11th medal debate rumbles on

We take a look at some of the submissions for this year's ISAF Annual Conference

At the end of this week the ISAF Annual Conference will get underway in Madrid, Spain. With the conference coming up, there has now been a full year for the sailing community to come to terms with the Multihull category being removed from the Olympics. Clearly, this remains a very big subject with many submissions relating to this issue. However, there are some other papers that make for interesting reading too.

The row over the exclusion of the 11th medal from the Olympic Games has not gone away in the last year and it is a subject that has remained in the general conscious of the whole sailing community this year. As we have mentioned previously ( here) the IOC are said to be in discussions about re-introducing the 11th medal, though at present exactly when a decision might be made or how likely it is that the 11th medal will be added to sailing is unknown. In spite of this a number of submissions this year relate to the re-instatement of the 11th medal, though none is more succinct in its aims as submission 079-08 from Yachting New Zealand:

Proposal:

That appropriate and urgent representation is made by ISAF to the IOC to reinstate eleven events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta.

Current Position:

Council decided in November 2007 to select the following 6 events for Men in the 2012 Olympic Regatta:

- Windsurfer
- 1 person dinghy
- 1 person dinghy (heavy)
- 2 person dinghy
- 2 person dinghy (high performance)
- Keelboat
The multihull was eliminated in order to reduce these events from 7 to 6.

Reason:

The requirement to eliminate one event from the slate for the 2012 Olympics was going to be an issue for the sailors in the event that was dropped, and this has proven to be the case for the multihull stakeholders. The situation would without doubt have been similar if the men’s keelboat had been dropped instead of the multihull. The differing conclusions reached by the Events Committee and Council have stretched confidence in both strategy and process around determining the right format of events for sailing in the Olympics.

It is our view that the men’s keelboat and multihull events equally represent large and vital sectors of the sailing landscape. The multihull is also the only open event in the repertoire. The removal of either of these events can only represent a major loss for sailing as a whole. The argument can keep revolving as to the respective merits of these events in meeting ISAF’s and IOC’s criteria, resulting in the ultimate sacrifice in the end executed by Council. Our view is that a bolder approach is needed and a new initiative launched by ISAF’s leadership as proposed below.

The elimination of the multihull is not in the interest of our sport and is questionable in relation to Rule 16.1.5 (a). However we do not support the view that there should be a vote between the multihull and the keelboat, to determine which event is eliminated. Any action which resulted in the elimination of the men’s keelboat as an alternative to dropping the multihull would result in much the same arguments being advanced to defend a keelboat event remaining in the Olympics.

In order to make a major strategic change such as this - reducing events from 11 to 10 – the timing horizon needs to be at least out to 2016. A longer planning timescale may allow a strategic rather than a political view to prevail. Many MNAs have significant funding for their Olympic and High Performance development programmes from sources which require medal results as a condition for continued funding. Without this funding it would be impossible to ensure the depth of development of sailors, especially for MNAs like New Zealand where the sailors have to be funded to undertake Northern Hemisphere campaigns for regattas and training. This criteria for funding, results in a short term view by most MNAs when considering any event slate for the following Olympic Games. Given a longer lead time on the decision, particular events may assume less importance in this regard and a more strategic and ‘overall good’ approach may be taken. The focus can move from ‘what is good for me’ to ‘what is good for the sport’?

Therefore Yachting New Zealand urges ISAF to take all possible steps to persuade the IOC to reinstate eleven events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta so that a more strategic approach to events can be taken towards 2016.



There are, perhaps unsurprisingly, additional submissions from the Tornado Class Association and the F18 Class Association calling for ISAF to lobby the IOC with the view to re-instating the 11th medal. These proposals can be found here and here respectively.

Not all submissions in relation to the multihull debate, however, call for another Olympic medal. There are a significant number of submissions calling for a more even distribution between men’s and women’s events. Although this may not seem to be an argument for the re-instating of the multihull, in effect what many of these submissions call for is five events for both men and women and that these events be representative of the ‘five main areas of sailing.’ These ‘five main areas’ are considered in all proposals to be; single handed dinghy, double handed dinghy, windsurfer, keelboat and multihull. Submissions 084-08 to 089-08 (all submissions and papers can been viewed here) all call for this same change, though they vary on a few minor points such as the time at which this change should be implemented.

There has been a great deal of public criticism about the decision made by the ISAF to remove the multihull from the Olympics. While many have made submissions based around the issue itself, there are also a number of papers relating to the way in which the ISAF conducts Olympic decision making. Yachting Australia have produced one such submission which is too long to post in its entirety here (see the whole thing here) but in essence calls for wholesale change in the way the ISAF makes decisions with regard to the Olympics. The paper calls for a ‘comprehensive vision and overarching strategy for the sport of sailing in the Olympic Games’ and is, in places, highly critical of the way in which voting works at present. For example part of the submission reads:

4 The Decision Making Process

4.1 Various Committees, Sub Committees, Commissions and Working Parties currently provide input to a range of decisions about the Olympic Games. However there is no single group within ISAF responsible for the planning and coordination of sailing on the Olympic Games. As a result of the lack of coordination, a number of things occur:

(a) Poor setting of priorities - There is a focus on some issues and an almost complete disregard for others. This is mainly due to the interests of those within the ISAF family. Events, Equipment and Format tend to dominate because we are all sailors and these are things we understand. Set against this our focus on TV, media, marketing and promotion is limited and yet this is what we are being asked by the IOC to address. Our expertise in these areas is limited.

(b) Focus on Processes not Outcomes – Our focus and time is on the processes and not the outcomes. The lack of strategy means that the outcomes are not clearly defined and understood. It is too easy for our Committees to become focused on the process, particularly when so much of what we do and the decisions we make are driven by the ISAF Regulations. The Regulations become an outcome of themselves.

(c) Decisions are not effectively implemented and promoted – Good decisions are often poorly executed. As one example, when the Medal Race was introduced, there was a lack of detail as to how it should be run at the major Olympic Class Regattas. Each did it slightly differently. This was confusing and unfair. Also we have failed to promote the advantages of the Medal Race to the media. No decision is good if it is poorly executed, nor can the benefits be properly assessed.

(d) Lack of consideration of the impact of decisions – The decisions that we make about the Olympic Games have impacts on other events and areas within our sport, yet there is very little consideration of these impacts when decisions are made. What, for example, will be the wider implications of the decision not to include the multihull at the 2012 Olympic Games? Conversely, we need to ensure that the decisions we make in other areas are consistent and not in conflict with our strategy for the Olympic Games.

(e) No analysis of decisions made – Research and feedback systems should be in place to allow a proper analysis of the impacts of the decisions that we make. This should be considered as part of the decision making process. Instead it is an afterthought, undertaken in a spasmodic and piecemeal way…

We wholeheartedly support the concept of a strategy for Olympic sailing which all decision making involving the Games must fall into line with. We do, however, have some concerns about how this might be done. As a concept, a single overarching strategy for the future of sailing in the Olympics would help in making sailors, the public and the media alike all up to date on the ISAF’s thinking about the future of the sport. However, if this strategy was to be looked at, at the annual conference every four years and adapted it is unlikely its introduction would make any difference. On the other hand, if the Olympic strategy becomes too firmly implemented it may not allow the sport enough room to remain up to date on the Olympic stage.

In addition to this submission from Yachting Australia, there is also a submission from the Women’s Sailing Committee and Women’s Sailing Forum calling for a similar revisal of the way in which decisions are made in regards to Olympic equipment (this proposal can be found here). Along similar lines, the Austrian Sailing Federation is calling for the ISAF to change the way voting is managed with regards to the Olympic equipment and event selection ( here).

There are two submissions asking for new representatives on the ISAF Council – the group charged with making the final major decisions in ISAF. The Chairman of the ISAF Classes Committee asks for a place to be made for a member of the ISAF Olympic Classes Sub-Committee ( here) while the newly established – at the 2007 November conference – Athletes Commission also requests a place for a representative in the Council ( here). Again, these seem to be clear reactions to the ISAF vote of November last year where a lot of people questioned why there was no Athletes representative in the Council. There were also a great many people who asked why the Olympic Class Sub-Committee’s suggestion – made to the ISAF Council the day before they voted on the events for 2012 and suggesting the keelboat be removed from the Games – where roundly ignored.


Above: The Yngling, still a contender for Women's Match Racing.

Also in the world of Olympic sailing, there are two deferred proposals from the ISAF Mid-Year Meeting in May which relate to Women’s Match Racing – itself a controversial addition to the Olympics last year. Broadly speaking these submissions both cover the same topic. The first (deferred submission M03-08) from the Executive Committee requests to:

‘ Amend Regulation 16.1 to state: With the exception of the Women’s Keelboat (Match) Event, only International Classes shall sail in the Olympic Sailing Competition.’

The submission goes on to note that as Match Racing is not tied to a specific class, ISAF should have more flexibility in the boats that are selected for Match Racing events. The second of these deferred submissions ( M04-08) also by the Executive Committee states:

Proposal:

Amend regulation 16.1.2, by adding the following:

16.1.2 Submissions for Equipment for the Olympic Sailing Competition shall be made in accordance with Regulation 1, except that no submission will be accepted after 15 March in the year of the decision on Equipment. Supporting information required under regulation 1.5.1 shall be specified by ISAF and shall include information to enable Council to evaluate how well the Equipment meets the Olympic Equipment selection criteria. The deadline of 15 March in the year of the decision on equipment shall not apply to the Women’s Keelboat (Match) Event.

Add new regulation 16.1.3, and renumber subsequent regulations accordingly:

16.1.3 Regulation 16.1.1 (c), 16.1.1(f)(i), 16.1.1(f)(ii) and 16.1.1(f)(iii) shall not apply to the Women’s Keelboat (Match) Event.

Current Position:

See ISAF Regulation 16.1.2 and 16.1.3.

Reason:

As match racing is not organised as an event tied to a specific class (equipment), flexibility needs to be available when deciding the equipment for the Women’s Keelboat (Match) event to enable the equipment to be decided on a different timescale as the other events of the 2012 Olympic Sailing Competition. The decision on the equipment and decisions on the timeframe for that decision will still be taken by Council based on submissions and recommendations of the relevant ISAF Committees.

2008 MAY MID-YEAR MEETING
COUNCIL DECISION – MAY 2008

Council considered Submission M04-08 from the Executive Committee proposing to change Regulation 16.1.2 to provide flexibility and extend the timescale by when ISAF can select the equipment for the women’s keelboat (match) event prior to the Olympic Sailing Competition.
The recommendations of the Events Committee and Equipment Committee were noted.

It would seem – on the assumption these two submissions are passed – the ISAF will potentially be holding Match Racing events in a variety of classes before settling on an Olympic boat at a later date in the Olympic cycle. Of course if the ISAF does use a variety of boats throughout the Olympic cycle for Women's Match Racing, the bigger, wealthier countries seem bound to benefit. Currently there are only a certain number of boats able to be used for the event. Surely the wealthier sailing countries will simply go out and buy one of each of these classes for training purposes. Meanwhile the poorer countries will have to take a gamble and purchase whichever class they think is most likely to be selected for the Games.

As this has been an Olympic year and so the equipment for the 2012 Games is to be selected, in addition to the row over the 11th medal continuing, it is not surprising most of the submissions revolve around Olympic sailing. However, outside of the Olympics there is still the usual number of submissions to clear up the wording of rules here and there in the wider world of sailing. For the most part these are nothing other than paperwork, sorting out a definition here of a small discrepancy there. However, there was one more submission that caught our eye.

Submission 027-08 comes from the ISAF Executive Committee to add some more wording to the rules on sailor classification:

Proposal:

Competitor Classifications

22.2 The classifications of competitors are to be determined as follows:

22.2.1 Group 1

(a) Except as provided below, a Group 1 competitor is a competitor who has completed the qualification period and:
(i) takes part in racing only as a pastime, and whose work does not require knowledge or skill capable of contributing to the performance of a boat or boats in a race or series; and
(ii) has not been paid in connection with participation in racing ; and
(iii) has neither solicited nor offered his services for pay, by any means, in connection with racing.

Current Position:

As above.

Reason:
Regulation 22.2.3(c) ensures that a sailor who offers Group 3 services is classified as Group 3. Currently there is an anomaly in that no similar provision exists for sailors who offer Group 2 activities. To be consistent this new provision – 22.2.1(a)(iii) – is required.

In theory, if put into place, this submission should go another stage towards clearing up the issue of professional sailors and amateur sailors. Essentially, it is very hard to prove someone has been paid for sailing, with the obvious privacy implications of personal bank accounts etc. With this additional wording more power is given over to competitors who feel they can prove whether or not someone is an amateur or whether they are a professional, is a good thing we think.