Brenner was voting for the US on ISAF Council. Ref: http://sailmagazine.blogspot.com/2007/11/talkin-olympic-blues.html

Yep, That sounds like Dean.... Usually, he insists that you honor his request for all communication to be private.

He is a staunch defender of Gary Bodie, Multihull sailing coach, and the screw-up who attempts to override PU... the PRO's safety concern at the OCR's. The bozo who can't figure out that a mixed teams at the ISAF F18's will be DSQ's cause they are not both men! and so on and so on.

BUT.... US Sailing Olympic is not using the membership dues that we send in!!! I think this is a popular misconception. Brenner to his credit is out raising lots more money then previous administration

How US Sailing supports Multihull sailing is NOT dominated by this Olympic BS...

We should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

We must press the point that this decision is unfair, wrongheaded and short sighted.

NOR should we stop holding US Sailing's feet to the fire for continued support of all of the programs that we do use.
Junior ISAF championships... Alter cup. Rules, Appeals, judges, training, ratings and so on.

Finally, It's hard to argue the point that we, the catamaran community need to build a top to bottom training program. The mono's have a program through college which can lead a sailor to international competition. Catamarans have a far less coherent program. That is going to be our responsibility if we want a different result in 4 years.

I find it disappointing that he only tells part of the story here. What he omits is the reason they believe it affords the best medal chance - not because they think the US has a fundamentally more competitive position in keelboats, but rather because they think they can raise more donations for the team if they have a keelboat and since they are so dependent on these funds believe that this will be instrumental in ensuring that the team will be better prepared to win than with a multihull. It's a perfectly cogent argument. I just wish he would make it openly instead of feeding us only the part of the story that avoids the conclusion that the multihull community have been badly treated.

Editorials


The Olympic event selection by the ISAF Council and the America's Cup steelcage death match continue to dominate the editorials this week...

On the ISAF Olympic Selections:

* From Simon Morgan, Former Hobie 16 National Champion and ISAF Worlds competitor, Founder Wildwind Sailing Holidays, and co-incidentally son of Tony Morgan Silver Medallist 1964 Tokyo Olympics, two man Flying Dutchman class:

Since Scuttlebutt Europe's weekend edition much prompted at least some defence of ISAF's controversial decision, (Paul Henderson, Jack Dinelli et al) I would like to follow up their comments:

First of all I can have every sympathy with Mr Henderson's view that it is 'ridiculous to blame ISAF, which is only the structure wherein the votes are cast' - 'ISAF is only as good as the delegates nominated by their National Authorities.'

However, Mr Henderson also writes 'that the process is now open and how each delegate voted is public'. This would perhaps not appear to be the case when analysing the vote of the Council to reject the recommendations of its Executive Committee, when an electronic vote was made and no record of how members voted appears to have been recorded. And no one from ISAF has explained this decision. Why bother having an Events Committee then?

If I am not mistaken, the IOC themselves offer pretty specific guidelines as to how choose Olympic events and this seems largely to have been ignored.

''the following principles should be reflected in the general composition of the Olympic Programme"

"Similar events...should be avoided" - Why then vote for two types of double-handed dinghies for both men and women rather than a single type of Multihull for either men or women?

"Global public and media interest in a sport must be considered as key elements... for these are fundamental elements in the success of the Games" - Why then vote against Multihulls, which are certainly the fastest Event in the Sailing Regatta and in general opinion also the most exciting to watch?

"Weight category events should not be allowed, except for the combat sports and for weightlifting" - Since sailing falls into neither of these exceptions, why vote for an Event, specifically described as 1 Person Dinghy (Heavy)?

Specific guidance for ISAF is given in paragraph 3.1.4,
"In comparison with other individual sports, the Commission noted the high quota and number of events in sailing, in comparison to the low broadcast and spectator appeal" - Why then vote against Multihulls, whose size and speed makes them especially attractive for the new technology of on-board cameras first tried out for Multihull and High Performance Events at the Sydney Games?

"It was noted that the Keelboat class are very expensive boats and demand costly infrastructure for Olympic competition, and for general practice and development in comparison to other classes. Therefore, if the Executive Board recommends the reduction in the number of athletes and events, the Commission believes these reductions could be made through the exclusion of keelboat sailing events" Why then specifically disobey an unambiguous guideline and vote to exclude Multihulls instead?

It has also been mentioned (rumoured?) that a number of representatives on Council voted against the recommendations of their own National Authorities. IF even ONE of these had changed the votes then the voting would have been tied; with two.....a clear cut decision in favour with the multihull would have followed.

My real beef is not with the keelboat class per se, even though that appears to be the second least popular class amongst delegates. It is that is seems totally unreasonable to have two singlehander and two two man dinghies at the expense of the multihulls - and the fact that Ben Ainslie managed to jump from the Laser to the Finn and win Gold in both classes seems to be a very real argument against the necessity for such doubling up.

My real complaint has to be that somehow ISAF's Council members on this occasion, whatever their good intentions, have not represented in any real way the views of their constituents, the sailing public. Perhaps if one good thing will come out of this whole sorry saga it will be a top to toe re-examination of just how Council members are selected and how more true democracy can find its way into top level decision making.

One last point; as of 2030 GMT Tuesday 20th November some 4250 signatures have added their names to the petition to the IOC requesting the re-instatement of the multihull class. While Mr Henderson says that 'all hell breaks loose' every time there is a change of class I severely doubt that decisions by previous Councils have in fact found so much public disagreement.

Furthermore, to put those numbers in perspective (even though I have said that I am not specifically against the keelboat class) those 4250 signatures gathered in 10 days compare with one half of all the Sail numbers issued to the Star class since 1911. Yes folks, the Star was designed nearly 100 years ago ... and we are dropping the multithull! There really can be no wonder why there has been and will continue to be such a furore until this issue is settled in a more sensible fashion.

* Carolijn Brouwer found time from her busy Tornado training schedule in Sydney to write to SailJuice with her views on what happened two weeks ago in Estoril. You could read the frustration between the lines of what Laser Radial sailor Laura Baldwin wrote a few days ago. Here, Carolijn is much more explicit with her feelings. By the way, a quick reminder that Carolijn finished runner-up in the Tornado World Championships this year, showing the men the way round the track in the manliest of weather conditions. So this is a girl who knows what she's talking about:

I was gutted after the ISAF meeting in Estoril. I felt empty, confused and especially useless. I am a member of the Events Committee but at this moment I truly don't really know what I'm doing there and whether it has any meaning.

Of course I'm very disappointed ISAF kicked out the Multihull and is taking a huge step backwards in sailing by not including the High Performance dinghy for Women. They are too scared to take a possible risk and move forward.

But most of all, I am disappointed about the Events selection procedure. The members of the Events Committee have been chosen by their MNAs because they are the so called experts in the issues/areas that involve Events, including Olympic Games and Olympic Event Selection. The normal procedure is that the voting on respective issues that involve Events is done on our Committee and we then put them forward as a recommendation to Council. Council usually accepts our recommendation.

This time however they just chucked it out the window and started all over again. So, what are we actually doing there as an Events Committee if our expertise is not being used anyway? This is really disappointing and to be honest I don't understand what ISAF is doing. It's frustrating being part of it, and having the feeling that you are completely useless. It's not about the sailors, it's about the blazers. So many people have told me already, don't try and understand, it's a waste of time. And I still keep thinking I can make a difference in there.

The past week I have been on the verge of resigning from the Committee. But that would be giving up. We need more active sailors on the committees, not less.

I have a very straightforward, simple and symmetric opinion of how easily we can have only ten events for sailing in the Olympics and still cover the whole range that our beautiful sport has to offer:

- Singlehanded Men/Women
- Doublehanded Men/Women (High Performance)
- Multihull Men/ Women
- Windsurfer Men/Women
- Keelboat Men/Women (matchracing)

It doesn't have to be difficult, it can be easy.

Carolijn's full editorial on SailJuice.com:
sailjuiceblog.com/2007/11/23/catwoman-sharpens-her-claws/

* Yachting Australia has expressed both disappointment and concern over the decision taken last week by the ISAF Council to drop the Multihull from the list of events for the 2012 London Olympic Games. Yachting Australia delegates supported the retention of the multihull event throughout the ISAF Annual Meetings which took place in Estoril, Portugal from 3-11 November.

ISAF was challenged with reducing the number of Olympic events from 11 in 2008 to 10 for 2012 in Weymouth. "To not include the multihull in 2012 is to disenfranchise a large part of the sport of sailing," says Phil Jones, CEO of Yachting Australia and member of the ISAF Events Committee, which recommended that the multihull should be retained. "The speed and excitement of catamarans is a real draw to young people. They are the speed machines of sailboat racing. Whilst there is only a limited number of countries involved in the Tornado Olympic Class, multihull sailing is an attractive and truly global part of the sport."

ISAF has been heeding the clear message from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over recent years that for the sport to maintain its place on the Olympic Program it must take steps to become more attractive to the media and the public. Changes to the format of the competition have been made and a World Cup Series has been agreed in effort to ensure more regular exposure for Olympic sailing.

"Catamaran racing is fast and comes across as really exciting," says Phil Jones. "The Tornado is one of the most telegenic boats in the Olympic Regatta. The boats are big enough to carry on board cameras and tracking devices that can really bring the contest to life for the viewer. To not have a place for it, or another multihull, is a real step backwards for a sport that has the challenge of building its profile. For us, there was just no focus on the bigger, long-term picture."

Yachting Australia is also concerned over the process by which the multihull was excluded. The ISAF Council voted to change the process recommended for the selection of the events. This meant that there was no "run-off" vote between the Multihull and the Keelboat.

"There was no real discussion over the implications of the change. It altered the fundamental principles of the recommended system." says Phil Jones. "Some consider that the change, which was taken on a motion from the floor, was taken with undue haste. Certainly many around the Council did not seem to appreciate the full implications of the change. Those that used their first vote to support other events may well have backed the multihull over the keelboat had they had the opportunity. This change denied them this opportunity. I am sure that having had time consider the implications, many will recognise that the change, put forward as a mere simplification, was much more than this."

Yachting Australia is concerned over the reaction to the ISAF Council decision. "We understand that some will be very disappointed but the personal and vitriolic attacks that we have seen do nothing to help the cause of those making them. In fact, they only do damage. Yachting Australia does not consider this type of reaction appropriate in any way."

Yachting Australia is considering what further action, if any, can be taken to revisit the decision. "However much we might disagree, if we felt the decision had been properly considered and made with those around the table fully understanding the implications, we would accept it. Obviously we don't consider that this is the case. We shall be discussing the issue with colleagues from other countries and IOC representatives over the next few days before deciding how we proceed."

/bump

What should be of more interest is what Yachting New Zealand have to say on the matter. Maybe one of our NZ colleagues could post a copy of the document and reasoning behind YNZs descision

I do have some documentation that originated from the YNZ Olympic Committee. It came to me by somewhat indeterminate means, so I'm seeking some clarification on whether it's ok for me to post it. It leaves me speechless with anger.

I have been trying to get someone in the NZ media to take an interest in the fact that YNZ (and others) have blatantly violated ISAF regulations in making this decision. I have emails in to both the country's leading yachting journalist and (arguably) the leading general sports journalist. Unfortunately the former is currently overseas and the latter is at the NZ Golf Open till next week.

Ok, here's the latest.

The document I had received was an email dated Nov. 23 from YNZ's Olympic Operations Manager, Leslie Engot, to the YNZ Olympic Committee requesting a meeting to discuss the Olympic event situation. It included an attachment that contained an analysis (I presume Leslie's analysis) of the relevant issues and a recommendation of YNZ's position.

The email was forwarded to me by another NZL sailor and apparently had been distributed fairly widely. Because it wasn't clear to me how it came into the hands of the person distributing it and because it contained comments that I think show YNZ in an extremely poor light, I decided as a matter of courtesy to email Leslie Engot and tell her I had this document, that there was strong interest in the multihull community in the information it contained and that I was planning to post it online. I asked her to get back to me if she saw any reason that it should not be made public.

A short while ago I received the following -


---
Dear Mark,

Thank you for your email.

The document circulated this week was a confidential document. It was intended to be confidential to Yachting New Zealand’s Olympic Committee. The distribution of this document may potentially harm the interests of YNZ. YNZ does not in any way sanction the distribution of this document and reserves any legal options it may have in this matter.

YNZ today issued a briefing to its database of members and I attach this release. This is available to you for further publication without our objection.

Regards,

Leslie
---


I think Leslie's comment that "this document may potentially harm the interests of YNZ" is consistent with my own reaction to it. I have no idea whether YNZ actually have any legal rights with respect to the document, but I am willing to respect the privacy of internal YNZ communications. However I reproduce for your information below the public YNZ briefing referenced in Leslie's email. I will also make my media contacts aware of YNZ's effort to suppress a more transparent account of their decision-making process.



YNZ Briefing, dated November 28:

---
Event Programme: Olympic Games London 2012
There has been some controversy around the world about ISAF’s selection of events for the 2012 Olympic Games. ISAF was required by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to reduce sailing events from 11 to 10 for the Olympic sailing regatta to be held in Weymouth, England. This decision was made this month by ISAF’s Council at its meeting in Estoril, Portugal.

The decision is a blend of policy and politics. ISAF’s Events Committee considered issues such as national participation, media appeal, and reducing costs. It therefore recommended dropping both the men’s and women’s keelboat events. The ISAF Council however did not adopt this recommendation and voted it appears along political lines. Strong class associations lobbied, and nations may have followed their individual interests rather than the general interest of the sport.

The review by ISAF of its Olympic events arises from ongoing work by the IOC and ISAF to address IOC’s requirement for a reduction in the number of events and the numbers of athletes. A report by the Olympic Programme Commission reported as follows with respect to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games:

“In comparison with other individual sports, the Commission noted the high quota and number of events in sailing, in comparison to the low broadcast and spectator appeal. In addition, the cost and complexity of the operations of the sailing competition were discussed, with the resulting challenges for general practice and development of the sport.”

“The Commission therefore recommends the reduction of the athlete quota and number of events in the sport of sailing for the Programme of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad.”

“It was noted that the Keelboat class are very expensive boats and demand costly infrastructure for Olympic competition, and for general practice and development in comparison to other classes. Therefore, if the Executive Board recommends the reduction in the number of athletes and events, the Commission believes these reductions could be made through the exclusion of keelboat sailing events from the Programme of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, which would also reduce the construction and operational costs and complexity.”

Earlier this year Yachting New Zealand’s Board asked its Olympic Committee to make recommendations with respect to 2012 events. The recommendation by the Olympic Committee was based exclusively on our ability to win medals in 2012. The Olympic Committee considered that New Zealand’s weakest events were likely to be the multihull and the skiff. It also considered that match racing instead of fleet racing would better suit our keelboat sailors in 2012.

The Board largely supported the Olympic Committee’s review, but ruled that the skiff rather than the multihull be dropped, while supporting women’s match racing.

At the ISAF Council meeting, the women’s events selected were in line with YNZ’s aim. With respect to the men’s events, area representatives were required to vote for 6 events – more or fewer would be deemed invalid. It was apparent in advance of the formal vote that five events were secure, and that the two insecure events were the keelboat and the multihull. Either of these would be eliminated. In order to retain the keelboat, our area representative did not support the multihull. It was clearly not in New Zealand’s interest in winning medals to lose the men’s keelboat, and that has been achieved. The multihull event has been part of New Zealand’s history of sailing success and it is disappointing to see it go from the Olympic Games.

The inherent risk to sailing’s continuing presence at the Olympic Games beyond 2012 is of course of concern, given the thinking of the IOC’s Olympic Programme Commission as reported above. This matter now needs to be seriously considered by all ISAF members beyond 2012. In the end, the appeal of our sport to international television audiences will have a very big impact on its future as part of the Olympic Games.

Des Brennan
Chief Executive
---

Having read the document that they are refering to also, and wishing to also respect the privacy of this document...all I can say that the official release above in reality does NOT show the exact reasoning of YNZs. If this document as I believe should be put in the public domain then Im afraid that YNZ would be shown in a VERY poor light.

Like Mark I am appalled at the approach of YNZ and what is said in this document.

I suppose like many other's out here, i would like to see the other document. I hope the legality of posting it can be cleared up soon, so that it can be shared with the world.

I suspect this is the document we have heard about: http://sailjuiceblog.com/2007/11/30/young-fit-sailors-in-the-olympics-whatever-next/

Yep that's it. So you can understand my "speechless with anger" comment.

Incidentally, yesterday I sent a response to Leslie Engot in which I asked the following -

---
I would be interested in understanding your thoughts on ISAF Regulation 16.1.5(a) and how you see the connection between this and Des Brennan's comment that "the recommendation by the Olympic Committee was based exclusively on our ability to win medals in 2012". Does YNZ believe that in focusing exclusively on New Zealand's medal prospects it has fully and faithfully discharged its responsibility as a Member National Authority to identify the events that satisfy the criteria prescribed in the ISAF regulation?

I'm especially interested in your view of multihull sailing as it relates to the criterion in 16.1.5(a)(iii). Do you believe that multihull sailing involves skills that are in any significant measure distinct from those involved in other types of sailing? Do you believe that the best multihull sailors in each country and across the world are in fact "the best" at something that is any different from other sailing disciplines? If so, how do you see 16.1.5(a)(iii) being satisfied in relation to these athletes? I would also be interested in your views on this as it applies to women's high performance dinghy sailing.
---

When we MNAs realise that the future of sailing in the olympics is more important than thier ability to win gold medals, without sailing in the olympics no golds to win....does lead me to ask if this is a good thing?

Or that there are two ways to win medals:

--Construct the events around your active programs

--Construct your active programs around the events

With the later, you get to do what's good for the sport AND win medals...but Star sailors would rather build the programs around the Star and see it be an event.

I haven't checked in for a few days, so sorry if this has been posted already - I haven't read everything tonight. It is from the UK website "The Daily Sail" - You will see that at least the Irish were honest <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

The Daily Sail

*A look at the Council
Why were ISAF able to make such a bad decision?*

Two and a half weeks ago we saw the ISAF, at their Annual Conference in
Estoril, make the huge decision not to include a women?s high
performance skiff in the 2012 Games, to swap women?s keelboat fleet
racing for match racing and to drop the multihull from competition.

Just how unpopular this proved to be quickly became evident with much of
the sailing community expressing its distaste and often anger at the
outcome. Perhaps now this feeling has begun to dissipate a little it is
worth taking some time to investigate just how an unpopular decision was
able to be made.

A key point in the process that riled many was that at the Conference
the ISAF Events Committee met the day before the ISAF Council were due
to make their decision and voted on a list of suggested events. The
Events Committee is made up of experts in Olympic sailing and classes
and with the brief that they had to drop two classes to be replaced by
one ? the women?s high performance skiff - they came up with a list many
were happy with. Effectively they chose to get rid of the two keelboat
classes. Their decision was then passed onto the ISAF Council who
appeared to completely ignore the expert advice, making up their own mind.

Before we further blast the ISAF for their decision it is worth taking a
moment to understand who exactly makes up the ISAF Council and who
therefore has a vote in the Olympic Events that are selected for the
Games. The Council itself is made up of one President, seven
Vice-Presidents, 28 MNA (Member National Authority) representatives, one
Offshore representative, one ISAF Classes Committee Representative and
one Women?s representative. Essentially, then, the biggest contributors
to the council are MNA reps. In theory, if you are a member of your
national sailing authority like the RYA, you should be able to have some
say about the direction of your MNA and so the way in which they vote.
But of course if this were actually the case, clearly we would not now
be in a situation with so many disgruntled sailors.

Recently several national authorities have issued statements citing
their views about the ISAF events selection. These shed much light on
one of the key issues involved, none more so than the recent Irish
Sailing Association statement, where they are very open about how they
went about their decision making process: /Although we have had some
Multihull Olympic campaigns in the past, Ireland has never succeeded in
qualifying for entry to the Olympic Games in this class. There are
currently no Irish sailors engaged in Multihull Olympic campaigns and no
junior or developmental programmes which would feed into future
campaigns, hence the decision for our vote in favour of the other men's
classes.

So in a nutshell; national authorities vote in a way that ensures
maximum potential Olympic success for their own nation. Why would they
do anything else?

With such a system in place, where the majority of the votes arguably
have the future of the sport on the Olympic stage as a secondary focus,
it is little surprise we get decisions that are far from representative
of the sailing community as a whole.

Another item that has come to the fore in the last couple of weeks is a
document called the ?Olympic Programme Commission Review of the Olympic
Programme and the Recommendations on the Programme of the Games of the
XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008.? In this article the International Olympic
Committee suggests, with regards to the reduction of sailing classes,
that: ?/the Commission believes these reductions could be made through
the exclusion of keelboat sailing events from the Programme of the Games
of the XXIX Olympiad, which would also reduce the construction and
operational costs and complexity/.? This is no hidden document and the
IOC discussed this with the ISAF back when the events where being
considered for the 2008 Olympics. We have to therefore assume one of two
things: either the ISAF Council did not know or somehow forgot about
this view from the IOC or, perhaps even worse, knew about it and chose
to totally ignore their suggestions.

Clearly one could argue that the IOC is not as informed as the ISAF
about sailing, but in honesty this is an irrelevance. If the IOC itself,
the overall architects of the Games, suggest the keelboat classes need
to be removed, then surely the ISAF can only realistically vote to keep
them in if they have some fantastic reason to do so. But given that the
Events Committee also chose to remove the keelboats from the Olympics,
it seems this fantastic reason does not exist.

When it comes to the future of sailing in the Olympics surely the best
thing that our sport can do is to please the IOC by taking on board
their suggestions and increasing the spectacle and media and public
appeal of our sport at this, one of it?s most public platforms.

If we consider it is of utmost importance to take heed of the IOC?s
comments ? particularly as the majority of the ISAF?s income is
generated by being an Olympic sport ? then ignoring their suggestions
seems very unwise course indeed. However, the next interesting point
within the same document is perhaps even more startling.

The inclusion of two men?s singlehanded dinghy events for the 2012
Games, has caused a bit of a stir among some sailors. This is something
that is theoretically new for the 2012 Olympics as, up until now, the
Finn has been categorised as an open single hander. This used to be the
role of the Laser, but with the introduction of the Radial as the
Women?s Singlehander this notion is become redundant. However, clearly
no women were reasonably going to stand a chance of being competitive in
the Finn so that event has been changed to the Men?s Heavy weight Single
Handed Dinghy, while the Laser remains as the men?s single handed dinghy.

Given this name change it is a worry to find contained within the
previously mentioned IOC document a statement which reads: ?/Weight
category events should not be allowed, except for the combat sports and
for weightlifting/.? Arguably then a heavy weight men?s event is again
totally ignoring an IOC edict - worrying indeed.

So what can done about these problems? Here it gets difficult. The list
of issues is large, but the key areas, we feel, are as follows: Firstly
the majority of the voting members of the ISAF Council, ie the MNAs,
clearly have their own vested interests in the survival of certain
classes, based primarily on the make-up and success of their own Olympic
sailing squads rather than the development of sailing in the Games for
the overall good of our sport. They should have a say, certainly, but
not the majority vote. Secondly the ISAF needs to be clearer about their
motives, particularly with respect to the IOC. They cannot vote to keep
classes that have been advised to be dropped by the IOC without a very
good reason. If there were and/or is such a good reason ? so far none
have come to light - this should be effectively communicated with the
sailing community and the press.

We would suggest the voting be broadened significantly to take in all
the current members of the ISAF Council but also all members of the ISAF
Athletes Commission (made up of current or recent Olympic Athletes) with
anyone currently campaigning for the Olympics unable to vote for their
own event or class. In addition to this we feel the Event Committee?s
findings should also count towards the voting process. Either the Events
Committee should be given significant voting poweror perhaps by them
being represented with ten votes for each class they choose. Of course
there are always going to be those with their own agenda but increasing
the number of votes should at least go some way to averaging this out.

Finally why not have a compulsory lecture for all of those voting, that
is open to the press and public, with information about what the IOC
have recently said, a debate about what is important for the future and
a presentation by each class association.

Dermot,

Thanks, I was just going to post that.

Makes you wonder if ISAF knows that sailing is gone as an Olympic sport after 2012....

If its the last stand for sailing.... you might as well look to the past...

Perhaps by 2012 sailing will be able to boast that our sport has the OLDEST Olympian's in the games.

We can get sponsorship from a drug company ... Can't you see Advil... or Flow max or Viagra logos on all of the sails!

Isn't VIAGRA a "performance enhancing drug" though??? (keep your hand on the tiller, - duh, which tiller?)

From Scuttlebutt Europe:

The Olympics

* As an National Authority employee and member of the ISAF Events Committee, I read with interest the article on the 2012 Olympic Events, reproduced from TheDailySail, and written apparently following an extensive analysis. Allow me to provide another perspective.


Like many other National Authorities, Yachting Australia receives funding from, and supports athletes with, money from the Government (and is very grateful for it!!). In Australia Summer Olympic Sports get the lions share of the funding - non-Olympic sports get very little by comparison. So, our support is very much tied to sailing remaining in the Olympic Games.

Now those that have read the IOC Program Commission Report from 2002 and don't think that the hard questions are being asked about the future of sailing need to read it again!! If you don't have time, just think back three years and consider how much coverage you saw of the sailing competition from Athens in 2004. If you put yourself in the position of those selling the rights, the question of what value sailing currently adds is not that difficult to answer.

There is evidence that ISAF has reacted to the challenge. The change in format and introduction of the medal race should serve to make the sport more attractive. The efforts to introduce the World Cup, if properly resourced, provide the opportunity for more regular coverage of Olympic sailing outside the Olympic Games.

From our perspective as a National Authority, all this is beneficial but choosing the right type of boats and competition disciplines for the Olympic Games is crucial. In fact, the continuation of a large part of what we do now appears to depend on it!!

Our approach in Estoril was simple - do whatever it takes to strengthen the position of sailing as an Olympic sport. Yachting Australia would rather loose Events in which we might consider we have better chances than loose the opportunity for the next generation of sailors to compete at the Olympic Games - and indeed for us to go on supporting them. -- Phil Jones, CEO, Yachting Australia

* Now, I can’t predict if you’ll cringe, laugh or cry when you read this. But here are the recommendations to Yachting New Zealand from its Olympic Committee.

Note in particular Point 3, which says: “NZL is currently suffering in expensive classes (Tornado & 49er) that are suited to younger (fit) sailors - so we should avoid these.”

Yes, after all, this is the Olympics. We can’t have young and fit sailors in the Games, can we!

I wonder, did Yachting New Zealand consult with any young Kiwi sailors before considering these recommendations? Also I’d suggest the YNZ offices shut down and everyone go on holiday for the week when the Tornado World Championships is going on, just down the road in Takapuna next March.

This leaked document is yet more evidence why some Member National Authorities (MNAs) cannot be trusted to do anything than vote for self-centred, short-term interests. If the MNA’s views are truly representative of what its sailors believe, then fair enough. But is that the case? I doubt it.

As for only having the top six or eight crews in match racing events at the Olympics, seriously, what would be the point? You could pretty much name those six or eight nations now. Either have a decent number of nations represented in the match racing (what about two-person keelboats by the way?) or don’t do match racing at all.

The last thing the Olympic Regatta needs is to be perceived as even more elitist and wealthy-nation oriented than it is already. -- Andy Rice in SailJuiceBlog.com

as a kiwi i did sadly note that nz had voted against the tornado

nz's recent gold sailing medals have been for board sailing but there was a tornado gold medal in 1984, (according to wiki)

so i do agree that letting selfish national associations vote sports in and out is short sighted for the olympics as a whole

i now think the biggest boost to getting cats back into the olympics will be if the next AC turns into a cat fight