The site has a section on "Documentation" that I believe is instructive in a number of areas. http://www.ny30.org/amorita_documentation.htm

First, it includes the handwritten filings for the first level of appeals.

Secondly, the contention by Towbin and SUMURUN that, to the effect that: "I withdrew after the the collision, and therefore you have no further jurisdiction" was pretty laughable and a clear attempt to avoid a finding of fault.

Thirdly, part of the understanding is that participants in races often agree to be bound-by and, with some limited exceptions, is that you allow the findings of the "Protest" hearings, and subsequent appeals up to US Sailing, legally material findings of fact.

Finally, the "Complaint" by the owners of AMORITA against Towbin, et al, was pretty instructive. You can read it yourselves at http://www.ny30.org/pdfs/Complaint2.pdf. Below is an excerpt of a portion of the Complaint for your ease of reference:

On July 7, 2007, the Sailing Yachts SUMURUN, ALERA and AMORITA entered a sailing race in Newport, Rhode Island.

11. Pursuant to the Sailing Instructions, the race was governed by the Racing Rules of Sailing f/k/a The International Rules of Sailing.

12. SUMURUN interest (includes all Defendants) participated in the race knowing that it was governed by the Racing Rules of Sailing.

13. SUMURUN interest agreed to the adjudicating forum for determinations of fault under the Racing Rules of Sailing

14. SUMURUN interest was apprised of the procedures for determining a violation of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

15.

16. The Racing Rules of Sailing provide a three tier process which includes two opportunities to appeal on the issues of fault, rule interpretation and procedure. These appellate bodies commonly issue published opinions and comprise a considerable body of jurisprudence relied upon by yacht racers and international juries.

17. SUMURUN interest entered the race knowing that a boat was responsible for damages arising from any breach of the Racing Rules of Sailing.

18. At approximately 2:30 p.m. on the day of the subject race, Owner Robert Towbin was at the helm of SUMURUN.

19. Approaching the racing mark, Owner Robert Towbin was “fast overhauling” the smaller boats clear ahead.

20. Owner Robert Towbin was advised that “there was not enough room.”

21. Nonetheless, Owner Robert Towbin reversed the helm and attempted to round a racing mark off Beavertail Point in Newport, Rhode Island inside the smaller boats.

22. Owner Robert Towbin acted in an arrogant, malicious, outrageous and extreme
manner.

23. At the mark off Beavertail Point, SUMURUN collided with both ALERA and then AMORITA, the collisions causing extensive damage to the vessel AMORITA, as more fully alleged below.

24. During the rounding of the mark off Beavertail Point, SUMURUN was navigated in a careless and grossly negligent manner, with wanton disregard for safety at sea.

25. The subject collision occurred on the race course during the race and therefore was subject to the Racing Rules of Sailing.

26. The subject collision and resulting damages were not caused or contributed to by any fault or neglect on the part of the vessel AMORITA, those in charge of that vessel, or those for whose actions plaintiffs are responsible.

27. The subject collision and resulting damages were caused or contributed to by Mr. Towbin’s aggressive, malicious and outrageous sailing tactics, and the following fault, gross negligence and wanton disregard of the vessel SUMURUN, those in charge of the vessel, and those for whose actions defendants are responsible:

a. SUMURUN negligently attempted to overtake the smaller sailing vessels ahead;
b. SUMURUN was proceeding at an immoderate rate of speed under the circumstances;
c. Those in charge of the vessel SUMURUN were careless, grossly negligent, and inattentive to their duties under the circumstances while
overtaking vessels ahead;
d. SUMURUN attempted to round the mark, inside of the smaller boats, even though she did not have the right or the room to do so;
e. It became clear to the operators of SUMURUN that a collision would occur when SUMURUN negligently changed her course in the direction
of the smaller vessels ahead in an attempt to round the mark;
f. SUMURUN failed to navigate so as to avoid striking the vessel AMORITA;
g. Those in charge of the vessel SUMURUN failed to take proper action when the risk of collision was or should have been apparent to the
operators of SUMURUN;
h. The vessel SUMURUN failed to keep clear, to slow, stop, or change its course to avoid a collision when it saw or should have seen that there
was danger of collision;
i. SUMURUN failed to give any signal indicating her intended course;
j. SUMURUN failed to hail the smaller boats ahead;
k. SUMURUN struck AMORITA broadside causing AMOIRTA to sink and her crew to abandon ship;
l. After the collision, AMORITA was held afloat, below the surface of the water, by her rigging which was fouled on the stem of SUMURUN;
m. SUMURUN did not render aid to the crew or to the vessel, rather, without permission from AMORITA’s owner and without even placing
a line on AMORITA to mark her location, SUMURUN cut AMORTIA away sinking her to the bottom of Narragansett Bay.
28. On July 8, 2007, the day following the collision, a hearing was conducted by the protest committee which consisted of a panel of experts who are well versed in yacht racing.
29. SUMURUN interest, having been notified of the allegations and the time and place of the hearing, appeared before the forum, submitted to its jurisdiction, presented evidence and argument and was permitted to introduce and rebut evidence and witness testimony, to cross-examine opposing witnesses and argue orally.
30. SUMURUN interest did not file a protest against or allege any fault against AMORITA for the collision.
31. The protest committee found that SUMURUN breached the Racing Rules of Sailing thereby causing the collision and exonerated ALERA from any
contributing fault (see Exh. A1 & A2).
32. SUMURUN, represented by legal counsel, submitted again to jurisdiction of the forum, presented evidence and argument thus exercising the right to appeal under the Racing Rules of Sailing to the Narragansett Bay Yachting Association (NBYA) Appeal Committee.
33. The NBYA Appeal Committee, in a written opinion, also found that SUMURUN breached the Racing Rules of Sailing thereby causing the collision and exonerated both ALERA and AMORITA from any contributing fault (see Ex. B).
34. SUMURUN, again, exercised her right to appeal under the Racing Rules of Sailing submitting to the jurisdiction of the US Sailing Review Board by
presenting evidence and argument.
35. The US Sailing Appeals Committee found that SUMURUN breached the Racing Rules of Sailing and caused all the collisions. (see Ex. C);
36. The US Sailing Appeals Committee’s determination of fault is final and binding on the parties.
37. In a case directly on point, JUNO SRL v. S/V ENDEAVOUR, 58 F3d 1 (Maine 1995), the US Court of Appeals, First Circuit held that “y entering a regatta with sailing instructions that unambiguously set forth special, binding “rules of the road,” participants waive conflicting rules…and must sail in accordance with the agreed-upon rules.” The Court further found that the findings of the agreed upon forum “were final and binding on the parties…”
38. SUMURUN was properly found at fault for the subject collision through private resolution of disputes in an agreed upon forum akin to arbitration which met the requirements for due process and SUMURUN is therefore responsible for the collision.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the subject collision caused by SUMURUN, the vessel AMORITA was severely damaged, and plaintiffs have suffered damages, losses, and expenses in the total amount to date estimated at $1,000,000.00 as fully outlined in the Schedule attached hereto, no part of which has been paid, although payment has been duly demanded.