Outside, the sun was shining from the blue sky over Hamburg, but its rays did not reach courtroom A 289 in the Hamburg District Court. Outside the door, the reason for the rather subdued mood in the room was written in black and white: "Tina Lutz et al. ./. Deutscher Segler-Verband wegen einstweiliger Verfügung. Conciliation hearing/main hearing."
On Wednesday afternoon, the parties to the dispute over the ticket to the Olympic Games met inside. There was a lot at stake: After narrowly and controversially losing the Olympic qualification against Kathrin Kadelbach and Friederike Belcher from Hamburg, the Bavarian helmswoman Tina Lutz and her Kiel foresailor Susann Beucke had filed an application for an interim injunction against the German Sailing Association (DSV) on 8 March.
A previous crisis meeting with representatives of the DOSB in Frankfurt had not yielded any results. Now Lutz/Beucke want to take legal action to force the federation to recommend them to the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) for an Olympic start alongside Kadelbach/Belcher. According to the plaintiffs, the DOSB should then make a decision based on sporting considerations and taking all the facts into account.
The background: Kadelbach/Belcher had won the three-part national qualification series (Weymouth, Kiel, Perth) by one point and thus secured their ticket to Weymouth. Lutz/Beucke feel that they have been treated unfairly with regard to the qualification procedures and what they see as misleading statements from the DSV team management on site and would therefore like a DOSB decision.
Kadelbach/Belcher: Weak sailing, tough tactics
The decisive factor in the dispute was the tactics used by the Kadelbach/Belcher team to consistently sail their opponents to the back from halfway through the third and final elimination regatta at the World Championship off Perth. Kadelbach/Belcher had decided in favour of this tough approach because although they were narrowly in the lead overall after the first two elimination races, they had made a weak start to the World Championships. So weak and with an early start that they could hardly have managed to qualify on their own.
So, after consultation with the team management, coach and DSV rules advisor, they decided to make full use of the regulations and block their rivals, who had started the World Championships strongly, in order to torpedo their hunt for more World Championship points. They did it according to all the rules of duelling sailing. As a result, Lutz/Beucke were unable to sail enough points to overtake Kadelbach/Belcher in the national Olympic qualification rankings.
Lutz/Beucke: Nations place won, qualification lost
Particularly bitter for Lutz/Beucke: They of all people secured Kadelbach/Belcher with a last successful World Championship race and an overall 20th place just in time to secure the nation's starting place, which was also indispensable for the nomination, and which Kadelbach/Belcher could not achieve themselves at that time with 28th place.
The causes of action and issues presented to the court were multi-layered and complex. It was about manoeuvres, morality, fair sailing, the Olympic spirit, alleged collusion, relationships, the destruction of trust and, of course, right and wrong. At three hours, the conciliation hearing lasted longer than average. Partly because the three judges kept asking detailed questions. They bravely approached the complex rules and regulations of sailing, which even experts argue about time and again.
After about an hour, the debate centred on whether Lutz/Beucke should have been informed by the DSV about a new interpretation of the rules, which explicitly allows the blocking of an opposing team during a national elimination, before the start of the World Championships. The crucial question: is it your duty to fetch or bring? In context, it was about the possibly unequal treatment of the two sailing teams by the officials.
Key question: Were all teams equally well informed?
The plaintiffs also stated that DSV vice-president Torsten Haverland had assured them after the sixth race at a barbecue with the team that the DSV wanted to curb internal match racing and that, after all, there was still Barcelona. Lutz/Beucke had interpreted this statement - as they explained in court - as a clear signal that the block tactics of their opponents would be stopped by the DSV and that they themselves would be given another chance to qualify for the 2012 World Championships in Barcelona if none of the teams secured a place at the 2011 World Championships in Australia.
A misinterpretation. This is the view of the DSV and the Kadelbach/Belcher team, who had obtained the official green light for the match race strategy several times during the World Championships in Down Under, which could not be legally prevented anyway because it had been determined and confirmed by the World Sailing Federation (Isaf) and the World Championship jury. Kadelbach lawyer Keidel stated during the hearing: "My clients have earned the legal right to the nomination proposal."
The fact that Lutz/Beucke were rebuffed in two jury trials during the World Cup does not help them in court. Their opponents cite these defeats as one of their main arguments. After all, as a national professional association, they would have to bow to the regulations of the World Sailing Federation and the jury decisions at a world championship.
However, Tina Lutz criticised in Hamburg that the DSV sports director Nadine Stegenwalner, who in her opinion was called as a witness by her opponent Kathrin Kadelbach in Perth, Australia, did not explain the German qualification mode during the jury hearing. Stegenwalner herself told Yacht online that she had not been asked to attend the hearing as a witness for either team and would not have acted as such unilaterally. "I wasn't told that I was a witness for a team, just asked if I could come in for a moment when I was sitting outside waiting for the two teams. I was asked questions about the qualification mode. I simply explained that the result of the World Cup counts towards our qualification. So it's important." Stegenwalner did not want to explain the complex German qualification system to the jury for fear of misinterpretation.
Nadine Stegenwalner was not questioned by the three judges in Hamburg on Thursday, although she had been named by the court as a possible witness at the beginning of the hearing and therefore had to spend the first two thirds of the marathon hearing as the only one outside the courtroom, where the defendant DSV with president and lawyer Rolf-Otto Bähr, DSV lawyer and Kadelbach lawyer sat alongside Lutz/Beucke and their lawyer Dr Michael Lehner. Among the observers were former DSV Sports Director Hans Sendes, former DSV President Hans-Joachim Fritze, DSV Secretary General Gerhard Philipp Süß as well as friends and family members of the plaintiffs.
Complex matter: decision postponed
The court has announced its decision on the application for a temporary injunction for 25 April, giving itself more time than everyone involved had hoped. The buffer may once again be due to the complex set of rules that the three ladies from the court, chaired by Rosemarie Busch-Breede, now have to deal with.
Lutz's lawyer Lehner said: "We have a tough stand, but I am more convinced than ever after this trial that we are morally right." Tina Lutz said: "If you're not rewarded for doing your best, but instead rewarded for hindering others, then that is and remains my idea of fair sport." This arrow is aimed at the DSV. And indirectly also at Kathrin Kadelbach and Friederike Belcher. But is it really reprehensible to pull out all the stops allowed by the rules on the way to a competitive athlete's most important goal?
Rolf-Otto Bähr was optimistic after the hearing: "I think it went well for the DSV." In court, Bähr also recalled the hounding that Kathrin Kadelbach and Friederike Belcher were subjected to on the internet after the World Championships: "There were tremendous threats made." According to Bähr, this should not happen again in sailing.
DSV boss Bähr: "Sailing is not a referee sport"
At the same time, the President signalled his understanding for the plaintiffs when he announced broad-based discussions about the rules for regatta sport in the near future and said: "Sailing must not become a referee sport. We must ensure that such situations do not occur in the future. The lesson to be learnt from this misery is that we need simple and straightforward rules." The hope remains that Bähr will also be listened to at international level and that his words will be followed by action as quickly as possible. For Tina Lutz and Susann Beucke, however, they will probably come too late.
Tatjana Pokorny
Sports reporter
