The vote in Qingdao brings to a close a fraught six months for members of ISAF Executive and Council. ISAF president Goran Petersson was outraged at the levels of abuse that had been levelled at him and some of his colleagues, following the controversial vote in Estoril.
As far as Petersson was concerned, justice and democracy were served last November, and that unfortunate choice of wording, the move to ‘reaffirm’, showed just how strongly he and ISAF Executive wanted the Estoril decision to stand. They must be mighty relieved at the way the vote worked out today.
Petersson said that because of the personal abuse that some members had been subjected to, the voting procedure earlier today would take place under a secret ballot. This is an unfortunate, but understandable, move. It makes individuals a good deal less accountable for their actions, and this is regrettable bearing in mind the accusations of conflict of interest that have swirled around some people these past months. But it’s understandable that Petersson should have made this move if the abuse has been as bad as he suggests.
To give the President his due, he also prefaced the meeting by reminding Council members of their duties and obligations to the wider interests of the sport (as opposed to national interests and Olympic medal tallies). Whether or not this reminder had any effect, we will never know. One can only hope that Council members voted for the right reasons.
This was not the meeting at which to raise the whole legitimacy of Council’s make-up, that will have to wait another day. But what is clearer than ever is that of the 38 members of Council, there should be at least one representative of the Athletes’ Commission at the table.
British Laser Radial sailor Laura Baldwin attended the meeting representing the Athletes Commission but wasn’t allowed to stand up and speak on behalf of the competing athletes in the Council Meeting. “It was disappointing not being able to make the case for competeing athletes” said Baldwin. So why wasn’t she allowed to speak? “ISAF is very shaken by the level of personal attacks that individuals have come under over the past few months, and they didn’t want to put me in a similar situation.”
Personal attack or not, Baldwin still would have liked her chance to speak. “I spoke to many Committee Members and really felt I was getting the athletes’ point across. What I think is being missed here is how these decisions have such a massive impact on sailors’ lives. The problem with the multihull being thrown out of the Games is that the skills to multihull sailing are so unique, it’s not going to be that easy for people to step cross into other Events and continue their careers. My fear is we’re going to lose a lot of these sailors from Olympic sailing.”
At the moment the athletes are just pawns in the game. ISAF did the right thing by creating an Athletes’ Commission. However at the moment it is a toothless organisation. To have Baldwin there at the meeting, and not allow her to speak when clearly she wanted to (threats of personal abuse or no), is patronising in the extreme.
If Goran Petersson is a true advocate of democracy, then in future he will allow the athletes a seat at the top table.
QUESTION: Should the Olympic sailors have a seat on ISAF Council, or would that confuse matters?
There’s a supprize what the result would be
Dear Sailjuice, Andy, you will know that all of us who have been campaigning for the re-instatement of the multihull class are disappointed at Council’s decision in China. I read in your article that the President was offended by the level of personal attacks and I would like to comment on this matter. Goran Petersson and the ISAF Executive have had every opportunity to respond to letters, reports and suggestions from the multihull community, every one of which they have rejected. Evidently the release of the petition to the IOC signed by 6000 + sailors added fuel to Mr Petersson’s fire. Yet Mr Petersson and the ISAF executive have been well aware of the petition and its contents since its inception after Estoril in November – so to use this as a reason to become inflamed is only to shift the blame elsewhere. I’m sorry, but in my view, the ISAF executive carry an enormous responsibility for the level of passion shown from the multihull community and the Executive’s total unwillingness to engage in conversation with those disaffected wins them no credits.
One hopes that the matter is not over yet and that we will not have to wait until 2016 – as far as I am aware there is nothing in the ISAF constitution that prevents this matter being re-opened once again in November – what the China vote showed was that there is now a majority of MNA’s who disagree with the November decision.
I am sure that the ISAF Executive will have already approached IOC to try to obtain the 11th event again; perhaps ISAF would please turn their attention to communicating with the multihull community as to how we may best serve them in supporting them get this achieved.
Some friendly contact would not go amiss!
Best wishes
A surprisingly emotional response is what I’ve felt as a result of the events of the last 5 days.
1) Resignation as to the vote that there be no change to 2012 events – I wasn’t surprised though – where did the 2/3rds rule come from again? Perhaps another procedural issue that could do with looking at again.
2) Optimism that we can now get all contentious about the equipment for 2012 – which girls keel boat?? etc
3) surprisingly hostile frustration at what seems to me the crass stupidity and own goal of the letter by Mr Dewhurst direct to IOC. What was he hoping for? I can’t work it out. My conclusions are that multihull sailing is now worse off, ISAF’s chances off working behind the scenes successfully must be reduced, the chances of getting some sensible decision making on this in future by say delegating the decisions on events and equipment to the expert committee are reduced, is the multihull community really so arrogant as to think they are the only disappointed people out there? As I say, I can’t get my head around it save to say that I can’t remember the last time I’ve felt so annoyed by anything in the sailing world – oh, yes – save for the initial ISAF decision in the first place!
Bill,
There is a very fine line between passion and mis-placed arrogance, especially as it pertains to something like sailing, (which is for some a religion). While I am deeply saddened by the course taken by ISAF, (as someone with no affiliation agenda or interest other than a love for the sport), I agree with others here and elsewhere, there was time for the ISAF to de-fuse this situation in a more proactive fashion, (well before the gasoline and the matches part started). There were private emails, there were proactive efforts, but re-visiting timelines is now pointless backwards endeavour). For what it is worth in criticism, that an entire discipline be held in limbo by the misdirected actions of some, because of a provocation of their delicate sensibilities, doesn’t seem to be an adequate excuse for accountable representatives of any discipline or process. While ISAF may have been bruised by the process, it does not compare with what sailing in general, has lost from the pinnacle of competitve yachting.
Reading between the lines, perhaps there has been progress, and perhaps with time, the ISAF and the MNA’s can sort this out based on some equipment definition in the future-I think most MH participants really don’t care which cat it would be. But to suggest that they would jump onto a monohull…well, I guess you would have had to have some experience sailing both, (I have), to know that this probably is not a viable solution.
Finally, representative words are only given value if accounted for by the deeds and actions of said representation. Some of us, in quiet resignation and despair, will just have to watch what our representatives do, and see what happens as a consequence. Maybe sailing will make me feel better.
“But to suggest that they would jump onto a monohull…well, I guess you would have had to have some experience sailing both, (I have), to know that this probably is not a viable solution.”
Many, many, many people have plenty of experience sailing both cats and monos. Many, many, many people have sailed cats and now sail monos very happily; a guy who was runner-up in the Tornado worlds is now sailing Mirror dinghies. The Nacra sailors who were 4th in the worlds went to sail Tasars for years. A national Tornado champ sails skiffs and yachts at times. An A Class sailor is a champ in small offshore monos. Elvstrom went from C Class cats to Solings and offshore yachts.
The very first major 49er regatta, IIRC, went to a Tornado sailor. On the other hand, the Argentinians who got the Tornado bronze in Athens (IIRC) came out of Lasers (4th in 1996 Games IIRC) and Mistral windsurfers (3rd in 2000 IIRC) and yet were world-class in cats pretty quickly.
A few years back, one of the world’s best Hobie sailors moved to J/24s, with success (winning the Nationals). He was also seen on a Laser recently. I think he’s on the International Multihull association’s board. Some world A Class champs have also sailed Lasers a little bit.
Maybe the cat sailors are more adaptable than you think.
Choosing my words?
Oh, yes catsailors are quite adaptable…However, it’s wishful thinking to say that is their preference, however. A good spin now that that there is no longer multi discipline for them to choose from.
Portraying this in any way other than ‘travesty’ is plain awful. Enjoy your Olympic yachting Events.