RS:X Olympic Trials

Race 16 Pictures
Presented as new evidence at the reopened hearing
 Background
There were three hearings held in the request for redress by Ms. Nancy Rios
in the final and deciding Race 16 of the US Sailing’s 2008 RS:X Women’s
Olympic Trials

• The original hearing (October decision) was held after the final race and was notable
because the Jury heard only from Ms. Rios and from two Jury members who only saw the
incident at the start

• Ms. Hall filed a request for redress 20 hours later and was denied for not being timely also
the Jury stated “the decision was final”

• Ms. Hall filed for arbitration through the USOC and the hearing was scheduled for May,
seven months after the Trials

• Six months after the original decision and shortly before the arbitration hearing, the Jury
contacted Ms. Hall and requested the photographs Ms. Hall had obtained - she complied

• The Jury decided to reopen the Rios redress hearing in Providence, RI, at the law offices of
their lawyer and forced Ms. Hall to pay for all the witnesses to attend

• The Jury had photographic evidence and heard from 5 witnesses who did not support their
October decision. Ms. Rios didn’t have any supporting witnesses other than the two Jury
members who saw the collision. The Jury confirmed their original October decision

• The following day the Jury heard Ms. Hall’s request for redress and reviewed the same
evidence and witnesses - after 5 days of deliberation they confirmed their October decision
 BackGround
Even thought the Jury confirmed their original decision they surprisingly
came up with a new set of facts* that totally disregard what is seen in the
the photos
The two fundamental issues were Ms. Rios’ score made significantly worse
by the collision and the “tear”

• New Facts:
“Due to the collision USA 323’s sail dropped into the water and the boat lost approximately
30-40 seconds shortly after the start”

“The tear (4-5 inches) increased to a length of 9 to 10 inches long during the race”

They changed the tear from “serious damage” to “damage”

• Conclusions:
“USA 323’s score in Race 16, through no fault of her own, was made significantly worse by
physical damage ........ and because USA 71 failed to keep clear”

• Decision:
USA 323 is given average points or 2 points for Race 16

* October and April decisions are at the end of the presentation

 Photographic Evidence
Photographer #1
Photos Taken From Behind The Starting Line
Capture The Lead-Up To The Collision

• Photos #1 and #2 show Monica Wilson USA 71 across the starting

line on port tack with Farrah Hall and Nancy Rios across the line on
starboard tack

• Ms. Hall is to windward and Ms. Rios is to leeward

• They show the entire six board fleet and the relative positions
Photo #1
Photo #2
 Conclusions

• The first photo shows that Ms. Rios is heading below Ms. Wilson at
this point and sailing a lower course than Ms. Hall

• The second photo shows Ms. Rios has headed up to match Ms.
Hall’s course and has made it more questionable if Ms. Wilson will
cross

• A tape recording from the Race Committee boat describes the

incident -- “USA 71 (Wilson) crossed 323 (Rios) unable to cross USA
3 (Hall) and had to tack and hit USA 323 (Rios)”

At what point was Ms. Rios not able to avoid a collision?

• The inexperience of these two competitors shows by the fact if either

avoided the incident by ducking the other they would have lost
nothing in distance or position
 Photographer #2
These Photos Show Ms. Rios In Second Place
and Only 5 Seconds Behind Ms. Hall After The
Collision

• Photo #3 - “the incident” - captures Ms. Rios USA 323 sailing away
from the collision and Ms. Wilson’s USA 71 recovering her partially
dropped sail

• Photo #4 shows the 4th and 5th place competitors just clearing the
start line after Ms. Rios has recovered from the collision

• Photos #5, #6, #7 are taken 14 seconds after the incident of Ms. Hall
sailing upwind to the windward mark in 1st place

• Photos #8 and #9 are of Ms. Rios in second place taken 19 seconds

after the incident and 5 seconds after Ms. Hall

• Photo #10 shows the scene of the collision 32 seconds after the
incident

• Landmarks (a), (b), and (c) establish relative positions

Photo #3

The Incident Time Digitized: 04:54:31

Seconds After Collision Focal Length: 72
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 432
Rios USA 323
Photo #4

4th & 5th Place Time Digitized: 04:54:31

Focal Length: 72
Competitors Focal Length In 35mm Film: 432
Photo #5

13 Seconds After Incident Time Digitized: 04:54:44

Focal Length: 72
Hall USA 3 Focal Length In 35mm Film: 432
Photo #6

(c)
(a) (b)

Time Digitized: 04:54:45

14 Seconds After Collision Focal Length: 72
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 432
Photo #7

Time Digitized: 04:54:45

14 Seconds After Collision Focal Length: 72
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 432
Photo #8 (c)
(a) (b)

19 Seconds After Collision Time Digitized: 04:54:50

5 Seconds After Hall Focal Length: 72
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 432
2nd Place Rios USA 323
Photo #9

Time Digitized: 04:54:50

Focal Length: 72
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 432
Photo #10

(c)
(a) (b)

Time Digitized: 04:55:03

32 Seconds After Collision Focal Length: 31.8
Focal Length In 35mm Film: 191
 Conclusions
• Photos #3 and #4 show Ms. Rios sailing away from the collision with the 4th and 5th place
competitors still clearing the start line which clearly proves the Jury’s reopening conclusion
that Rios lost 30-40 seconds was wrong

Compare this slide to the pre-incident photos #1 and #2 and the fleet has maintained their
relative positions -- meaning Rios only lost a handful of seconds due to the collision
otherwise the other competitors in the photo would have sailed past the incident before Rios
recovered

• Photos #5, #6, and #7 establishes Ms. Hall’s position after the incident and a frame of
reference to establish Ms. Rios’ relative position after the incident

The same three buildings appear in the background in three of the four photos establishing
the photographer position remained constant for the 6 second sequence

• Photos #8 and #9 show Ms. Rios is 5 seconds behind Ms. Hall 19 seconds after the incident
without visible damage and she is sailing normally

• Photo #10 captures the area of the incident without Ms. Rios or Ms. Wilson being present
proving, Ms. Rios didn’t lose “30-40 seconds” as the Jury claims in their reopening decision
 Photographer #3
Photos Taken At The Windward Mark

• Photo #11 shows Ms. Hall rounding windward mark 9:30 minutes
after the incident in 1st place - The Race Committee Data Log
recorded her rounding time

• Photos #12 and #13 are of Ms. Rios approaching the mark
approximately 2:34 minutes behind Ms. Hall 12 minutes after the
incident

• Photos #14 and #15 are taken two seconds apart and show Ms. Rios
just before and just after rounding the windward mark in 4th place

• Photo #15 is the only photo from the race that shows a faint dark line
near the mast that looks like a water drip or crease but is the 4 inch
slice cause by the collision

• Photos #16, #17, and #18 show Ms. Wilson rounding the windward
mark 14 seconds behind Ms. Rios
Photo #11

9:30 Minutes After Collision Time Digitized: 14:33:44

Focal Length: 250
Hall Rounds Windward Mark
Photo #12

11:56 Minutes After Collision Time Digitized: 14:37:10

Focal Length: 400
Rios Near Windward Mark
Photo #13
Tear?

The “Tear” is located In the Time Digitized: 14:37:11

Focal Length: 400
3rd panel above the Boom
Photo #14

(d) (e)

(f)

12:04 Minutes After Collision Time Digitized: 14:37:18

Focal Length: 170
2:34 Minutes Behind Hall
Photo #15 4 Inch Slice

1 Second After Rounding Time Digitized: 14:37:20

Focal Length: 170
The Windward Mark
Photo #16

(d) (e)

(f)

Time Digitized: 14:37:29

12:15 Minutes After Collision Focal Length: 235
Photo #17

(d) (e)

(f)

Time Digitized: 14:37:30

Focal Length: 235
Photo #18

(d) (e)

(f)

12:19 Minutes After Collision Time Digitized: 14:37:33

Focal Length: 170
14 Seconds Behind Rios
 Conclusions
• Photo #12, shows Ms. Rios (in 4th place) approaching the windward mark 2:34 minutes
behind Ms. Hall 12 minutes after the incident occurred

• Photo #14 and #18 are taken 13 seconds apart showing Ms. Rios and Ms. Wilson arriving at
the weather mark and show the same red channel marker (d) on the end of the breakwater
with the Alamitos Bay Yacht Club (e) to the right and a white powerboat (f) appears in the
same relative position in the background of both photos

Photos #14, #16, #17, and #18 all show the same background clearly establishing the
position of the photo boat has remained constant over the 18 second sequence

• Photo #14 and #15 are taken two seconds apart and show Ms. Rios before and after
rounding the mark based on the same background features and the photographers
statement

• The time difference between photo #18 and photo #14 and #15 establish Ms. Rios was 14
second ahead of Ms. Wilson at the windward mark

• Photo #15 is the only photo that shows a 4 inch faint dark line that is the slice caused by the
collision. The Jury found as a new fact in the reopening decision that the “4-5 inch tear grew
to 8-10 inches long during the race”

• Rios stayed ahead of Ms. Wilson for the next three legs to the finish -- Ms. Wilson was the
third ranked competitor at the 2008 Olympic Trials

• Rios stayed ahead of Ms. Wilson for the entire race or approximately 30 minutes of sailing
The Jury Found Rios’ Score Was Made Significantly Worse By Damage To
Her Sail RRS 62.1(b) And By The Incident RRS 62.1(e)
The Photos Disprove Both Conclusions With Help From The Jury

The Jury found in their original decision (October decision) that Ms. Wilson “took her 360 penalty turn
within 20 seconds of the collision” but in the reopening decision (April decision) found that Ms. Rios’ “sail
dropped into the water and she lost 30-40 seconds shortly after the start”

The photographs clearly show Ms. Rios sailing after the collision while the 4th and 5th place competitors
are just clearing the start line. Another photo taken 32 seconds after the incident of the area and Ms.
Rios and Ms. Wilson are nowhere to be seen

If Ms. Wilson took her penalty turn within 20 seconds and Ms. Rios lost 30-40 seconds then Ms. Rios
started sailing 10-20 seconds after Ms. Wilson and sailed past her on the way to the first mark for a net
gain of 24-34 seconds - hardly proof she was significantly slowed

If Ms. Rios was sailing 20 seconds before Ms. Wilson performed her penalty turn then Ms. Rios only lost
6 seconds over 12 minutes of sailing - again hardly proof she was significantly slowed

Ms. Rios was in second place going into the incident and after the incident - no change in her score

It is easy to conclude the Jury gave Ms. Rios redress for her first leg performance only, where she was
passed by two competitors who are known to be very fast in the windy conditions that were present in
Race 16, and where the sail damage is shown to be only a 4 inch slice
Slide #1

The 10-Inch “Tear”

The Jury Denied Ms. Hall’s request for redress after five days of deliberation
simply by stating about the photographs:

“The attempt to prove time sequences through the photographs and data
from the cameras was not convincing, the time data was not accurate and
the position of the photographers changed too much to draw logical and
accurate inferences”
The three cameras were not set to local time so the time stamps are not synced together and there is no
reason to believe the internal clocks were not keeping time properly. However there is no disputing the
photos are of the race in question and capture the start line and committee boat and the moments
before and the moments after the collision. Photo #3 establishes the incident and the time stamp is used
over the next 32 seconds to show the relative position of the sailors and more importantly where Ms.
Rios was after the collision. The landmarks help establish the photographer was not in traveling at high
speeds but remained relatively constant. We know the photographer was in a cruising sailboat.

The photos at the weather mark are synced to the RC log data that recorded the rounding time of the
race leader. The two photos #14 and #18 are taken 15 seconds apart and the landmarks establish the
photographer was in the same relative position as was Ms. Rios and Ms. Wilson when the photos were
taken and by a declaration filed by the photographer.

Comparing the two written decisions highlights significant changes in the facts found and conclusions.
Without the benefit of the photographs (not to mention the 5 witnesses testimony) anyone reviewing the
reopened decision would assume that it was Nancy Rios who provided the evidence and witnesses that
supported her case. The fact is she didn’t provide any witnesses or evidence and it was discovered the
damage to the sail was only half as long during the race then what was presented in the original hearing.
★ October Redress Decision
✴ Facts Found
1. 323 on Starboard, 71 on Port immediately after the
start of race 16 came into hard contact
2. 71 did a 360 penalty turn within 20 seconds of
clearing all other boards
3. the collision caused an 8” to 10” long tear in the
third panel up of 323’s sail towards the luff of the
sail
4. 323 finished fourth in Race 16
5. In Race# 15, the first race of the day in similar
conditions, 323 finished in 2nd position
6. 71 Skipper Monica Wilson left the venue following
last race if the day and was unavailable
✴ CONCLUSIONS AND RULES THAT APPLY
1. 71 caused serious damage to the sail of 323, RRS
44.1 applies. However no additional penalty will be
applied since RAce 16 was 71’s throwout race
2. 323 granted redress in Race 16 RRS 62.1(e) - B7.2
3. Redress to 323 is 2 points under appendix A10(a)
✤ damage because of the action of USA 71 that
DECISION
323 scored 2 points in Race 16
__________________
★ April Redress Decision
✴ Facts Found
1. At the start of race 16 of the RS:X 2008 Women’s
Olympic Trials the wind speed was 10-12 knots,
with choppy seas
2. USA 323 started on starboard and to leeward of
USA 3. USA 3 was in first place and USA 323 was
in second place
3. UA 71 started on port and collided with USA 3 first
and then collided with USA 323
4. USA 71 and USA 323’s rigs hit causing a diagonal
tear the third panel up of USA 323’s sail
approximately 4 to 5 inches long and approximately
2 feet aft of the spar. The tear increased to a length
of 9-10 inches during the race
5. The position of the boats made it impossible for
USA 323 to avoid the collision with USA 71
6. USA 323 performance during the race was was
adversely affected by the tear in the sail
7. Due to the collision USA 323’s sail dropped into the
water and the boat lost approximately 30-40
seconds shortly after the start
8. USA 323 finished 4th
9. USA 71 was scored RAF
✴ CONCLUSIONS AND RULES THAT APPLY
1. USA 71 failed to keep clear of USA 323 and broke
RRS 10 and RRS 14
2. USA 323’s score in Race 16, through no fault of her
own, was made significantly worse by physical
broke a rule of Part 2
3. USA 323’s score was mad significantly worse
because USA 71 failed to keep clear
4. Rules applicable: RRS10; RRS 14; RRS 62.1(b);
RRS 62.1(e) - B 7.2; RRS 64.2; and Appendix A
10(a)
✤ DECISION
USA 323 is given redress by adjusting her boat’s
score for Race 16 to points equal to the averages
of her points in all races in the series except Race
16
April 8, 2008