Page 108 - Misconduct a Reference for Race Officials

RACING RULES GUIDANCE

‘VIRTUAL’ PROTEST COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Introduction

This guidance is intended primarily for race officials involved in protest or redress hearings
held by email, teleconference or video (virtual hearings). It may also be helpful to
competitors who find themselves part of such hearings or organisers of events considering
the use of such hearings.

Where possible, hearings should be held in the conventional manner, i.e. in person with all parties in
one location (see RYA Guidance – Recommendations for Protest Committees). However, it is
recognised this may not be practical in some circumstances and a virtual hearing may provide a
quicker resolution.

As technology advances, it may be that virtual hearings will become more widespread as
event organisers seek ways to reduce costs whilst continuing to provide a good level of
service to competitors. However, protest committees should be aware of the inherent
limitations of conducting a hearing other than in person. In particular, it may not be possible
to fully assess the body language or demeanour of a witness who is giving vital evidence.
This can impact on the credibility of their evidence.

Email Hearings

Email hearings are likely to be suitable only for cases where the facts are largely agreed
between the parties and the dispute is in the application of the rules. They are unlikely to be
suitable for Part 2 protests and cases where witnesses are going to be called.

Examples that may be suitable for hearing via email could be a request for redress under
rules 62.1(c) or 76.1.

Communication should be directed through the protest committee (PC) chairman.

Initially, the PC chairman should email a copy of the protest or request to all parties and PC
members. He should also introduce the members of the PC and request whether any party
objects to one of them.

Once any conflict of interest has been resolved, the PC should assess validity in the normal
manner. The PC chairman should collate any questions and send them to the parties for a
response.

When a response is required from the parties, then the PC chairman should specify a
deadline by which these responses should be received and the consequences if they are not
received (e.g. that the hearing will continue without considering the response). It is important
that sufficient time be allowed for responses as failure to do so may be an improper action
that could result in a request for redress. This can lead to such hearings becoming
protracted.

December 2017 106