NAMSA and the Multihull Council are not mutally exclusive organizations - in fact, NAMSA is a paid-up member organization of US SAILING which makes a duly-designated representative of NAMSA a full voting member of the Multihull Council. NAMSA hasn't been represented at MHC meetings in a long while, but neither have 99% of the other voting member organizations (see HERE).

I expect that NAMSA keeps its membership current to maintain the insurance program offered by US SAILING (as the Hobie Class does, too). There is nothing wrong with that level of involvement - the current Council ExCom (see HERE) are not the sort of folks that judge anyone's commitment or motives. But as you can see from the ExCom roster, there are two seats open - one of them is about to be filled by Tom Siders and one by Adam Borcherding, both of whom expressed an interest in helping out their Areas. But Brian's point here, that there are not enough volunteers to fill all the positions we would like, is valid.

Of course the MHC and NAMSA have slightly different roles, but I have avoided volunteering for NAMSA until my term with the MHC is up - it begins to look silly when one person is sitting at a table representing seven different multihull "organizations." It begs the question "how organized can they be if they've only got one guy?"

Anyway, the punchline is this - NAMSA? Sure - why not? It is as good an outlet for your energy as any other.

John has it right. You can belong to all the various Multihull Organizations, they each have their place. The important thing is to volunteer and take part.

Tomorrow, as a member of NAHCA, we will have our Division 4 AGM, and plan our schedule for next year. Included will be plans for the Alter Cup Qualifier, and support for our local Youth Teams to attend the US SAILING Youth Multihull Champ in CA next Jan. Mike Hensel, Area L rep and I will discuss US SAILING activites and the Multihull Council.

Mike is also working with the local A Cat sailors and F-18 Sailors to coordinate additional regatta's for their classes.

Standing by to assist NAMSA if they return to an active organization. From Sail Sand Point's position as Seattle's Community Sailing Center, we just want to get more multihull sailors on the water and grow the sport.

Caleb Tarleton
Sail Sand Point, Board Member
US SAILING Multihull Council
North American Hobie Cat Member, since it was founded.
NAMSA,founding member 2001

Bit pushed for time (Seminar starts tomorrow, followed by Wave Nationals), but basically the idea behind NAMSA is to get all the organizations under one, united umbrella. When organizations join NAMSA, there would be key people from all of them that would give us the blood I have been referring to.
Individuals that do not belong to any organization have been accounted for as well and joining would be encouraged by those sailors.
But, imagine if CRAW, CRAM, CRAC, CABB, et al joined hands and worked together, it would a chorus of strong voices. Strong enough that NAMSA would definitely have an audience. US Sailing and ISAF would have to listen.

Rick

From Scuttlebut Europe:
Editorials


The Olympic event selection by the ISAF Council and the America's Cup steelcage death match continue to dominate the editorials this week...

On the ISAF Olympic Selections:

* From Simon Morgan, Former Hobie 16 National Champion and ISAF Worlds competitor, Founder Wildwind Sailing Holidays, and co-incidentally son of Tony Morgan Silver Medallist 1964 Tokyo Olympics, two man Flying Dutchman class:

Since Scuttlebutt Europe's weekend edition much prompted at least some defence of ISAF's controversial decision, (Paul Henderson, Jack Dinelli et al) I would like to follow up their comments:

First of all I can have every sympathy with Mr Henderson's view that it is 'ridiculous to blame ISAF, which is only the structure wherein the votes are cast' - 'ISAF is only as good as the delegates nominated by their National Authorities.'

However, Mr Henderson also writes 'that the process is now open and how each delegate voted is public'. This would perhaps not appear to be the case when analysing the vote of the Council to reject the recommendations of its Executive Committee, when an electronic vote was made and no record of how members voted appears to have been recorded. And no one from ISAF has explained this decision. Why bother having an Events Committee then?

If I am not mistaken, the IOC themselves offer pretty specific guidelines as to how choose Olympic events and this seems largely to have been ignored.

''the following principles should be reflected in the general composition of the Olympic Programme"

"Similar events...should be avoided" - Why then vote for two types of double-handed dinghies for both men and women rather than a single type of Multihull for either men or women?

"Global public and media interest in a sport must be considered as key elements... for these are fundamental elements in the success of the Games" - Why then vote against Multihulls, which are certainly the fastest Event in the Sailing Regatta and in general opinion also the most exciting to watch?

"Weight category events should not be allowed, except for the combat sports and for weightlifting" - Since sailing falls into neither of these exceptions, why vote for an Event, specifically described as 1 Person Dinghy (Heavy)?

Specific guidance for ISAF is given in paragraph 3.1.4,
"In comparison with other individual sports, the Commission noted the high quota and number of events in sailing, in comparison to the low broadcast and spectator appeal" - Why then vote against Multihulls, whose size and speed makes them especially attractive for the new technology of on-board cameras first tried out for Multihull and High Performance Events at the Sydney Games?

"It was noted that the Keelboat class are very expensive boats and demand costly infrastructure for Olympic competition, and for general practice and development in comparison to other classes. Therefore, if the Executive Board recommends the reduction in the number of athletes and events, the Commission believes these reductions could be made through the exclusion of keelboat sailing events" Why then specifically disobey an unambiguous guideline and vote to exclude Multihulls instead?

It has also been mentioned (rumoured?) that a number of representatives on Council voted against the recommendations of their own National Authorities. IF even ONE of these had changed the votes then the voting would have been tied; with two.....a clear cut decision in favour with the multihull would have followed.

My real beef is not with the keelboat class per se, even though that appears to be the second least popular class amongst delegates. It is that is seems totally unreasonable to have two singlehander and two two man dinghies at the expense of the multihulls - and the fact that Ben Ainslie managed to jump from the Laser to the Finn and win Gold in both classes seems to be a very real argument against the necessity for such doubling up.

My real complaint has to be that somehow ISAF's Council members on this occasion, whatever their good intentions, have not represented in any real way the views of their constituents, the sailing public. Perhaps if one good thing will come out of this whole sorry saga it will be a top to toe re-examination of just how Council members are selected and how more true democracy can find its way into top level decision making.

One last point; as of 2030 GMT Tuesday 20th November some 4250 signatures have added their names to the petition to the IOC requesting the re-instatement of the multihull class. While Mr Henderson says that 'all hell breaks loose' every time there is a change of class I severely doubt that decisions by previous Councils have in fact found so much public disagreement.

Furthermore, to put those numbers in perspective (even though I have said that I am not specifically against the keelboat class) those 4250 signatures gathered in 10 days compare with one half of all the Sail numbers issued to the Star class since 1911. Yes folks, the Star was designed nearly 100 years ago ... and we are dropping the multithull! There really can be no wonder why there has been and will continue to be such a furore until this issue is settled in a more sensible fashion.

* Carolijn Brouwer found time from her busy Tornado training schedule in Sydney to write to SailJuice with her views on what happened two weeks ago in Estoril. You could read the frustration between the lines of what Laser Radial sailor Laura Baldwin wrote a few days ago. Here, Carolijn is much more explicit with her feelings. By the way, a quick reminder that Carolijn finished runner-up in the Tornado World Championships this year, showing the men the way round the track in the manliest of weather conditions. So this is a girl who knows what she's talking about:

I was gutted after the ISAF meeting in Estoril. I felt empty, confused and especially useless. I am a member of the Events Committee but at this moment I truly don't really know what I'm doing there and whether it has any meaning.

Of course I'm very disappointed ISAF kicked out the Multihull and is taking a huge step backwards in sailing by not including the High Performance dinghy for Women. They are too scared to take a possible risk and move forward.

But most of all, I am disappointed about the Events selection procedure. The members of the Events Committee have been chosen by their MNAs because they are the so called experts in the issues/areas that involve Events, including Olympic Games and Olympic Event Selection. The normal procedure is that the voting on respective issues that involve Events is done on our Committee and we then put them forward as a recommendation to Council. Council usually accepts our recommendation.

This time however they just chucked it out the window and started all over again. So, what are we actually doing there as an Events Committee if our expertise is not being used anyway? This is really disappointing and to be honest I don't understand what ISAF is doing. It's frustrating being part of it, and having the feeling that you are completely useless. It's not about the sailors, it's about the blazers. So many people have told me already, don't try and understand, it's a waste of time. And I still keep thinking I can make a difference in there.

The past week I have been on the verge of resigning from the Committee. But that would be giving up. We need more active sailors on the committees, not less.

I have a very straightforward, simple and symmetric opinion of how easily we can have only ten events for sailing in the Olympics and still cover the whole range that our beautiful sport has to offer:

- Singlehanded Men/Women
- Doublehanded Men/Women (High Performance)
- Multihull Men/ Women
- Windsurfer Men/Women
- Keelboat Men/Women (matchracing)

It doesn't have to be difficult, it can be easy.

Carolijn's full editorial on SailJuice.com:
sailjuiceblog.com/2007/11/23/catwoman-sharpens-her-claws/

* Yachting Australia has expressed both disappointment and concern over the decision taken last week by the ISAF Council to drop the Multihull from the list of events for the 2012 London Olympic Games. Yachting Australia delegates supported the retention of the multihull event throughout the ISAF Annual Meetings which took place in Estoril, Portugal from 3-11 November.

ISAF was challenged with reducing the number of Olympic events from 11 in 2008 to 10 for 2012 in Weymouth. "To not include the multihull in 2012 is to disenfranchise a large part of the sport of sailing," says Phil Jones, CEO of Yachting Australia and member of the ISAF Events Committee, which recommended that the multihull should be retained. "The speed and excitement of catamarans is a real draw to young people. They are the speed machines of sailboat racing. Whilst there is only a limited number of countries involved in the Tornado Olympic Class, multihull sailing is an attractive and truly global part of the sport."

ISAF has been heeding the clear message from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over recent years that for the sport to maintain its place on the Olympic Program it must take steps to become more attractive to the media and the public. Changes to the format of the competition have been made and a World Cup Series has been agreed in effort to ensure more regular exposure for Olympic sailing.

"Catamaran racing is fast and comes across as really exciting," says Phil Jones. "The Tornado is one of the most telegenic boats in the Olympic Regatta. The boats are big enough to carry on board cameras and tracking devices that can really bring the contest to life for the viewer. To not have a place for it, or another multihull, is a real step backwards for a sport that has the challenge of building its profile. For us, there was just no focus on the bigger, long-term picture."

Yachting Australia is also concerned over the process by which the multihull was excluded. The ISAF Council voted to change the process recommended for the selection of the events. This meant that there was no "run-off" vote between the Multihull and the Keelboat.

"There was no real discussion over the implications of the change. It altered the fundamental principles of the recommended system." says Phil Jones. "Some consider that the change, which was taken on a motion from the floor, was taken with undue haste. Certainly many around the Council did not seem to appreciate the full implications of the change. Those that used their first vote to support other events may well have backed the multihull over the keelboat had they had the opportunity. This change denied them this opportunity. I am sure that having had time consider the implications, many will recognise that the change, put forward as a mere simplification, was much more than this."

Yachting Australia is concerned over the reaction to the ISAF Council decision. "We understand that some will be very disappointed but the personal and vitriolic attacks that we have seen do nothing to help the cause of those making them. In fact, they only do damage. Yachting Australia does not consider this type of reaction appropriate in any way."

Yachting Australia is considering what further action, if any, can be taken to revisit the decision. "However much we might disagree, if we felt the decision had been properly considered and made with those around the table fully understanding the implications, we would accept it. Obviously we don't consider that this is the case. We shall be discussing the issue with colleagues from other countries and IOC representatives over the next few days before deciding how we proceed."

I think it is time the cat sailors rallied back around NAMSA especially due to the way US Sailing is again jacking the cats around as they did in the 90s when I dropped my membership in response.

Some of the best regattas anywhere were the NAMSA North Americans in the 70s and 80s. Well over a hundred boats of as many sizes and brands that could be assembled would show up somewhere around the country once a year and race for best of the best as well as class awards. Everyone got a look at the wild custom boats as well as the latest designs brought out by manufacturers, yes even the Hobie rep came to show off the H-17 its first year out.

The winning boat often did so because of conditions favorable to that design, or maybe a new design had a nice rating that hadn't been tweaked fully, but everyone had loads of fun.

Unfortunately, in the 80s, I think it was, I, and a few of us on the Board got talked into rolling it up and essentially handing it all over to US Sailing with the promise that they would promote cat sailing on a level we couldn't. Those years were very demanding of me and my time and it seemed like the right thing to do then. As it turned out, it was not, in my opinion, but we didn't have the energy to work it as hard as it needed to be worked.

Dick Blanchard and a few of his contemporaries had run the organization for so many years, and despite some of his detractors, managed to put on great events while continuously tweaking PNs trying to find an equitable formula for as wide a wind range as was possible. Dick was tireless, but that is what it takes to hold such an organization of competing brands together and allow them to become friends both on and off the course.

NAMSA should never have given up, but it certainly should start back up with renewed enthusiasm in light of US Sailing's efforts to define us as irrelevent. I said "us", even though I have not sailed a cat in several years. I still am a big fan of the sport, and cats in particular, and I would love to see catamaran sailing to rebound to the levels we had back in those days.

Dues back then was $15.00 a year as I recall, so $5.00 shouldn't discourage anyone - it is a bargain if you factor in inflation from the 70s and 80s.

Alec, very much agree. I renewed my membership last week and have offered Rick my help to renew the organization. Waiting for some feedback, but I'm hopeful we can get something going.

Sorry I am not completely available. My plate has been quite full with a seminar, followed by the Nationals, followed by the Steeplechase, and then getting out the next issue.
But, I was on the MHC phone meeting last night.

After looking at John's Summary (elsewhere in thise Forum) it seems the idea of a strong body behind them is not of much interest.
As John mentioned it is hard to find bodies to fill positions for them and for NAMSA.., just not enough interested people to go around.
But my thinking is there are numerous sailing groups around the country, i.e., CRAC, CABB, CRAW, CRAM, ORCA, et al. Most of them are going along quite nicely and the only reason that is possible is that within each of those there is a catalyst that keeps things going.
If all of these groups joined NAMSA, NAMSA would inherit a strong bunch of catalystic people that would really make NAMSA strong.
And NAMSA membership was setup to get groups to join, as well as individuals that did not belong to groups.
In order to get NAMSA thriving again, we definitely will need more go-getters.
Rick

Hi Rick -

Thanks for being on the call last night. If you came away with the idea that NAMSA is "not of much interest" then I wasn't very effective in communicating. NAMSA is a voting member of the Council, your input during the discussion was vital, and I hope that NAMSA will remain engaged in the coming months as we make the push to develop and implement the plans we discussed.

Thanks for the reply, John.
You just keep doing the great job you are doing. Hopefully we can rally the Calvary behind you, complete with bugles and horses to ride in as well.
Rick

Continue with the beatings....

My recommendations and offer still stand Rick. Just waiting for you to say go.