Grand Final Fiasco

Ian Walker gives his views on the Yngling and Finn's podium show-down at Hyeres

Olympic sailing has made some real progress through changing the format and nature of it’s racing over the years. Despite resistance by some at the time, few competitors now would argue for a return to the old system of one large fleet and one very long race a day over a big ‘Olympic Triangle’ course. This progress alone shows that we should remain open minded to change in the hope that further progress to the enjoyment or ‘media friendliness’ of our sport could be made. Olympic sailing should rightly lead the way for the rest of the sport to consider following.

The problem is that misguided attempts can actually slow down progress and the events at Hyeres this year must fall into this bracket. What was attempted was quite simply ridiculous and predictably turned into a fiasco aided by conditions that were light but not impossible to race in. At the Grand Final briefing the sailors who had made the top 3 of the Yngling and Finn classes were incredulous as the Race Committee and Jury explained their intentions.

This was the plan. After one fleet race on the last day the top three boats would go back out and sail a sequence of four leg windward-leeward races against each other with a 10 minute race target time. The first boat to win two would be the winner and the other competitors would be split according to how many firsts, seconds, thirds they had. It was to all be umpired with no part two competitor protests allowed and the racing was to take place just off the harbour wall. This was all supposed to happen in a faltering light wind and only one hour and 10 minutes left until the time limit. The competitors and coaches (including myself) were chuckling at the notion of a two and a half minute beat in an Yngling in virtually no wind but the chuckles ceased when we realised they were actually serious.

The Yngling sailors actually took it in good spirit and all credit to Sally Barkow and her crew for doing so because they were winning after the fleet racing and actually had the most to lose. The slightly older and more cynical Finn sailors did what I would have done and simply refused to participate. After pressure from Federations and the organisers the third place sailor, Ed Wright, decided to sail and the top two eventually relented - or so it appeared.



So what happened on the water?

In the Finn it quickly became apparent that Emilios Papathanasiou and Michael Maier had their own plans. As soon as the two minute warning signal sounded in both races they started chasing Ed Wright all over the race course. Ed was penalised about 5 times in each race for various infringements including multiple rule 42 infringements (if you are last you have little to lose by rocking or over zealous roll tacking) and Emilios who had won the fleet racing conveniently beat Michael such that the top three positions remained the same.

The Yngling was not much better, but at least the girls entered into the spirit and tried to have some proper races. The problem was that the course was so short one little shift/pressure difference was likely to decide any race. It is hard to overtake when the leader can simply sail for one minute and tack once on the second beat. The wind conditions were not at all favourable and in fact dropped to such an extent that the boats could hardly get downwind. With all three boats having won one race the time limit for starting expired and it was all null and void. This was certainly the fairest result.

What concerned me most was that ISAF’s attempt to make the end of the regatta more meaningful and decide the medals was so obviously flawed.

1. There is no guarantee of wind on the last day (especially in Qingdao)
2. The opportunities for collusion between competitors at the end of the fleet racing or during the ‘triple racing’ is huge.
3. Such short courses are as much a test of luck as skill.
4. The Jury could decide the medals even though it will be hard to be in position to make correct decisions with three boats on the course at once. Like match racing, tight rules scenarios will be key and the watching public will not understand what is going on. 5. This racing will encourage ‘desperate sailing’ and ‘marginal’ use of the rules.
6. Focusing so hard on a Grand Final may have a negative effect on the press’ interest on the first 80% of the regatta when the fleet racing takes place.
7. It is unfair on the competitors that the results from the week are simply discarded. How would it look if a competitor won every race of the fleet racing only to lose in the triple racing?

As one pre-eminent US coach succinctly put it "if ISAF are so keen on triple racing why don’t they just do it from day one in a series of knockouts?"

My belief is that championship sailing is all about consistency over a large number of races across potentially a variety of conditions. ISAF’s attempts to make the last day/races more important to avoid the scenario where people win without having to sail the last race fundamentally opposes this. The only similarity I can think of is in cycling in the Tour de France where the winner has normally got it sewn up before the last leg into Paris. If I remember correctly they don’t suddenly do a one-off time trial to decide the whole race, but instead the cyclists ride alongside Lance Armstrong as he sips champagne on the Champs Elysee. Now that sounds a much better idea...