Appeal decision on Cup expected in ‘a few days’

Press, 30 March 1989, Page 40

Appeal decision on Cup expected in ‘a few days’

NZPA-Reuter San Diego The San Diego Yacht Club will decide within a few days whether to appeal against a judge’s order that it forfeit the America’s Cup to New Zealand, a spokesman for the club said yesterday.

Tom Ehman, the vicepresident of the America’s Cup Organising Committee, told a hastily called news conference that “it would be a matter of days” before a decision on whether to lodge an appeal would be reached. "We will do what is best for the Cup,” Mr Ehman said. “The issue of defence, the issue of how long this thing could be dragged out if there’s an appeal and what impact that could have on the event, these are all difficult issues that will take time to sort out.”

New York Supreme Court Judge Carmen Ciparick ruled that the S.D.Y.C. had violated the spirit of the Deed of Gift — the rules that govern the America’s Cup — by defending the Cup in a catamaran against the huge monohull sloop New Zealand. -

She called last September’s best-of-three series, which was easily won by San Diego’s Stars and Stripes catamaran, a “gross mismatch” and awarded yachting’s most prestigious trophy to New Zealand’s Mercury Bay Boating Club though their boat failed to win a race.

“Frankly, we’re baffled by her decision,” a sombre Mr Ehman said.

In her 14-page judgment, Judge Ciparick said that George Schuyler, who

set out rules for the competition in the Deed of Gift, contemplated vessels that were competitive and evenly matched. “It is clear that a catamaran may not defend an America’s Cup competition against a monohull,” she said.

‘“Accordingly, San Diego shall be disqualified in the September 1988 competition.”

Judge Ciparick said San Diego had been well aware of the risk it ran when it chose to follow the unprecedented course of using a catamaran. "Barely paying lip service to the significance of the competition, its clear goal was to retain the Cup at all costs so that it could host a competition on its own terms,” she said.

“San Diego thus violated the spirit of the deed.”

In contrast, the judge said, the New York Yacht Club — in its tenure as trustee for over 100 years — was able to conduct numerous defences without the need for judicial intervention to ensure conformity with deed terms. She said the defender of the America’s Cup was more than , the current champion yacht club.

The club winning the Cup became the sole trustee of the Deed of Gift and had an obligation

under it to ensure fair competition. “The holder of the America’s Cup is bound to a higher obligation than the victor of the Stanley Cup or the Superbowl,” she said, referring to the top ice-hockey and football trophies in North America.

Judge Ciparick said it was in the best interests of the Cup competition that “this episode” be overcome and the global yachting community be given a fair opportunity to participate.

She urged Mercury Bay, which under this ruling will host the next series in 1991, "to fulfil its obligations as trustee in the spirit of friendly competi-

tion that George L. Schuyler intended.” In arguments backing her decision, Judge Ciparick said the challenge provision of the Deed of Gift — upon which Mr Michael Fay had based his claim to force a competition in giant monohulls — would be rendered meaningless if the defender was provided with the specifications of the challenging vessel and then given 10 months “to produce a vessel with an insurmountable competitive advantage.”

“To sail a multihulled vessel against a monohulled yacht over the type of course contemplated by the donor is, in the opinion of most boating authorities, to create a gross mismatch and, therefore, is violative of the donor’s primary purpose of fostering friendly competition.”

Judge Ciparick said she \ was “mindful” that forfeiture was a drastic remedy for a competition such as the America’s Cup “with its large economic significance and prestige.”

But she ruled out any alternative option. “The parties neither seek nor suggest any alternative relief upon the disqualification of a competitor, nor is any alternative relief feasible under the circumstances.”