... Our head cheeses in charge have repeated several times that they don’t feel that the US has solid medal potential in multihulls - and even if this is a wise way to choose events, it’s a load of crap.
This position to vote for events in which the US has medal potential absolutely baffles me. Not only does it sound like a bad way to build our sport, but the claim that the US has little medal chance in multihulls is garbage. Simply look at the results! The USA has won medals in the Olympic Tornado four times since it was first included in the Olympics in 1976 (8 events). This matches the 470 men, matches the Star, and is two MORE than the Finn! Where are these guys looking that they don’t see the US medal potential in the Tornado?
...
Jake, the reason that voting for events in which the US has medal potential is baffling to us is because it has nothing to do with the inherent competitive position of US multihull sailors relative to keelboat sailors. Looking at the past performance of US Multihull sailors may seem perfectly sensible to us, but is has little to do with how the strategy was actually formed. Rather, it is basically a financial calculation -
I've mentioned this before, but in case anyone has missed it... funding for the Olympic team comes from donations, sponsorships and the USOC. None of it comes from member dues. USOC funding is based on actual medal results. The better funded the team is, the better prepared they will be to compete in the Games and more likely they are to win medals and therefore the better funded the team will be and... At least so the thinking goes.
But here's the twist: US Sailing believe they can gain more donations from the general sailing community for a team that includes a keelboat than one that includes a multihull. More donations means a better funded team means more medals means more funding means more medals...
Yes, it is absurd and unjust and almost completely unspoken, but I believe it is that simple.
