I keep hearing this argument but I disagree - most of those Olympians are ALREADY sailing in F18 and are getting paid to do so by the factories and/or major sponsors. Perhaps having an Olympic twist added would apply a few more resources to the sail development and the like but I really don't see how that would have some huge impact on the class.

However, losing control of or making wide sweeping changes in the rules would be detrimental but I'm not sure that's what we're talking about here.

That's one of the best polls I've seen on the subject thus far.

Anybody else see this one? Alittle better result than what I had anticipated (given the readership of that magazine).

http://www.sailingworld.com/polls.jsp?ID=1000000073

T

Only 200 some odd votes though - teamseacats.com gets more visitors per day.

I think though that is some of the argument the classes WOULD loose the ability to make the those changes, although the tornado has gone through some quite radical changes over the last 8 years.

As for sail development Im not sure there would be that much that we would see and the worry for the F18 classes is that I think that development would stop. As a manufacturer apying someone like Bundy to steer a hobie would Nacra want him to spend a year on their boat developing sails for a rival manufacturer...besides this would not be what ISAF want for the Olympics they appear to want blanket one design with little or no development.

I personally was looking at the whole picture rules and development when I made my comments.

I do like the idea of rotation of the classes but having seen the recent drop in market value of F18s by the actions of one person selling his boat for below market value I would worry about the effect that 20 or so boats appearing on the market place would have...

Interesting... at the moment multihull is a close second for men and a close second to last for women.

From The Daily Sail:
Rules and regs
We take a look at the ongoing situation with the Olympic multihull and women's skiff
Last week ISAF announced they would be re-visiting two contentious decisions made back in November last year at their Annual conference. With the IOC reducing athlete participation across the board at the Olympic Games, sailing was forced to remove one event from the Olympic line-up for 2012. Due to this the ISAF Council were charged with making the decision of what event would be removed as well as which events would take place at the Games in London. The ISAF Council, at that stage, made two major decisions: Firstly to remove the Double Handed Multihull event from the Olympics, secondly, to switch the Women’s Three Person Keelboat event to Women’s Match Racing event in favour of the Women’s Two Person High Performance Dinghy event (Women’s Skiff).
Immediately after this decision was made by the Council there was a great deal of public outcry, predominantly by the multihull community. Almost instantly after the meeting details emerged of a last minute change to the voting procedure. Essentially this change was from a situation where the ISAF Council voted for which events they want to see in the Olympics to voting for which events they would like to see OUT of the Olympics. At first glance this may not seem like a radical departure but in fact it made a significant difference to the way in which the votes were cast, making the whole procedure more tactical. If you consider someone who was going to vote for all classes except the Laser, for example, a change to voting for which class to remove makes this a wasted vote as the Laser is (almost) definitely in. Instead of wasting their vote this voter then is forced to decide on a class they want to remove other than the Laser.

Before getting into the immediate issues we do still have to look at one more debate that has been taking place over recent months and that is what is deemed to qualify as urgent and what is not. The RYA stuck their head above the parapet in early December 2007, officially calling for an ISAF re-vote. A letter was sent to ISAF from the RYA in addition to being copied to every voting MNA (Member National Authority) in the World. The letter called for a re-evaluation of the 2012 Olympic events to be voted on at the ISAF’s mid-year meeting this year. The Australians and the French both followed suit and sent similar requests to ISAF. However, ISAF made the announcement that these submissions were not deemed as ‘urgent’ and therefore would not be discussed in May in compliance with regulation 1.6(b) of the ISAF regulations:

1.6 Subject to the provisions of Regulations 2.3, submissions or proposals shall be received at the ISAF Secretariat in respect of:

(b) the Mid-Year meeting or other meetings, not less than eight weeks before the meeting at which it is considered. Only urgent submissions may be considered at a Mid-Year meeting. The Executive Committee shall determine whether a submission is urgent. (The provisions of this section do not apply to submissions or proposals brought forward under Regulation 1.8 and 16.1.2);

In essence then ISAF were holding off debating the issue until November 2008. However, as Rod Carr explained to TheDailySail at the time of the RYA’s submission: “As it says in the letter, we need the ISAF to defer telling the IOC what the events are,” he explained. “The IOC should be informed by March and we are saying, write to them and say ‘we request permission to defer announcing our events.’ I can’t believe, this far out from the [2012] Olympics that is something the IOC would refuse.”

It later came to light that this decision had been deferred by ISAF until later this year. As we are now aware, the ISAF are now discussing the issue of a re-vote at the mid-year meeting in May. So have the MNA (Member National Authority) and Class Association suggestions now been deemed ‘urgent’? The answer is they have not. Instead the ISAF Executive Committee have submitted their own submission - urgent submission M06-08 below:

Proposal:
That Council reaffirm their decision on the 2012 Olympic Events made in November 2007 by a simple majority vote.

Upon reaffirmation, the matter will be concluded and all submissions made whether accepted as urgent or not urgent, will be considered to have been dealt with. Should Council vote not to reaffirm the decision, two separate votes will then follow:

1. Should the selected events for the Men be changed – A majority of two thirds will be required to effect any change as per Regulation 16.1.3 (a).

2. Should the selected events for the Women be changed – A majority of two thirds will be required to effect any change as per Regulation 16.1.3 (a). In case one or both of the votes under 1 and 2 above achieve the required majority, the ‘new’ decisions on the list of events for the 2012 Olympic Events shall be made in November 2008 and submissions on the events can be made in accordance with Regulation 1.

Current Position:
See above.

Reason:
Due to the degree of correspondence since the Council decision in November 2007 plus the submissions lodged by 15 MNA and 2 Class Associations, the Executive submit that Council be requested to reaffirm their decision on the events for the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition made in November 2007. This will then bring to a close any concerns over the Council decision.

In case one or both of the votes under 1 and 2 above achieve the required majority, submissions on the events can be made in accordance with Regulation 1. This would include the submissions made for the Mid-Year Meeting which were deemed not urgent, which will become ordinary submissions received before the 1 August submission deadline.

Here we can clearly see the wording from ISAF stating that this vote is to ‘reaffirm’ their November vote. This wording shows a pressure from the Executive Committee onto the ISAF Council to uphold the position voted on in November last year. It has also been pointed out that instead of discussing each or any of the 17 submissions made to ISAF by 15 MNAs and two class associations, ISAF are ignoring much of the pressure applied and having a small vote that will overrun all of the other submissions.

However, much of this is speculative and it is a simple case of wording for the most part. Even the fact that the 17 submissions are not being taken into account by ISAF and only one single submission about a reaffirmation is being debated, seems like the best move in terms of efficiency.

Another major worry that brought to our attention by some members of the multihull community is the wording of both the urgent submission by ISAF and their Regulations. In urgent submission M06-08 it states that:

1. Should the selected events for the Men be changed – A majority of two thirds will be required to effect any change as per Regulation 16.1.3 (a).
2. Should the selected events for the Women be changed – A majority of two thirds will be required to effect any change as per Regulation 16.1.3 (a).

Here is regulation 16.1.3(a):

16.1.3 Except as provided in Regulation 16.1.4:
(a) Decisions made by Council under 16.1.1 (b) may only be overturned with a vote in favour of two thirds of all Council members entitled to vote.

‘Entitled to vote’ is the key here as, in effect, it means any Council member not attending the meeting (to be held in Qingdao) or abstaining from voting effectively becomes a vote against both the multihull and the women’s skiff. This does start to make the voting procedure look like an increasingly uphill struggle. However, a quick review of the minutes from the last two mid-year meetings shows only one voting member of the ISAF Council sent apologies for not attending, so in effect this is a moot point.

Essentially then the difficulty now for the multihull and women’s skiff community is that ISAF are, at this stage of the procedure, doing everything right. There have been no official complaints about the manner in which the vote was made in November last year. The RYA, for example, were very clear on this point and Rod Carr confirmed their position. “The first thing that I want to point out is that [the vote] was a legitimately, legally made decision,” he explained in December. “We are not challenging the legality of it. We are challenging the rightness of it.” Given this the ISAF are right to make it an uphill struggle. They must have a vote to reaffirm their decision and there must then be an overwhelming (two thirds) majority for the decision to be changed or else we will go through exactly the same problems every year we have to change Olympic classes.

The difficulty for us here is we would like to see a women’s skiff in the Games and the multihull returned. However, in ISAF’s eyes, and legally, the decision has already been made. The debate at the mid-year meeting could well change things but as in most walks of life once the decision has been made and the ball is rolling it is very, very difficult to stop it.

ISAF Mid Year meeting submissions, here.
ISAF Regulations, here.
ISAF Constitution, here.

From Scuttlebut Europe:
two Views on the current situation.

The Olympic Classes - Paul Henderson
Olympic Classes:
Having been involved in the selection of the Olympic Classes for 30 years at ISAF it is interesting to see that nothing has changed. Personal bias always prevails. If the vote goes your way the ISAF Council is brilliant. If your personal or those of your country's medal chances are not served the ISAF Council are dysfunctional. Here goes on my bias. Deja Vu!

Overview:
TV and Media: No matter what sailing does we will never get much live Olympic TV. The feed is there but the individual country broadcasters usually do not pick it up as Athletics, Football, Basketball etc fills their broadcasts. Sailing gets very high niche market internet hits especially live mark-by-mark roundings. The print media loves heroes and human interest stories. The equipment is secondary. The many daily E-Mail newsletters have added another dimension to sailing journalism.

Heroes: In both Sydney and Athens the international print media followed the Star #1 as that was were the heroes were: Grael, Cayard, MacDonald, Loofs, Rohart, Percy, Bromby etc. Whether a boat goes 18 kts or 10 kts is unimportant. Sailors do! The heroes from the Boards usual evolve into Tornado sailors. The Laser and Finn heroes move up into the Keelboats Men or Women. The IOC wants the heroes and the best which is why Baseball was dropped because the Major League players are not at the Olympics.

Elite: The Olympics are for the best and should not become a Junior Regatta. The IOC has addressed this issue by initiating a Youth Olympics and those who want to promote youth sailing should focus on that regatta in Singapore.

High-Performance: All Olympic Classes are high-performance. No one has ever been able to define that term. This is especially true with the sailors as they must perform at the highest possible level in all events. Call them Cats or Skiffs but do not insult other classes by tagging them low performance in comparison. Paul Elvstrom once said: "It is harder to build a class then design a new one". The Star, Laser, Tornado and Finn have proven this.

Classes:
Keelboats must be kept both for Men and Women. It also provides the infrastructure for the Paralympics. Yesterday I was in Miami and there were over 100 Star boats at their WC. I thought it was a Laser Regatta.

Women must have a keelboat class. I prefer Fleet as that is inclusive but Match is acceptable also. Fleet or Match is format not the event and keeping the Keelboat is the key.

The singlehanders are the essence of the Olympics and the now 5 should be kept.

Boards have diminished greatly in acceptance over the last two decades but should remain. Laser is unchallenged. The Laser Radial has been a great success and the number of nations at their Worlds was the best ever for women. The Finn is essential as it provides a singlehander for larger men.

That leaves 3 Events of 10. If ISAF is held to 10 then my bias really comes out. I like Cats and Skiffs because they must be sailed not Air-Rowed around the course with Kinetics.

The problem then arises is what to do with the 470? Fortunately I am no longer on that hot seat. 470 is excellent women's boat and the 29er should be first put into the new Youth Olympics. It is sad that the IOC is holding Sailing to an agreement made to reduce from 11 as the reasons originally invoked 4 years ago are no longer valid.

Hopefully someone with influence will get to Jacques Rogge to delay the erosion till 2016. If that could happen ISAF should then keep both Men and Women 470 hosted for 2012 in the #1 sailing nation today.

Sailing would then have relative peace for at least another 4 years.

More To This Than Meets The Eye? - Andy Rice
Not everyone has welcomed ISAF's new submission with open arms. The UK Catamaran Racing Association's Simon Morgan sent SailJuice this response to the submission, and Simon questions some of the language used by ISAF in this new document.

Here is Simon's interpretation of things:

This is a welcome move in the right direction by ISAF, but it may sadly turn into a public relations disaster, the more closely it is publicly examined, because the leadership's proposal is legally imprecise and open to suspicion of bias, to which its Members have now become highly sensitised.

Firstly, ISAF Members (MNA's) should be congratulated for responding to the public concerns of the sailing community. It is impressive not only how widespread but also how comprehensive are their initiatives in seeking a better solution. They include submissions from 15 countries and 2 international classes on the selection of Events. Should a majority of Council vote in favour of change, but fail to reach the additional two-thirds hurdle that the leadership seeks to impose, (perhaps unnecessary at this juncture) they also include a further dozen submissions for multihull equipment to be considered alongside monohull equipment for the currently approved Events.

Strategically, there are also proposals to ask IOC for an 11th Event and to set up a new Multihull Committee, like Windsurfing. These are from nations rich and poor, large and small and all around the world.

They all should be thanked, especially those who have had to back on their original decision for doing the decent thing in saying, sorry we simply did not think about the multihull community because you were politically unorganised. Having read your lengthy report and listened to the enormous body of public opinion against the Estoril Events decision, we see that you are a significant part of the sport we all love and have organised yourself and we want to find a place for you somewhere in our "big church".

But has ISAF leadership got that message?

Remember the November Council Meeting where Charley Cook "proposed that the voting process could be simplified...by making a slight modification".

Remember Arve Sundheim's letter to Members in November which excused the failure to advise Councillors of the 2002 IOC document on guidelines for Olympic Events entitled "Recommendations" on the basis that this was not "a policy of the IOC to recommend that if any events are to be removed from the Olympic Programme for sailing that it could be keelboat"

Remember the Minutes of the February Executive Meeting that responded to the host nation's concerns by describing the choice of Events as "closed", but now "recognizing the level of concerns over the decision as per the submissions received" the selection of Events is no longer closed.

If the leadership were genuinely open-minded why propose that Council "reaffirm" rather than "review" and why continue "upon reaffirmation", rather than "if reaffirmed", when such alternative neutral language is available? The accompanying press release continues in similar manner "The Executive Committee intent in making this submission is to bring to a close the current speculation challenging the Council decision".

The proposal is even more grudging in that the Executive oddly asks Councillors to reaffirm rather than reject their decision. This raises questions about impartiality. -- More on sailjuiceblog.com/2008/04/07/more-to-this-than-meets-the-eye/

Henderson dont qualify his opinions much..

A pretty good summary of all that follows.