Unlike the Gulf Yachting Associatinon. My RSA, CBYRA will go along with US Sailing. See below

So what is the alternative? Is somebody going to come up with a different set of racing rules? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Mary,

This is a lose lose situation for th Chesapeake Bay Sailors.

Another rule set won't solve the problem.... All of the organizing authorities that put on our events would have to drop out of US Sailing and join the new... something else.

We only have two organizations that could raise their middle finger leaving us with one weekend event next year.... The alternative is to pay the man and fold.

Mark

In summary.

- USS will NOT support a multihull event at the Olympics and has essentially given us the "finger"
- USS is going to require us to pay them eventhough they don't support us... Hmmmmm....

This is F'd up.

Are they copyrighted and/or proprietary? Couldn't we just take the ISAF rules (basically the RRS but without the US prescriptions) and use them with our own prescriptions? Are you not allowed to use the rules if you aren't a member? Since when is a set of rules proprietary? Can you name another sport that would attempt to protect it's set of rules from being used elsewhere? This is silly.

I think there is a real flaw in the thinking that the deciding factor for membership is for events that are using the RRS. I believe this is the only play they have for requiring membership and even this has some legality issues. They can't dictate how the clubs operate since they don't own any part of the club so they've chosen to mandate membership through the RRS? The leverage they can apply is real enough though.

I would guess that most regatta's use USS insurance for regattas and that is how they will get you in the long run. "Fine, don't want to follow our rules, don't use our cheaper insurance"

I kept USS membership prior to moving to UT and was going to renew until all of the Olympic BS happened.

I would hope folks would check to see if US Sailing insurance really is cheaper. Last time our club checked it wasn't.

True

The US Sailing package was more comprehensive and you paid a bit more for it (Gowrie Barden Brett) Plus your club must be a member of US Sailing (100 bucks). The former US Sailing partner Meyer's Briggs upgrade their product,and did not have some features of US Sailing and was cheaper. No US Sailing membership required. Coverage for the beach activities and property ... eg Liguor Liability was extra for both.

If you run your own regattas, I think you can safely ignore US Sailing and change the new rule... (much like we modify the penalty turns required).. Others say you can't change a racing rule.

This rule will be in the prescriptions that are not modifiable by SI's - some you can, some you can't modify...this one will not be modify-able. That question was raised by one of the west coast clubs and addressed by Capron.

At this point, I am truly uncertain what to do. I am as discouraged as I have ever been in my adult life. If there is interest, I'll put together an agenda to host a conference call and we can hash out a plan. So far, nothing we've tried has yeilded much in the way of tangible results, even though there has been progress and I think there are some good signs both here in the US and internationally for multihull sailing in the future. Little of that has to do with US SAILING however. As it stands, the best we can hope for is a status-quo of our adult ladder and our two championships, which are both pretty healthy. It is possible that the US will no longer support a youth multihull team for the ISAF Worlds since it is not an Olympic path... not really sure, yet.

There was a time that the Hobie Class maintained a seperate set of rules. Going back to that sort of arrangement is possible, but will not work in all areas of the US. Some folks rely on YCs to run events, some on dealers, some on the Hobie Class, and some on their paper fleet. Any sort of proposed break-away plan would need to be a workable solution for everyone or we risk seeing inconsistent regional solutions developed by the movers and shakers at the local level. The biggest detractor would be that our larger events might be run under a different set of rules than your home fleet uses.

The other elephant in the room is that a break-away would require some people. The MHC has been limping along for a while, but the core group is getting thin. One of our foundational presences has been Darline Hobock - if you have not heard, she has experienced a setback in her health this weekend. We should expect that a day will come when people like Darline, Gordon Isco, Dave Shaffer and Deb Schaefer all find other things to occupy their time or that require their attention. Individual classes also appear to me to be struggling a little to fill volunteer positions. NAMSA has been in place for years and has been pulling off a great annual event in Tradewinds, but not much has happened since Rick's call to arms some four years ago. My point is that there does not seem to be the critical mass needed to bring a replacement organization into being or revamp an existing organization.

I've shown poor leadership of the MHC over the last two weeks because I've had a very hard time getting motivated in the face of what seems to be an epic level of disatisfaction with an organization to which I have devoted an absurd amout of time and money. I'm questioning the need for continued involvement when everything we try seems to have no effect on decisions made at the Board level which engender deeper and deeper resentment.

John, well said.

I can see how disheartening it could be to put the time/energy in that you and others have to improve the state of cat sailing in the US only to be walked all over by the upper levels of the governing body. To do the work, to want to better the sport... only to end in a worse position than before by no fault of your own. I'm sure you're at that point, "why? f it!"

This is another David/Goliath sort of fight. Sadly we may just have to take our toys and go play in another sand box.

Many moons ago when I was the MHC chairman I proposed reorganizing as a seperate but affiliated group ala the windsurfers.Due to a lack of enough volunteers to carry it through it naver came to fruition. John, if you dig through that pile of stuff I sent, there should be a folder labeled multihull council reorganization and you can see what the plan was. Maybe everything old is new again.

Gordon

John,

This may not mean much to you but I will write it down anyway.

I strongly admire your dedication to the cause when using the "internal path" as presented by the MHC. We have been in strong disagreement in the past whether this was the best path to take, but that is totally irrelevant with regard to appreciating and admiring your total commitment in this way. In fact I would have loved to have been made out the fool if that had meant having the multies reinstated. I had planned to publically admit to being exactly that if you had indeed pulled it off.

My admiration also extents to the UK sailing body and those of other countries that came to support the UK initiative.

I also believe the Dutch representative voted against multis the second time and that is an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

I never like to admit to sceptisme being right, but from the start I never believed that the powers that are would change their tune beyond a more marktable version of the orginal exclusion. That is the way these things go.

I think we must learn from the kayak example, as compared to being a member of the rowing association and as a seperate association.

I feel that going at it alone may well be initially bad but will be beneficial in the long run. Sometimes you have to pack your bags and go. I feel that the volunteers will come when the need arises. Never in enough numbers but sufficiently so to make the break-off work. Indeed, the amount of dedication and effort you have just spend on MHC and US sailing will go a very long way into getting the other organiation going. At some point we must realize that one of the two is the better investment.

But for now, my hat off to you. A damn shame not much "return of investment" was achieved.

Wouter

Golf called and said we could use their rules.

bwooohaaaaa haaaa.

I agree with Wouter, we should pack up our toys and separate.

I get absolutely no value from a US Sailng membership whatsoever.

Someone call Boat US and get them to provide regatta insurance coverage.

I'm opposed to reinventing the wheel, but some of this stuff is as clear as mud,
http://game.finckh.net/indexe.htm and most of the illustrations use monohulls!

So...!

Bill, It's not that easy!

Will your yacht club host an event for your class when you don't belong to US Sailing and are operating your class on your own RACING rules? I certainly don't know... change is hard for organizations... I can't promise that they will say "sure.. come race... love to have you rebels".

US Sailing could request that the Yacht Club/organizing authority not mix US Sailing certified events with multihull certified events.... just like the Hobie class Association has done for Hobies and non hobie multihulls at their sanctioned events. Now you are asking a club to duplicate its RC efforts...

Will we provide a multihull sanctioned judge for the Protest Room? Do you think the YC will have a positive view of the Instant justice in the Sand/ Arbitration system of a panel of competitors rulling on a protest?

Will we violate some trademark or patent or intellectual property by using the racing rules, appeals, etc etc?

I don't know and I am not pleased with the choices.

The 40 bucks is not that big of a deal... giving those bozo's ANY support at gunpoint just stinks. Moreover, you don't feel that we have a seat at the table and we could not effect a change short of homicide.

My hunch is that YC will not buck the system.

I think a big impact will be on the casual sailor/racer who races on week nights in a non sanctioned series... They might want to do one race a season... Now the price to play doubles and they are simply not going to do it.

Mark

I've kept out of this discussion as I believe that from a certain point of view its an "American" issue to be discussed internally, however, I do have a few thoughts.

1. The people who have posted here and elsewhere saying "I've never been a member..." are partially to blame, US Sailing is an organisation designed to support its members. If US multihull sailors on mass have a history of not supporting US Sailing then why should they support you?

2. In any good discussion/negotiation you can choose to use a carrot or a stick. Many of you are making threats "do what I want or I will leave" has anyone tried a carrot? Talk to all the other cat sailors / associations you know and produce a meaningful list of active cat sailors in the US who would be willing to join and support US sailing IF they showed you some support by working to re-introduce cat sailing to the Olympics.

Hi Chris-

Your comments are not unwelcome and perspective is a necessary ingredient in the overall discussion. Events have, however, moved far past the "carrot and stick" phase - we chose carrot last year and made a tremendous effort to meet the conditions given; get other classes in addition to the Tornado to submit themselves as equipment. We also agreed a large majority of cat sailors would not quit USSA in protest - in fact we saw a slight bump in membership as a result of people recognizing your point about participation. I don't imagine there were very many sectors within USSA that could boast membership growth. We did, in my estimation, all the right stuff and we did it in an adult and measured manner. Members of the Board said to me privately that they felt the multihull community simply would not be satisfied unless a cat was back in the 2012 Games; I assured them this was not the case - we just wanted to see the process play itself out in a fair manner and allow for the international majority to prevail, whether that meant a cat or not. We introduced a motion to that effect before the House of Delegates, carefully following procedure and crafting the wording to meet the requirements of the Board as expressed in private conversations and e-mails - it was passed unanimously. Then the Board did what the slim majority wanted to do anyway - our Delegation voted again as a bloc, first to reaffirm the November decision and then to not change men's or women's events. We knew that a majority of the ISAF Council favored revisiting the November decision with or without the US's votes. What dismays me is that we met the Board's conditions for reconsidering events in the case that the Events were reopened and yet they still voted against changing the events. Multihulls have had a majority in every vote on the issue, but without the US bloc, the 2/3rds majority needed could not be achieved.

So - direct talks, cordial interaction, engaged volunteerism, an intensely interested constituency and a successful effort to meet stated conditions = failure. What do you do with that? I'm not being a smartass, I'm serious. I'm experiencing a very real crisis of commitment.