No ice?  Looks like rule 51 would come into play.  I guess you are allowed to bail out the water after the ice melts.

Why would you want to restrict?

In some jurisdictions it may already be prohibited, albeit through laws  not racing rules. Most (all?) Canadian jurisdictions prohibit consumption of alcohol in public places. Boats lacking heads or berths are seen as public places by police for the purposes of the law.  It's a bit bizarre but such is life.  Judges have enough to do without making them drink policemen too, Rule 69 aside.

My only thought is I can’t imagine drinking a beer after it’s been sitting  in my bilge!

It may be that depending upon the culture, it would be invalid in the SI and that it should have been something in the NOR that the boat could consider before they decided to enter.

Catalan re: “Can I change the S.I. ? ...for example: "NO ALCOHOL IN OUR RACE"  (D.P.)”

Though the image  conjures up a fun dialog, please allow me to steer this conversation back to Catalan’s OP question (rephrased below). 

This had me combing through Reg 21 this morning (thanks a lot Catalan LOL) and I got to WS Reg 21.4.3 ..

Note, WS Reg  21.4.3 …

RRS 6.1 makes all of WS Reg 21 a rule …

RRS 85.1 says if you add something to a rule, it’s a change to that rule.

RRS 85.2 says WS Codes can only be changed if the Code itself allows it.  WS Code 21.4.3 specifically disallows changes (above).

i would argue that an NOR/SI that forbids a Legal Human-Consumable Substance which is not on the Prohibited List, in fact is adding to that list … which is a change … and that change is forbidden in the Reg.  WS Reg 21.4.3 forbids changing, “..the classification of substances as prohibited at all times or In-Competition only..”.

Therefore …I do not think Catalan (“.. or any person …”) can write an NOR/SI forbidding beer onboard (unless it is against the law in jurisdiction of the race).

Is it legal to drink alcohol in a public place during a sporting event in your country? If it is illegal then surely the most that you need is a reminder in the NOR that the law applies rather than involve the RRS. If you did want to enforce it breaking the law of the land would presumably be an RRS 69 offence. Using RRS 69 also gives flexibility in that the PC may issue a warning only. On the other hand if such consumption is legal in your country, and is also not in breach of the WADA regulations, then is it going to be wise to introduce such a regulation? 

There are "wet" boats and there are "dry"boats;  which is not to be confused with "drunken" boats and "sober" boats.  Of  course you can alter most RRS rules in your SIs, but why?   Our sport is experiencing reduced participation. Drunken boats can be handled as individuals in a variety of ways short of overall prohibition.   Why make racing  less fun for those of us who can handle a beer with lunch or on the ride back to the dock after a hot day of racing?

Well outside my depth, but it would seem to me that an SI prohibiting alcohol consumed during the actual race is more of a safety or local compliance regulation, not an amendment to the Anti-Doping rule. The WS rule prohibition on challenges seems to be in the spirit of prohibiting a competitor from challenge that argues to remove an item from the list, not an official adding to the list... but that's just the spirit. If a club had an SI that reminds/enforces a local law against being at the helm while drinking, I wouldn't bet much money on trying to get challenge the SI as an impermissible doping amendment. But again, well outside my depth. 

All that said, I think the first beer my dad ever handed me was after raising the chute on a 90 degree F (32 C) day. But then it was probably legal to hold a beer while driving a boat which I think is no longer the case in my jurisdiction.

Dan, as a Judge we are asked to read the rules and apply what they say. I think thats what I’ve done.

WS Reg 21 clearly states that WADA is in control of what substance is and is not on the Prohibited List and that list “.. is final and not subject to change”  … it didn’t say “not subject to subtraction, but addition is ok”.  RRS 85 tells us "change" is both addition and subtraction. 

It’s reasonable to think that, as Catalan did, someone would first look to WS Reg 21 and the Prohibited List to see if a substance is already covered.  That is an strong indication (IMO) of its governance. 

Also consider that just because an SI/NOR does not say it’s changing an unchangable rule, does protect it from being illegitimate if it actually does.  For instance, consider an SI that says “After 9pm, boats shall stay separated by 50ft”.  This doesn’t say it’s changing def: Keep clear, def: Mark Room (and a host of others) … but it does .. that’s not allowed and the SI is unenforceable. 

I am putting forward the idea that, though an NOR/SI that forbids possession/consumption of alcohol during racing doesn’t specifically say that it is adding a substance to WS Reg 21 Prohibited List (thus changing the list) … its effect is so .. and that’s not allowed. 

Anyway, I’m certainly interested in being shown where/how this is an incorrect application of the rules. 

I didn't mean to start a serious discussion, to be honest. Taking a slightly deeper look, I'm not actually sure. The black letter of the Anti-Doping Code states that Doping is defined as violating the rules of the code, which refer to the prohibited list and a number of detailed procedures for administering the anti-doping program, when they apply.

I don't see anything in the scope of the Anti-Doping Code that claims jurisdiction over all "human consumable substances." The SI's or the Hearing Authority may not consider adding or removing substances from the Anti-Doping Code, with all of its procedures and penalties. So indeed an SI could not remove, say, cocaine from the Anti-Doping Code. Nor could an SI add alcohol to the substances of abuse list, nor add alcohol to the testing regime, nor could they recommend a three-month suspension from other WS events after testing for alcohol, etc.

So it wouldn't work to have an SI that states "Alcohol is considered a substance of abuse for the purposes of the WS Anti-Doping Code. All competitors are subject to testing, regardless of whether the testing requirements in the WS Code would otherwise apply. Competitors are subject to suspensions from other WS events for violations of this rule. This amends WS 21.4." 

But it is not clear to me that a simple SI that states "Skippers must not consume alcohol while at the helm. A boat identified in violation of this instruction is subject to protest by the race committee." is an anti-doping regulation. World Sailing Rule 21.1 makes it clear that alcohol is not including in the scope of the definition of doping. I don't see any other rule in the Anti-Doping Code that claims subject-matter jurisdiction over it.

(And again, to be clear, I wouldn't support such a rule! ;) )

In the US we (I think, are required to) put the following in our US Championship and Qualifier event NoR/SI:

PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES (US Sailing Regulation 10.03)
A. For adult US Sailing championship events, no competitor shall use or possess, either on or off the water: marijuana or any other substance if possession is illegal under state or federal law.
B. For Junior and Youth events or for junior or youth competitors in any US Sailing championship, no participant or competitor shall use or possess, either on or off the water:
1. marijuana or any other substance if possession is illegal under state or federal law; or
2. any alcoholic beverages.
C. An alleged breach of one of these regulations shall not be grounds for a protest; this changes rules 60.1(a), 60.2(a), and 60.3(a). However, when the protest committee believes that a competitor may have breached one of these regulations, it shall follow the process described in the Championships Code of Conduct. If a competitor is found to have breached one of the elements within the Code of Conduct, they shall be excluded from the remaining races of the series and, where practicable, removed from the regatta venue and sent home. When a competitor withdraws from part of an event pursuant to the Code, the scores of all completed races shall stand for the purposes of determining the seeding of subsequent rounds or stages in the event. However, that competitor’s boat/team will no longer be eligible to compete in the event, shall be removed from the final event scores, and each boat/team with a worse finishing place in the event shall be moved up one place.

I think we can agree from what has gone before that there is no way alcohol may be included in a doping list or alcohol consumption be subject to anti doping procedures. I'm also not sure that SIs can insert a brand new rule in the RRS.

 However the RRS is not the only rule set applicable at an event. We have national Prescriptions for the US highlighted above. The local and national civil and criminal law also applies, and a conviction under national law for an offence during an event would surely put the offender in misconduct rules.

 But in addition every club will have it's own by-laws. A club surely has the right to ban alcohol or tobacco smoking on its premises for example, and it doesn't seem to me unreasonable that a club should make it a condition of entry that boats should not carry and crews not consume alcohol. A breach of club regulations or conditions is not directly any affair of the RRS of course, but I submit that, like law of the land, it may qualify as misconduct. 

John C .. USS Regs for Champs is a very interesting addition to the conversation .. especially how they phrase it and take it outside of the normal RRS process into a separate Championship Code of Conduct.

Very interesting approach.  Thanks for adding that to the thread.

Back to the funny pic at the top though ...

First, many OD class rules forbid storage under the "floor" in the bilge.  Some even forbit storage of items "on the floor" and require items to be stored on the settees on either side or in other designated storage areas. 

Also, the bilge-volume is often part of a boat's water-intrusion-handling design .. where water is collected (and controlled) and guided to a centralized pump. Filling the bilge full of items has the potential of disrupting that.

So, my issue might not be the "what" that is being stored .. but maybe the "where".