Vendee Globe 2012

I disagree that this is primarily a rules issue. I think it is primarily a jury issue. The reason we have used separate rule maker and judicial institutions for hundreds of years is to make sure there is adequate elbow room to consider the circumstances of a particular case. Based on the public outcry, the very thin findings released so far certainly don't show the case warranted such a harsh treatment, merely that the letter of the law was infringed. I think the jury should have waited until it could release findings supporting its punishment, not just those that show it has a valid infraction before it.

Such an event as the Vendee should be recognised (and I think usually is recognised) as an event where the rules cannot simply be frozen at the start and any issues that come up can be sorted out for the next race. It represents too great an investment per race for that to work. The jury has done unnecessary damage to the race organisation and to the competitors; and a lot of people are questioning whether justice was done. The public will only believe they are elite, as opposed to privileged, if they play by rules and suffer consequences that the public can relate to. That distinction can change rather quickly, as it appears to be doing here. The problem is usually that some rule is not applied to the privileged, but this is a case of of the reverse.

There is very probably a lot of information that the jury had that we do not. The jury could have cued us as to whether there was and act of commission or omission of the captains part, or whether culpability might lie elsewhere. Was help foisted on the skipper? The jury may be of the opinion that it doesn't matter, but the public would perhaps differ. Deciding that the boat is out and the details can be sorted out later doesn't work.

 

Doug, thanks for sharing. It is quite obviouis that Bernard has the faith and trust of all the other sailors. He's a highly respected individual and a leader in his profession. Jean Le Cam sums up my feelings on the issue:

"It is as if a man finds himself at the edge of the cliff, he may fall, there is someone who extends his hand and he should answer him: "Well, no, because it's the rules, so please don't help me" and he falls off the cliff!"

It's quite clear this add-hoc jury was obvlivious to both the detailed circumstances and the heart & spirit of the entire race. Leave it to a bunch of arm chair bureaucrats sipping tea in the cozy confines of some building as they decide to pull the plug on a boat in the Southern Ocean. They've lost the respect of an awful lot of people that's for sure.

What truly cements the ignorance of the Vendee jury is they ignored international maritime law as a factor in their judgement. The translated feedback below from the Vendee Facebook page really sums it up well.

"Case Bernard STAMM: Taking as hypothesis than the COLREGs (regulations for preventing collisions at sea) shall take precedence over the IC and notice of the Vendée Globe race and in interested in rule 17 (b)) rule 17 the give way vessel Manoeuvre has) i) when a vessel is required to keep out of the way of another ship, the other shall keep her course and speed. (ii) However, it may operate, in order to avoid the collision by his single movement, as soon as seems it obvious that the ship, which is under the obligation to keep out of his way does not appropriate operation prescribed by these rules. (b) when, for a cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the which must give-way vessel alone she shall take such action which is the best aid to avoid collision. The Russian vessel was at anchor, BS was hunting on her anchor. The Russian, priority shall keep her course and speed (here 0 node) Bernard STAMM must do everything to avoid the collision. Paragraph (b)) invites the Russian ship (which is required to keep her course and speed and is so close) to carry out a manoeuvre which is the best (for him) to help avoid the collision can then consider putting a person on board the vessel BS is a maneuver by the Russian ship to "help avoid collision" and non-assistance to BS. Therefore, under rule 17 (b)) of the COLREGs, it is a maneuver by the Russian ship and non-assistance to BS, so it has no place of assent on the part of the Board to Bernard STAMM. There is no new element that should compel the Board to reopen the statement. The new element is not taking account of the COLREGs in the investigation conducted by the Board. This text is the work of a collective does not personally know Bernard Stamm, but familiar with the regulations for preventing collisions at sea and still learned what IL PRAVIN the respect, lack be disqualified during a regatta or failing to make his hole in water in the regatta as in all other circumstances! Thank you for relaying this information. This is important."
http://www.premiumwanadoo.com/leginautique/equipement/ripam.htm

 

I guess...but rules are rules. Stamm is a seasoned Pro, he knew the rules.

Another consideration is that because of his mechanical troubles, he will be very far behind the fleet. Mutual self help is the ethos of French round to world races. He would be alone and vulnerable.

 

i completely agree!

the problem concerning juries in general is, that their sole base of findings is the rules!
if the rules now penalize any mooring to another ship or any assistance from outside by disqualifying, then the jury has not done anything wrong...

usually those beaurocrates stick to the lines of text in front of them and give a heck about anything else, because the very same guys (lawyers and such) defined very precisely how to interpret rules, laws and such...
considering something obscure like 'good seamanship' is absolutely out of their scheme... mostly also because they are no sailors...

 

LOL, in other words Vendee hired a bunch of idiots. You won't find too many people disagreeing with you on that. Lord knows they're trying to hide the names of this "jury". The very nature of this "jury" committee allows them to treat every racer as a potential criminal. Most respectable races have a "review board" to discuss rule infractions.

 

This is not a "problem". It is the only way. If there are rules, and penalties prescribed for these rules, then the Jury has no choice but to follow the rules. That is the job they have been asked to perform.

It is not that the rule "now" penalize outside assistance in this way, it has always been so.

Maybe you should take a look at who was on the jury, and what their backgrounds are, before you make your petty comments about them.

Maybe "good seamanship" would have been setting an anchor properly and not dragging down on another vessel?

 

The names are not hidden, and there is no attempt to hide them. Very easy to find if you read the Case. The jury is named right in the document. Some pretty well respected people there.

The Vendee RC itself brought the protest against Stamm. They presented it to the jury, as all yacht racing protests are. Not sure it you have ever been in a yacht race, or in a protest room. I have no idea what this "review board" might be that you think exists in most races?

 

Paul, I haven't been in a protest room, and am rather curious how things are done there.

Does the accused have representation and can they introduce evidence?

Does the jury publish its decision, or do they submit it back to the race committee for action?

Is there more info on the decision than the short announcement of the DQ on the race homepage?

Must the jury apportion blame, find someone specifically at fault and name them, or is it more that they just need to know that such and such happened and it doesn't much matter who's to blame? This last one seems to be causing a lot of confusion. It would seem reasonable that a decision that results in disqualification have some attempt made to establish blame and that this would be part of the findings.

 

Yes. Mr. Stamm provided his evidence to the jury. In every protest the entity filing the protest gives testimony and the accused responds. If there are witnesses who can help clarify the facts they are heard. Then the jury makes the decision.

The Jury writes a decision. They cite the relevant rules. In this case it is published in full on the website. I suspect 99% of the people hollerin' have not made the effort to read the relevant documents.

In most events the competitors are bound by a Notice of Race, the Sailing Instructions, and the Racing Rules of Sailing. There can be addendums to any of these documents for the purpose of a given race or regatta.

So, if the SIs mention Outside Assistance, and require a DSQ for this infraction, the Jury will find whether or not Assistance was given. If so, they must abide by the SIs and DSQ the offending yacht.

One thing to remember about this type of Jury. They are mainly manned by ISAF Judges, as in this case. That means the people manning the Jury know more about the rules than the competitiors. This is a bit different from a normal jury in the USA courts, where the jurors generally know little about the law, and frankly are usually manned by people who can barely find their way to the courthouse to fulfill their obligations.

Therefore you tend to get impartial decisions from ISAF Juries based on the rules, not based on any "feel-good" or "local good-ol'-boy" reasons. This is the reason the Vendee (and other Big Time regattas) tend to use ISAF Judges and not local juries.

Yes. The entire Case is published on the Vendee website.

The Vendee Race Committee protested Mr. Stamm's entry for a breach of the rules. Mr. Stamm is the skipper and therefore is responsible for his vessel.

Many years ago there was a protest of a boat's rating at a major regatta. Upon re-measurement it was found that the boat could not come close to the floatation measured in the initial measurement. There was speculation that the BN had flooded the bilge to make the boat seem heavier than it was. For this action the owner of the yacht, who was thousands of miles away when the boat was initially measured, was thrown out of sailing for two years. The skipper is responsible for his vessel.

 

Vendee

from Scuttlebutt Europe this morning:

Stamm Requests Reopening Of His Case

The International Jury have received a request from Bernard Stamm to reopen the case regarding his disqualification.

Elaine Bunting weighs in:
What I wonder is exactly how small an act of assistance it would take to risk being thrown out of the race? Even if no-one had helped Stamm weigh anchor, presumably someone on board made fast the line from Stamm's boat. Does that count as well?

The principle of no assistance is what makes the Vendee Globe the ultimate round the world race. But these small acts for the safety of a vessel, which make no advantage for a skipper, are a real conundrum and maybe should weighed up again.

Set that beside the oddity that the rules allow any amount of technical information, photos, diagrams and documentation to be sent to skippers about how to make repairs. Sometimes they are talked through stage by stage by their shore teams. That's not as much, or more, a form of assistance?

Stamm will probably appeal, and good luck to him. If he doesn't win, I hope he'll carry on racing, overhaul some of those in front, and be treated to a hero's welcome and a moral victory in Les Sables d'Olonne. www.yachtingworld.com/blogs/elaine-bunting/

* One of the stronger comments from readers on the Vendee Globe site (along with many who are amazed that the official site has stopped tracking Stamm):

"Let us look at the facts: They get him for having "material contact with another ship". The way I have understood the facts found, Stamm was moored off the stern of the Professeur Khoromov. Ergo no material contact. Mooring is allowed according to NOR 3.2. That leaves the fact that a person not immediately repelled from Cheminees Poujoulat, due to Stamms evaluation of the situation, heaves a line to another person. Gotcha! Hmmmm...wait a minute.

The guy on the foredeck of Cheminees Poujoulat was under his captains orders, as was the guy who received the line. Acting under orders constituted by maritime law. Bernhard Stamm did not throw the line to a outside person. He was briefly intruded upon by an action dictated by international maritime law. The jury can, with their hands firmly planted upon the rules declare Bernhard Stamm back in the race without even handing out a penalty." www.vendeeglobe.org

 

Having finally gotten around to locating and reading the NOR and the case at two in the morning, It does seem rather straight forward. It seems that the NOR set out to declare that any coming-along-side will be ipso facto taken as assistance. There are only a couple of items in the NOR treated this way, and that is one of them. It's not hard to imagine that there was a desire to remove the temptation of, shall we say, overdramatizing a situation in order to obtain some assistance under the cover of a different set of obligations. I'm not saying that was what Stamm was doing, only that the rules were constructed in a way that the jury could avoid having to determine intent of the skipper and extent of distress in such a situation.

Race direction might have done a bit better job of making the NOR and case easier to find by linking to them in the original article. You can find the stuff in the first drop-down menu under Official Notice Board.

 

Maybe next time you might bother to get the facts before you place blame where it doesn’t belong.

Hopefully your pals will do the same before they start bad mouthing the “add-hoc” (sic) jury, saying they made their decision without the facts, and calling them ignorant, idiots, and non-sailors.

You realize the Vendee RC could have dealt with this themselves and not involved the International Jury? However, that would have brought cries of wrongdoing. Of course that would have opened the door for competitors to file their own protests, as they would have been materially prejudiced by the non-action of the RC.

So, the RC did the correct thing in handing the matter to the Jury, and the Jury did the correct thing in enforcing the rules. Now Mr. Stamm has an opportunity to bring new evidence to re-open the hearing. Considering his prior statements have shown he broke the rule I doubt there will be anything new that will cause the jury to change their decision.


Kudos to Mr. Stamm for his complete honesty in this matter. No doubt he knew the probability his action would have this result. It has happened before in a previous race.

 

Petition from all the sailors in the Vendee to reinstate Stamm:

ATTENTION:
Mr. Bernard Bonneau, Chairman of the Jury
Mr. Christophe Gaumont, Chairman of the Race Committee
Mr. Bruno Retailleau, Chairman of the SAEM Vendée

Subject: Protest Race Committee against Cheminées Poujoulat

Chairmen,
We, skippers of the 2012-2013 Vendée Globe, ask that the judgment against Bernard Stamm is revised. We believe that his disqualification is unfair and that he deserves the right to finish the race and to be ranked.

We ask for this revision on the basis of the following facts:


Bernard moored his boat on his own;
The Russian ship moored after Bernard did;
This became a danger which did not exist when Bernard originally moored his boat;
The series of facts that followed are consequences of this danger and they could not be foreseen;
The conduct of the Russian crew was in conformity with Article 7.5 of the Notice of Race on rescue and assistance at sea;
The conduct of the sailors, on both sides, was exemplary and it deserves to be appreciated not punished;
Should Bernard have broken the rule, it would have been unwittingly, and we strongly believe that Bernard strictly conformed to the spirit of the rule;
We consider that the situation Bernard has faced is a force majeure event.

We thank you for taking our views into account in your final decision.

Signed,
Alex Thomson
Armel Le Cléac’h
Arnaud Boissières
Alessandro di Benedetto
Dominique Wavre
Javier Sanso
Jean le Cam
Jean-Pierre Dick
Kito de Pavant
Louis Burton
Marc Guillemot
Mike Golding
Samantha Davies
Tanguy De Lamotte

 

The actions of the competitor in the race (Mr. Stamm) and the Russians had nothing to do with the intent of Article 7.5.

Mr. Stamm did not re-direct in order to assist the Russian ship or her crew. He did not bring the crew aboard his vessel in order to render assistance to them.

This is a clutching at straws in order to reinstate Mr. Stamm, no doubt written by his team.

If the jury do their job this will change nothing.

 

Vendee

From the Vendee site:

The Jury Reopen The Case of Bernard Stamm

Bernard Bonneau, President of the International Jury, states the following:

"After receiving the written testimony of Professor Marine Khoromov[the Captain of the Russian ship], the jury decided to reopen the investigation of Case No. 4 under the sailing rule 66. This sets out that the Board may reopen a hearing when there has been a significant error, or when a new significant fact becomes available. The jury do not consider they made a mistake, but believe that this testimony offers a significant new fact. "