This is an outrageous decision that has disgusted myself and many Multihull sailors around the World. Think of all the young multihull sailors who aspire to represent their country at a Games. They now must turn to monohulls or sailboards to fulfil their dreams......... Or even another sport all together. Ridiculous decision that cut out a very large portion of the sailing fraternity with one foolish decision.
Is it really beneficial to our sport to ignore a large group of sailors in favour of adding more of the same style disciplines in the Games?
1 man dinghy
1 woman dinghy
2 man dinghy
2 woman dinghy
Mens keelboat
Womens Keelboat
Mens Sailboard
Womens Sailboard
Mens Multihull
Womens Multihull
These are the disciplines we should have and should not be open to voting upon. Once set, then the equipment should be voted upon by only those who represent the SAILORS best interests. Only other option would be to not split the dinghy disciplines into 1 up and 2 up but have a mens dinghy and womens dinghy to replace the 4 x dinghy disciplines.

bump

Obviously, this is an emotional topic for all of us here. However, lots of people have worked hard for lots of years to gain acceptance for cats in the bigger sailing world, and especially in recent years, I've seen progress even at the local levels, in terms of acceptance of cats at traditionally mono clubs.

Everyone has their opinion, but I personally don't see how abandoning all these years of effort to avenge this decision is going to help us in the big picture.

If anything, I think we need to do the opposite: get more involved and get ourselves into a position of power within USSA.

I can't say that I don't care about having a cat in the Olympics, because I do think that is ultimately very important, especially to establish a serious youth cat program.

However, I do feel strongly that we have bigger fish to fry. When I go to mono events and discuss the recent 60-provided boat Hobie 16 Worlds, that gets some attention. Sadly, everyone looks shocked that we exist at that level. This is the sort of thing that needs to be fixed. Going away is not going to help that.

Mike

I'm glad to hear sentiments like this expressed. The Multihull Council is currently working hard to get to the truth of the matter and come to an understanding of really where we stand. If we walk away from USSA, we leave a lot behind - the Alter Cup, the Stevens Trophy, some influential positions within the organization, and about $100,000.

Some serious discussion in the coming weeks is needed - hard decisions have to be made. Plans are moving forward - contact your Area Rep if you want your voice heard.

John Williams
MHC Chair

I think we have to stay connected to the mono world on some level - maintain club memberships where that is relevant, maintain fleet involvement in USPN etc, but I don't see the evidence that that is going to be influential in any significant way in the sport achieving the stature it deserves or make up for the potential loss of elite competition. The only hope I see is for us to also organize separately outside the ISAF/MNA structure with the aim of driving the growth of the sport at both the grass roots and elite levels, in conjunction with like-minded organizations in other countries (maybe under the auspices of the IMSAF, if anyone can figure out what that is). So I'm not advocating a hard either/or strategy, but a hopefully pragmatic both/and view, with the balance of activism effort from cat sailors swinging heavily towards taking care of our own business.

If Bundy is serious and can get a few other heavyweights to endorse, I'd be right behind it. In the US, NAMSA could be a vehicle, but as far as I can tell it is just a shell at the moment.

I have a "please explain" email in to every member of the US Sailing Board of Directors. I'm willing to wait for some response (have so far heard from the Treasurer), but tentatively my feeling is that I will probably cancel my membership.

Mark -

I've gotten the explanation straight from the top. I will not defend it because the strategy they used is based on the premise that the USA has a better hope of a 2012 medal in the keelboat event than the multihull. The other five men's events were foregone conclusions - that placed the keelboat and multihull at odds for the sixth and final spot. The US delegation was instructed to get the keelboat - they executed as they are expected to, through lobbying, discussion and a bloc vote. Multihulls lost out because A) the assertion that US keelboats are better positioned to medal than multihulls went unchallenged, and B) we were vastly outnumbered by sailors from other classes (like the Finn and the Star) who understand the importance of showing up.

What has happened is unfair - no bones about it. One approach to preventing this from happening again is to continue to "infiltrate." Another approach is to stand up and walk out. To put this in Sun Tzu terms, if you cannnot understand the people that made the decision, you will never be able to effect a change and your cause will not prevail.

For my part, I feel we need to redouble efforts and build on recent gains - there can be two multihull sailors on the Board of Directors in a year. There can be a multihull sailor appointed to the ISAF Delegation for the next Quad. This is not pie-in-the-sky. We are positioned to make it happen if we decide that is the direction we want to go. Does this exclude the possibility of a new international multihull organization? Of course not. The people volunteering on the MHC are multihull sailors who are involved with USSA, not vice versa. We lost this time because we weren't part of the team formulating the game plan. If we want to be, then we can make it happen. If collectively we don't see any value in that, then there are a lot of other options for us out there.

John, I understand what you say and that you are just a messenger. Do you know why US Sailing made the submission for two multihulls when they were ultimately planning for the keelboats. I just can not get this to fit together in my head.

It's time to get a dose of reality, folks. What John said is right. Stop whining about the decision and move on.

Now is not the time to pick up your ball and go home. Now is the time to show some dignity and tact - and to put faces on the multihull community with US Sailing, CYA and ISAF.

I'm still going to wear black this weekend at the One-Design Sailing Symposium, but I'm not going to wear my emotions on my sleeve, nor will I be an butt to the people there who were in Portugal (David Sprague & Jim Capron).

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Let the infiltration begin!

Hey John,

Can you elaborate alittle more on what the benefits are that we get from US Sailing. You mentioned a couple above, but I'd like to hear alittle more detail. I'm not trying to be snide and poke a hole in US Sailing, but I'd like to know more definitively what the benefits are. I haven't renewed my US sailing membership in years and would like to hear what the motivation is to do so. I certainly appreciate all the effort put forth by you and the rest of the council. I just wish I could hear more positives.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to infiltrate the existing clubs... We all need to be ambassadors for catsailing. I think one of the main problems is that catsailors tend to fly under the radar (although windsurfers are even worse, so I'm not sure how they got an Olympic slot). We need to be a bit less independant and make a few compromises to fit into the infrastructure that comprises sailing. Beach access is not going to get any better so we need to get a foot hold now.

The other five events where NOT a forgone conclusion. I know that’s the party line but its complete BS. The US long ago decided that they needed a plan to defend the keelboats and they needed a fall guy. They could have chosen the Finn or the 470 but they chose the Tornado. That was a conscious decision made long ago. This entire thing was orchestrated by your MNA (us sailing) from start to finish. The alteration of the ISAF submission was meant to shut us up. They never intended that it would actually affect their strategy. Go ahead and infiltrate but don’t think you are going to get some stogy old keel boaters like Jim Capron to change their minds and don’t expect that they will play fair.

If they are telling you the truth, then if US teams top the F14, F16, F18, Tornado, and A class circuit in mens and womens then we will have 10 multihull events in 2016. I think that is what I saw a bull drop in a paddock. Its astonishing that any country has the right to drop or include events due to its percieved ability to dominate them. I'm going to lobby the rival TV station to show repeats of Hogans Hero's and Rat patrol, whilst the olmpic broadcast is on so that I have something exciting to watch <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />.
regards

You can work within US Sailing as much as you want but as long as Gary Bowdie and Dean Brenner have the control or any type of say over the multihull side there will BE NO CHANGE. When they're gone and someone who has atleast heard of catamarans is in charge we might have a chance. Gary has admitted that he knows absolutely nothing about cats nor does he have any interest in learning. And he is only what - our head coach?

Umm, didn't the US get a silver medal in the Tornado last time, and no medal in the Star class?

What makes them think that the Tornado is the event that the US is least likely to medal in?

That's really strange, since I used to race against Gary - in Hobie 16's. He owned a lime green one. Did you hear that directly from him?

Hi Rolf -

The assertion is that the US Delegation would have voted the exact contents of the submittal (which included two multihulls and two keelboats) if the final slate had the same events. Most in the multihull community knew at the outset that it was unlikely in the extreme that this approach of a men's and women's event would fly. I cannot say with certainty that this was a "poison pill" emplaced to assure failure and to "shut us up." I can say for sure that it was not a good idea - could we not have anticipated that even the Women's Sailing Committee would not support a women's multihull event? I have made the case up-chain (with unrelated examples) that decisions are being made about the future of multihulls without input from people familiar with the multihull community.

Since the slate before the Council did not mirror the submittal, and the Committee's recommendation was voted out, there was a previously-formulated playbook that was used by our Delegation. The plays in that book were built on the predicted chances for medals in each event. The folks that built that playbook ranked cats below keelboats. In their book, there were five of the seven events that were assured acceptance no matter how the US voted - look at the results and you see five events with tallies in the mid-30s. That left two events vulnerable (they tallied low-20s). One had to win and one had to lose - one outcome was favored over the other by the US. The operatives went to work. This is how it works for any country - the US did not invent political maneuvering.

I believe that the US Delegates would have voted the exact events on the submittal if the slate had mirrored it - they could do no other. I also believe the US submittal had a snowball's chance of becoming the slate of events. Once keelboats were on the chopping block (thanks to a forward-thinking Events Committee), all the work we'd done went in the trash can.

Anyone know where I could find pictures of these three to use in an article about this double-cross?


I'm one of the more polite guys you'll meet, but I'm not sure politeness is called for in this case.

Rolf, I think John has it just about right.

This is a game about medals…. How many can you win??? The game started a while ago. The Brits and the USA felt that they did not have good prospects. So… their game plan had them dropping the multihull from the games with only 8 recommended classes. OUR petition drive etc etc spoke about things like fairness, representation, opportunity, gender equity…. Once the [censored] hit the fan… they modified their public stance, to appease us.

S0, The two catamaran plan was nice, gender fair, good for the sport overall, etc etc… BUT when other factions started playing a different game… just as the USA predicted… They went back to their strategy for medals… how many can we win.

IMO,
This game was lost when the women decided that they MUST HAVE a match race (assuming keel boat at all costs) Why…. I think they see a pro gravy train that follows from racing a keelboat. It’s a formula that can generate a marketable personality.

The women’s group voted DOWN the women Multihull first… Then the HP dinghy was sacrificed… all for the Match Race discipline. They also voted to not push for gender equity… and the women were happy to take 4/10 events so long as they had the freaking match race discipline. Once that was a done deal… it became Star versus Multihull… given all the other factions .

So, Mike Grandfield versus the Star contingent. Remember… the STAR has experience with getting tossed out before. They understood the game AND they had a lot of money and clout ready to rock and roll. Just look at how they spin the class./ for the PR campaign… Oh… XXX learned the ropes in the VERY DIFFICULT STAR BOAT. XXX has said the STAR are the most competitive fleet they have ever sailed … Blah Blah Blah..

Once it came down to keel versus multi… we were doomed… Brenner is the chief USA fund rasiser…A former STAR campaigner etc etc.. He can raise money from the rich guys who build gran prix yachts .. this gives him control of the cash..… marketing cat sailors… not so much… AND Lovell and Daniel are likely to retire… the USA B fleet is YEARS from competing without a big investment in training.…. The decision was straitforward.

I think we should hope that justice is served and they made the women match race Hobie 16’s with spins…. Those old girls will really get a thrill out of trapezing and match racing while wearing a wet suit.. Tight fitting Pink Neoprene wet suits will show off their figures… don’t you think? They should be psched about the marketing potential!?

JW, thanks for the update.

What really bothers me is that younger sailors like Mike Easton, Tripp Burd, Sarah Newberry as well as others have lost their Olympic multihull goal.

I dont think its whining, I think US Sailing and ISAF WANT us to keep working within the sytem. F- them.

Im cancelling my membership tomorrow. Seeing these kids get a shot at the Olympics is exponentially more important than the Alter Cup or any other benefit from US Monohull Sailiing.

I'll join US Sailing again when I can vote JW onto the Board.