I just want to take a moment to thank John Williams and abslutely everyone else who has helped with the fight to get Multihulls back into the Olympics. The names are too many to list, but their efforts were great and are continuing even after this week's meeting.

I'll second that!

Can I add Nick Dewhurst [UKRA] to the Services to Catamaran Sailing Role of honour

Thank you to all those who did the hard work. What do we do now, do we just lay down a die or do we give them the finger and walk away from ISAF. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Thanks to those who tried......

As for ISAF
Well I believe there is a small group of associations like Aussie sailing is pro high performance sailing (including cats)..
Unfortunately US sailing leads a longer list of anti-high performance associations.. I guess sinking the committee when their out motoring is out of the question?

Tom, et. al.,

Thanks, mate, for the recognition - but as you know there was a veritable army working every angle. I'm still digesting how things went down in China... I hope to have a note out to the Council in the next few days regarding an assessment of where we stand, a debrief on where we went wrong and where we went right, and some suggestions on what to do next. The IMC is is the same mode and is pulling together a statement at the request of media outlets. The folks that were at the ISAF meeting are either just arriving home or will be soon, so there's some frank discussion still ahead.

There were concilliatory moves from ISAF in that a Multihull Commission was established by the Executive Committee yesterday. Göran Petersson indicated he felt it was essential for multihulls to be directly represented within the organization; this of course was one of the very top goals in forming the IMC. It remains to be seen who will serve on this Commission and what its role will be. I am hopeful, but skeptical - the Events Committee seems to have little to no influence on the ISAF Council, so I have doubts about how seriously a mere "commission" will be taken.

In any case, more to follow.

Well done John. We stand ready for the next direction from our Leader.
Caleb

Yep, my thumbs up also to all who have worked and I assume will continue to work for multis getting the place they deserve in the international sailing community.

Following the decision of ISAF to drop the multihull from the 2012 Olympic Games, the International Multihull Council today begins its campaign to have a Men's and Women's multihull installed as a disciplines for the 2016 Olympic Games.

While there is an outside chance that the IOC or some late change of heart from ISAF could see the multihull back in for 2012, after two votes on the matter and the most bitter debate in recent memory, it would appear that the best option for multihull sailors is to accept the decision of the ISAF Council, build on the support that we currently enjoy from the clear majority of Council members, and start now on a positive campaign for 2016. With this 2012 loss in mind, the so called "5/5" debate may ultimately deliver a better outcome for 2016 than otherwise would have been achieved if a single multihull discipline had been included in 2012.

Missing a full Olympic cycle will be difficult for multihull sailors, but history tells us that some pain may be required to move forward. Clearly within ISAF there is a now a strong push to have a 5/5 split of disciplines between Men and Women. While the sport has always had Open events, historically there have been very, very few women qualify for their countries in Open events. It would be better for us to therefore stop paying lip service to women and actually provide separate events for Men and Women. With this in mind, the 5/5 proposal to have a Board, a Single-handed dinghy, Double-handed dinghy, Keelboat and Multihull for Men and Women would be an excellent representation of what is actually happening in our sport around the world.

Over the next few months, each multihull supporter will have to individually decide what course of action to take on the matter. However, we urge you all to first take a deep breath and consider the long term implications of your actions. Talk of withdrawing from various activities or organisations or sending email "rockets" may seem like a good idea at the time, but may not be in the long term interests of multihull sailing. When one looks at the voting, even from last weekend, there has consistently been a strong support for the multihull, and it has only been the political skill and maneurvering of a couple of countries that have caused the multihull to be dropped from the 2012 Olympics. At no point has the multihull secured less than 50% of any vote taken on the issue. The discipline was effectively voted out based on a last minute change to the voting system in November. However, we should take heart from the fact that there has been so much support for the multihull both in the ballot box and also in verbal support from all areas of sailing, not just multihull sailors.

To all the disappointed multihull sailors, we request that you DO NOT engage in attacks on ISAF as an organisation, nor personal attacks on individual Council members. We as a group did not play the political game as well as others and unfortunately in a democratic environment, for this we have to pay the price. If the multihull was perceived to be irrelevant or too expensive, or whatever else caused Council members to put multihulls at the bottom of their voting preferences, then it is up to us to either fix the problem or fix the perception.

It is also useful to remember that it is only three years until the ISAF Council votes on the disciplines for the 2016 Oympic Games. By this time, we will know our status for 2016, so while the 2016 may seem a long way off, three years will pass very quickly before we believe that multihulls will be back on the Olympic Classes circuit.

Multihull sailors should also take the time to thank those who have supported our cause and done a lot behind the scenes to lobby on our behalf. Please take the time to send an email or a personal phone call to those people you know supported either with a vote, or verbal support of multihulls. In particular the IMC would like to thank the MNAs who spent a great deal of time lobbying other MNAs to support the re-opening of the debate.

Given the number of people who have come out in support of multihulls, we believe that we will be back bigger and stronger in 2016 showing our own area of sailing as one of the most exciting within out great sport of sailing.

Paul Pascoe
President
International Multihull Council
www.multihullcouncil.com

The 5 male/5 female cut is fair enough, but note that the dinghy appears twice: one singlehanded and one double handed. The keelboat is also doublehanded, so this initial 5/5 proposition already starts with two doublehanded monohulls...

Maybe a good start would be a request to inequivocally define "discipline" and "equipment" in a politically correct way.

Accepting that "two handed dinghy" is a different discipline from "one handed dinghy" or from "heavyweight dinghy" opens the door to more manipulations, such as:

"high performance three handed keelboat"
"doublehanded keelboat"
"three handed keelboat"
"three handed dinghy"
"lightweight windsurfer"
"heavyweight double handed dinghy", etc.

The loose definition of "discipline" is one of the devious loopholes that enabled the exclusion of multihulls from the 2012 games.

In order to close this door, we should try to have "discipline" defined as a unique type of sail craft, such as windsurfer, catamaran, trimaran, proa, foiler, kite, dinghy, keelboat, square rigged, two masted, three masted or whatever is invented next.

In short:
"Discipline" would be linked to an inequivocal boat TYPE and
"Equipment" would be linked to an inequivocal boat CLASS.

The "discipline" would be independent of crew number, weight, skin color, religion, genetic modifications and the like.

The "equipment" choice is what would determine the ideal crew number, weight, height, density, inertia, type of athletic skills, haircut, aerodynamic profile, etc.

Then, when the "old boys" program includes a single handed dinghy, a heavyweight single handed dinghy, a double handed dinghy and a high performance double handed dinghy, it will be even more evident that there are FOUR dinghy events - and no multihull event.

It is a difficult battle to fight, but the goal here is to keep alive the discussion about the (lack of) logic of the current equipment choice and its process. Also, this issue has potential as trading currency for future negotiatins.

how much influence a "commission" will be.. bugger all, zip, nada, sweet [censored] all..

US sailing wasn't moved from its previous position.. I dont believe the US cat scene will ever be in a position to really sway the US IRC brigade. It has been shown the NMAs are biased towards the money areas... Unless the budgets get warped in favour of cats making either more gold medals or more income for the NMAs nothing will change..

I suggest IMC/MHC opens talks directly and openly with the International canoe federation. Puts out statements of the opening of talks and play both federations off against each other.. After all the canoes do have a sailing arm (ICs) and our hulls are similar. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Then suggest the canoes put a couple of classes ie cat and IC into the olympic playground..

Goran and the executive committee of ISAF are good politicians.. They will make what ever verbal positions to cover up the situation. While in the background making sure however that nothing will actually change nor improve.

Is it right that cats just missed out by two votes and that US only gets two votes? If so can't we ignore US sailing and concentrate on the other countries that have come around. If US sailing said they were going to vote for cats would you believe them? What counties should we concentrate on being nice to and what countries are a waste of effort? What other countries said they were supporting cats and blindsided them (other than NZ that has come on board now).
regards

It would have taken 26 votes to re-open te discipline selection. Only 21 voted in favor.

US gets 3 votes.

"The 5 male/5 female cut is fair enough, but note that the dinghy appears twice: one singlehanded and one double handed. The keelboat is also doublehanded, so this initial 5/5 proposition already starts with two doublehanded monohulls..."

Aren't the keelboat classes triplehanded?

I'd be shocked if they reduce to just one singlehanded dinghy.

Mike

Wasn't the vote held in secret?. So we cant be sure unless someone leaks the voting details.

Would I believe US Sailing on how they voted..
Based on past behavior, as its the only indicator I have, not as far as I can drop kick a 500 kg football..

The NMAs have entrenched political and vested interests now in maintaining the new status quo.. Nothing less than blackmail event will see the reinstatement of Cats in 2012..

IOC wants a high profile money making event.. This means good TV rights thus revenues and sailing as a event isnt high of the TV stations lists.. Honestly sailing isnt a money spinner for IOC.. The big advertisers arent involved in much below global IRC events.. Where luxury items can be marketed to the masses..

The NMAs want results and which brings sponsorship moneys.. Cats arent bring revenue raisers thus their voice, no matter how many smiles the Executive committee of ISAF and the various NMAs give, is not listened to.. But a schism would cause a jolt to their collective egos..

If one could find out which NMA voted against cats them a full ban would be in order.. ie no major cat title should be held in that country.. Officials from that country asked to work on a "ISAF cat event" asked politely to leave the event. NMAs that voted for the Cats asked to ban officials from NMAs that voted against the cats vote..

I am sure if ICF opened serious talks with IMC then ISAF would change its tune a little..

The Star is a doublehanded keelboat.

Why would you be shoked?

Asking for one equipment of each boat type makes perfect sense to me: the five equipments could be:

1 - Foiler or Kite
2 - Windsurfer
3 - Dinghy
4 - Multihull
5 - Keelboat or Foiler.

Among the ten most numerous classes in the world there is a doublehanded multihull (Hobie 16) and a singlehanded multihull (Hobie 14). A singlehanded and a doublehanded multihull class in the Olympics are at least as logical as two singlehanded and one doublehanded dinghy, as it will be in 2012.

This is the type of position I am suggesting for the start of the 2016 work, the point where negotiations begin. I agree that asking for two multihull classes for both genders is a lot - but why should multihulls ask for less than dinghies?

In order to achieve an acceptable outcome, it is necessary to begin asking for everything we can reasonably justify. If dinghies ask for both a singlehanded and a doublehanded event in both genders, we should do the same. Lets force the discussion of the reasons why dinghies deserve more participation then other boat types.