Hi Mark -

My feeling is that none of the events should be "targeted." That is the unpleasant tactic that I feel should be avoided. Other classes do very well by adopting self-promotion over attacks on other disciplines or the people that make the decisions between them. The reality is that there was plenty of international support to keep the multihull event in the Games - it took monkeying with the voting procedure and lining up the dominoes to get it out. Does anyone think that the way the US Delegation pushed to have a single round of voting had anything to do with a desire for efficiency?

Again, unless we all accept that the individuals involved are doing what they truly believe to be the best thing for the US in 2012, then we're spinning our wheels, spitting into the wind, pi$$ing up a rope, etc. ad nauseum. Start there and I think you must arrive at the position other longer-lived classes have - organized, knowledgeable statesmen and women that compete within the discipline who engage their MNAs. We're woefully short in that regard (and I'm not just describing my personal stature). I'm out in front on this thing and terribly ill-equipped - if I were a savvy politico, it would have occurred to me that strategic voting was a possibility and we'd have had class representatives present. Grandfield was alone - his "bring the hammer" approach was a working part of the strategy back in March, but it was the wrong message to take to Estoril. NOT his fault! He should have been part of a team that worked together to formulate and plan.

As it stands, I honestly don't know if we (the US multihull community) can pull together the way I think would work. However, it was made clear to me by all but one or two representatives that we want to try. Having a multihull event in the Games was declared a priority - all the various reasons aside, the goal has been defined, and several volunteers have built a strategic framework for how to get there. Most multihull sailors, though, have a disdain for the blue-blazer types and the "expensive" YCs they represent - so we have a cultural hurdle to get over at some point.

I'm rambling... sorry Mark. To get back to your point - I think that the IOC would like to see the keelboats dropped - they're in for 2012 due to, as others pointed out, the Paralympics needing the facilities afterward. Drop that issue for 2016 and you're right back to the IOC's points about expense and resource-intensity. It is disingenuous for some to assert that the 2002 and 2005 IOC documents are specific for 2008 and the principles are not extended to all future Games.

Internationally, movement toward re-opening the vote is gaining momentum and will reach critical mass. When it does, we need to A) recognize the moment, and B) take appropriate action. Then we watch the majority decide without interference, and we abide by that decision.