THE SANDERS CUP CONTEST

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18511, 23 March 1922, Page 8

THE SANDERS CUP CONTEST

MR M'CULLOCH CRITICISED. At a' meeting of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association, held on Tuesday (evening, it was decided that an official statement should be published, as an erroneous impression has got abroad through the statements made by Mr M'Culloch in his speech at the presentation of the Sanders Cup to the Auckland Yacht and Motor Boat Association at the conclusion of the contest. Mr M'Culloch said: I do not consider that we got a fair go. I was told in Auckland that I would never have the pleasure of managing a boat egajn; but I won the races here and did sail a boat again. Our own representatives were up against me. I know that they are, and others know it, too. I may be speaking rather straight, but that is what I think about it. It was done, however, and they got away with it. Anyone cau win a race ; but there should be fair play.” These remarks were applauded by a section of those present. , Such e statement as this would create the impression that the contest were not conducted fairly, that the judges did not. decide the protest fairly, and that the local officials were so prejudiced against Mr M'Culloch that they were prepared to sacrifice Otago’s interests. That being so, the public, «and particularly that section of it which contributed funds to send a crow to Auckland, and also to defray the expenses of entertaining the visitors hero, should ' e provided with an official statement of the lads relating to the two contests. it- is important to point out that individuals cannot challenge for the Sanders Cup, but challenges must be from recognised provincial yachting associations. The Otago Association last year challenged the Auudand Association, to whom the cup had been pr<‘fcont(?d by Messrs talker ajul rTfl.ll, fcnd after a series of test races the Heather was chosen to represent Otago against the Iron Duke, which had been chosen to represent tile Auckland Association. . . . Mr M'Culloch agreed to abide by the decisions of the committee in all matters. . . Shortly after the arrival of the committee jp Auckland it became evident tnat Mr M'Culloch was determined to act. according to his own views. . . . Mr Al'Cullodi s Vacillation and indecision were such that on the -day of the first race the Heather had never been down the harbour as far ns the * turning mark, and had not the competing boat got first away and led on the first leg. it is quite possible that an erroneous course would have lost Otago the first race, and the only one which Mr M'Culloch succeeded in winning, .further than this, although the crew sent up with Mr M'Culloch was as good as Otago could or can to this day produce, he astounded tho management by making a proposal that ho should be allowed to put the Otago crew out of the boat and replace them with Auckland men. Of the second and third races the least said tha better. It is enough to say that Mr M'Culloch lost both of these races, and lost them under circumstances and m a manner, that left Otago’s supporters very much dissatisfied. ... It became apparent ih&t some drastic change was neccssajj, and thi management decided to ask Mr M'Culloch to allow Mr Wiseman to take charge. This request was met by a flat refusal; and nothing induce Mi M'Culloch to honour the undertaking ho cave *to the Otago Association until he was informed by the commodore that, unless no was prepared to stand to tho promise he bad made, the association would withdraw the Heather from the contest, and return to Dunedin and publish the facts. At first Mr M'Culloch flouted the idea, but upon it being pointed out that the contest was one entirely between the two associations, and not "Between individuals, ne reluctantly gave way. , The statement goes on to say that a petition was presented to the Management Committee asking i,t to take control of the Heather entirely for the ensuing race or races. Mr M'Culloch's Auckland grievances were that he was not allowed to put Auckland men into his boat in place of the Dunedin men, and that he was not allowed to sail all the races. Shortly after lie returned to DUnedin ho had another grievance. He wished to get possession of the cup m order: that he might exhibit it along with the Heather amongst his business exhibits at the Dunedin Winter Show This the commodore stoutly refused, informing Alt M'Cullodh that the cup wag donated to perpetuate the memory of a gallant sailor, end that the association would never allow it to be used for the purposes of advertising any business. Mr M'Culloch thought that be was badly treated in this matter, and did not hesitate to say so. Dealing now- with the contest just concluded, it must be stated quite frankly that the conditions under which it was agreed to sail the local trials for the purpose of (electing a defender failed to satisfy a great majority of those interested, as it was con - eidered that enough trials were not being eailed to do justice to the new boats. . . . When; fljfrjdboice was made Mr M'Culloch, time had been elected a delegate to association, was asked to agree to the association assuming control of the Heather, ijarid again he did so. . . . As we' have stated, the representatives had full pq'yer to change skipper and crew; but no doubt realising that in Messrs o George and C. French Mr' M'Culloch had men of great skill, and knowing that the minimum of alteration was desirable, they early advised Mr M'Culloch of the wide powers granted him of selecting his own crew, etc. It is of interest to note, in view of Mr M'Culloch’s assertion that his own representative* were against him, that of all the boats bompeting Mr M'Culloch was the only skipper who sailed the whole of the races, an*i in nis efforts h© was loyally supported bv the association and the yachtsmen of Otago generally. When the Murihiku won her second race Mr M'Culloch protested against her on the ground that she had crossed the halftide wall. This nrotest was dismissed by the judges on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Murihiku went over the wall. . . . Mo appeal lies from the decision of the judges, except as to the interpretation of rules, and this was purely a question of fact. In reference to this protest it may be said thaA'fet' the time the Murihiku was supposed’"to have crossed the wall it was Bubmerged to the extent of about sft, and it is questionable whether she could have been disqualified even if she had gone over the wqjl, seeing that the rules provide that no submerged object can be treated as a mark a the course. Any sportsman would have graciously bowed to the decision of the judges; but Mr M'Cullooh so far forgot liimself as to grossly insult Mr Kelly (the Auckland judge) when* he stepped on to the wharf after being at an outing tendered by the association to the visiting yachtsmen. As a leeult MniCelly tendered his resignation as a judge, and it was only at the earnest entreaty of the association that he continued to act during the remainder of the contest. There seems to be no end to Mr M'Culloch’s grievances, because in the final race of the series he found fault with the Desert Gold for sculling, and prepared a protest ogainst her which he wished to hand to the commodore, who declined to take it. because the rules provide that it must oe handed to the judges. Mr M'Culloch stated that the skipper of the Murihiku would support his allegation, and, upon his being called into the pavilion and asked to state the facts, Mr Hansen said that when the three boats were at the Anderson s Bay •ounding mark he saw-the sculling going on, and that it was Mr M'Culloch who started it. Mr M'Cullooh then became very abusive towards Mr Hansen, and one of those present had to interfere. Mr M'Culloch then said that if Mr Hansen was going to stick to that statement he would not put in the protest. The protest was not put in. . . • , , , Mr M'Culloch stated in his speech at the Town Hall that he was pleased that the Desert Gold had won the cup, and lie was pleased to have been associated with her crew and with the crews of the other boats, all of whom were real good sports. How can that statement be reconciled with Mr M'Culloch’s conduct of a few hours before, in which he protested that the Desert Gold had been teb'-ty of taking a mean advantage and .She skipper of the Murihiku had been guiljy of making a false statement in chargfcg Mr M'Culloch himself with eculling IBs boat? To sum. the matter up, Mr M Culloch s connection- with he Sanders Cup has been as follows! —He built the boat at his own expense as. several others in Dunedin and Port Chambers did. Hie boat was selected to go to Aockland. and it was taken there free of expose to Mr M'Culloch, and bis travelling -arid hotel expenses as well as those of hiMcrew. were borne by the association. There he won one race out of three. -"<1 Mr Wiseman won the other two. which gave Otago the cup. In Dunedin Mr M'Culloch sailed in seven races, suc-ceeding.-in-winning only two, and lost the cup for Otago. Whereupon he thought fit to revile the representatives of the association for being unfair to him. The management of the contest by Otago and her hospitality to the visitors have been applauded in every province, and it is a pity to'think that the final act should have been marred bv Mr M'Culloch s childish outburst. There ]» ample evidence to prove every

statement in the foregoing explanation, and the association invites Mr M'Culloch or any of his supporters to controvert any of them if they think it possible. MR M‘CULLOCH’B REPLY. The following statement on the foregoing criticism has teen supplied by Mr M‘Culloch to one of our reporters First and foremost, I should like the public of Otago and others interested to know how the “official” statement of the Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association was arrived at on Tuesday night. The meeting was attended by nine delegates—three from the Otago Yacht Club, three from the Ravensbourne Boating Club, and three from the Port Chalmers Sailing Club. The ordinary business of the meeting had transacted, when the chairman (Mr A. C. Hanlon) said he had further business to place before the meeting. He then throw his bombshell, and read out the foregoing typewritten “official” statement. I make the deliberate statement' that no other members present (with the exception of Mr Nees) knew that this special business was to be considered. There can be no doubt that this “official” statement was carefully drawn up by Messrs Hanlon and Nees, and as the other delegates present were previously quite unaware of its contents the promoters of the statement had all the advantage. But let me enlighten the public of the manner in which the meeting came to adopt, the statement as “official” by the Otago Yacht and Motor Club. I myself did not vote; a Ravensbourne delegate (Mr A. Grant) did not vote; Mr H. H. Moller had to leave to catch his train—he did not vote; and Mr E. C. Hazlctt, quite rightly, said that as he had no knowledge of what took place at Auckland, he ‘also would not vole. This weighty “official” statement was then adopted on the voles of Messrs Hanlon and Nees ami the three Port Chalmers delegates (Messrs Smith, Percy, and Anderson). Five votes in all. These men. they would like us to believe, represent the judgment of yachtsmen and the general public of Dunedin. Do they? I certainly do not think so. The “official” statement omits to state that the Ravensbourne people gave £25 towards the cost of sending the Heather to Auckland. As regards the statement that “on the day of the first race the Heather had never teen down the harbour as far as the turning mark,” I give it an absolute denial. As regards the statement that I wanted to put an Auckland crew in my boat, I give that an absolute denial also. I admit, however, that I said to Mr Nees that if they could not get the intricate course proposed altered I thought it would be only fair to put one Auckland man in my boat—and one man only—as a guide. The currents and eddies on this course were difficult for a visiting yachtsman to negotiate. I did not, however, put forward my proposal seriously, but only with the intention ot getting Air Noes to fight for a change of course—and the course was changed. As regards the petition, I did not know that there was such a thing in existence until after the fifth race held in Dunedin this year, ft, would be interesting to the Otago public if the names of the persons who signed this petition were made known. It could Then be judged how much some of them know about yachting and the sailing of yachts. As regards the accusation that I desired to show the cup, along with the Heather, at the Dunedin winter show, this likewise is untrue. I was requested by the secretary of the Otago A. and P. Society to exhibit the Heather and the cup. 1 referred Mr Fulton to Mr Hanlon, and stated that I personally would not ask him for permission to show the cup. and that I had never had possession of it. It was up in Mr Hanlon’s office. Let me further analyse the “official” statement. Messrs Hanlon ami Nccs resent my criticism on the occasion of the presentation of the Sanders Cup. Was it warranted? In the light of the foregoing bitter criticism I say it certainly was. In making my statement that “I had not had a fair go” I made it quite plain that 1 was not referring to any conduct by the opposing crews, but that I was referring to certain officials in Dunedin. Will Messrs Hanlon and Nees deny that I did not have the support of maiiv of the prominent officials in Dunedin? Will they deny that underhand methods were attempted to prevent me from sailing in the two last races of the Dunedin series? That 1 did > not have the support in the races of either Messrs Hanlon and Nees is fully demonstrated ly the diatribe they have launched against me, and they are hard put to it to try to condemn me when they go back 12 months to scrape up all that took place at Auckland. It was at Auckland that I earned the enmity of Mr Hanlon. In his most dictatorial manner he told me that I would have to get out of the Heather for the fourth race. Mr Hanlon may find it easy to browbeat nervous witnesses in the law courts but he was certainly not going to browbeat me. I asked him to point out where I had failed in handling the Heather previously, and I also asked him what he knew about sailing a boat, anyway. I ask him again now. At Auckland, moreover, there were so matjv Otago experts who knew better than I did how the Heather should be sailed, that I naturally became upset, and made statements which I realise now were injudicious. I maintain that I sailed the Heather at Auckland to her very test advantage, and I would like to ask Messrs Hanlon and Nees why, if they consider all their accusations are fair, and prompted only by the best interests of sportsmanship and yachting, they ever allowed me to sail for Otago again. As a matter of fact, Mr Hanlon, at Auckland, told me that I would never again be allowed to sail a boat for Otago. Coming to the latest contest, the “official” statement that the selection of the Heather “failed to satisfy a great majority of those interested” is absolutely untrue. And my denial is worth just us much as the statement issued by Messrs Hanlon and Nees. Moreover, I would just like to point out that Heather has met the Otago 14-footers since the decision of the Sanders Cup races and beaten them, and I sailed her. As regards the “halftide wall ’ protest. I was entitled to protest. In all locallysailed races if a boat sails over a submerged object—to wit. the training wall—she is open to disqualification. What is more, special instructions were issued to each skipper, prior to starting each race, that no boat was to cross the wall. What have Messrs Hanlon and Nees to say to this ? In regard to the alleged insult to Mr Kelly on the wharf. I simply approached him' and Mr M’Donald (the Wellington judge), and asked them to reconsider their decision, on the ground that I ted been given no opportunity to call any evidence, and, strangely enough, my protest was thrown out on the grounds of “insufficient evidence.” Mr Kelly, speaking in a sarcastic manner, said he would not reconsider it for one moment, and also said that, if I was not satisfied, ho would resign, as he ted all the evidence he required.” I stated that I was talking to the judges aa a whole, til at I bad previously spoken to our own representative (Mr Nees), and that Mr Nees had told me, while proceeding to the wall, to let the judges see where the alleged breach had occurred, that he would not vote on the matter, but leave it to the visiting judges. That was all the conversation I had with Mr Kelly. Will Mr Hanlon or Mr -Nees. therefore, please enlighten me as to how I insulted Mr Kelly. flight I say that in the seventh and last race —won by Desert Gold —I did not “scull” Heather. I swung my rudder to get Heather round the buoy at Anderson's Bay in the flat calm, but'! certainly did not scull. This is proved by the fact that I was first round the buoy, but last to get away from it, being over a minute even behind the Mnrihiku. It is, however, when we come to the summing up of the "official statement that Messrs Hanlon and Nees get in their sneer. They say that I sailed in seven races and won only two. There was only one of the five competitors that won more —the Desert Gold with three. I ‘Tost the cup for Otago.” That is a nice brotherly ■way of putting it. Certainly, the Heather was beaten, but I got the very best out of her in her races, and I leave it to the thousands who watched the races to say whether my assertion is correct or not. And might ! add that in the seventh race, 1 in which I was beaten. I actually beat the Desert Gold’s time, if the , time lost by | Heather through a calm. Which the most competent yachtsman could not have obviated, is deducted. 1 (Messrs Hanlon and Nees said that they 1 have ample evidence to prove every state- • ment in' the foregoing "explanation”—a ' pretty way of putting it. They invite me, ‘ or any of my associates, to controvert it. 1 In my turn, I invite them to controvert my 1 statements, which, I may add, are really official. • In conclusion, let me quote from a rneetf ing of the Otago Yacht and Motor As- ' sociation. held on April 8. 1921 (the first ‘ meeting after the visiting yachtsmen returned from Auckland): “It was reported by the Committee of ' Management that the Auckland contest was 1 got off successfully, and the whole of the • arrangements in connection with the coni test were satisfactory, and the conduct of

the crew was exemplary.” Those present were Alessrs Hanlon (chairman), C. W. Slundstrum, A. Welch, B. H. Nees, J. R. Cameron, W. J.- P. Al'Culloch, F. Percy, and C. Smith. No Ravensbourne Club delegates were present, they having received no notice of the meeting.