Tme for the Big Dogs to Romp (and for Graybacks to Look Out)

"The America’s Cup Arbitration Panel has moved forward its schedule to hear the OneWorld case on December 7th / 8th. In light of this, the International Jury has decided not to hear the Team Dennis Conner protest until after the Arbitration Panel ... "

The above posting on the Louis Vuitton website, is one of the clues into the vicious, behind-the-scenes contest presently being waged between the America's Cup Arbitration Panel and the International Jury regarding primacy in considering and deciding Team Dennis Conner's last-gasp protest against their "Daddy", the Seattle Yacht Club's OneWorld Challenge. The doubtful legitimacy of the protest aside, this battle of jurisdiction points-up the unintended consequence of designating two parallel and self-important bodies to adjudicate AC disputes, but failing to sufficiently define their respective undertakings. Fingers again point to the Challenger of Record, Prada America's Cup 2003, and its third world lawyers, for failing 'Legal Document Drafting 101.'

Yes, the Panel has been exceedingly unresponsiveness to the needs of the competitors and clearly acted improperly, and in violation of recognized ethical standards, by holding the event hostage and refusing to release decisions on applications, until its unilateral demands were met. In retrospect, its amazing the Panel didn't also demand a 7-figure compensation package (American money not those NZ Pesos of the Pacific) -- because they were in the position at that time to get whatever they wanted. Nevertheless, the Panel finally agreed to settle its strike, which ended with its issuance of a flurry of decisions including a ruling finding OneWorld guilty and penalizing it for acquisition and use of illicit design information.

No matter the imprecision of the Protocol's language, the Panel is nonetheless clearly the authority designated for deciding AC-31 off-the-water disputes. This can be gleaned not only from the Protocol's identification of specific matters which may only be decided by the Panel and, moreover, by the requisite qualifications specified in the governing document to be held by its 'sage' members: legal skill and familiarity with America's Cup sailing. No such qualification or skill is required, possessed or exercised by members of the IJ, whose appointments are made by their 'New World Order' puppetmaster, Paul Henderson of ISAF, in accordance with a secret protocol executed between it and Prada when the Italians were the only challenger and therefore not subject to multilateral competitor oversight. The Jury has always had a tendency to increase its self-importance and the scope of its duties, especially whilst led by its opportunistic leader, the possibly senile Bryan Willis, well known for issuance of expert pronouncements on any subject known to man and who loves to see his face on television. Team DC's request that the Jury also weigh-in on its Arbitration Panel application was a transparent manipulation of the Jury's predilection for publicity-hounding, much like continuing to feed a retarded person ice cream until they vomit.

Fortunately, Baskin/Robbins closed before the Jury could hurl. The Panel finally recognized at the last moment that it had to dispense with its leisurely approach to decision-making (something no doubt enjoyed while sitting on the "High Bench") if they wanted to avoid becoming an anachronism in AC-31 competition. Taking a page from "Willis the Usurper", the Panel moved-up the date of its hearing on the Team DC application against OneWorld, the impact of which will be the preservation of their Protocol right to take 'first bite of the apple' as it were; whatever the international jury later decides will thus become a footnote on an already (twice!) decided matter.

And "how will the Panel decide?" you ask: obviously by countenancing its earlier decision that the claims in question have been considered, all competitors allowed ample opportunity (with extensions of time) to weigh-in with evidence and argument, and a full and final decision was rendered on the merits. It should also find that all of the substantive allegations and evidence recently proffered by TDC in support of reopening the OWC application, was known to virtually everyone (except perhaps, the Guantanamo "detainees"), and available for submission to the Panel at that time. Moreover, the Panel should conclude that even if the so-called "new" evidence had been earlier considered, its decision and punishment would have been no different.

(IMHO) Team DC's strategic blunder of needlessly "diss'ing" the Arbitration Panel spells the predictable failure of a fatally flawed plan. It's time for the Big Dogs to romp - serious players like Alinghi, OneWorld and the Arbitration Panel - and for aging "graybacks" like DC and Bryan Willis to make way before they get run-down. That should give International Jury members plenty of time to determine the appropriate RRS Rule 69 penalty to assess against Team DC for improperly and corruptly resurrecting and submitting an already decided issue to the IJ for reconsideration. And don't expect the Jury to be gentle -- after all, TDC's most recent shenanigans have and will cause the Jury serious collateral damage. Besides, Conner can take it: he's obviously no virgin when it comes time to spread his legs for the IJ.