The international jury has dismissed a protest regarding Team Telefónica's sails during Leg 4.
The Jury found that Telefónica had sought clarification over the relevant section of the Notice of Race in an appropriate manner and that, at the time, the chief measurer was satisfied that they were in compliance with the rule.
Subsequent further clarification of the rule offered a different interpretation but the Jury decided it should not be applied retrospectively.
"Telefónica cannot be found to have broken Notice of Race 5.2 during Leg 4," the Jury concluded.
"Protest dismissed."
The independent body of rules experts chaired by ISAF international judge Bernard Bonneau decided to dismissed the case, which centred around an alleged breach of 5.2.2 of the Notice of Race, after hearing from three witnesses on Wednesday evening.
Race director Jack Lloyd, Telefónica skipper Iker Martínez and chief measurer Shaun Ritson all gave evidence, while Telefónica were represented by legal adviser Luis Sáenz Mariscal.
Mariscal returned on Thursday to hear the verdict directly from the International Jury.
The jury was made up of:
Bernard Bonneau (FRA) Chairman
Peter Shrubb (BER)
Flavio Naveira (ARG)
Chris Atkins (GBR)
John Maccall (ARG)
Volvo Ocean Race 2011-2012
Jury vs Telefonica
1 Facts Found
1.1 Telefonica sailed leg 4 with 10 sails, including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs. Leg 4 started on 19th February and Telefonica finished on 11th March.
1.2 Prior to 18 th February representatives of Telefonica asked questions to the Race Director and
Chief Measurer regarding the number of storm jibs that could be carried. They were answered that the NoR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried.
1.3 Telefonica’s sail inventory was declared, and checked by the Chief Measurer, in Sanya on18 th February before the start of the leg. The Chief Measurer did not file a report alleging sails in excess of any limitation in the NoR at this time.
1.4 Telefonica’s sail inventory was then checked in Auckland on 11 th March after finishing. Again, the Chief Measurer did not file a report alleging sails in excess of any limitation in the NoR.
1.5 On 16th March the RC emailed to the teams a written interpretation of NoR paragraph 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 in which it was stated that if a boat carries additional storm jibs or HWJs, they are counted as headsails for the purposes of NoR 5.2.2(b).
1.6 On 18 th March the Chief Measurer reported that under this interpretation Telefonica had sailed leg 4 with one headsail in excess of the limitation in NoR 5.2.2(b).
1.7 On 18th March the Jury filed a protest against Telefonica.
2 Conclusions
2.1 The body responsible for interpreting the NoR is the OA and RC. Telefonica sought clarification from the appropriate source.
2.2 The absence of any report from the Chief Measurer as required in NoR 5.3.1 indicated that at the times of inspection he concluded that Telefonica had declared her sail inventory and sailed leg 4 in compliance with NoR 5.2.
2.3 The interpretation emailed to the teams on 16th March conflicted with the Chief Measurer’s previous interpretation. This indicates that the meaning of NoR 5.2 is ambiguous.
2.4 For these reasons it was reasonable for Telefonica to believe her sail inventory on leg 4 was in compliance with the NoR.
2.5 The 16th March interpretation was needed to resolve the ambiguity, and to establish clarity over compliance with NoR 5.2. It should therefore not be applied retrospectively.
2.6 Prior to this interpretation, given the different interpretation made by the Chief Measurer at the time, Telefonica cannot be found to have broken NoR 5.2 during leg 4.
3 Decision
3.1 Protest dismissed
Decision given Itajai, 11.45am, Thursday 19th April
From : Volvo Ocean Race
Credit : P. Todd/VOR
The Jury found that Telefónica had sought clarification over the relevant section of the Notice of Race in an appropriate manner and that, at the time, the chief measurer was satisfied that they were in compliance with the rule.
Subsequent further clarification of the rule offered a different interpretation but the Jury decided it should not be applied retrospectively.
"Telefónica cannot be found to have broken Notice of Race 5.2 during Leg 4," the Jury concluded.
"Protest dismissed."
The independent body of rules experts chaired by ISAF international judge Bernard Bonneau decided to dismissed the case, which centred around an alleged breach of 5.2.2 of the Notice of Race, after hearing from three witnesses on Wednesday evening.
Race director Jack Lloyd, Telefónica skipper Iker Martínez and chief measurer Shaun Ritson all gave evidence, while Telefónica were represented by legal adviser Luis Sáenz Mariscal.
Mariscal returned on Thursday to hear the verdict directly from the International Jury.
The jury was made up of:
Bernard Bonneau (FRA) Chairman
Peter Shrubb (BER)
Flavio Naveira (ARG)
Chris Atkins (GBR)
John Maccall (ARG)
Volvo Ocean Race 2011-2012
Jury vs Telefonica
1 Facts Found
1.1 Telefonica sailed leg 4 with 10 sails, including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs. Leg 4 started on 19th February and Telefonica finished on 11th March.
1.2 Prior to 18 th February representatives of Telefonica asked questions to the Race Director and
Chief Measurer regarding the number of storm jibs that could be carried. They were answered that the NoR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried.
1.3 Telefonica’s sail inventory was declared, and checked by the Chief Measurer, in Sanya on18 th February before the start of the leg. The Chief Measurer did not file a report alleging sails in excess of any limitation in the NoR at this time.
1.4 Telefonica’s sail inventory was then checked in Auckland on 11 th March after finishing. Again, the Chief Measurer did not file a report alleging sails in excess of any limitation in the NoR.
1.5 On 16th March the RC emailed to the teams a written interpretation of NoR paragraph 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 in which it was stated that if a boat carries additional storm jibs or HWJs, they are counted as headsails for the purposes of NoR 5.2.2(b).
1.6 On 18 th March the Chief Measurer reported that under this interpretation Telefonica had sailed leg 4 with one headsail in excess of the limitation in NoR 5.2.2(b).
1.7 On 18th March the Jury filed a protest against Telefonica.
2 Conclusions
2.1 The body responsible for interpreting the NoR is the OA and RC. Telefonica sought clarification from the appropriate source.
2.2 The absence of any report from the Chief Measurer as required in NoR 5.3.1 indicated that at the times of inspection he concluded that Telefonica had declared her sail inventory and sailed leg 4 in compliance with NoR 5.2.
2.3 The interpretation emailed to the teams on 16th March conflicted with the Chief Measurer’s previous interpretation. This indicates that the meaning of NoR 5.2 is ambiguous.
2.4 For these reasons it was reasonable for Telefonica to believe her sail inventory on leg 4 was in compliance with the NoR.
2.5 The 16th March interpretation was needed to resolve the ambiguity, and to establish clarity over compliance with NoR 5.2. It should therefore not be applied retrospectively.
2.6 Prior to this interpretation, given the different interpretation made by the Chief Measurer at the time, Telefonica cannot be found to have broken NoR 5.2 during leg 4.
3 Decision
3.1 Protest dismissed
Decision given Itajai, 11.45am, Thursday 19th April
From : Volvo Ocean Race
