THE FIRST TIME AS FARCE, THE SECOND TIME AS TRAGEDY. Some athletic coach colleagues reassured me, in 1988, that the follies surrounding the much-litigated New Zealand challenge culminating in a race between a monster sloop and a catamaran that winning skipper Dennis Conner characterized as bizarre, need not trouble me, as any sport in which the equipment is essential to the performance requires an unlimited class. Perhaps not, but interested parties thereafter worked out an agreement on scantlings for the America's Cup class of racing sloops, an agreement that survived, in modified form. through the 2007 races. This year's races, should they take place, will be different. Professor Newmark quips, "The multi-billionaires have gotten to it, and the result isn't pretty." Men's Journal elaborates.

Out-of-control boats, courtroom drama, defecting crew members — the stage is set for this year’s America’s Cup regatta to be the most controversial and dangerous yet.

When sufficient contradictions arise in the existing compromise, the contest reverts to a one-off competition between the challenger with the quickest legal team and a representative of the defender club. And it is, as my colleagues correctly noted in 1988, the unlimited class.

With few design rules, the rivals have created to two giants — one a trimaran, the other a catamaran. For the first time, the winches will be driven by engines instead of men, shedding crucial pounds. Cup traditionalists may be unhappy, but speed addicts and adventure nuts will be thrilled. [Swiss defending skipper Ernesto] Bertarelli told me that it was impossible to predict what would happen. “The safety will be in the hands of the race committee,” he said.

The mechanical winches permit the crew to subject rigs to much more tension, with more potential for catastrophic failure. That's inherent in obtaining power and lightness -- put another way, a hull as sturdy as a Lake Michigan car ferry is a SLOW hull.

The wrangling over the rules, however, commingles institutional economics with sports economics.

The reliance on the original deed of gift, and its de minimus approach to defining the rules has allowed the race to evolve with changes in technology and economic conditions. But the absence of rules and a system of arbitration makes this game ill-suited (or perhaps only suited, depending on your point of view) for the especially aggressive combatants required to finance the competition. Moreover, a peculiar combination of one specific archaic rule governing construction of the ship, and the absence of a well designed set of rules in general, have contributed to the current bizarre [hello, Dennis!] situation.

A race as lopsided as the 1988 defense is also a possibility.

Relying on the competitors themselves to determine the rules of the game creates the potential for bargaining failure. This lawsuit-happy bunch has confirmed that prediction in spades! But it also enhances the possibility of producing a competition of minimal interest to fans. Technological dominance could result in the latter outcome next month. Certainly, the duration of the race will be shorter given the record speeds they'll be traveling at. If so, some attention might profitably be given, not to yacht design, but design of a better system for determining the rules of the race.

It's controversies such as this, and its 1988 predecessor, that make me happy to have raced Inland Scows and Lasers.