Page 25 - World Sailing Misconduct Guidance

If the point is not central to the question of misconduct, the committee must consider to
what extent it is relevant to the question of guilt.

If the committee feels the point is irrelevant to the question of guilt, then it can proceed.

If the point is relevant, then more evidence must be received before proceeding

40.1.2 The protest committee discovers evidence of another incident of misconduct

Evidence of other misconduct is not to be considered as evidence meaning the
competitor committed the original misconduct under investigation. The two are
separate allegations and a fresh rule 69 process must be carried out in relation to the
new misconduct.

Similarly the fact that a competitor has committed misconduct in the past is not
evidence that the competitor did so again.

40.1.3 The competitor has alleged the investigation of the misconduct and the hearing has
been biased or improperly carried out

If the committee is satisfied it has carried out an unbiased and thorough process, then it
can proceed. If not, then it must either conduct the process afresh or send a report to
the national authority under rule 69.2(k) if it is impractical to hold a hearing.

40.1.4 The competitor threatens legal action against the committee

Whilst potentially disturbing to the individual committee members, the threat of legal
action should not deter a protest committee. Provided the rules are followed and the
competitor is accorded a fair and impartial hearing, there should be limited recourse to
external bodies. The chairman should acknowledge the threat and record it but
proceed.

It is essential that the rules and guidance are followed to the letter and a thorough
record made of the proceedings. Using the checklists in Appendices C and D will help
achieve this.

24 World Sailing Misconduct Guidance