Seahorse Editorial

A huge distraction - probably not

With some trepidation I will predict that the Arbitration Panel's ruling on the OneWorld dispute will be anything but the bombshell that some of Peter Gilmour's rivals might be hoping for. More a limp slap across the wrist.

All the broader-based evidence from events such as the Volvo Race suggests that as sailing becomes a 'bigger' sport, in the commercial sense, so race juries are striving to ensure that the major battles are settled on the water. They are right to do so. Up to a point.

Photo above: Still the supreme IACC sailors - Team NZ lead into the box in Auckland last month. But with numerous defections a lot is riding on Tom Schnackenburgšs design team for the next Cup.

You only need look at other commercialised sports, and Formula 1 is the obvious example, to see that as a sport gains ground in this direction so rule management must take on a more, shall we say, practical approach. However, the evidence from F1 motor racing also suggests that at some point there must be a firm line drawn beyond which realistic sanctions will be imposed. Formula 1 flirted with this line four years ago, when only fate prevented a subseqently confirmed rule-breaker from becoming 'world champion' - an outcome for which the sport did not seem at all prepared.

Whatever the sport, there is a certain point of 'tolerance' beyond which the damage to credibility becomes irreversible. Even the most enthusiastic and passionate public will ultimately turn away from an obvious fix.

Sailing is nowhere near that point. But the current plethora of America's Cup disputes, which fundamentally revolve around the ownership of intellectual property do threaten widespread ridicule and lasting damage.

As is usually the case when a rule dispute becomes complicated, the current Cup wrangle is down to the fact that present rules (in this case covering the transfer of IACC technology) are completely unworkable.

There is plenty of evidence for sailing competitions being improved when unworkable rules are dispensed with. The more complicated the forum the more easily regulations spin out of control. Nowhere is more complicated than the current America's Cup. And the fact that one of those central to the biggest dispute helped write the rules, or in this case the Cup Protocol, only leads to more certainty as to their redundancy. Poacher turned gamekeeper indeed - or should it be the other way around?

Before this Cup is over we need to fundamentally revisit the Protocol. The Sean Reeves dispute has done the event a favour. No one can unlearn all they have in their head; you can today 'scan' an IACC boat and derive its sections; buying IACC designs with no engineering detail has proved dangerous. And if you buy the 'package' (as some have done), boats, shore gear, and some of the design team, how can you not obtain much of the technology? The current protocol is obsolete - the list of reasons endless. Open the game up, dispense with childish rules about what you can legally 'remember' and these difficulties disappear.

The current America's Cup Protocol was drawn up largely to control costs. I think on the evidence of the 2003 event I can state confidently that it hasn't worked.

But this Cup will be close...

On a cheerier note, the evidence of the International IACC Regatta in Auckland suggests that the racing at the next America's Cup will be the most exciting for many years. Unless, of course, one team presents an effective foil-borne centreboarder. But then complex rules are the worst possible protection against a curved ball...

Mani Frers and his team at Sweden's Victory Challenge in one shot have come up with a boat that shows the potential to at least match the best of Team New Zealand 2000: NZL-60. Given the degree of legal technology transfer in the heads of major players who have switched teams, it is a safe bet that other Cup teams have also started where Team NZ left off two years ago.

This is unprecedented. Remember that the confidentiality that worked so effectively at Team NZ, prior to March 2000, led to a situation last time around where many observers gave Team NZ good odds had they chosen to defend in their 1995 design. That situation won't be repeated next spring.

Laurie Davidson is making a second career out of saying how much better are his latest proposals compared with the two boats that were built by Team NZ last time. Davidson is not alone in having something to prove. With such enormous budgets, designers know there are few excuses for failure. But the encouraging evidence of the recent regatta in Auckland is that this Cup may yet come down to the sailing.