Thanks for the great comments and inputs - I am of course in a different time zone here in Philippines - hence my belated replies.
My thought behind the post, and as I am of course progressively reading through all WS documents as part of my IJ-IT process, was: it is quite a usual function in other sectors for and to have that express ability to appoint by a given panel, and to fluidize Heartng requests and/or Hearings - adjourn one, while being investigated and to hear another in the meantime (do speciliazed leg-work for the PC) - , or the PC may see a cross-protest pattern emerging (eg Rule 2 etc). I do appreciate that Rul 69 is of the more egregious variety and has a uniquely higher standard of proof etc but other Rules like Rule 2 also have serious implications as well (with a slightly lower standard of proof bar) or there might be conflict between what the boat is saying and the RO is saying etc - or the boat and RO is saying the same thing but 'somehting just doesn't add up'.. Perhaps the matter is one of a techincal nature - but not sufficiently so for a full Technical Committee to be formed etc (eg the Xmas Tree thread on the Rules Forum recently).
The readings I have gone through, and found on this particular matter, are:
Review Investigator Appointed 04 Jan 2025
RRS 2025-2028:
69.2 Action by a Protest Committee
(d) When an investigator is appointed, all relevant information gathered by the investigator
N4.3 Prior to a hearing, the hearing panel, to the extent practically possible, shall not act as an investigator of any allegations made under rule 69.
NOT A DEFINED TERM – INVESTIGATOR
61.1 Requesting or Considering Redress
(a) A boat may request redress.
The Case Book for 2025 – 2028:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
Protest Committee Guidelines 2025:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
Judges Manual January 2025:
D.2.8 Appointing an Investigator, rule 69 allegations
G.2.5 Appointing an Investigator, Rules 69.2(c) and (d)
D.2.8 Appointing an Investigator, rule 69 allegations
G.2.5 Appointing an Investigator, Rules 69.2(c) and (d)
· If possible, the investigator should be familiar with the procedures of rule 69.
· The investigator is expected to interview separately the parties, the person or persons who reported the incident, witnesses and any other person who might help with the case. The investigator must keep a record of all the evidence obtained from all sources. The record may be in writing or as audio recordings of the interviews.
Note: Major international events have different procedures set by the World Sailing Code of Ethics. The Code addresses the appointment and role of the investigator (known as the Event Disciplinary Investigation Officer)
World Sailing Code of Conduct for World Sailing Race Officials:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
Judicial Board Rules of Procedure Appeals & Reviews of Other Decisions by World Sailing:
NO REFERENCE FOUND
World Sailing Racing Rules Question and Answer Service Q&A
NO REFERENCE FOUND