Olympics: Yachting NZ change their position

A small piece of good news from NZ -


-----
YNZ Statement: Olympics 2012

Date Released: 20 December 2007

The Board of Yachting New Zealand has resolved to make a submission to the ISAF mid year meeting requesting that the events slate for the 2012 Olympic Games be revisited.

The Board consulted with the Olympic Committee and the High Performance Committee on the matter and made the decision to make such a submission based on the longer term view of the future of sailing at the Olympics rather than the specific medal opportunities at the 2012 Games.
-----

Interestingly, this is not listed in the "Latest Media Releases" on their home page, but is linked from the media release page accessible from the News menu.

Hey John W. - I'm not sure where you guys are up to in your work on this issue but I wonder if I could offer a small suggestion... I think it would be good for the MHC to formally (and very politely of course) request that USSA (a) support the requests from YNZ and RYA for a reconsideration of the Olympic decision and (b) specifically seek that any subsequent vote by the ISAF Council be explicitly worded as a vote on the selection of events that most fully meet the Olympic event criteria defined in ISAF Regulation 16.1.5, not just "what events do you want to be in the Olympics". I believe the thing that has screwed up this whole situation is people voting based on their own narrow national interests, not in the interests of the sport or the Olympics. Even if it doesn't actually change the way people vote, at least they won't be able to get away with public statements about national interest like those we've seen in the past months from USSA and YNZ.

Hi Mark -

I like the way you think, but the reality we're facing is that the majority of the members of the Board at US SAILING got exactly what they wanted in Portugal. Incidentally, some of them truly believe that the current slate of events is actually best for the US; therefore, we are unlikely to see any change in position unless we continue to see other countries do what NZL has done. Right now, the Olympic Committee and the Board (by extension) will point out that every country votes in its best interest - it will take a sea change before the current course varies. Henderson's letter indicates Olympic sailing is NOT in jeopardy - ISAF insists that the 2002 and 2005 IOC recommendations do NOT require them to drop the keelboat events; taken together, these documents cut the legs from beneath the RYA letter. Further, the RYA delegation was in favor of changing the ISAF Council voting procedure on events. For them to criticize how things turned out is being made to seem like "sour grapes."

Continued discussion using a reasoned tone is making a difference, but we have a lot of damage to undo as well as a lot of lobbying. We also are supporting international efforts leading up to the March ISAF meeting however we can.

One thing that everyone can do - get smarter on this issue. What do you know about the Star class? Can you name any Star sailors? How much is a new boat? Remember - getting a multihull event back into the Olympics most likely means eliminating the Star. Great articles in the October issues of both SAIL and Sailing World magazines - required reading, IMO, for anyone who wants the Star class to trade places with us in a few months.

Nothing about this is black and white unless you stand pretty far back, and if you get that far back, you probably just don't care one way or the other.

John,
Is there any traction to fact that there are two men's single-hand dinghies (Laser and Finn), with the only justification for the Finn being "heavy"? Personally I can see keeping a men's keel boat, I'd rather see the Finn go to save the multihull.

Interestingly, in the recent issue of Sail, the issue is cast as multihull versus the women's keel boat and other women's classes, which is not what I have heard on any of this discussion at all. To bad it was not pointed out at that point that the T was the only class that allowed mixed crews...

You'd think that the heavy dinghy would be vulnerable, but it isn't... widespread international support. It was one of the five events that were considered fore-gone conclusions - even the more-forward-thinking Events Committee included it in their final recommendation to the Council. In the Sail-Juice Blog voting, I picked the Finn to be dropped, too. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I've already been in e-mail contact with the senior editor of SAIL. We'll see if we can't get some additional perspective included...

Understand your point John. My thought was that even if USSA were to say no to a suggestion like the one I made (and formally minute it), at least it would put very clearly out in the open the fact that they know what the regulations are and that they are making an explicit, willful decision to circumvent them. I'm just in favor of transparency. I'd like us to be able to say to them (figuratively speaking) that we know exactly what you're doing (ignoring regulations designed for the good of the sport as a whole in order to advance narrow national interests) and we know that you know that we know what you're doing <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

I think that is where we're headed; without giving away too much, we're waiting for things to continue to develop a bit before putting an official motion forward in writing which will, as you say, have to be handled openly. In the mean time, there are quite a few people working to move things forward. I don't like the game of politics very much - some of the things that will be done, even with little chance of success, are simply to position a platform of issues for the longer term.

Ther truly is a lot going on to get this back in front of the ISAF for a revote. I agree that one of the dinghies should have gone and I do not care which one. Fighting the Star is a no win situation. John, I actually do know the information that you ask on who is acitive in the class and how much a new Mader, Lillia or Folli costs.

I too agree that one of the dinghies should have gone. One thing we have to accept is that the Paralympics use keelboats, facilities have to be built for them, so rather than add the expense of the facilities on just one event it is better to be spread across the 2 events, that MAY explain some of the thinking in Portugal...although I doubt it very much

Well, this is a zero sum game...

Who is gong to loose if the Cats win?

Which organization Finn's or 470's or 49ners has a weaker argument for inclusion in the Olympics? Which class is the weakest?

In the USA, I would think that the 470 would be the weakest class and have the least compelling argument for inclusion. These sailors have three or four reasonable options to demonstrate the olympic skills of tactics and teamwork. The could choose a Single handed dinghy, Keel boat or double handed high performance boat or multihull that they could jump into and compete for the Olympics. Heck, one of the medalists in 470's retired from the class and is now racing Hobie 16's internationally. Demonstrating the point that these sailors have many viable options to reach the Olympics.

You could also target the 49ner.. You could argue that if high performance is the olympic skill.... then a Tornado crushes the 49ner around a race course or in a strait line and is the true test of high performance sailing skill. Morover, the skiff class is the new comer to the games and the participation in skiff sailing around the world is less then in cats. (I need to check this assertion though) As a matter of pure power politics... the high performance class may have the least support of the three. In the USA... the skiff scene is invisible in most of the country. Since the women's council chose NOT to support the High performance Dinghy for women sailors You have no argument that gender equity requires a men's skiff. ... A balanced approach would be to eliminate the 49ner. The argument would be... the multihull is a mixed class and tests the skills needed for high performance sailing .. perhaps a wisper that a smaller boat could be chosen which would allow more women to compete would be the right approach.

For sure, the non sailing public would distinguish a catamaran.... (Hey... that's a hobie cat) from all other monohulls... A 49ner... will look like a tricked out monohull to the non sailor public. For the PR value... there is nothing like a Tornado flying a hull upwind or downwind... to the TV viewer... the speed differences between a 49ner and Tornado is not really appreciated... BUT. I would argue that elevation and a burst of speed is much more exciting to watch in a puff then a burst of speed.

I agree with Tom, IF the IOC and thus ISAF are not focussed on eliminating Keel Boats, there is no hope of success or real reason to go after the Keel boat class.

So... who is the target?

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.

Agreed. It is a zero sum game if we just add classes (one in = one out).

We can see it as a non-zero sum game if the goal is "the best choice for sailing as an Olympic sport".

Since having a multihull there definitely adds to the visibility, support, TV potential and other goals shared by all sailors, it is safer and easier to go this way.

It is definitely better to propose this type of "cooperative" solution. Especially when parts of it can be seen as a zero sum game.

Remember John that you are not alone in this matter, although staying out of internal politics of US sailing...you are in the best position to commentate there, this is a global issue for ALL multihull sailors, this is were IMVHO that things have fallen flat in the past, we haven't managed to show the true international political savvy of say the Finns or the Star.

Look how by pulling together and using rational arguments without getting aggressive has got us...nations are coming round to see that maybe ISAF got it wrong. So when that moment coments we have to be ready to act, unified across the world and with one loud voice.

By the way John personnaly I think you are doing a fantastic job, but as you say I think antone in multihulls is ill equipped to dael with the political manouvering.

The self promotion was what I was trying to get at by putting forward the idea of a slighly different concept of racing, by including the idea of a multi stage long distance race, what we have to show ISAF is why we are worth keeping and why we are different from the other classes.

If you need any help from the UK PM me and I will put you in touch with the right people.

Hi John

I don't understand your position.

Are you saying... promote the multihull and the world will see the injustice and decide otherwise?

Somebodies OX will be gored in the end.. right now... it's our disipline. The multihull community is working through the MNA's that we have some influence with and will hopefully persuade ISAF to reopen the issue.

Then what...?

How do you persuade the delegates to kill off a different disipline. What is the argument? (Cats are already dead... why revive them and kill off another class)

Is the argument some version of ... our Ox is bigger and nicer looking then say... the 470 Ox or the Star Ox or the 49ner Ox.?

OK... we can make that argument effectively I think. But, you suggest that this is not the way to go!

I sounds like you are saying that the PROCESS... eg the voting rules did not lead to a result that matches the intent and values of the majority of MNA's at ISAF.

So, all we need to do is reopen the process... and use a different voting process.

This still leaves the question... Given 10 events.... What is the appeal to the values and intent of the MNA's.

I don't see how you can make the case FOR the Multihull without contrasting it with the other disiplines.

At any rate... in the USA... If the door opens to reoconsider the events ... What should we do? It would seem that we need to focus on a coherent argument for what mix of disiplines represents the state of US Sailing activity.

What has changed over the year is the ISAF women's council which opted for 4 out of 6 events so long as it includes a keel boat. The women clearly don't want a cat or a High performance dinghy. IMO, this effectively kills the US goal of getting a women's 29ner event in. There seems to be no support for this among the women. This should change the US stand.

So, this fact alone should allow the US to support, Laser, Keel Boat, Dinghy, Windsufer for 8 events that are gender equal and match what US sailors want and actually sail.

So... two events left, three types of sailing... Finn's, 49ners and Tornado's. What argument do you make to the US powers' that be?

If you generalize... Heavy single person dinghy (finn + ???) .. skiff (29ner and 49ner) and cats (Tornado to Hobie 16) I would think the participation numbers are overwhelming in our favor.

I would also have a tally of US cat sailors that competed at their respective worlds. Again, I bet we stack up favorably.

I just dont' see how you persuade the US Sailing powers (If the decision gets reopened) without drawing sharp and distinct contrasts which counter the bias demonstrated by Bodie and Brenner.

Mark

What I read into John's statement was a philosophy of taking the high road and promoting our choice.
It is implied that you are knocking the other classes. But it's a more noble road than mud-slinging.
Nobody gets hurt feelings and the discussion is more likely to be a positive one.
You'd have no reason to take it personally. Everyone is only addressing why their class is great.
Then like John said, you just let the process go to work. And accept their decision.

But what do you do if the result is the same? Or if "the other" side gets the same process running we have yet another re-vote? Where does it end? I think the latter might be the biggest counter-argument those who work for our beloved multihulls might face. Just trying to anticipate, not get you down. You are doing great in my opinion!

I have more or less resigned on seeing multihulls in the games in the future, which means I will catch about zero TV time from the games. But I hope these shambles results in changes at ISAF. I dont think so, judging by the retireing Arve Sundheims letter which is very defensive, but I hope so. Would that happen to be plan B, John and Stuart? It sure is time for it..

I am on John's side on the issue of attacking any class. The reality is that lowers the person doing the attacking to the same rut in the road the others are slithering through. With that stated, one can make the arguement that the slate of events ended with six dinghy classes filling the ten possible slots for the games. It is here that you can attack. You are not singling out one class, but looking at the entire slate of events and stating that it is extremely unbalanced and that it does not justly represent the sailing world and community. Beyond this, what is needed is a unified position to speak from and the strength from numbers that you get with a unified body. So we need to decide how we want to state our arguement, what our focus should be and then plan our attack accordingly.

John -- Another possible strategy you may or may not have considered is this...

It sounds like working on the national front with US SAILING can be and should be part of a long-term solution. But if some/many in the delegation believe we are already on the right path, then expecting short-term miracles may be futile and frustrating.

If New Zealand and England and other nationalities already have the ball rolling, I wonder if US multihull sailors could come alongside and support those efforts for the immediate future. All the while, we could continue to work on the US delegation so if/when a multihull proposal is reconsidered, our delegation will view it in a more favorable light.

Correct. I believe that, at least in the media, a consensus already exists about ISAF's final equipment choice being far from ideal.

Our position is that we are concerned about the proper representation of sailing in the games. Our case is that at least one important type of boat isn't there when it should be, for a number of reasons.

We must not target any secific class to be replaced simply because this is not our primary problem, just a natural consequence of its rational solution.

FRom a apersonnal view what we have to do as multihull sailors is set ourselves short medium and long term goals.

Short term goal- get the multihull back in the Olympics, by using positive arguments as laid out by John and the above, ie saying why we are good.

Medium-get more involved in the decision making process at our MNAs, and if the short term goal is NOT achieved then getting the multihull back in the olympics.

Long- Setting up a proper MHC,not only that can help promote multihull sailing throughout the world but also be a proper recognised, respected lobbying body at ISAF.

To that, I would add one additional medium and long term goal: develop and support an entry level cat class.

Most new multihull sailors nowadays learned to sail in Optimists and Lasers. We need an entry level cat to feed the other cat classes.

Guys, that is THEIR play, not ours.

They will have the re-vote, reconsidering or what ever to just please us and then confirm the same results and demand we accept them this time around. Because the MHC agreed to that they will argue.

Haven't you guys learned anything about politics !

Why is a cat sailor like John accepting this ? Is the MHC influence so great that this is all they could achieve. Are we cat sailors even bound to any agreement they strick with US-sailing, like "selling the farm" this way ?

I seriously doubt many cat sailors will accept anything like this and so the support for any such MHC action as good as non-existant, ergo they have no power to strike such a deal.

I think the MHC needs to come up with a better plan, preferable one that has multiple irons in the fire and not risks everything on the goodness of the persons that actively manouvred to vote multihulls out last time.

Wouter

For people interested in the Dutch version of events leading up to the vote that cancelled the Tornado at Estoril, where the Benelux respresentative did NOT vote for the Tornado.

Punch the following two articles into some online translator. Dutch to English.

http://catsanddinghies.nl/nieuws.php?id=...cd5027c40b5f075

http://catsanddinghies.nl/nieuws.php?id=...cd5027c40b5f075


Pretty much the non-multihull vote is shaping up as punishment of the multihull sailors by the Official National body for daring to stand up for themselves.

Note that in the Netherlands, as good as all multihull sailors are associated to a rival organisation (instead of the national organisation who didn't want to have use during the 70's and 80's)

The national body overhere thinks that catamaran sailors are "ungrateful" too. Most multihull clubs arrange their own permits and racing completely independent of the National Association although often in coordination with the rival NFB organisation.

The national organisation is not very powerful in comparison to the organised multihull sailors and luckily we can continue to ignore the tantrums of their officials.

This story is therefor not over.

Wouter