illbruck's fine

Astonishingly, illbruck have been let off with a £1000 fine.

In a move almost unprecedented in sailing, illbruck have been found guilty of what many would regard as a serious breach of the rules only to be let off with an insignificant penalty that will make not one jot of difference to the outcome of the race.

The Jury chaired by Brian Willis found that the weed cutter fitted to illbruck's S-Drive did constitute a modification. Although the modification was in place at the time of initial measurement, the Jury also concluded that the issue of a Measurement Certificate did not constitute explicit permission for the modification. As such, illbruck was not compliant with the class rules for leg one.

The jury went on to fine illbruck £1000 but applied no points-penalty or made any other provisions that would impact on the outcome of the race. illbruck have also been instructed to remodify the offending S-Drive back to its original state.

Perhaps unusually, Brian Willis allowed other teams to make representations to the hearing. A media representative was also admitted to observe the proceedings. Of the other boats, only Assa Abloy, djuice and News Corp were present. Chris Simon, speaking on behalf of Assa Abloy pointed out "that with 51 measurement interpretations issued leading up to the race start, the process where a boat asks for a measurement interpretation was well established, and illbruck would hardly have made an oversight in neglecting to ask."

Illbruck's defence hinged on two separate issues. That the weed cutter would increase drag and the fact that the boat was fitted with the device at initial measurement. While no one seemed to disagree with this analysis, both News Corp and djuice suggested that illbruck gained considerable advantage by not having to slow or stop to clear weeds from the S-Drive. Team News Corp estimated this would have cost between 25 and 30 miles on the leg and pointed out that could be greatly amplified when one takes into account hooking into a favourable weather system.

illbruck syndicate Boss Glen Bourke was robust in his defence. "The illbruck Challenge in no way attempted to make this modification in secrecy," he said. "In hindsight," said Bourke, "perhaps we should have pro-actively brought the modification to the measurers for their review and approval. The boat was issued a valid measurement certificate and therefore we proceeded under the assumption that the boat met all requirements of the Volvo 60 Class." Bourke went on to point out that there was never any intention of circumventing any rule.

After the hearing Brian Willis offered an explanation for the seemingly lenient penalty. "There were mitigating factors," he said. "It would be usual in these circumstances for a measurer to have spotted this sort of thing and to have made a report immediately to the syndicate representatives so that they could put it right. His attention was on other matters and he failed to do that. Although he is not obliged to do that, it would be normal and the syndicate would have relied on that."

If Willis really believed this was the case why then was any penalty imposed? Either the whole thing was a measurement cock-up or illbruck was illegal. Simple. If the measurers were at fault then everyone should know and no blame rests with illbruck. If illbruck have knowingly broken the rules then they should have been meaningfully penalised.

In the press statement issued by the Volvo Press Office after the hearing, Willis goes on to contradict himself, saying first, "that it was a minor matter from the point of view of it making a difference," before adding, "breaking any rule like this is something we take seriously." Fearing that the audience might have lost the plot completely by this stage, Willis only confirms their view by suggesting that he thinks £1000 is a meaningful penalty.

To impose what most people will regard as a joke penalty (less then the cost of a new halyard for a V.O.60) simply brings both the measurement process and the principle of individual responsibility into disrepute.

illbruck clearly regard the penalty as derisory and indeed issued a press release headed 'Penalty Has No Impact on Leg One Results of Volvo Ocean Race' on conclusion of the hearing. Syndicate boss, Glenn Bourke was clearly delighted that his team had got away so lightly. "We have been penalised £1000 for infringing V.O.60 class rule 5.4.2 and we believe the case is over and we are happy with that," he said after the hearing.

Anyone who has had cause to witness Willis in action as either as an international umpire or as a match racing Judge will find this lack of clarity surprising. Willis is a man who usually chooses his words carefully, offering precise and consistent judgements. Clarity is clearly lacking in this case.

There is no doubt that the jury were leaned on heavily by the race committee and one can only hope that this has not influenced the outcome. Director of Race Operations, Mike Woods is on record as saying "the device as installed on illbruck was likely, if anything, to create more drag. Whilst illbruck was in contravention of the rule, an oversight by a measurer did occur." The Race Committee is also on record as telling the jury "that they did not believe a points penalty would be the proper punishment for this modification." The Race Committee believed the addition of the weed cutting device "had no impact on the outcome of the race."

So where does it end? Would the fact that one boat had to dip half a boat length behind another in a port and starboard incident on a 5000-mile leg be considered to have no impact on the outcome of the race? One sincerely hopes not. Indeed the fact that the Race Committee even tried to influence the outcome of a protest hearing goes against the whole ethos of an independent jury.

Even more significantly, one wonders if the impact of a financial penalty has been thought through? You can be sure that £1000 is no more than a drop in the ocean to a multi-million pound syndicate such as illbruck. But what if the penalty had been £10,000 or £100,000? In illbruck's case, the answer is probably 'not much.' But what of the impact on a smaller team with more restricted budgets? £100,000 would be a huge burden for them. Is it not invidious that the penalty applied could have a different impact on different teams? This may be professional yacht racing but do we want a rule enforcement system with all the consistency of Premier League football?