Uncategorized

dealbreaker

ac dope

dealbreaker

In a new interview by our old friend Pierre Orphanidis from Vsail.info, Paul Cayard explains why the ETNZ/Luna Rossa deal is no longer of any consequence (for a detailed discussion of the rule and interpretation, click here), why he won’t be helming Artemis’ second AC45 (scheduling conflicts…lol), and his views on transparency (“If you have issues that you don’t like, you don’t air them out publicly”). An excerpt is below, and you can find the whole interview here and a general discussion in the Artemis thread here. It must be great to know everything like Cayard does…

VSail.info: I still can’t understand why, as you claim, Luna Rossa and Emirates Team New Zealand definitely cannot sail against each other while you might be able to do so with another team.

Paul Cayard: The difference is that there are two rules involved. The first one, rule 33.4, prevents a team from making an agreement with another entity, it could be an America’s Cup team or not, such that the other entity would acquire a boat and that the first party, the team, would gain the knowledge and the benefit of the performance data or information from the sailing of that second boat.

The specifics required to be in violation of that rule are, first, to have an agreement between the two parties. Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa, obviously, have such an agreement. The second element is that the agreement has to entail that the second party, Luna Rossa in this case, would build or otherwise acquire a boat. They, obviously, have said that. Finally, the third piece of it is that the first party, Emirates Team New Zealand, would obtain design or performance information from the sailing of the second boat. The Jury ruled that if those three elements are in place, you are in violation of Rule 33.4. Based on Grant Dalton’s public announcements and Emirates Team New Zealand’s submissions to the Jury, they are in breach of 33.4 right now.

So, that’s a different case and you can see the subtleties. If you look at it from a competitive advantage you can see how advantageous it would be for Emirates Team New Zealand to essentially control the design of both of these boats. Then they could sail those two boats together and do a lot more development than Oracle Racing and Artemis Racing might learn by sailing against each other, not knowing the design of each other’s boats. Do you see the difference there? You can develop technically much more if you control the design of both boats.

There are two different rules that apply. It could be that Oracle Racing and Artemis Racing or Energy and Artemis Racing or any two teams may not be able to train together without invoking the surrogate rule. That could be and I would say that this is still being interpreted but the problem Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa have is a different one. It’s specific to Rule 33.4.

Emirates Team New Zealand and Luna Rossa, of course, aren’t saying a word about it because it is bad news for them. The truth is they got a haircut. It seriously curtails their dream or plan but it has to be said that Luna Rossa couldn’t even be in the race unless they bought the design from somebody. They could have bought the ACRM package and probably not have this problem. In fact, they wouldn’t have that problem. Had they bought the ACRM design they could have gone ahead probably and do some sailing with Emirates Team New Zealand. Because of the agreement and because they have such a strong collaboration agreement together to produce that second boat they can’t sail the two boats together without violating the protocol.