Your feedback..

What should the penalty have been? All the other boats did not have this useful device which brought sailboat racing a small but useful step forward. The other teams weren't smart enough to think of the weed cutter and are now blaming illbruck for their ingenuity. This weed cutter should have been installed by the manufacturer for use by all the boats. Just because no one else thought of it is no reason to penalise illbruck. I believe the America's Cup boats have weed cutters on their keels and rudders, and are perfectly legal and correct. Its about time that the sailing world stops penalising those who have pointed out a better way to do things and instead let them earn their award with applause.

As for an unfair advantage, every one that ever raced a sailboat is looking for an advantage that no-one else has or thought of. Races are won or lost in the brain one way or another. Its not the boat or the gear that wins races but rather the will to win above and beyond the competition and the attitude of doing everything right no matter how small. That's why team New Zealand has been winning the AC. Lets have races won on the water, not in the protest room. Protests and excuses are for losers.

From James Honeyman
What should the penalty have been? It is a shame that the race organisers have enacted a body of rules which seem on current evidence to be toothless. If the purpose of the rule is to ensure people do not modify their boats other than in accordance with the prescriptive requirements of the rules it seems to me to be an irrelevance that illbruck's 'flexible interpretation' was not picked up earlier by race officials nor that some feel it may not have enhanced their performance. They presumably did not make the modifications in the belief they would impair their overall performance! illbruck, a serious campaign with all the resources that entails, clearly knew what they were doing and ought to be brought to account more meaningfully for knowingly offending the rules. Will adjudicators always be so lenient and, if not, on what basis do they choose to enforce rules with meaningful penalties?

From Mr Saunders
What should the penalty have been? Did the weed cutter work only when the propeller was turning? Was the engine used? If neither of these is true, then the issue in my mind is a red herring. Thus they should not have been assessed a financial penalty at all. If the answer to both is yes, then all boats should have been fitted with the device. The race committee should monitor their committee members more closely and a substantial penalty should applied to illbruck.

From Sandy
What should the penalty have been? I agree wholeheartedly with Peter's comments regarding the illbruck penalty. From a spectators point of view the penalty simply highlights the main issue about this race - that Volvo are desperate not to upset their sponsors rather than running a real ocean race where a points penalty would have been far more appropriate.

.................................................................................

Anyone can join in with our From the Feedback features, all you have to do is click on the blue question link at the bottom of each article, or hit the My Feedback button at the top of every page.

Each contribution may be subjected to a rigorous process of editing for language, taste and imparted wisdom. The opinions expressed in From the Feedback do not necessarily reflect those of the management, staff or investors of madfor sport.com. Instead, and much more importantly, they reflect your views.

Editor's plea. If you write to us and you want to see your thoughts in print, then please include your full name and where you come from on your e-mail. Anonymous contributions will not be published.