do the right thing

[Editor]

I have now seen letters on Sailing Anarchy’s front page from both sides of the keep it or chuck it argument. Of course I am talking about Laser, sorry the boat formerly known as Laser (apologies to Prince) Vs the Aero.

For a start, if classes like the Star and Finn, sailed by many of the world’s top sailors and with a history in the Olympics longer than your arm are not safe then what should give the laser any special considerations other than active and effective lobbying within World Sailing.

The Olympic Games funds, I am led to believe, around 70% of the running costs of our governing body. That same organisation, the IOC, expects sailing to be dynamic, modern, as close as possible gender equal oh, and from a television point of view, be exciting and as even as can be achieved – ie one design.

If reports are to be believed, at least one of the builders of the “one design” Laser Class have been building boats with NON DESIGN features. It would also appear that ILCA hasn’t really done anything constructive (except write a few letters to the offending builder)

I know they (the Laser) are provided equipment in the actual Games so all sailors are (in theory) sailing identical equipment but is that necessarily the case at their individual selection trials? I would suggest probably not.

ICLA is clearly in current disarray with at least one National Class Association having written an open letter to World Sailing concerned that the actions of the ICLA hierarchy does not fit within the constitution of the class.

When we race in a regatta, it is generally taken that the boat that finishes first wins.

I doubt if anyone could argue with that so I really don’t understand – if World Sailing really does listen to its sailors, including the ones selected to test the 3 or 4 classes being evaluated – how there could be any doubt whatsoever which class should be selected for 2024 or will the retention of the Laser for Paris join another of the growing list of decisions by World Sailing that appear to have more to do with politics than the long term good of our sport.

Our sport needs to move with the times as it often has. If it hadn’t the two handed dinghy would still be the Flying Dutchman and not the 49er, there would be no windsurfing and certainly no kitesurfing (we all make mistakes) but to keep the Laser while ditching the Finn would just prove how out of touch World Sailing were with their constituents by leaving no equipment for the sailor of above average build to be competitive in the event that provides them (World Sailing) with the bulk of their operating funds.

It may sound like I am a fan of the RS Aero but that is not actually the case, I have never even sailed one. I am however a firm believer in due process, and if someone or something wins/gets the highest score/the most votes/ they should get the result. Any other decision is more anarchical than this website. - SS.

 

[JimC]

The trouble is the scores are so mixed. The Laser scored higher than the Aero as a boat, but the Aero scored higher on build, admin, availability etc. By the time the next Olympic cycle starts the whatever-the-Laser-is-called may well have sorted out many of the factors that caused it to be scored low, and a rescore would have the opposite result. So if you are voting do you go with the 'better' boat, and trust the CA and new builders will get their **** together, or do you go with the scores as they are?

I'm damn glad I don't have to make that decsiion and don't envy those who do.

 

[Phil S]

Based on the US legal system taking 6 years to get at least a few answers to the previous legal dispute between the builders and the associations, its hard to see how once the lawyers get started again, the present dispute will have any result by the time of the 2024 Olympics. So how can WS have any confidence that anyone will be able to build and sell Lasers to the Paris Olympic committee without getting mixed up in the dispute or at least getting blocked by legal obstacles. So its inevitable that the Laser will be replaced.

What its replaced with will have more to do with the lobbying of vested interests rather than the relative merits of a few contenders. Based on previous decisions the deals between different factions is more likely to end up with a hybrid compromise which satisfies few and astounds many. With still strong lobbying for the Star, Finn, Match Race, Overnight Race and the gender balance IOC requirements, we are most likely to get an over night match race using Stars sailed by a mixed gender crew comprising people selected nationally in Finns (M) and Europes (F). 

 

[Curious]

The author's argument is fatally flawed. He says that World Sailing should listen to the sailors and therefore choose the Aero - but the MNA sailors were the ones who gave the Laser the top score for "athletic suitability" AND "performance" and said that it was "all around well suited for selection."  It is completely contradictory to say "listen to the sailors" and then ignore the fact that the sailors ranked the Laser on top. The Laser's lower scores came from the non-sailors on the panel.

It can also be said that being a top sailor has nothing to do with knowing what boat is practical, just as a top sailing administrator may not know how to make a boat sail fast. They are different issues requiring different skill sets; a national class president's skills, for example, have little to do with the skills a national champion needs.

The author is saying that the sport should progress, and that "progress" means moving to a boat that is about the same speed as the Finn, vastly slower than a modern boat like a Waszp, and with no basic design advances over some 1960s Moths.  He is also complaining about the 1950s Finn being dumped while saying that the 1970s Laser is too old and therefore should get dumped. How is it "progress" to advocate for the dumping of a newer boat while maligning the dumping of the oldest?

In saying that the Laser deserves no special consideration, the author has managed to ignore the fact that it is by far the most popular and widespread boat in the world, that it is by far the most popular and widespread boat amongst Olympic contenders, and that these are vital factors in a sport that struggles to fulful the IOC's Universality Criteria.

Finally, it's bizarre that someone who talks of observing "due process" can come to anything like a conclusion about alleged rule breaches from reading a couple of inconclusive documents released by one side to the dispute and said to be misleading by the other side. To be frank, if the author is a sailing judge it is a deep concern that he or she will put any weight on that sort of material - to do so is a very, very clear breach of the basic ideals of natural justice and procedural fairness.

 

[shanghaisailor]

The author's argument is fatally flawed. He says that World Sailing should listen to the sailors and therefore choose the Aero - but the MNA sailors were the ones who gave the Laser the top score for "athletic suitability" AND "performance" and said that it was "all around well suited for selection."  It is completely contradictory to say "listen to the sailors" and then ignore the fact that the sailors ranked the Laser on top. The Laser's lower scores came from the non-sailors on the panel.

It can also be said that being a top sailor has nothing to do with knowing what boat is practical, just as a top sailing administrator may not know how to make a boat sail fast. They are different issues requiring different skill sets; a national class president's skills, for example, have little to do with the skills a national champion needs.

The author is saying that the sport should progress, and that "progress" means moving to a boat that is about the same speed as the Finn, vastly slower than a modern boat like a Waszp, and with no basic design advances over some 1960s Moths.  He is also complaining about the 1950s Finn being dumped while saying that the 1970s Laser is too old and therefore should get dumped. How is it "progress" to advocate for the dumping of a newer boat while maligning the dumping of the oldest?

In saying that the Laser deserves no special consideration, the author has managed to ignore the fact that it is by far the most popular and widespread boat in the world, that it is by far the most popular and widespread boat amongst Olympic contenders, and that these are vital factors in a sport that struggles to fulful the IOC's Universality Criteria.

Finally, it's bizarre that someone who talks of observing "due process" can come to anything like a conclusion about alleged rule breaches from reading a couple of inconclusive documents released by one side to the dispute and said to be misleading by the other side. To be frank, if the author is a sailing judge it is a deep concern that he or she will put any weight on that sort of material - to do so is a very, very clear breach of the basic ideals of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Did you actually read the piece? Anyway it served its purpose if more people get involved in the discussion.

I actually didn't say any boat should be dumped, I said the winner should win. If ISAF (sorry World Sailing is just a marketing exercise) set a bunch of parameters across a number of factors and a boat came top, it came top. Don't blame me, blame the scoring system.

I am curious how Curious could think that the variations in supposed one design or the apparent frictions within a class could make it a healthy choice for one of our sport's most visible events.

I have read from a number of sources that the RS Aero outscored (using ISAF's parameters) the Laser and - assuming those sources are accurate - then that is where it should end.

Of course it wont as impassioned posts like the above simply prove that point. 

"by far the most popular and widespread boat amongst Olympic contenders" is a meaningless statement and a hell of an assumption. If you want to compete as a singlehander in the Olympics it is currently your only choice (radial for females and standard for males) that doesn't mean it is "popular" - sailors have no choice, it is the only choice for the lighter sailor who wishes to be an "Olympic contender".

Or maybe I am just getting too old

What will be will be.

SS

 

[IPLore]

Did you actually read the piece? Anyway it served its purpose if more people get involved in the discussion.

I actually didn't say any boat should be dumped, I said the winner should win. If ISAF (sorry World Sailing is just a marketing exercise) set a bunch of parameters across a number of factors and a boat came top, it came top. Don't blame me, blame the scoring system.  It was an "evaluation "  not a competition. No one is blaming you or the scoring system. Various elements were used to evaluate the boats. Those elements were scored to provide guidance to the voters on the merits and demerits of the various boats.  It was clear from the scores that two boats are suitable. The difference between the two boats will depend on whether you think the sailing characteristics or the logistics are more important.  If you had read the report you would have realized that adding the scores in different ways with different weights would give you different results....it provides guidance and insight ....it recommended two boats.....it did NOT declare a winner.

  You talked a lot about due process in your article without (apparently) studying or reading what the process was. The "winner" will be decided by a voting process.   As you say, the winner will win. If you dont like the result, don't blame World sailing, blame the democratic process  

I am curious how Curious could think that the variations in supposed one design or the apparent frictions within a class could make it a healthy choice for one of our sport's most visible events.

I have read from a number of sources that the RS Aero outscored (using ISAF's parameters) the Laser and - assuming those sources are accurate - then that is where it should end.    It was apparent from your piece that you did not take the time to read the report and this confirms it.   
 

Of course it wont as impassioned posts like the above simply prove that point. 

"by far the most popular and widespread boat amongst Olympic contenders" is a meaningless statement and a hell of an assumption. If you want to compete as a singlehander in the Olympics it is currently your only choice (radial for females and standard for males) that doesn't mean it is "popular" - sailors have no choice, it is the only choice for the lighter sailor who wishes to be an "Olympic contender".

I think you are missing his point entirely.  Factually, it is the most popular and widespread racing boat in the world, independent of its Olympic status. It is popular among hundred, nay thousands, of sailors who have absolutely zero aspirations of going to the Olympics. It is present in many hundreds of sailing clubs around the world. It is unique among the Olympic classes in that it demands perfection and athleticism from the Olympic sailors but it is an everyday class sailed by thousands of people outside of Olympic programs. Do they race Nacra 17s, International 470s or 49ers at your local club on a Wednesday evening? That is his point and it is a fair one.  I am old enough to remember the jubilation in sailing clubs when the Laser was selected.....finally an Olympic class that represented the grass roots of sailing

Or maybe I am just getting too old

We both are

What will be will be.

Indeed. It will be decided by a vote. Whatever the outcome you can be sure that it will be criticized.

SS

I have read and agreed with many of SS's pieces before.  I certainly enjoy his contributions. I hope he will forgive me for criticizing his current FP contribution as uninformed and poorly researched.

This was the first stage in a selection process. It was the evaluation stage.

The Laser outscored the RS Aero in some categories. The RS Aero outscored the Laser in other categories (and clearly the commercial shit storm affected the scoring). The evaluators recommended two classes, the Laser and the RS Aero. They did NOT declare a winner.

The next step in the process will be the WS council deciding which factors are more important; sailing characteristics, logistics and supply, universality etc etc.  Based on that, they will vote and determine a winner and that is where it will end.

RS is clearly leagues ahead of the dysfunctional Laser manufacturing consortium in terms of marketing prowess, logistical supply skills and overall management maturity. That will count for a lot.

 

[IPLore]

 I am however a firm believer in due process, and if someone or something wins/gets the most votes/ they should get the result. Any other decision is more anarchical than this website. - SS.

The voting is still to come. 

 

[IPLore]

SS:

Instead of depending on your sources who told you there was a winner, here is the exact wording of the conclusion of the evaluation from the evaluation panel:

"The evaluation concluded that there are two suitable items of equipment for the event: The RS Aero equipment presented by RS Sailing and the Laser equipment presented by ILCA."

 

[Wess]

I have read and agreed with many of SS's pieces before.  I certainly enjoy his contributions. I hope he will forgive me for criticizing his current FP contribution as uninformed and poorly researched.

This was the first stage in a selection process. It was the evaluation stage.

The Laser outscored the RS Aero in some categories. The RS Aero outscored the Laser in other categories (and clearly the commercial shit storm affected the scoring). The evaluators recommended two classes, the Laser and the RS Aero. They did NOT declare a winner.

The next step in the process will be the WS council deciding which factors are more important; sailing characteristics, logistics and supply, universality etc etc.  Based on that, they will vote and determine a winner and that is where it will end.

RS is clearly leagues ahead of the dysfunctional Laser manufacturing consortium in terms of marketing prowess, logistical supply skills and overall management maturity. That will count for a lot.

Plus one. Great click bait @shanghaisailor.  Beyond that... :blink:

But hey, I clicked and learned a bit about what not to click on anymore!

 

[Mozzy Sails]

SS:

Instead of depending on your sources who told you there was a winner, here is the exact wording of the conclusion of the evaluation from the evaluation panel:

"The evaluation concluded that there are two suitable items of equipment for the event: The RS Aero equipment presented by RS Sailing and the Laser equipment presented by ILCA."

Except, that sentence is saying that two of the four boats met the standard to be a Olympic class, but it's still true that the evaluation scored the Aero higher and therefore won the trials... the two aren't mutually exclusive. 

I agree with the critique above, however, and SS piece does seem to omit how the scoring was made up which contradicts some of the points made.

 

[shanghaisailor]

The voting is still to come. 

Plus one. Great click bait @shanghaisailor.  Beyond that... :blink:

But hey, I clicked and learned a bit about what not to click on anymore!

Except, that sentence is saying that two of the four boats met the standard to be a Olympic class, but it's still true that the evaluation scored the Aero higher and therefore won the trials... the two aren't mutually exclusive. 

I agree with the critique above, however, and SS piece does seem to omit how the scoring was made up which contradicts some of the points made.

I'm not too big to admit an error (far from it).

Apologies guys, I was clearly mis-informed. That's a couple of source crossed off the "Trust me" list. Back to the good old fashioned only from the source instead of 2nd hand news.

Whether RS gets the gig or not, it is perhaps good for ICLA to realise they are not the only kid on the block. 

ICLA needs to get their act together though for the benefit of their members, One builder that they have not been able to access to inspect and another builder reportedly building the boat to other than standard and one design specifications - that's if I can trust these other two sources.

Perhaps I should stick to where I have "from the horses mouth" information like SailGP or similar.

Once again, huge helping of humble pie, we all get caught out by bullshit eventually.

For the record, I am not a shareholder of, or employee of RS Sailing, in fact I don't think I have ever even sailed one of their boats.

Just checked - and Nope!

SS

 

[Bill5]

Finally - another thread on this topic....

 

[TwoRockKnock]

It's a great academic argument, discussing boat types, and the policies of WS and the IOC....but a decision away from the incumbent will inevitably exclude smaller nations.

In a small jurisdiction, every time there is an equipment change the incremental cost change is prohibitive rather than marginal - it's simply not possible to replace fleets. Given a smaller local Olympic Association, a smaller MNA and a correspondingly smaller population and business community from where to secure funding, the bulk of the expense falls on the shoulders on the athlete.

I would imagine that this concern is felt across the Caribbean and other small jurisdictions - Olympics and other major events are no longer attainable, realistic goals and sailing reverts to being elitist and a sport for the wealthy. Is that what we want?

 

[shanghaisailor]

It's a great academic argument, discussing boat types, and the policies of WS and the IOC....but a decision away from the incumbent will inevitably exclude smaller nations.

In a small jurisdiction, every time there is an equipment change the incremental cost change is prohibitive rather than marginal - it's simply not possible to replace fleets. Given a smaller local Olympic Association, a smaller MNA and a correspondingly smaller population and business community from where to secure funding, the bulk of the expense falls on the shoulders on the athlete.

I would imagine that this concern is felt across the Caribbean and other small jurisdictions - Olympics and other major events are no longer attainable, realistic goals and sailing reverts to being elitist and a sport for the wealthy. Is that what we want?

I would never class myself as wealthy and yet I have owned more boats than is healthy. My first boat cost me just GBP250, a real fixer upper but gave me hours of fun. Since then I have owned around a dozen boats and like many owners, I am sure, I gave up other 'life pleasures' to participate in my life long "addiction".  

It depends on one's aspirations in sport, do you do it as a relaxing (that's a joke if you are a racer)alternative to the daily or weekly grind or want to be the next Sir Ben or Sir Russell?

Once again the focus falls on Olympic sailing, and in any sport, Olympic aspirations are not cheap I will grant that but surely our sport is AND SHOULD BE much more than just the Olympics.

As Jim Kilroy, owner of a succession of mighty fine offshore race boats responded when it was suggested that you had to be rich to go sailing (and I paraphrase) "On this boat there is one rich guy, me and 22 ordinary guys, without whom I could not go sailing".

My own last race was a 250 miler just a few weeks ago on a Cookson 50 ( I doubt if I could afford a new set of sails for her). Yes our sport, especially as the boat size rises needs people of wealth but they in turn need those less financially well endowed.

Having said the above, I do agree with TwoRockKnock that sailing is difficult for sailors in less developed nations whether that development is measured as the overall but it is just as challenging for youngsters from the less well off areas of more wealthy countries. 

If one considers the level of development to be that of the development of our sport then I do live in such a country as in China sailing is still in its relative infancy, certainly beyond the provincial and Olympic teams and sailing is very much the poor relative to other sports where China has a much longer Olympic history with much greater medal success and like many countries the level of state support for a sport depends on the realistic chances of a haul of Olympic medals

I do not intend to take away from TwoRockKnock's post at all, it will always be difficult for developing nations sailors to be funded, whichever the class of boat and a class change only adds to the cost. It is a difficult balance, allowing more developing nations in to the club or encouraging the existing members to play more. In China they would say the needs of the whole are more important than those of the individual (again paraphrased) but not everyone would agree with that. 

We should remember, we are fortunate, those of us who can indulge ourselves in our sport at whatever level that is, and in fact whatever that sport is - there are those in this world who have to spend their entire life just surviving. 

Not simple!

SS

 

[dgmckim]

Finally - another thread on this topic....

perfect haha

 

[WestCoast]

I think I've been pretty open that I see both side of this argument.

I struggle with boats like Optis and Lasers that are so old.  I don't know many other sports that use old equipment.
I acknowledge, most sports don't have equipment that is the mainstay of the sport - and that cost $5-10k (compared to a new cutting edge tennis racket at $200).

That said, I fail to see how having the most modern and technically interesting boats at the absolute peak of the sport, is bad.
If we all just say, hey, we need to have the oldest equipment so it's cheapest... that's valid for community sailing or local regattas, no question.

But, at the Olympics?  Are we really going to argue that even small member nations can't spend $20k to get two new Aeros for their top sailor?  That's like 2 months of coaching fees and RIB Charters in Europe.

Is that REALLY the argument?  Seems rather silly to me.
This is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport - not a walk in the park.  It's supposed to be hard.  People who want Gold Medals will transition from 470s to NACRA 15s, or FXs..
It's not like the boat type really gets in the way - people adapt.

So, the Laser/ILCA Dinghy are awesome boats.  So if the Finn, or the Starr, or whatever.
But, this isn't about that.  It's about the pinnacle of our sport and having a technically advanced, challenging boat to sail that pushes the sport forward.
It's hard for me to see, as much as I love the Laser, how that boat still does that compared to modern boats.  Obviously, the Evaluation Committee agreed with that.

If the Aero is chosen, in 20 years, it will be time for another boat to replace it.  Seriously - it's not that scary or complicated.  Progress happens. Old classes might stick around, but, I'm not sure having the oldest classes in the Olympics is the best look for our sport anymore.

 

[IPLore]

It might be helpful to have a summary of what the Evaluation Committee liked and disliked about the two boats so that the discussion is factual:

 

[KC375]

I think I've been pretty open that I see both side of this argument.

I struggle with boats like Optis and Lasers that are so old.  I don't know many other sports that use old equipment.
I acknowledge, most sports don't have equipment that is the mainstay of the sport - and that cost $5-10k (compared to a new cutting edge tennis racket at $200).

That said, I fail to see how having the most modern and technically interesting boats at the absolute peak of the sport, is bad.
If we all just say, hey, we need to have the oldest equipment so it's cheapest... that's valid for community sailing or local regattas, no question.

But, at the Olympics?  Are we really going to argue that even small member nations can't spend $20k to get two new Aeros for their top sailor?  That's like 2 months of coaching fees and RIB Charters in Europe.

Is that REALLY the argument?  Seems rather silly to me.
This is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport - not a walk in the park.  It's supposed to be hard.  People who want Gold Medals will transition from 470s to NACRA 15s, or FXs..
It's not like the boat type really gets in the way - people adapt.

So, the Laser/ILCA Dinghy are awesome boats.  So if the Finn, or the Starr, or whatever.
But, this isn't about that.  It's about the pinnacle of our sport and having a technically advanced, challenging boat to sail that pushes the sport forward.
It's hard for me to see, as much as I love the Laser, how that boat still does that compared to modern boats.  Obviously, the Evaluation Committee agreed with that.

If the Aero is chosen, in 20 years, it will be time for another boat to replace it.  Seriously - it's not that scary or complicated.  Progress happens. Old classes might stick around, but, I'm not sure having the oldest classes in the Olympics is the best look for our sport anymore.

Westcoast...while I agree that on the surface continuing to perpetuate Optis is crazy, but they have an installed base of boats and people that is probably more important than equipment for the purpose Optis serve.

As to the Olympics  – the evaluation ranked the Laser as the superior boat – so picking the Aero would not be an improvement in equipment (it might be an improvement in all the headaches associated with getting the equipment).

 

[IPLore]

What is quite clear is that the issues with the infighting between the consortium of builders of the Laser has quite clearly impacted the outlook for the Laser.

Quotes like

"However, challenges and issues with distribution remain unresolved in many nations affecting many items of equipment and not only hulls"

"Challenges with distribution remain unresolved" 

"cooperation with all builders remains a challenge" 

"a long history of variations among different builders"

"The class representatives have acknowledged challenges regarding warranty and supply issues ...and have communicated to the panel that with the current market situation they remained unable to resolve this."

"Issues regarding supply of equipment to some areas of the world remain unresolved."

dragged down the score of the Laser in areas such as Access to equipment, Universality, and most of all in Quality.

At the end of the day, this is why the RS weighted score was ahead of the Laser

RS is plain and simply a better run , more unified business than the Laser consortium (who have spent that last 4 or 5 years fighting and suing each other).  Even though the Laser was voted a better boat in terms of design and performance, ultimately the quality of the underlying business supporting the class is important. The Laser became an Olympic Class because Ian Bruce and Laser made it a universally popular class. It may be that the aero becomes the next class because RS is better at their jobs than the folks at Laser Performance.