the first time that our brand has been at the top of the PWA podium and certainly not the last. We proved it in different disciplines and often with new young talents. We are very competitive and work hard on our development and for 2024, as Johan has already signed with us, we are even more motivated to take him back to the top, as he has shown amazing racing skills. We are happy to support PWA in the task in enforcing the checking of riders equipment throughout all events.
Select to expand quoteduzzi said..
I cannot think of any other serious international event with equipment class rules that does not check that the rules are satisfied at every single race.
I very strongly doubt that any windsurf/windfoil even indeed measures sails in detail at every single race. As the PWA explanation explains quite well, this requires removing battens and cams. Not only is this a major time sink, but it also screws up the tuning of the sails.
The much more likely sail check is a visual check for any modifications. P7 was a bit lazy there, making modifications that were clearly visible because the graphics on the sail were obscured. Johan was a bit too optimistic that he'd get away with this (although he apparently did at the event in Sylt, assuming the sail was already modified then). If you use a sail where it is easy to see that it was modified, and modifications are not allowed, the only ones to blame are yourself, and the sponsors who gave you the modified sail (the rules seem to require that sail are registered by serial number, so even switching to an identical replacement sail requires approval).
If the PWA would decide to check sails more regularly in the future, and to concentrate these checks on companies and individuals previously caught cheating, that would be perfectly reasonable. Athletes caught for doping violations can also expect to be more heavily scrutinized in the future. And with P7, it would not be too surprising if they only stop making obvious modifications.
If it is any consolation, the PWA is handing this better than the FIA is handling the Las Vegas Grand Prix. 
Select to expand quoteduzzi said..mmilhazes said..
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE PWA MANAGEMENT BOARD REGARDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF DEN-37
The PWA is a rider and manufacturer governed association. Rules are set by the PWA Management Board that is elected from the industry and rider members of the association. The rider and industry representatives on the PWA Management Board consult with the members on all matters, including competition rules.
All PWA racing is run on registered production equipment. As such, sails, boards, and foils must be registered by the manufacturers before the start of the season. All participating brands and riders are aware of these requirements.
This is intended to ensure that any competitor has access to the same level of equipment, and so that any advantage through having additional wealth or funding is minimised, creating as level a playing field as possible.
This also creates an environment whereby recreational sailors can also obtain and enjoy using the same high-performance gear as the pros.
For 2023 competitors registered the 3 boards, 6 sails, and one set of foil components that they would compete on for the whole year, at the first event they participated at.
Not all equipment is checked at events as it is expensive and time consuming to do so, but riders are expected to abide by the rules and the responsibility is on the competitors themselves to make sure that their equipment is not in breach of the rules. If they are in any doubt they can request to have their equipment measured to check it for legality. Equipment is checked randomly at events across multiple brands and riders to help ensure that the rules are upheld.
As part of equipment checks at the PWA slalom finals in Japan, sails from top riders were inspected to check for rule compliance. Examples of sails from NeilPryde, Challenger, Severne and Point 7 were collected from the riders.
All of the sails collected were measured, with the battens and cambers removed, and on a flat hard surface with the sails being pulled flat to the ground.
On inspection the Point 7 sail belonging to DEN-37 showed clear and undeniable indications that the sail had been modified from its original factory construction. Marks left from the original construction, such as glue and stitching holes were clearly visible, and normal graphics printed on the sail were obscured where batten pockets had been moved. Neither Point 7 or DEN-37 have denied or challenged this fact.
The Point 7 sail was found to have leech measurements between the battens that were outside of the registered specification by more than 2 cm, and even with the production tolerances of 0.35% applied, were still 1.5cm outside of the registered specification.
To ensure fair consideration, a control sail from another rider using the same Point 7 production sails was also inspected. This sail showed none of the signs of modification that DEN-37's sail did, there was no glue or altered stitching and the graphics that had been obscured on DEN-37s sail were fully visible. All of the sails measurements were within the acceptable tolerances.
To ensure that all reasonable doubt was eliminated, the measurements of the other production sail were then taken as base measurements, tolerances were applied, but DEN-37s sail was still found to be more than 1.5cm out of spec even with the extra millimetres granted by the variances in the second production sail.
The judges then convened a hearing with DEN-37 to ask him if he could provide any information as to why his sail had been modified, why it was out of the tolerance of the registered specification and to allow him the chance to explain the situation from his point of view and put forward any mitigating circumstances that might justify the discrepancies discovered in the inspection.
The sail had been registered for competition by DEN-37 and therefore needed to be to the correct specification whether used or not, but it was found that it had been used through the year including in Japan.
After hearing DEN-37s evidence, and equipped with the findings of the inspections, the judges reconvened to discuss the situation and decide on whether the rules had been infringed and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
The judges were unanimous in their opinion that the sail did not - with all tolerances and reasonable doubt applied - meet the required specification and was therefore illegal for use in PWA racing. The committee found that although DEN-37 may not have used the sail in a counting heat in Japan, that he had used it in valid starts where he could not have known that the heat would subsequently be abandoned, so that this argument was not a valid defence. The committee also felt that although they did not have measurements taken from this particular sail at other events, he had used it in its current state throughout the season, and therefore whether he had used it in Japan or not was not the only consideration.
The judges therefore felt they had no option but to apply the rules which state.
{2.5.3} Equipment Scrutinizing (SLALOM)
(a) Scrutinizing of equipment will be performed either by a PWA Representative, or any member of the PWA Race Crew. A sailor must make his/her equipment available for scrutinizing at any time whilst the event is in progress. Failure to present equipment for scrutinizing may result in disqualification from the respective race or from the entire discipline.
(b) Equipment used by sailors must meet all registered specification and shall not have been modified in any way without prior approval from the protest committee. Modification from the normal specification as delivered by the manufacturer shall not be permitted. For the purposes of this rule, the addition of any extra tack or clew cringles or positions, puncturing of the sail to allow any attachment to provide tension other than devices supplied with the sail as standard or any other attachment or modification that is designed to alter the shape or performance of the sail from the standard supplied configuration shall not be permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, brochure / website specification and or the majority specification of other identical items of equipment may be used as evidence of the standard supplied specification by the protest committee.
(c) Batten types and tension, mast type and tension, adjustment of camber inducers including sanding / filing and the addition of any spacers or other optional devices that are supplied as standard for the adjustment of battens, masts or camber inducers, shall be excluded from this rule and may be adjusted at the discretion of the sailor in question.
(d) Any sailor found to have been using equipment that has not been registered, or equipment that does not meet the registered specification for that particular item of equipment, including the conditions outlined above, shall be disqualified from the entire race discipline for that event.
Therefore, the committee was left with little option other than to disqualify DEN-37 from the event in Japan.
As with any decision by the judges at an event, DEN-37 will have the right to appeal the decision and the hearing may be reopened if significant new evidence can be presented. DEN-37 has indicated that he intends to appeal, although no appeal has been presented at this time and as DEN-37 will be travelling home currently, he will be granted further time to lodge an appeal, should he choose to do so.
The PWA takes the application of the rules surrounding equipment registration seriously and competitors or brands who breach such rules do so with great disrespect to the vast majority of their contemporaries who strive to uphold the rules.
STATEMENT FROM POINT 7 SAILS
Point-7: It was not the first time that our brand has been at the top of the PWA podium and certainly not the last. We proved it in different disciplines and often with new young talents. We are very competitive and work hard on our development and for 2024, as Johan has already signed with us, we are even more motivated to take him back to the top, as he has shown amazing racing skills. We are happy to support PWA in the task in enforcing the checking of riders equipment throughout all events.
Good, now we can all go home. And maybe the PWA will learn how to deal with little things such as taking a world title from an athlete a bit better!!!!
PS And check sails a bit more often? This still seems like a repair to me, and it could have been found out months ago without making such a colossal ordeal on the last race of the season.
1- It's apparently NOT the PWA's job to check sails more often. Sailing is a self-policing sport. It's the sailor's job to make sure the gear follows the rules. If you want the PWA to check every bit of gear all the time then ask who will pay and what happens next.
2- How often have you had sails measured? It's not as easy as you appear to think to always find this stuff.
3- A 25mm change in a leach measurement due to a "repair" is enormous at pro level. For example when I pull on a new one design sail I will definitely notice less than that in most classes.
4 - Once you let a 25mm change in shape go, one may as well allow open slather. I'm not sure if you've ever sailed with pro sailmakers but that can mean being followed by a chase boat taking pics, sails being cut and re-cut overnight, millimetres coming here and there and vastly increased costs for many sailors.
5- Looking at the PWA report it seems that the usual natural justice/procedural fairness rules were followed.
6- So because someone wins you should ignore the fact that they broke the rules?
Select to expand quoteMaddlad said..
They should have done their job before the competition started like most sailing championships do by having a measuring day before the regatta starts. If someone openly cheats they should be penalised 100%, but all of this could have been avoided if the guys in contention for the world title had their gear checked before racing starts, like what happens in national and international sailing regattas.
Then if something was not legal it either gets disqualified from use or it needs to be modified or replaced by a legal item. Bear in mind none of the other sails he actually used in that regatta were illegal.
To wait til someone wins the world championship before complaining of a technicality on a sail that wasnt even used to complete any races in that regatta, just comes across as they couldnt beat him on the water so started looking for other ways to beat him. Either way it doesnt look very good for the PWA to have a title decided this way.
Nope, they also often check measure after regattas start in sailing championships. It's the sailor's responsibility to make sure their gear is legal.
So they decide to check all gear before every event. All sails to have battens taken out, all other gear checked, etc. So that would take at a guess, four hours for each competitor? Assume you want two people doing it and recording for QC purposes and say 50 competitors, you've now increased the regatta budget by about $14000. That's $14k off the prizemoney because sponsorship won't increase. Is that really better than just expecting competitors to follow the rules that pros should know to follow?
I only ever did one world championship run by the predecessor to the PWA and I think that if anyone had turned up with a sail altered that much none of the competitors would have felt any sympathy, just as they wouldn't feel any sympathy if a measurement check halfway through (for example) a Laser or LT championship found a similar alteration.
Select to expand quotePhilUK said..
I dont like all these accusations of cheating, when the actual reason for the DSQ hasnt been made clear.
It's also arguable that there shouldn't be implications that the PWA did things incorrectly, when there's no actual reason to state thet did. The info from the PWA indicates that all the normal requirements for procedural fairness and natural justice were followed. The sailor broke the rules he should have known about as a pro. The sailor therefore got DSQd. End of story.
How many times have you written a press statement about an investigation? I'd be surprised if the PWA press guys have done it very often and it's important to get it right in these situations. It's completely possible that it was felt that it should be checked by a lawyer, and that takes time. How many PWA staff are there and how many are experienced in this field?
Significantly, it wasn't an "accusation" of cheating - it was a proven case of not following the rules. The process seems to have been followed in confidence which is the way to do it. It's like the difference between alleging that someone has committed a crime and reporting on the fact that a jury found them guilty - the two things are vastly different and shouldn't be confused.
Select to expand quoteJduzzi said..
(1) The organizers of the PWA have the responsibility to make public the reasons for their decisions. Individual Athletes or manufacturers do not have such responsibility: they are not deciding anything. (2) The PWA should check sails, boards and foils before the start of every single event. It is instead checking some equipment, somewhere, sometimes.
(1) is mostly a failure in public relationships. The press release they finally produced is somewhat better than their silence for two days, but it still leaves a lot of points very vague. (2) is the most troublesome. I cannot think of any other serious international event with equipment class rules that does not check that the rules are satisfied at every single race.
Soe was targeted, and we have no idea who else was checked during the season: where, when and how often? And frankly it is difficult not to wonder about what other athletes have been doing with their equipment. If a 1.5 cm change (somewhere in the sail) is enough to be disqualified, the number of people that might be using disqualifying equipment might be very large indeed.
But apparently that is ok with the PWA: some loose a world cup because their sail was somewhat off in a race that was not even completed, while others, for all we know, might run a whole season without ever being checked.
How do you know Soe was "targeted" in an unfair way? That's a hell of an accusation to make. The fact that others may have become aware of something suspicious is not "targeting" someone in a bad sense.
The Tour de France, for example, doesn't check every bike from what I understand. The predecessor to the PWA didn't check equipment at world titles. Classes as big as the Laser do NOT check your sail seams at every world title. The America's Cup lead-up series didn't check gear before every race. If you don't know of such things you may not be in a position to sling **** at the PWA. It seems that your allegations of incompetence or bad faith are unfair.
It seems that the allegations of bad faith you are making are worse than anything the PWA did to Soe, and you have no proof at all to back them.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..
So, is it possible top athletes don't use "off the shelf" sails? Could we think their sails are modified for themselves to within the tolerances allowed? They must do a lot of sail prototype testing with small deviations compared to what goes into production.
I've heard the pros test many masts and keep the ones they want to use, because they are all a bit different. That alone would suggest they could manufacture intentionally slight differences for this reason. Calling it manufacturing tolerance and still being within the rules. I'm presuming the same goes for sails. I can see that it only takes a couple mm difference in panel size in the belly of the sail to make a big difference. Not to me, but to them.
All other forms of top-level sport and racing push the rules to the max.
Begs another question, .... In say Olympic class where everyone uses the same equipment, are they given the equipment to use, or can they test many and choose their favorite? If this is the case, it's still not fair because a wealthy sailor can then test many boards, masts and sails getting an unfair advantage.
As others noted at the Games the sailors get given gear in some classes like Laser dinghies. At the Athens Games Tom Slingsby went in the unbackable favourite in the Lasers and ended up about 18th or something because the gear he got had some natural variation to the stuff he liked, and he couldn't get it going.
After that Tom picked up Michael Blackburn, 2000 bronze medallist, as a coach. Michael has a PhD in Laser hiking and is as meticulous as you may think. He and Tom then spent ages measuring random boats, sails and spars to find out how much the manufacturing tolerance affected the boats and their characteristics. They then went out and bought second-hand boats that Tom thought were slow ones, and they calibrated and trained until Tom could change his style to make even "slow" boats sail fast.
From then on when Tom went to an event with supplied equipment he could measure it, look at the database, and see (for example) that the sail was x% deeper and therefore he should carry different adjustments or sail a different groove. He was almost unbeatable. Other Australian Olympians (like two-time Olympian Krystal Weir IIRC) followed similar approaches.
So the top Olympians around here with supplied equipment do NOT try to find fast gear - they know that they have to get used to what they get. The other thing is that even a small variation in a production mast or sail can sometimes have a big difference at world level so altering a leech 25mm is a huge change and if one competitor can adjust their "production" sails to their style they could have a huge advantage.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..PhilUK said..
I dont like all these accusations of cheating, when the actual reason for the DSQ hasnt been made clear.
It's also arguable that there shouldn't be implications that the PWA did things incorrectly, when there's no actual reason to state thet did. The info from the PWA indicates that all the normal requirements for procedural fairness and natural justice were followed. The sailor broke the rules he should have known about as a pro. The sailor therefore got DSQd. End of story.
How many times have you written a press statement about an investigation? I'd be surprised if the PWA press guys have done it very often and it's important to get it right in these situations. It's completely possible that it was felt that it should be checked by a lawyer, and that takes time. How many PWA staff are there and how many are experienced in this field?
Significantly, it wasn't an "accusation" of cheating - it was a proven case of not following the rules. The process seems to have been followed in confidence which is the way to do it. It's like the difference between alleging that someone has committed a crime and reporting on the fact that a jury found them guilty - the two things are vastly different and shouldn't be confused.
Serious?
It was a developing situation, it took a while for all the facts to come out. Why quote someone's post from page 1 (before all the facts have come out)? Your not the 1st person to do this either. But thats forums for you.
I posted that on page 1 of this thread. At the time they didnt give any information about what was actually wrong. At the time I had a look in the rules and you cant move cringles. There was talk of millimetres from P7. I've seen a few slalom sails with damage to cringle area. If a cringle was replaced would a sailor notice it was 3mm out of place? If it had been that, it wouldnt have been cheating, it would have been a genuine mistake, but still outside the rules and a DSQ. mmilhazes was saying P7 were changing the sails during the year. At the time we didnt know what the actual facts were.
I've never written a press release. I've said that all this social media ****estorm could have been avoided if the PWA had just published the written statement given to Soe/P7. Maybe I am wrong in assuming there was one, but it would be poor if they didnt give a written notice detailing exactly what they had found. It doesnt need to be anything fancy, a hand written statement signed by each jury member on a pre-printed form would suffice. They dont carry printers around. A photo of that, from a phone, would be suffice. I also wrote later that I put this down to inexperience of PWA, as this doesnt happen often, if it all before.
