Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Taipan

Olympic selection issues

Recommended Posts

I'm sure SimonN will correct me but didn't GBR used to have a selection policy that favoured people who'd been to an Olympics over those that hadn't? The logic being that the experience is quite daunting the first time around. if there was any value in that theory, sending an 11th ranked team would be seen as an investment in future success.

Once a large number of countries start doing the same it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. If only teams with top 13 results get sent, more medal winners will come from teams with top 13 results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure SimonN will correct me but didn't GBR used to have a selection policy that favoured people who'd been to an Olympics over those that hadn't?

Given that Shirley Robertson didn't get to defend her Yngling Gold, I'd say that is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure SimonN will correct me but didn't GBR used to have a selection policy that favoured people who'd been to an Olympics over those that hadn't? The logic being that the experience is quite daunting the first time around. if there was any value in that theory, sending an 11th ranked team would be seen as an investment in future success.

Yes, the GBR selection policy heavily favours past medalists and the past Olympians because it has been shown that is the best way of getting medals. But Team GBR specifically ignores World rankings because they are such a poor indicator of both medal and future potential. In some cases they very much over state how well a team is doing - the FX girls have managed to get their ranking without finishing in the top 10 at major regattas (surely the minimum standard), while for others, their word ranking significantly under states their position - Giles Scott is currently ranked 12th despite having won all but one regatta he has sailed in teh last 3 years (and that was a second!).

 

Instead of the notoriously poor value from the world rankings, Team GBR uses similar criteria to Australia for judging likelihood of medalling and of overall future potential, which is the ability to peak and get results at specified regattas. The FX girls did not perform at the specified regattas, despite having a fair number of attempts. Having failed the meet even the lesser targets in order to be considered for discretionary selection, they haven't shown enough future potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can never work out how people do the quote thing and i know I'm referencing way back but i only just got around to looking at this.

 

If I could I'd paste in the bit about the England soccer team scraping into the world cup and being sent. The whole thing is a great example of emotional nationalistic chest thumping where everyone gets all excited about a team which, in the cold light of day, none of whom were good enough to get into any of the genuine contender teams. The team went, and immediately came home. In fact they got knocked out so fast I doubt the pilot of the plane even turned the engine off.

 

Do we think the team gained anything from the experience other than learning to fear the media, fear the build up and the expectation and then fear the other teams? Basically it all goes wrong and in the end Rooney gets sent off.

 

Quote the most successful manager of that team over the last 25 years "the players find the shirt heavy".

 

Imagine the massive kick up the arse they'd get if the UK FA said "we're not sending a team this time because they're a bunch of lazy useless idiots with ulterior motives of getting their own pro contracts improved rather than performing for their countries" (See Paul Scholes book). The next time they might actually take it seriously.

 

It's the same for sailing. The aussies and the UK have pioneered the way for managing this and their results justify their methods. Take the emotion out of it or you might as well just accept you're sending people on holiday. Otherwise the funding would go to other sports.

 

The coaches probably spend so much time teaching the sailors to be more rationale and improve their psychology and then to go and select poor performing people would be complete hypocrisy.

 

As it is there's a bonkers amount being spent on a very elitist sport anyway. The eye rolling that goes on at some of the people who get on funding in the UK sums it up. As mentioned above there's definitely a ton of rich kids who start "Campaigning" simply because they aren't bad and can give it a go when they really should just get on with their lives. Then low and behold 4-5 years later they have to give it up and probably grow up just 5 years later then everyone else who did it when they left full time education. It's arguable how many and I know that's not the same as the point of getting selected but it's still not right. When you see the governing bodies treating the hopefuls like cannon fodder you do feel for them. I guess they need to pour in the high numbers at the top of the funnel in the hope of producing the next Ben Ainslie or Robert Scheidt or Nathan O once per generation.

 

And that's probably part of the problem here. These girls aren't good enough but have been lead to think they can be. Fair enough, don't try, never achieve. But the criteria was there and they should have known it was an uphill battle. World ranking is a joke and cannot be used as Simon has explained. But it is always the sob story trolled out by those that don't get selected as it sounds good, and they wouldn't have gotten this far if they were the kind of people to take failure on the chin and give up. Just because it's a nice story doesn't mean you should send them. There are a ton of identical stories and emotional reasons to spend that money on a ton of other things. Introducing a load of disadvantaged kids to sailing would be better. Better yet, why not introduce them to a sport they can afford to do on their own!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like running...

 

It cannot be the goal to produce Ben Ainsles and Robert scheidts.

They are exceptions and you are lucky to get one.

Competitive global sport is a bitch. It's hard to get into the top 10 because all the other teams are good too.

Olympic sailing isn't really global but there is a bunch of competitive countries.

 

In my eyes sending teams to the Olympics must be the goal and not primarily the medals. The medals are a consequence of sending the teams over a longer period of time.

The ioc qualification limits are tough compered to other sports.

 

Some rich kids who are good doesn't mean they manage to qualify.

 

Not everyone can win medals. That's just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High Flow

 

 

You seem to live in a very different world to most. Here in Oz, if they don't win enough medals and/or the UK finish above Australia in the medal table, there is a national outcry with demands for a full inquiry into how so much money can be spent for so little return. It simply isn't acceptable to send people to the Olympics who are below the standard expected for the country.

 

And there lies the key. If you have a low bar to get to the Olympics, then you are setting a target for the team that is too low and is hard to climb up from. We learnt this the hard way in the UK. The whole focus used to be on beating the other Brits, usually at a one week trials. We used to see people turn up for the selection trials that hadn't even been doing the "tour" and we often got the "wrong" winner of the trials. Once that was changed, making qualification relate to results at top level, the medals began to flow. The standards you set to qualify for your country's Olympic team has a direct impact on your medal chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference if you have many very good teams battling for a single berth at the games or if you have only a single team.

 

The Olympics would be a complete joke if all counties would apply the winning medals only qualifications rule.

 

Same as for every other sport.

 

Imagine only five runners at the 100m contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all depends on national priorities. In some countries, simply having competitors at the Olympics is a source of national pride. In others, having competitors in sports they don't usually compete in does the same (Jamaican Bobsleigh). However, in many, Olympic success is measured in medals and when the country is contributing significant resources to achieving Olympic success, surely there needs to be some minimum standards, otherwise all we are doing is paying for another persons dreams. The grants and support aren't handed out to enable people to fulfill their personal dreams, and if that is what it was about, public money would dry up instantly. If we were in a country where all campaigns were self funded, then I would have a lot more sympathy for the idea that if they qualify, they should go.

 

I should also add that there are many countries who add additional criteria in certain sports for Olympic selection. This is common in top athletic countries, where they often set minimum performance targets (times) which are better than the Olympic qualification standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Olympic Village is a famous shagathon. Especially the swimmers, apparently. They're done at the end of the first week, and have a week to kill before the closing ceremony.

 

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=129468

Hence why a bunch of countries now keep the athletes at home and ship them to a holding pen well away from the Olympic village until just before their event (boooo)

 

Shame for the sailors that the sailing starts early, runs for ever and the venue is usually distant from the action.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/510856390fdd4977a2798445bec663fa/rio-olympics-top-london-supply-condoms

450,000 condoms to be distributed. Among 10,500 athletes and staff. That's 42 each. No wonder they're also giving out 175,000 packets of lube.

 

I suppose that after 42 shags in two weeks (or less), you really should have found the ultimate answer for life, the universe and everything though. Or if you haven't found the answer to that, you should at least have found the clitoris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd rather have aids spread? Or have all the biggest sports talents of your country get pregnant?

 

 

Anyway, if you don't send your teams to the Olympics we should think about not having the Olympics in the first place.

Who is interested in a no show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would say once their event is over that's entirely up to them.

 

The Aussie public seem to disagree with you on that one. Getting beet by Yorkshire in the medal tables last time out obviously didn't go down well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'd dedicated a couple or more years of my life, many 10s or several 100s of thousands of dollars only to be kicked in the teeth by my country, having qualified, I'd be pretty upset.

It's not a good message to Tess & Caitlin, or the youth of the country.

 

As I originally asked but nobody answered, I wonder how much the Australian sailing authority think they saved (short term)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't qualify, that's the point.

 

and no money will be saved, just re-distributed to the teams that did qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Olympic Village is a famous shagathon. Especially the swimmers, apparently. They're done at the end of the first week, and have a week to kill before the closing ceremony.http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=129468

 

Hence why a bunch of countries now keep the athletes at home and ship them to a holding pen well away from the Olympic village until just before their event (boooo)

 

Shame for the sailors that the sailing starts early, runs for ever and the venue is usually distant from the action.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/510856390fdd4977a2798445bec663fa/rio-olympics-top-london-supply-condoms

450,000 condoms to be distributed. Among 10,500 athletes and staff. That's 42 each. No wonder they're also giving out 175,000 packets of lube.

 

I suppose that after 42 shags in two weeks (or less), you really should have found the ultimate answer for life, the universe and everything though. Or if you haven't found the answer to that, you should at least have found the clitoris.

I guess all athletes automatically qualify for the shagging events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'd dedicated a couple or more years of my life, many 10s or several 100s of thousands of dollars only to be kicked in the teeth by my country, having qualified, I'd be pretty upset.

It's not a good message to Tess & Caitlin, or the youth of the country.

 

As I originally asked but nobody answered, I wonder how much the Australian sailing authority think they saved (short term)?

You do not seem to understand. They did not qualify to compete for Australia at the games. If they had met qualification standards, there would be none of this. The argument is that to allow them to compete when they have failed to make the required and clearly stated standard would send a really poor message to everybody else. It's like these stupid "participation" certificates that are handed out to those who aren't good enough to win a prize of any sort.

 

You set minimum standards so you don't have teams simply trying to beat their rivals in order to qualify. It has been shown that simply selecting the top sailor in a class is a very poor way of targeting medal success. The best way is to have standards that include results against their likely competitors So the question then becomes whether Olympic participation of the individual should be put before medal success of the team. I accept that for some countries, participation is success in itself, but in a country like Australia, we define Olympic success in terms of medals. As pointed out, if Australia doesn't achieve a certain level of medal success, there is a huge outcry. Add to that the public money that goes into the Olympic team, we need to focus on success rather than participation. I certainly don't want my tax dollars being used so that somebody can simply fulfill their personal ambition, because in that case, why is one person's personal ambition more worthy than another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon, perhaps you should then look at YA funding for the 49 er fx athletes. Not sure the amount given to each team is directly proportional to their standings, its never perfect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine question, why are the Aussie FX teams off the pace? Not enough interest in skiff sailing, poor coaches, not enough funding, or what?

 

29r/49r are splintered classes in Australia, particularly in Sydney where it seems skiff clubs have gone out of their way to inhibit growth. For e.g.: you could easily substitute a 29r for a 13ft skiff at somewhere like Manly, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that the appeal to the YA appeals board has failed. I hadn't realised that 2 teams had appealed, but both were thrown out. Olivia Price had actually made the qualifying standard (top 10 result in a nominated regatta) but since then, Tess Lloyd has beaten her in every regatta. In theory, there is still the opportunity to appeal to CAS, but the reality is that the Australian Olympic Committee needs to advise World Sailing that they are sending an entry by tomorrow, otherwise the entry will be offered to the next country.

 

Although I understand why the decision has been made, I still feel for the girls. I have been with 2 different Olympic sailing aspirants when they have been told that they had not been selected and have seen how devastated they were after something like 3.5 years of effort. It is heartbreaking, but i believe that all they can really do is to use it and come back stronger to prove that they did have the potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also just read that there were 2 sailors in New Zealand who were also not selected in their respective classes who took their association to arbitration and lost.It's not just Australia who set standards for their Olympic sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody said they were.

GBR for sure, GER for sure. AUS and NZ.

US aswell?

There might be more. Denkmark, France, etc...

So how about nobody goes? It'll only china vs india isreal and switzerland.

have fun folks!

Keep your money at home at pour it into those oppies and bics and all the other teenagers who will give up when the learn about marijuana and tits and dicks.

but don't ever send you people to the Olympics!

NEVER*

 

because you know what could happen:

they could not win the even! That means they would actually loose.

and would that be the worst thing that could happen?

I mean a sailing nation like AUS, NZ or GBR not winning an event like the Olympics, what a shame that would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it might be too little too late but...

 

https://www.facebook.com/Aus49erfx/?fref=nf.

 

I understand the budget points but cash for gold shouldn't be what the Olympics are about. Simply the best for each country competing in the spirit of sportsmanship.

I'm sure the girls could raise the funds if Aus selectors gave them the opportunity.

Even is Gold was the only goal, then a previous games under their belt would only strengthen their chances in 2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are rumours that it's happening in a number of countries beyond those mentioned (I wouldn't want to point fingers until press-releases come out, which I believe should be today/tomorrow). I would be surprised if this isn't also the case in some other sports...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also just read that there were 2 sailors in New Zealand who were also not selected in their respective classes who took their association to arbitration and lost.It's not just Australia who set standards for their Olympic sailors.

 

New Zealand Qualified in all 10 events for Rio but will only send 7 crews ..

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11605230

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough love is needed

 

1. The crew that qualified the 49FX for Australia managed to get into the top ten at ONE regatta over a year ago

 

2. One member of that crew sustained a knee injury which required surgery and an extended period off the water

 

3. That crew is now struggling to compete at the same level (it seems other crews are able to go faster with less weight in the boat)

 

4. The second crew is now beating the first crew consistently but is not able to finish in the top ten

 

Olympic sport in Australia is funded by Other People's Money, when results are not achieved Other People start threatening the next 2020 funding. Better to keep them home, it will make them hungrier for 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Lloyd and Elks that qualified AUS, and I and enough people I know would gladly donate the cash needed to send them.

Tough love is needed

1. The crew that qualified the 49FX for Australia managed to get into the top ten at ONE regatta over a year ago

2. One member of that crew sustained a knee injury which required surgery and an extended period off the water

3. That crew is now struggling to compete at the same level (it seems other crews are able to go faster with less weight in the boat)

4. The second crew is now beating the first crew consistently but is not able to finish in the top ten

Olympic sport in Australia is funded by Other People's Money, when results are not achieved Other People start threatening the next 2020 funding. Better to keep them home, it will make them hungrier for 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Lloyd and Elks that qualified AUS, and I and enough people I know would gladly donate the cash needed to send them.

 

Tough love is needed

1. The crew that qualified the 49FX for Australia managed to get into the top ten at ONE regatta over a year ago

2. One member of that crew sustained a knee injury which required surgery and an extended period off the water

3. That crew is now struggling to compete at the same level (it seems other crews are able to go faster with less weight in the boat)

4. The second crew is now beating the first crew consistently but is not able to finish in the top ten

Olympic sport in Australia is funded by Other People's Money, when results are not achieved Other People start threatening the next 2020 funding. Better to keep them home, it will make them hungrier for 2020.

 

Is that the ISAF 2014 Santander Worlds when they finished 11th?

 

Looks like my information was wrong.. They didn't even finish in the top 10!

 

I hope they continue till 2020 and take the non selection as the incentive to keep improving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were just about the money to send them, I would contribute as well, but it is not. At the end of each Olympic cycle, sports in Oz are judged by a complex equation that includes cost per medal and the number of athletes sent by the sport. Sports that do well get increased funding, sports that don't lose funding. Last time around sailing gained, while swimming and cycling lost. Sending athletes that have not made the country qualifying standard has a negative impact on the assessment, unless they happen to medal. In short, sending the girls risks losing funding for the whole team next time around, or, to put it another way, it would mean that the team has to perform better with them to retain the same funding than they would if the girls didn't compete.

 

The next issue is the effect it has on the rest of the team and on future teams. If you put in place a standard and then select those who do not make the standard, what message does that send out? The whole point in bringing in the stadards is to vastly reduce the amount of discretion the selectors have. I honestly cannot remember whether it was brought in for 2008 or 2004 (I think 2008), but before the standards were brought in, there was too much discretion used and this led to some almighty legal clashes (Beasho vs Nicco). Now, I believe that the selectors will rarely, if ever, use discretion over the stated qualifying standards. Even then, the selection criteria clearly state a minimum standard to be achieved before the selectors can use their discretion, and the girls failed to achieve that standard.

 

I think what some need to consider is the alternative to setting standards and aiming at medals. the first thing that happens is that team funding goes out the window. We then go back to the dark ages of teams having to fund most or all of their campaign. Back then, nobody had coaches who travelled with you. You had no medical support, met support, nanny boat etc. Many of the top sailors couldn't afford to campaign. Considering how other teams are funded, lose funding and you kiss goodbye to medals. If you cannot compete, who is going to even try. Simply, in Australia, lose the focus on performance and medals and you kiss Olympic sailing goodbye. Some might say "so what", but those seem to be the same people who are saying let the girls go.

 

I have 2 daughters, one who tried to make it in elite sport and the other who is still trying (and might succeed). In their sport, you either qualify for an event because you are good enough as judged by ranking or you don't go (yes, there are organisers wild cards, but that is different). I hope my younger daughter will play at the junior Australian Open in a few years time, but if she does, it will be because she has amassed enough ranking points not because she has travelled the world and played in all the ranking events. It's a tough life. While some seem to hand out "participation" certificates (which I hate), we cannot reward participation as equal to results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were just about the money to send them, I would contribute as well, but it is not. At the end of each Olympic cycle, sports in Oz are judged by a complex equation that includes cost per medal and the number of athletes sent by the sport. Sports that do well get increased funding, sports that don't lose funding. Last time around sailing gained, while swimming and cycling lost. Sending athletes that have not made the country qualifying standard has a negative impact on the assessment, unless they happen to medal. In short, sending the girls risks losing funding for the whole team next time around, or, to put it another way, it would mean that the team has to perform better with them to retain the same funding than they would if the girls didn't compete.

 

The next issue is the effect it has on the rest of the team and on future teams. If you put in place a standard and then select those who do not make the standard, what message does that send out? The whole point in bringing in the stadards is to vastly reduce the amount of discretion the selectors have. I honestly cannot remember whether it was brought in for 2008 or 2004 (I think 2008), but before the standards were brought in, there was too much discretion used and this led to some almighty legal clashes (Beasho vs Nicco). Now, I believe that the selectors will rarely, if ever, use discretion over the stated qualifying standards. Even then, the selection criteria clearly state a minimum standard to be achieved before the selectors can use their discretion, and the girls failed to achieve that standard.

 

I think what some need to consider is the alternative to setting standards and aiming at medals. the first thing that happens is that team funding goes out the window. We then go back to the dark ages of teams having to fund most or all of their campaign. Back then, nobody had coaches who travelled with you. You had no medical support, met support, nanny boat etc. Many of the top sailors couldn't afford to campaign. Considering how other teams are funded, lose funding and you kiss goodbye to medals. If you cannot compete, who is going to even try. Simply, in Australia, lose the focus on performance and medals and you kiss Olympic sailing goodbye. Some might say "so what", but those seem to be the same people who are saying let the girls go.

 

I have 2 daughters, one who tried to make it in elite sport and the other who is still trying (and might succeed). In their sport, you either qualify for an event because you are good enough as judged by ranking or you don't go (yes, there are organisers wild cards, but that is different). I hope my younger daughter will play at the junior Australian Open in a few years time, but if she does, it will be because she has amassed enough ranking points not because she has travelled the world and played in all the ranking events. It's a tough life. While some seem to hand out "participation" certificates (which I hate), we cannot reward participation as equal to results.

As you said, it's only about the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'While the selection policy is drafted to provide huge discretion to YNZ, this does not obviate its obligations to abide by the rules of natural justice and to ensure basic fairness in its implementation.

Rio 2016 - Appeal chief critical of Yachting NZ communication process

by Richard Gladwell, Sail-World.com NZL today at 12:27 am

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Rio-2016---Appeal-chief-critical-of-Yachting-NZ-communication-process/145177?source=twitter

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obviously a double edged sword to have government funding in sport especially when their metrics do not consider the 'Olympic Spirit'.

 

As someone now resident in a country whose government doesn't fund sport (USA), it means raising money is a life skill for anyone who wants to sail at top levels internationally, unless they are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
That alone is an Olympian effort given all the competing, worthwhile causes.

 

 

If it were just about the money to send them, I would contribute as well, but it is not. At the end of each Olympic cycle, sports in Oz are judged by a complex equation that includes cost per medal and the number of athletes sent by the sport. Sports that do well get increased funding, sports that don't lose funding. Last time around sailing gained, while swimming and cycling lost. Sending athletes that have not made the country qualifying standard has a negative impact on the assessment, unless they happen to medal. In short, sending the girls risks losing funding for the whole team next time around, or, to put it another way, it would mean that the team has to perform better with them to retain the same funding than they would if the girls didn't compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rio 2016 - Yachting New Zealand defends Olympic selection practices

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Rio-2016---Yachting-New-Zealand-defends-Olympic-selection-practices/145371?source=twitter

 

"The ultimate goal of our High Performance Programme and the NZL Sailing Team is to win Olympic medals at Rio 2016, and Tokyo 2020 beyond that. This goal aligns with the goal of High Performance Sport New Zealand, our partner providing substantial funding for our programme.

Yachting New Zealand has finite resources to run our High Performance Programme as we look to maintain our position as a multi-medal winning sport. High Performance Sport New Zealand’s support of yachting is generous but Yachting New Zealand cannot fund all Olympic aspirants to campaign over the full four year cycle.

No sailing campaign is fully funded by Yachting New Zealand and all our athletes must commit to part funding their own campaigns.

“Preparing athletes for the Olympic Games is a direct cost to Yachting New Zealand, we are grateful for the support we receive from High Performance Sport New Zealand and we are fiscally responsible,” says Abercrombie."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh OK but is the money saved going to find the next medal worthy talent in the classes that didn't represent or is there a black hole that's going to end up with no one coming through for 2020 and beyond?

 

+

 

In all three cases it seems to me that female athletes have been disproportionately left on the beach. What does that say about the development of female talent in Australia, New Zealand and Sweden? If it's all about gong for the buck, given that the talent doesn't go as deep in the female classes, you'd think they would be focusing their limited budget there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No sailing campaign if fully funded by YNZ, all athletes must part fund their own campaigns"

 

Yet even though they qualify for an Olympic sport, NZ Sailing can still say no and all the 'self funded' effort and donated $ is now worthless. At the end of the day, the Sailing Governance ask a lot of athletes only to crush them if they aren't medal worthy. Is this the kind of culture we want flowing through our ranks?

 

 

Rio 2016 - Yachting New Zealand defends Olympic selection practices

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Rio-2016---Yachting-New-Zealand-defends-Olympic-selection-practices/145371?source=twitter

 

"The ultimate goal of our High Performance Programme and the NZL Sailing Team is to win Olympic medals at Rio 2016, and Tokyo 2020 beyond that. This goal aligns with the goal of High Performance Sport New Zealand, our partner providing substantial funding for our programme.

Yachting New Zealand has finite resources to run our High Performance Programme as we look to maintain our position as a multi-medal winning sport. High Performance Sport New Zealand’s support of yachting is generous but Yachting New Zealand cannot fund all Olympic aspirants to campaign over the full four year cycle.

No sailing campaign is fully funded by Yachting New Zealand and all our athletes must commit to part funding their own campaigns.

“Preparing athletes for the Olympic Games is a direct cost to Yachting New Zealand, we are grateful for the support we receive from High Performance Sport New Zealand and we are fiscally responsible,” says Abercrombie."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's obviously a double edged sword to have government funding in sport especially when their metrics do not consider the 'Olympic Spirit'.

 

As someone now resident in a country whose government doesn't fund sport (USA), it means raising money is a life skill for anyone who wants to sail at top levels internationally, unless they are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

That alone is an Olympian effort given all the competing, worthwhile causes.

 

 

If it were just about the money to send them, I would contribute as well, but it is not. At the end of each Olympic cycle, sports in Oz are judged by a complex equation that includes cost per medal and the number of athletes sent by the sport. Sports that do well get increased funding, sports that don't lose funding. Last time around sailing gained, while swimming and cycling lost. Sending athletes that have not made the country qualifying standard has a negative impact on the assessment, unless they happen to medal. In short, sending the girls risks losing funding for the whole team next time around, or, to put it another way, it would mean that the team has to perform better with them to retain the same funding than they would if the girls didn't compete.

 

 

So Aus is stuck in an olympic funding cycle that has bugger all benefit to the broader sport of sailing - it lets govt say "we fund sport" when in fact it just funds a few chosen athletes in order to represent the country at a political event. Country medal tallies were never part of de Coubetin's dream - the olympic creed is a dead document. Modern olympics is big bucks for sponsors and a political showcase for the countries involved....time to rethink....but the snouts in the trough wont allow it....too many vested interests. Elite sport is either entertainment (football, tennis, golf etc) or it's politics...Hitler understood this in 1936, the USSR and E.Germany understood it, the USA understood it...and even politically small countries (in terms of influence) like Aus have opportunistically taken a natural sporting advantage from the 50's and 60's and woven it into a nationalistic myth of superiority to serve up to it's people. Australian's were furious when no medals were won in Montreal....so the govt established the Aust Institute of Sport....and the funding cycle started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"No sailing campaign if fully funded by YNZ, all athletes must part fund their own campaigns"

 

Yet even though they qualify for an Olympic sport, NZ Sailing can still say no and all the 'self funded' effort and donated $ is now worthless. At the end of the day, the Sailing Governance ask a lot of athletes only to crush them if they aren't medal worthy. Is this the kind of culture we want flowing through our ranks?

 

 

Rio 2016 - Yachting New Zealand defends Olympic selection practices

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Rio-2016---Yachting-New-Zealand-defends-Olympic-selection-practices/145371?source=twitter

 

"The ultimate goal of our High Performance Programme and the NZL Sailing Team is to win Olympic medals at Rio 2016, and Tokyo 2020 beyond that. This goal aligns with the goal of High Performance Sport New Zealand, our partner providing substantial funding for our programme.

 

Yachting New Zealand has finite resources to run our High Performance Programme as we look to maintain our position as a multi-medal winning sport. High Performance Sport New Zealand’s support of yachting is generous but Yachting New Zealand cannot fund all Olympic aspirants to campaign over the full four year cycle.

 

No sailing campaign is fully funded by Yachting New Zealand and all our athletes must commit to part funding their own campaigns.

 

“Preparing athletes for the Olympic Games is a direct cost to Yachting New Zealand, we are grateful for the support we receive from High Performance Sport New Zealand and we are fiscally responsible,” says Abercrombie."

 

Participation "buys" you the right to compete in anything, not just sailing. If your competition results do not meet the minimum requirements to allow you to compete at the absolute top level, then you do not get to compete.

This is called LIFE and you choose how you respond to each and every one of Life's Lessons.

Contrary to what most parents tell their children...in most cases they are not special, they are normal, but that does not mean they cannot be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to think the modern olympics were created, at their inception, for the unifying joy of sport.

 

Sorry you didn't get to go, Simon. Neither did I. But there was an olympics in the 50's (?) in which some guy who barely knew how to swim competed in the freestyle. Finished minutes after everybody. But it was cool. Everyone was stoked. The world was stoked.

 

Find your stoke, and find your joy. The joy of sport sailing amongst floating turds? Nope.

 

It's perverted. Best avoided.

You don't have to go as far back at the 50's.

Sydney 2000 - Eric "The Eel" Moussambani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic Sailing - New Zealand's first Gold Medalist dies

by Sail-World.com NZL on 27 Jun

 

http://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Olympic-Sailing---New-Zealands-first-Gold-Medalist-dies/145965?source=twitter

Large_Tasker195621.jpgNew Zealand (left) with Rolly Tasker (KA2 ) in the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne. Both competitors finished tied on points,with the tiebreaker for the Gold Medal working the way of Peter Mander and Jack Cropp (NZL)
New Zealand's first Olympic sailing Gold Medalist, Jack Cropp died on Saturday.

With skipper Peter Mander, Cropp built and campaigned a two man 12 sq Metre Sharpie in Christchurch, even though at the time they decided to campaign for the 1956 Olympics, there was only one 20 year old boat in Christchurch.

Several crews got together around New Zealand to both hold local selection trials and then contest national trials.

In Christchurch Mander and Cropp had the toughest competition to earn selection for their province, having to compete against brother Graham Mander and Tiger Wilson. Four crews contested the Canterbury trials with Graham Mander and Tiger Wilson pushing Cropp and Mander all the way. Cropp and Peter Mander narrowly won the NZ trials, and then was announced as the seventh ranked selection for the New Zealand Olympic team to the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne.

The Olympic Regatta was an eventful affair with a full range of conditions from the light to a 40kt gale and 5-6ft seas. Sailing against top Australian skipper Rolly Tasker and Brit Jasper Blackall. In the final race a collision between Tasker and the French skippered by Roger Tiriau went to a protest. The French skipper rammed Tasker amidships and then lodged a protest.

Mander and Cropp returned to shore thinking they had won the Silver medal and were celebrating their success, when the outcome of the protest was announced - Tasker had been disqualified after finishing second in the final race and Mander/Cropp third. Being elevated into second place was sufficent for both crews to be on 6086 points after a discard race, however the New Zealanders won by virtue of three wins to Tasker's two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And to think the modern olympics were created, at their inception, for the unifying joy of sport.

 

Sorry you didn't get to go, Simon. Neither did I. But there was an olympics in the 50's (?) in which some guy who barely knew how to swim competed in the freestyle. Finished minutes after everybody. But it was cool. Everyone was stoked. The world was stoked.

 

Find your stoke, and find your joy. The joy of sport sailing amongst floating turds? Nope.

 

It's perverted. Best avoided.

You don't have to go as far back at the 50's.

Sydney 2000 - Eric "The Eel" Moussambani

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"No sailing campaign if fully funded by YNZ, all athletes must part fund their own campaigns"

 

Yet even though they qualify for an Olympic sport, NZ Sailing can still say no and all the 'self funded' effort and donated $ is now worthless. At the end of the day, the Sailing Governance ask a lot of athletes only to crush them if they aren't medal worthy. Is this the kind of culture we want flowing through our ranks?

 

 

Rio 2016 - Yachting New Zealand defends Olympic selection practices

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Rio-2016---Yachting-New-Zealand-defends-Olympic-selection-practices/145371?source=twitter

 

"The ultimate goal of our High Performance Programme and the NZL Sailing Team is to win Olympic medals at Rio 2016, and Tokyo 2020 beyond that. This goal aligns with the goal of High Performance Sport New Zealand, our partner providing substantial funding for our programme.

 

Yachting New Zealand has finite resources to run our High Performance Programme as we look to maintain our position as a multi-medal winning sport. High Performance Sport New Zealand’s support of yachting is generous but Yachting New Zealand cannot fund all Olympic aspirants to campaign over the full four year cycle.

 

No sailing campaign is fully funded by Yachting New Zealand and all our athletes must commit to part funding their own campaigns.

 

“Preparing athletes for the Olympic Games is a direct cost to Yachting New Zealand, we are grateful for the support we receive from High Performance Sport New Zealand and we are fiscally responsible,” says Abercrombie."

 

Participation "buys" you the right to compete in anything, not just sailing. If your competition results do not meet the minimum requirements to allow you to compete at the absolute top level, then you do not get to compete.

This is called LIFE and you choose how you respond to each and every one of Life's Lessons.

Contrary to what most parents tell their children...in most cases they are not special, they are normal, but that does not mean they cannot be great.

 

 

Don, Sara Winther was ranked 11th in the world by ISAF. Over the last several years Sara has proven to be a top competitor, and at one point was ranked by ISAF as 2nd in the world.

 

Sara qualified NZ to compete in the Olympics for the Laser Radial, she was not selected by Yachting NZ.

 

Teau McKenzie from the Cook Islands also qualified. She will be competing. (The Cook Islands Laser community is buzzing - and good on her!!)

 

Teau has never beaten Sara in a regatta.

 

I can understand not funding Sara. However yachting NZ actively prevented Sara from competing at the Olympics by not selecting her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"No sailing campaign if fully funded by YNZ, all athletes must part fund their own campaigns"

 

Yet even though they qualify for an Olympic sport, NZ Sailing can still say no and all the 'self funded' effort and donated $ is now worthless. At the end of the day, the Sailing Governance ask a lot of athletes only to crush them if they aren't medal worthy. Is this the kind of culture we want flowing through our ranks?

 

 

Rio 2016 - Yachting New Zealand defends Olympic selection practices

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Rio-2016---Yachting-New-Zealand-defends-Olympic-selection-practices/145371?source=twitter

 

"The ultimate goal of our High Performance Programme and the NZL Sailing Team is to win Olympic medals at Rio 2016, and Tokyo 2020 beyond that. This goal aligns with the goal of High Performance Sport New Zealand, our partner providing substantial funding for our programme.

 

Yachting New Zealand has finite resources to run our High Performance Programme as we look to maintain our position as a multi-medal winning sport. High Performance Sport New Zealand’s support of yachting is generous but Yachting New Zealand cannot fund all Olympic aspirants to campaign over the full four year cycle.

 

No sailing campaign is fully funded by Yachting New Zealand and all our athletes must commit to part funding their own campaigns.

 

“Preparing athletes for the Olympic Games is a direct cost to Yachting New Zealand, we are grateful for the support we receive from High Performance Sport New Zealand and we are fiscally responsible,” says Abercrombie."

 

Participation "buys" you the right to compete in anything, not just sailing. If your competition results do not meet the minimum requirements to allow you to compete at the absolute top level, then you do not get to compete.

This is called LIFE and you choose how you respond to each and every one of Life's Lessons.

Contrary to what most parents tell their children...in most cases they are not special, they are normal, but that does not mean they cannot be great.

 

 

Don, Sara Winther was ranked 11th in the world by ISAF. Over the last several years Sara has proven to be a top competitor, and at one point was ranked by ISAF as 2nd in the world.

 

Sara qualified NZ to compete in the Olympics for the Laser Radial, she was not selected by Yachting NZ.

 

Teau McKenzie from the Cook Islands also qualified. She will be competing. (The Cook Islands Laser community is buzzing - and good on her!!)

 

Teau has never beaten Sara in a regatta.

 

I can understand not funding Sara. However yachting NZ actively prevented Sara from competing at the Olympics by not selecting her.

 

 

 

Since when was "I can beat the girl from the Cook Islands" a great argument in any leading country in the sailing world in favor of being selected for the Olympics?

 

Cook?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"No sailing campaign if fully funded by YNZ, all athletes must part fund their own campaigns"

 

Yet even though they qualify for an Olympic sport, NZ Sailing can still say no and all the 'self funded' effort and donated $ is now worthless. At the end of the day, the Sailing Governance ask a lot of athletes only to crush them if they aren't medal worthy. Is this the kind of culture we want flowing through our ranks?

 

 

Rio 2016 - Yachting New Zealand defends Olympic selection practices

 

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Rio-2016---Yachting-New-Zealand-defends-Olympic-selection-practices/145371?source=twitter

 

"The ultimate goal of our High Performance Programme and the NZL Sailing Team is to win Olympic medals at Rio 2016, and Tokyo 2020 beyond that. This goal aligns with the goal of High Performance Sport New Zealand, our partner providing substantial funding for our programme.

 

Yachting New Zealand has finite resources to run our High Performance Programme as we look to maintain our position as a multi-medal winning sport. High Performance Sport New Zealand’s support of yachting is generous but Yachting New Zealand cannot fund all Olympic aspirants to campaign over the full four year cycle.

 

No sailing campaign is fully funded by Yachting New Zealand and all our athletes must commit to part funding their own campaigns.

 

“Preparing athletes for the Olympic Games is a direct cost to Yachting New Zealand, we are grateful for the support we receive from High Performance Sport New Zealand and we are fiscally responsible,” says Abercrombie."

 

Participation "buys" you the right to compete in anything, not just sailing. If your competition results do not meet the minimum requirements to allow you to compete at the absolute top level, then you do not get to compete.

This is called LIFE and you choose how you respond to each and every one of Life's Lessons.

Contrary to what most parents tell their children...in most cases they are not special, they are normal, but that does not mean they cannot be great.

 

 

Don, Sara Winther was ranked 11th in the world by ISAF. Over the last several years Sara has proven to be a top competitor, and at one point was ranked by ISAF as 2nd in the world.

 

Sara qualified NZ to compete in the Olympics for the Laser Radial, she was not selected by Yachting NZ.

 

Teau McKenzie from the Cook Islands also qualified. She will be competing. (The Cook Islands Laser community is buzzing - and good on her!!)

 

Teau has never beaten Sara in a regatta.

 

I can understand not funding Sara. However yachting NZ actively prevented Sara from competing at the Olympics by not selecting her.

 

 

 

Gannt, here are Sara Winther's ISAF rankings in the Radial Class for the last 11 years.

 

Can you point me to the date when she ranked "2nd in the world" because I can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lolz a real Dalton of a result! Starts at #9 spends years in double digit late teens ranking then peaks to 7th a year early= supastarrrrr!

https://members.sailing.org/rankprogression.php?membid=37150&classid=61&typeid=3&disid=2

 

 

And in any case, ISAF rankings don't mean a lot. The people at the top are good sailors but they get there by going to pretty much every event that earns points towards the rankings. Other better sailors may only sail a few of those events in order to have time to concentrate on other aspects of their training and Olympic preparation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lolz a real Dalton of a result! Starts at #9 spends years in double digit late teens ranking then peaks to 7th a year early= supastarrrrr!

https://members.sailing.org/rankprogression.php?membid=37150&classid=61&typeid=3&disid=2

 

 

And in any case, ISAF rankings don't mean a lot. The people at the top are good sailors but they get there by going to pretty much every event that earns points towards the rankings. Other better sailors may only sail a few of those events in order to have time to concentrate on other aspects of their training and Olympic preparation

 

If an organisation says like rightly or wrongly, you get something from teakys desk for 100 posts on SA, then a very talented poster posts 120 posts on Woodun Boat, then demands they not only made more posts but were better formulated ones at that.... should the desk be opened?

 

 

 

If the Woodun Boat was made from a tree, did anyone hear the tree fall?

 

Was the tree in the Cook Islands or New Zealand?

 

Has Gantt answered this question yet? If so, he was wrong so choose the opposite answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, I made an error, her top rank appears to be 7th which she achieved in 2015. Her top placing in an ISAF event in the last 12 months was 2nd.

 

Sara placed 11th in the 2016 worlds.

 

Most of the 30 or so other countries would be delighted at Sara's performance.

 

The Olympic Laser Radial fleet is comprised of sailors who Sara has beaten regularly.

 

I raised the Cook Islands sailor Teau McKenzie, as she qualified the Cook Islands to sail in the Olympics (As Sara did for New Zealand), and will be competing in the Olympics - and good on her, I wish her well.

 

Can anyone understand the logic behind Sara Winther not making the NZ Olympic team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When looking at the results of an ISAF event you need to consider the other competitors.

 

2nd is a great result but not so good if the top ten ranked sailors didn't compete!

 

11th at the Worlds would carry more weight in the eyes of the selectors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, I made an error, her top rank appears to be 7th which she achieved in 2015. Her top placing in an ISAF event in the last 12 months was 2nd.

 

Sara placed 11th in the 2016 worlds.

 

Most of the 30 or so other countries would be delighted at Sara's performance.

 

The Olympic Laser Radial fleet is comprised of sailors who Sara has beaten regularly.

 

I raised the Cook Islands sailor Teau McKenzie, as she qualified the Cook Islands to sail in the Olympics (As Sara did for New Zealand), and will be competing in the Olympics - and good on her, I wish her well.

 

Can anyone understand the logic behind Sara Winther not making the NZ Olympic team?

 

 

Thanks for admitting that you made up that "fact" about Sara being ranked #2 in the world by ISAF.

 

I accept your apology.

 

I agree that most countries would be happy to have Sara as their Olympic Laser Radial representative.

 

Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino and Vatican City to name just a few.

 

But New Zealand is a proud yachting nation.

 

They have won the America's Cup. Not many nations apart from Switzerland and a few others can make that claim.

 

New Zealand want to win Olympic medals.

 

Apparently they don't think Sara can win an Olympic medal.

 

Who am I to question their decision?

 

I am not a citizen of New Zealand so I have no right to question New Zealand's decision.

 

I have never even attempted to vote fraudulently in New Zealand elections.

 

Although I understand some people do stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When looking at the results of an ISAF event you need to consider the other competitors.

 

2nd is a great result but not so good if the top ten ranked sailors didn't compete!

 

11th at the Worlds would carry more weight in the eyes of the selectors

 

Agreed.

 

I wonder what would happen if all countries had a selection policy like New Zealand.

 

For a start, the Laser Radial Fleet would be less than half the current size! I think that the IOC should be concerned!

 

(Tiller Man, I'm not so sure your trolling is so welcome on this thread as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilariously the Chef de Mission Kitty Chiller yesterday proudly announced how the 2 genders had almost achieved equality (or had achieved equality if you included the gender of the horses from the equestrian events) in the overall Australian team. Apparently she knows little about the 49erFX situation but as long as the horses are counted that's fine. What a horse's arse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting more women sailors should have been included simply to make up the numbers?

 

The Australian Sailing selection criteria are designed to maximise the medals per competitor ratio, so places on the team are only given to people that AS think might win one. They do not in any way appear to be designed to further the interests of sailors themselves or even the betterment of the sport as a whole. Issues like gender bias are irrelevant.

 

It's simply about medals, so they cherry–pick talent that others have nurtured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oz 49erFX situation sounds very similar to Sara Winther's non selection.

 

Is the Australian nomination criteria they failed to meet known, or is it a state secret? (like in NZ)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Rob and I don't think that the selection process is specifically against women. However, when you have a Chef de Mission trumpeting equality and SA choose not to send a 49erFX team its not a good look. Particularly when the crew in question qualified Australia as a country to have a place. It could be said that, since the selection criteria focuses on European Championships and and the World Cup Events only at Hyeres and Weymouth, the selection process is insulting to China, US and Australia, not the mention the rest of the world which also is excluded from apparently from holding major events. It make the sport look like a white, male European sport. And I am a WASP male saying this.

 

Gantt I'm not sure exactly what has been applied but I suspect it is this:

 

 

The following results represent Baseline Performance: a) a 1st – 6th place overall finish at an Olympic class World Championship, or b/ a 1st – 3rd place overall finish at an Olympic Class European Championships 2015 for all classes except for the Laser and Nacra 17 classes, or at any Olympic Class European Championships 2016 that is completed by 31st May 2016, or at the Olympic Test Event, Rio 2015 from 12th to 22nd August 2015, or c) a 1st – 2nd place overall finish at the ISAF World Cup events in Hyeres (2015 or 2016) or Weymouth (2015).

 

This is taken from:

 

http://aoc-rio2016.s3.amazonaws.com/files/dmfile/2016%20Australian%20Olympic%20Team%20-%20Sailing%20Nomination%20Criteria_FINAL%20DRAFT.pdf

 

 

There is a clause which allows for them to be selected for experience it but its all about the selection panel liking you and funnily enough all bu Sarah Kenny are white male Europeans descent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks OzScoutSailor. That's an incredibly tough standard to meet.

 

There are a considerable number of Olympic sailing medals won by crews who did not make that standard.

 

Not a very good selection method at all on its own - though in the wording is that it's a "base line" and the actual selection process sounds subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, when you have a Chef de Mission trumpeting equality and SA choose not to send a 49erFX team its not a good look.

Wouldn't that depend on how many male competitors are being similarly treated in other sports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, when you have a Chef de Mission trumpeting equality and SA choose not to send a 49erFX team its not a good look.

Wouldn't that depend on how many male competitors are being similarly treated in other sports?

 

 

Yes, I think that would be the case, definitely. I pretty sure that isn't the case with most other sports - for NZ - if the same standards were applied to other sports, then the NZ Olympic team would be far far smaller.

 

Also, the way the selection is handled is to the detriment of local fleets. With other most other countries, I believe (without checking) that once the country has secured the spot, then they send athlete - no matter what. Then it becomes a case of just being the best in the country - and others have a go. The impact to local fleets must be considered - also - I think should be part of the long term strategy for the health of the sport.

 

I'd rather see a small fleet of identical boats being bought and raced locally Olympic style, (just 5 would do it) and letting more locals fight it out - with the best being sent to the world champs each year - then Olympics - rather than the current trend of paying elite coaches. The cost wouldn't be much different - as the boats can be sold each year - which would boost local fleets.

 

There are a ton of schemes that would help - the current techniques are not working both short term from those crews subjected to controversial and extremely high selection criteria (like NZ and Australia) - and countries who don't appear to have a structure or even a fleet for some classes (like USA).

 

I hope the above makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With other most other countries, I believe (without checking) that once the country has secured the spot, then they send athlete - no matter what. Then it becomes a case of just being the best in the country - and others have a go.

 

 

And herein lies your mistake.Go back through this thread and read the news, there are a lot of countries who qualified for an olympic slot in one sailing event or another and elected to not send any athletes, passing the slot on to the next country on the list.

 

The system you allude to is in essence what a lot of countries used to do, holding internal qualifying regattas to determine the team to send once a berth had been secured. It would seem that historically the existing system in NZ, Aus, UK, etc produce a better chance of winning a medal than the old system (which in the end is the target and metric used to determine a lot of funding). This system does have as a consequence (almost certainly unintended) of damaging local fleets by making it tough for anyone not on a campaign to compete and of burning out a lot of young sailors on the way. They might start with 1000+ opti sailors in a country, and maybe 5-10 of those (ie, less than 1%) will make it all the way through. Along the way a lot of the other 99% will drop out of sailing as they no longer enjoy it. But it produces medals and keeps the funding to the NOC and local sailing governing body flowing, and that is what the 5-ring circus is about these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not wanting to see a return to the old system of sailing a winner take all national selection regatta. (Apologies, my earlier post was not clear - it's more about the way high performance sailing is funded). I'm keen to see the Olympic class sailing promoted locally. My personal preference is to see all countries use the spot they win. I believe that more sailors should be sent to the worlds to increase the depth of local talent - which is a challenge for New Zealand because of our geography. The current high performance team means all our hopes are invested in one crew for each class - the exception was Josh Junior / Andrew Murdoch in the Finn - and their battle for selection I believe lifted the performance of both.



But back to Sarah - I just believe the national selection criteria is too high - 11th in the 2016 world champs should be good enough.



What's the harm in allowing Sarah to compete? It just seemed to me mean spirited to not allow her to. Sara was self funded from 2015 - was that a factor? JP Tobin (RSX) had major issues regarding coaching - his view is that lack of support and lack of clarity lead to his withdrawing - he is now now lobbying for changes to the system - as are others.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were just about the money to send them, I would contribute as well, but it is not. At the end of each Olympic cycle, sports in Oz are judged by a complex equation that includes cost per medal and the number of athletes sent by the sport. Sports that do well get increased funding, sports that don't lose funding. Last time around sailing gained, while swimming and cycling lost. Sending athletes that have not made the country qualifying standard has a negative impact on the assessment, unless they happen to medal. In short, sending the girls risks losing funding for the whole team next time around, or, to put it another way, it would mean that the team has to perform better with them to retain the same funding than they would if the girls didn't compete.

 

The next issue is the effect it has on the rest of the team and on future teams. If you put in place a standard and then select those who do not make the standard, what message does that send out? The whole point in bringing in the stadards is to vastly reduce the amount of discretion the selectors have. I honestly cannot remember whether it was brought in for 2008 or 2004 (I think 2008), but before the standards were brought in, there was too much discretion used and this led to some almighty legal clashes (Beasho vs Nicco). Now, I believe that the selectors will rarely, if ever, use discretion over the stated qualifying standards. Even then, the selection criteria clearly state a minimum standard to be achieved before the selectors can use their discretion, and the girls failed to achieve that standard.

 

I think what some need to consider is the alternative to setting standards and aiming at medals. the first thing that happens is that team funding goes out the window. We then go back to the dark ages of teams having to fund most or all of their campaign. Back then, nobody had coaches who travelled with you. You had no medical support, met support, nanny boat etc. Many of the top sailors couldn't afford to campaign. Considering how other teams are funded, lose funding and you kiss goodbye to medals. If you cannot compete, who is going to even try. Simply, in Australia, lose the focus on performance and medals and you kiss Olympic sailing goodbye. Some might say "so what", but those seem to be the same people who are saying let the girls go.

 

I have 2 daughters, one who tried to make it in elite sport and the other who is still trying (and might succeed). In their sport, you either qualify for an event because you are good enough as judged by ranking or you don't go (yes, there are organisers wild cards, but that is different). I hope my younger daughter will play at the junior Australian Open in a few years time, but if she does, it will be because she has amassed enough ranking points not because she has travelled the world and played in all the ranking events. It's a tough life. While some seem to hand out "participation" certificates (which I hate), we cannot reward participation as equal to results.

SimonN - Interested in the topic but not posting on it as I don't live in New Zealand, so while I have an opinion I should not have a say. That said - and largely because you and I occasionally disagree re Laser - I just wanted to comment that your post here was insightful and informative. Thanks. We could use a better selection and funding process in the US and so maybe have some things to learn. Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like copying from the British whom the Aussies are currently copying...

 

Doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but we can dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that historically the existing system in NZ, Aus, UK, etc produce a better chance of winning a medal than the old system (which in the end is the target and metric used to determine a lot of funding). This system does have as a consequence (almost certainly unintended) of damaging local fleets by making it tough for anyone not on a campaign to compete and of burning out a lot of young sailors on the way. They might start with 1000+ opti sailors in a country, and maybe 5-10 of those (ie, less than 1%) will make it all the way through. Along the way a lot of the other 99% will drop out of sailing as they no longer enjoy it. But it produces medals and keeps the funding to the NOC and local sailing governing body flowing, and that is what the 5-ring circus is about these days.

 

Very interesting stuff Reht.

 

The most successful Olympics NZ ever had was 1984, which was under the old system. Having said that, I think Olympic sailing reached it's most popular point in the 1980s - so the success was possibly related to it's popularity then.

 

If national funding depends on or is linked to the cost per medals, and in some way that has lead to Sara Winther being prevented from going, then the system has a big problem.

 

Why do I use the phrase 'prevented to go'? Because Sara has all the funding she needs, was willing and able to compete with no support from Yachting NZ.

 

Just heard that the NZ golfing team was selected. World number 1 Lydia Ko was selected (of course!) - and so were Danny Lee and Ryan Fox. Danny has a world ranking of 43 and Ryan 185. I have nothing against either of them attending - of course if they had to meet Yachting NZ's standards - Danny and Ryan would not be allowed to go.

 

But back to Sara. There is no harm to NZ sailing by allowing Sara to compete, in fact the reverse is true. Also, it strengthens the standard of sailors competing in Rio - which is a good thing - and something that the IOC should be concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC *is* very concerned about the number of countries competing and International spread, so if major sailing nations only send their serious medal chances then there are more places available for the smaller countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC *is* very concerned about the number of countries competing and International spread, so if major sailing nations only send their serious medal chances then there are more places available for the smaller countries.

 

Excellent point - didn't consider that. I think only Brazil, UK and USA are competing in every class.

 

Wondering if there are any improvements that can be made to the benefit of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

. Does the 21st team get to go instead, or will there just be 19 entries?

Someone goes instead, not necessarily in the same event I believe. Unfortunately the link to the Qualification system on the ISAF website is broken. AIUI Nations have to notify their teams by June 1st, and if places aren't taken up then there's some kind of system for them to be reallocated.
Maybe between them the allegedly corrupt WS management and the price-of-everything-value-of-nothing Australian officals can auction the spot off to the highest bidder ;-) Thus nicely linking two threads...

 

 

Yes nice linking of two relevant threads :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i found good, that the barrier created by Geo restriction policies is now no more an issue. Its being resolved by these people pertaining the link. I found this information regarding the broadcast of Rio Olympics very much fruitful to connect with each and every game live online.. https://www.reviewsdir.com/blog/summer-olympics-rio-2016/

 

Seems to be interested and useful too as I am traveling tomorrow so I will get one soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get to the Olympics? Take drugs and join the Russian team.

 

https://isafcorruption.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/world-sailing-supports-russian-drug-cheats/

If that is your website and article, it is full of misleading information. Is that accidental, or deliberate? The reason why the decision to ban Pavel Sozykin was overturned was because of new guidance from the IOC. The reason why the IOC issued that new guidance is because the drug taken by Sozykin is allowed out of competition and that there is no evidence either way as to whether the drug was taken during competition or out of competition. The other reason why World Sailing made the decision, when advised to do so by the IOC, is because the ultimate decision is that of he IOC and this case will be reviewed by the IOC before competition commences.

 

The article also makes a really stupid statement "Drug cheating is fine so long as you don't get caught". Can you please explain how we know somebody is a drugs cheat if they aren't caught? ISAF (now World Sailing) has always banned people caught in drugs tests if the drigs aren't allowed at the time they were found.

 

Sailing is one of many sports that have allowed Russian competitors who can prove they are clean to compete. Unlike some sports, they have insisted that all those competing for Russia have to have been tested regularly in competition by non Russian accredited labs. To suggest that World Sailing is doing anything that many other sports aren't doing in reference to Russian competitors is both misleading and wrong and ignores the role of the IOC in all of this.

 

I have mixed views on this, because I used to be regularly tested. I hate the idea that anybody cheats this way in our sport. But, and it is a big BUT, even worse is the possibility somebody gets banned who hasn't cheated. there has to be due process and whether we like it or not, people need to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In this particular case, I think it is most likely that the test was out of competition, because there aren't any real olympic classes events in Russia, so if the test was done there, it is most likely to have been out of competition, in which case this drug is 100% legal. So unless there is evidence that the test was in competition, the person involved has to be given the benefit of the doubt or, in this case, at likely explanation has to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cash for gold shouldn't be what the Olympics are about.

 

 

I have news for you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Australian Institute of Sport has adopted a "Winning Edge - High Performance Strategy" that is essentially all about medals. If you aren't good enough to be a chance of a medal, you don't get funding and you don't get a start.

 

How the women's 8 managed to get a trip to Rio is completely at odds with the strategy, perhaps rowing has enough influential people in the administration to make a difference. They never stood a chance of making the final, much less winning anything. There are many sports questioning the "Winning Edge" strategy as it focuses on elite athletes and does almost nothing for anyone else. It has been a demonstrable failure with swimming, over promising and under delivering. The focus on medals means that is the sole criterion for success, so they have to promise big and hope the athletes can deliver.

 

As can be seen in the pool, pushing out personal bests isn't enough, you have to get a medal or you're a total failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be in favor of taking away nation's 'rights' to not send qualified athletes. The Olympics are meant to be an assembly of the best in the world. (Am OK with limiting the number per nation to one or two ads in many sports.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be in favor of taking away nation's 'rights' to not send qualified athletes. The Olympics are meant to be an assembly of the best in the world. (Am OK with limiting the number per nation to one or two ads in many sports.)

 

Those who aren't qualified aren't the best in the world, though, right? Best in the world is different to best in every country, unless that's what you mean.

 

According to the AOC funding is derived from grants, fundraising, licensing and sponsorship, so giving the money to an unqualified team in that context is too risky and wasteful. An appeal to emotion isn't a good enough justification.

 

The We want an Aussie 49er FX team at the Rio Olympics posted this a little while ago:

I still can't fathom the depth of arrogance, narrow-mindedness and downright stupidity of Australian Sailing formerly Yachting Australia in their handling of this. It looks like we will NOT be seeing an Aussie 49erFX team at Rio and presumably not in the 2020 games either?

 

The ASC gives AS $9 MILLION DOLLARS every year so they can produce an Australian Sailing Team that can win medals for Australia and inspire the next generation of kids to try and stick at sailing. They have failed in their jobs, the Performance Director should resign after Rio and the CEO should get down to a boat park and hear what is REALLY going on in our organisation, don't take your employees word for it that they are doing a great job, cronyism runs rife!

 

The board should hang their heads in shame, I know some are supportive of our cause but your inaction makes you look like a bunch of gutless wonders.

Seems pretty bitter. If you have been supported for 4 years but don't meet the qualification and aren't selected then why whinge? If there simply isn't enough money around then the bar has to be set high. I assume all teams are given appropriately balanced resources; is this not the case? wtf is the comment about 2020?

 

Can someone please explain to me in what way the 'system' is broken in Australia? What do the other teams who got to go think about the matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty bitter. If you have been supported for 4 years but don't meet the qualification and aren't selected then why whinge? If there simply isn't enough money around then the bar has to be set high. I assume all teams are given appropriately balanced resources; is this not the case? wtf is the comment about 2020?

 

Can someone please explain to me in what way the 'system' is broken in Australia? What do the other teams who got to go think about the matter?

 

1) That's not the NZ experience. Sara Winther (Laser Radial) had her funding pulled, and self funded for 2015/2016. She was not asking for further funding. YNZ, by not selecting her (she was clearly the best NZ Laser Radial sailor), simply prevented her from attended the Olympics.

 

2) By not saying that the system is broken, you are saying that funding sailors to go to world championships and other international contest is good for sailing, and sending qualified athletes to the Olympics is bad. That statement is not true. It is in this way that the 'system' is broken. It is part of broken system if the system does not encourage greater participation in sailing.

 

3) Most of all it is broken because systems that deny participation at the Olympic level is at odds with the Olympic charter. It's negative, and the negativity carries over into the sailing community, and undermines future Olympic efforts (for example JP Tobin of NZ).

 

The more I see information about the Irish system, the more I like it. Using their Olympians to promote the 'Try Sailing' initiative has many aspects about it that I like. According to reports, the Irish the "...49erFX crew claimed an Olympic place on the Irish sailing team by picking up the unused berth freed by the African continental selection based on the results at the 2015 World Championships". From this humble selection, they are sitting in 12th place overall - which includes a 3rd in the second race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seems pretty bitter. If you have been supported for 4 years but don't meet the qualification and aren't selected then why whinge? If there simply isn't enough money around then the bar has to be set high. I assume all teams are given appropriately balanced resources; is this not the case? wtf is the comment about 2020?

 

Can someone please explain to me in what way the 'system' is broken in Australia? What do the other teams who got to go think about the matter?

1) That's not the NZ experience. Sara Winther (Laser Radial) had her funding pulled, and self funded for 2015/2016. She was not asking for further funding. YNZ, by not selecting her (she was clearly the best NZ Laser Radial sailor), simply prevented her from attended the Olympics.

 

2) By not saying that the system is broken, you are saying that funding sailors to go to world championships and other international contest is good for sailing, and sending qualified athletes to the Olympics is bad. That statement is not true. It is in this way that the 'system' is broken. It is part of broken system if the system does not encourage greater participation in sailing.

 

3) Most of all it is broken because systems that deny participation at the Olympic level is at odds with the Olympic charter. It's negative, and the negativity carries over into the sailing community, and undermines future Olympic efforts (for example JP Tobin of NZ).

 

The more I see information about the Irish system, the more I like it. Using their Olympians to promote the 'Try Sailing' initiative has many aspects about it that I like. According to reports, the Irish the "...49erFX crew claimed an Olympic place on the Irish sailing team by picking up the unused berth freed by the African continental selection based on the results at the 2015 World Championships". From this humble selection, they are sitting in 12th place overall - which includes a 3rd in the second race.

I'm not talking about any other countries, just Aus.

 

I'm open to the idea that the AOC/AST selection system is broken, but no one has explained to me how.

 

The teams we sent are ranked 13th or better (4 of the 7 being 5th or better), the teams we didn't send are ranked 16th or worse. At what point were the girls robbed? You cannot be robbed of something you don't posses.

 

Funding is limited, the AOC wants medals because Aussie sailors aren't excited about the Olympics and need something to show for their spending (and the general public doesn't care unless the team does well), and some teams have a much better chance at a medal than others. I don't find the outcome surprising.

 

'Pevented from attending the Olympics'. Why does this matter? It's not a charity. From what I can see they want to put money into medals, not a holiday in Rio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seems pretty bitter. If you have been supported for 4 years but don't meet the qualification and aren't selected then why whinge? If there simply isn't enough money around then the bar has to be set high. I assume all teams are given appropriately balanced resources; is this not the case? wtf is the comment about 2020?

 

Can someone please explain to me in what way the 'system' is broken in Australia? What do the other teams who got to go think about the matter?

1) That's not the NZ experience. Sara Winther (Laser Radial) had her funding pulled, and self funded for 2015/2016. She was not asking for further funding. YNZ, by not selecting her (she was clearly the best NZ Laser Radial sailor), simply prevented her from attended the Olympics.

2) By not saying that the system is broken, you are saying that funding sailors to go to world championships and other international contest is good for sailing, and sending qualified athletes to the Olympics is bad. That statement is not true. It is in this way that the 'system' is broken. It is part of broken system if the system does not encourage greater participation in sailing.

 

3) Most of all it is broken because systems that deny participation at the Olympic level is at odds with the Olympic charter. It's negative, and the negativity carries over into the sailing community, and undermines future Olympic efforts (for example JP Tobin of NZ).

 

The more I see information about the Irish system, the more I like it. Using their Olympians to promote the 'Try Sailing' initiative has many aspects about it that I like. According to reports, the Irish the "...49erFX crew claimed an Olympic place on the Irish sailing team by picking up the unused berth freed by the African continental selection based on the results at the 2015 World Championships". From this humble selection, they are sitting in 12th place overall - which includes a 3rd in the second race.

I'm not talking about any other countries, just Aus.

I'm open to the idea that the AOC/AST selection system is broken, but no one has explained to me how.

The teams we sent are ranked 13th or better (4 of the 7 being 5th or better), the teams we didn't send are ranked 16th or worse. At what point were the girls robbed? You cannot be robbed of something you don't posses.

Funding is limited, the AOC wants medals because Aussie sailors aren't excited about the Olympics and need something to show for their spending (and the general public doesn't care unless the team does well), and some teams have a much better chance at a medal than others. I don't find the outcome surprising.

'Pevented from attending the Olympics'. Why does this matter? It's not a charity. From what I can see they want to put money into medals, not a holiday in Rio.

"Broken?" - It depends on what we're trying to achieve and why. If it's about a nationalistic medal tally, the system delivers results by selecting a very small well resourced group, from a very small, very well resourced talent pool.

Australian selection ignores the Olympic charter, De Cobertin's idealism and damages the sport.

This "focus on the few" strategy fails in most respects - alienating sailors who are unable to front the funds, driving parents and kids away by focussing on "competition pathways" that demand huge commitment and draining funding from grass roots participation- Australia has spent $29m on delivering the Rio sailing team. Far from being inspiring, these elites are increasingly seen as "untouchable" and their success "unattainable" - kept away from their clubs and other domestic sailors, the chosen are cloistered away in training programs and sent around the world - not providing opportunities for others to be inspired or learn from local competition against the few. Govt achieves its nationalistic ambitions of "top 5" on the medal count - couldn't give a rats about the sport, but gets to claim its invested heavily in sporting programs- the selection process is harsh - there are only winners and losers. Unfortunately the sport is one of those losers. And for the record- I'm a 3 time selection loser and remain heavily involved in junior development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about any other countries, just Aus.

I'm open to the idea that the AOC/AST selection system is broken, but no one has explained to me how.

Are you really open? Some of what I said applies directly to Australia.

 

In a nut-shell, the system delivers medals short term, but not long term.

 

Removing the elite from the local scene damages local sailing.

 

If funding is an issue, then actually, the cost of sending athletes to the Olympics is minimal, and less than other international regattas. The multi million dollar cost refers to the 4 year campaign, some of which is spent on competitors not sent to the Olympics. The actual cost of attending the specific Olympic regatta is comparatively far less than the figures quoted.

 

Not selecting qualified crews is negative for sailing in every respect. Perhaps the question should be how the non selection is positive for the sport of sailing? (Of course it isn't)

 

The 49erFX racing is close, anyone in the top 20 had a realistic chance at a medal with minor improvements. Example, France finished 25th in the 49erFX world champs (behind Australia) and is in a commendable 5th place overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Broken?" - It depends on what we're trying to achieve and why. If it's about a nationalistic medal tally, the system delivers results by selecting a very small well resourced group, from a very small, very well resourced talent pool.

Australian selection ignores the Olympic charter, De Cobertin's idealism and damages the sport.

This "focus on the few" strategy fails in most respects - alienating sailors who are unable to front the funds, driving parents and kids away by focussing on "competition pathways" that demand huge commitment and draining funding from grass roots participation- Australia has spent $29m on delivering the Rio sailing team. Far from being inspiring, these elites are increasingly seen as "untouchable" and their success "unattainable" - kept away from their clubs and other domestic sailors, the chosen are cloistered away in training programs and sent around the world - not providing opportunities for others to be inspired or learn from local competition against the few. Govt achieves its nationalistic ambitions of "top 5" on the medal count - couldn't give a rats about the sport, but gets to claim its invested heavily in sporting programs- the selection process is harsh - there are only winners and losers. Unfortunately the sport is one of those losers. And for the record- I'm a 3 time selection loser and remain heavily involved in junior development.

 

 

 

very well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all of this, but what does it have to do with the 49er FX team? I mean broken in the context of the team who wasn't selected and are having a collective whinge with their supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all of this, but what does it have to do with the 49er FX team? I mean broken in the context of the team who wasn't selected and are having a collective whinge with their supporters.

I'm not a supporter of the Australian 49erFX team.

 

I do believe that a country stating that you need to be in the top 5 (Am I correct?) is setting the bar too high. If every country did that, we would not see fleet racing in the same way.

 

1) Please explain why the 49erFX team was not good enough to go.

 

2) Please explain how that is good for Australian sailing.

 

3) Please explain how that is good for Olympic sailing.

 

4) Please explain why Selma Kajan, who finished 54th for Australia at Rio for the 800 metres, who was selected with a world rank of 64th.

 

5) Please explain what the harm was in sending the Australian 49erFX sailors to Rio. (Hint - it was NOT funding).

 

There seems to be double standards.

 

I've been watching NZ sailors meet the Olympic qualifying standard, who are not sent to the Olympics. Its striking that Australia has a similar selection system with unreasonably high standards - but is worse in that the bar is set even higher than NZ's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites