Opposite: a battered-looking boat and an emotionally bruised skipper sail the last painful mile to the finish at Pointe-à-Pitre. By the time that he hit the dock Thomson had had to dig deep to face a clamouring media, many of whom admitted to being impressed by the Welshman’s gracious acceptance of the implications of ending a fine race with such a catastrophic error
and sends back another photo. Logically, after his incident, Thomson re-sealed the shaft to comply with the regulations and demonstrate that he would not use the engine again before the finish. And not, as some misinformed or misguided minds have imagined, to hide or erase his offence.
Exchanges with the skipper are also
made electronically, in accordance with the race instructions which state (13.4.1): ‘A hearing… can be done by any means of communications deemed to be appropriate given the circumstances.’ ‘It was exactly like a jury room,’
explains Priol. ‘We asked Alex to send us a report on the facts, which he described in a few lines. Then we asked him the question of admissibility, asking him if he had an objection about the composition of the jury, or if he had something to add. He answered us quickly, and we informed him that we were going to adjudicate.’
What are the rules involved? Rule 42.1 of the Racing Rules states: ‘… a boat shall compete by using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed…’ It is interpreted as follows in article 19.1 of the Notice of Race of the Route du Rhum: ‘No means of propulsion other than wind force may be used.’ However, there are exceptions provided
for in Rule 42.3 of the Sailing Rules: 42.3 (h): ‘To get clear after grounding or collid- ing with a vessel or object, a boat may use force applied by her crew or the crew of the other vessel and any equipment other than a propulsion engine.’ 42.3 (i): ‘Sailing instructions may, in
stated circumstances, permit propulsion using an engine or any other method, pro- vided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.’ Rule 42.3 (i) applies in the Route du
Rhum, in so far as competitors are allowed to perform one pitstop. They can also stop within a 150-mile radius of Saint Malo, starting point of the event, which covers all ports between Falmouth and La Rochelle, without this counting as a pitstop. As it is essential to allow those who stopover to dock, the notice of race and the sailing instructions carefully define the procedure on how a skipper can use his engine or be towed, so that these actions do not ‘favour the boat’s progress to the finishing line’.
How was the 24-hour penalty assessed? First, the jury determined that there were grounds to penalise, pursuant to section 19.1 of the notice of race, and rules 42.3 (h)
and 42.3 (i). To assign a penalty in time they must follow the ‘penalty guidelines’ attached to the sailing instructions, which divide the penalties into five ‘bands’, from financial penalty (band 0) to disqualification (band 4). Violations of energy source rules corre- spond to band 3, ‘24 hours to DSQ’. ‘We asked ourselves,’ explains Priol, ‘if
there were any mitigating and aggravating factors. The mitigating factors are that he did not use his engine for very long, and therefore did not benefit significantly, and that he did so to save his boat and his life. The aggravating factor is that without the engine he would have stayed there, and he would not have finished the race.’ As the arguments for mitigating the
sanction were more numerous the jury unanimously decided to apply the lowest penalty allowed, ie the minimum of the ‘24 hours to disqualification’ band. Addressing speculation on the dock,
Georges Priol made clear that under no cir- cumstances were the ranking and distance between the leader and his pursuers taken into account in the allocation of these 24 hours of penalty. ‘We are absolutely trying to exclude any considerations of this kind. To do otherwise would turn the race result into a matter of our personal judgement.’ If we want to try science fiction and
play with hypotheticals we can imagine that, with a 36-hour lead over Paul Meil- hat and the others, Alex could have kept the victory despite the use of his engine.
Why did Alex Thomson re-seal his propeller shaft? At the start in Saint Malo each rider is given two numbered seals and instructions for their use. Then between leaving the port and the startline the propeller shafts of all the boats are sealed, either by the organisation or by the competitor himself. The latter then takes a photo of the seal in place and sends it to the race management. If he has to remove the seal, for example
for a technical stopover, he receives a three-letter code that he copies onto a blank sheet of paper and takes a photo- graph of next to the still unbroken seal. This demonstrates that the seal had not been broken before. Then, when the runner returns to sea, he places a new seal for the rest of the race,
Why could other riders start their engines or get towed without penalty? This is the big question of those who argued – sometimes rather loudly – at the ‘injustice’ to Thomson. The answer is simple: ‘because’, explains the jury presi- dent, ‘the competitor who makes a pitstop legitimately uses his engine. He only has to prove that the engine did not allow him to progress towards the finish line.’ There is still one case that raises ques-
tions: that of Jérémie Beyou, whose Imoca Charal was towed for many hours, over 100nm, to Lorient for repairs (actually, she did not restart), where we would rather imagine also using the engine to navigate this big harbour up to the quay. The Route du Rhum race director now
believes that such a long tow should be penalised, that the regulations have ‘per- haps a hole in the racket’, and that ‘this clause of the regulations deserves to be tightened in the future to avoid abuse’.
What is the moral of this story? It was Alex Thomson, a handsome player to the end, even if he did not expect such a high penalty, who spontaneously provided it: ‘This sport is about details, and in the final minutes I didn’t get the details right.’ In other words, he made a navigational
error which he takes responsibility for and which costs him victory, so he can only blame himself. ‘I think that’s [the penalty] very fair, because I don’t think I should win the race after hitting Guadeloupe.’ Actually, Alex said he was ‘very fortu-
nate’ to have got away with so little damage on his boat. As he was docking the Welsh skipper
took a rock out of his pocket, ‘a souvenir from Guadeloupe’. And rather than com- plaining, he preferred to congratulate the soon-to-be winner Paul Meilhat, himself the writer of a remarkable race with a previous-generation Imoca without foils. ‘The aim,’ concluded Alex Thomson, ‘is
still to win the Vendée Globe and I think with that race I proved I can win the Vendée Globe.’ The next rendezvous is arranged.
Thomson with his next boat (Hugo Boss was for sale after the Route du Rhum) could very well be the man to beat around the world in two years’ time.
SEAHORSE 53 q
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102
