This is an internal memo that we got our hands on regarding the J-Bird protest. What follows almost exactly backs up what I and a few others have said about J-Bird: They attempted to get away with something that they knew was wrong. What's worse, they then tried to weasel out of it. So for all the whiners and apologists babbling about us not knowing the facts, here you go. As I said from the get go: I like the J-Bird boys, but not carrying a storm trysail is inexcusable.-Ed.

This is an update on the J-Bird III protest. To recap, a protest was filed against J-Bird III (JB3) by the PCYC race committee as a result of the KYC inspection report that JB3 did not have a storm trisail aboard at the finish (ORC 4.24). The protest committee (Joe Cochran, Cy Gillette, Michael Roth) met that afternoon (July 21). The boat was represented by one of the crew, Ernie Richau (watch captain), PCYC by Sue Corenman. Ernie stated that the boat did have a trysail, but that it had been left behind because they believed that a reefed mainsail would meet the requirements. The Protest Committee found that JB3 did not have a storm trysail aboard, penalized the boat 2 hours, and rejected the subsequent argument that a #5 jib could be utilized as a trysail. Now jump to July 24, the owner (David Janes) calls the club around 1pm and requests that the protest hearing be re-opened based on new information. He is invited (by Sue) to submit the request in writing and that it will passed to the Protest Committee. (Rule 66 permits one of the parties to request a re-opening within 24 hours, and allows the committee to re-open a protest at any time at their discretion). Sue arranges for the protest committee to be available at 4:30pm and notifies the owner, and passes along the comment from the protest chairman that they also need to explain why their request did not meet the 24-hour requirement.

The owner sends different crew (represented by Peter Heck, listed as navigator) around 4pm with a written request, which states as follows:

"To: Protest Committee"Re: J-Bird III 2 HR Penalty

"(1) I have delayed asking for a re-opening of the protest regarding lack off a try sail due to the distance to the mainland and the availability therefore of my ISAF case files. I have now had the opportunity to have access to these files and have prepared this request for rehearing.

"(2) J-Bird III raced in Transpac and 2 Mexico races without a try sail as a double reefed main was satisfactory- we do not own a try sail therefore.

"(3) I was not present when the boat was inspected. It was my belief we were given a thorough (underlined), responsible (underlined) inspection and that all discrepancies were corrected.

"(4) I am surprised to learn that the inspection was not thorough and was not responsibly conducted.

"(5) Cases in point are- owner did not (begin underline) intend to sail improperly (end underline) in fact J-Bird III is exceptionally well equipped throughout- highly trained to sail offshore in all conditions.

"(6) In view of two relevant facts" a- Inspection was not properly performed before the race b- Owner always intended to be in compliance fully a) relied on race organizers to conduct thorough & responsible inspections [sic]

"I protest the actions of the measurer and ask that the 2 HR penalty be rescinded.

"(signed) David A. Janes Owner Hale Kalani Hotel"

Attached were copies of Case 57 and rule 78. Case 57 is titled Compliance of Class Rules and Certificates and states that an in-date, authenticated class measurement certificate, presented in good faith by an owner who has complied with the requirements of rule 78.1, cannot be retrospectively invalidated after a race or series is completed. Rule 78 covers compliance with class rules and certificates, and rule 78.1 states that the boat's owner or representative shall ensure that the boat is maintained to comply with her measurement or rating certificates, and that the certificates (if any) remain valid.

The protest committee met, heard arguments from JB3, deliberated privately, and denied the request on the basis that no new evidence was presented. The findings were that "(1) NOR identifies ORC 2000/2001 as requirements for the race, and (2) no new evidence [was presented] to show that there was compliance to regs". The inspector was Nick Barran, who was contacted by the PCYC race committee and also spoke with Ernie Richau prior to the first hearing. Nick submitted a statement prior to that hearing. At the time of her inspection (6/21), JB3 was still in buoy-race trim, with some gear in the container. Nick stated"in discussing specific items, we went through the check list in full detail. On the question of the storm trysail, I understood Peter [Heck] to say that it was in the same bag as the storm jib, which was, I believe, in the forepeak of J-Bird III. I therefore did not note this item as requiring any corrective action". Nick went on to state "If the trysail was not on board at the finish, then I can only assume that I had misunderstood Peter. It is inconceivable that he or anyone else associated with a program of such quality, would remove the sail. Any advantage would be negligible, and it is anyway a sail which a prudent owner would carry anyway, requirement or no".

Those are the facts. In discussions, there were a lot of inconsistencies in the JB3 story. Ernie stated that he was a watch captain, Peter said that Ernie was "only the navigator". (Peter is listed as navigator on the entry). Ernie said that they owned a trysail which was left behind due to misunderstanding, Peter and the owner state that they do not even own a trysail and blame the whole thing on the inspector. Nick tried to give them every benefit of doubt in his written statement, in return they accuse him of not conducting a "thorough and responsible" inspection. Totally lost on this crew is the notion that one takes responsibility for oneself. Initially, talking to Ernie, I formed the opinion that the missing trysail was most likely an oversight. Now, after the more recent statements, I have changed that view. It is inconceivable to me that a professional crew, experienced with the ORC rules and offshore racing, could overlook that requirement. My belief now is that they intentionally deceived the inspector and believed that they could carry that deception to the finish.

The inspectors for PCYC and KYC did an outstanding and professional job, as did the PCYC race committee and the KYC protest committee. It takes confidence and a bit of personal courage to stand up to a slick, professional crew, and everyone involved did a great job.