IOC (was getting nasty)

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by Meredith Morris-Ba » Fri, 03 Feb 1995 03:17:48



Quote:

>   Did anyone know, by the way, that rowing will be a demonstration sport
>at Sydney in 2000 if it loses only a handful of countries from its list of
>competitors.....  It is widely regarded as the province of the rich,
>developed countries, and is on the IOC borderline as far as a global sport
>is concerned, which is somewhere around 60 countries.
>  Anything we can do about it?  

>RQ. (and I promise to stop being such a sensitive little flower, honest.....)

Thanks okay, RQ.  Everyone has tender spots and moments.  As for the IOC and
rowing, I have been hearing these rumors for the past two years.  I guess it
only applies to the summer games, otherwise bob sledding would have gone
away years ago... another point entirely. American whibbling...

Anyhoo...  It is my understanding that the IOC will yank the crew events if
they lose participation from seven of the countries claiming crew teams.
This has to  do with the cap on the # of athletes allowed at the games *in
toto*.  Seems bneach blanket volleyball and the triathletes want a medal
chance, so they have to cut some events to make room for the New, hipper,
mod events.

All politics and money.  Personally I vote they yank synchronized swimming
and archery. And that may happen as more and more sports jockey for the
medal places.

What to do?  Other then offer rowing lessons in Iceland, Zaire, (and if
these countries do have crews, my apologies) or any other place that does
not have a national crew team, we need to have national associations that
stay in the faces of IOC officals.  We need more TV coverage, etc.
Visability and popularity help keep the medal spots.  Sponsorships, TV
licenses and ticket sales support the IOC, and they will pout in events that
add to that formula.

OHMMMM    OHMMMM   OHMMMmoney.,......

mobabbb

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by James Lock » Fri, 03 Feb 1995 06:00:20

Quote:



> >   Did anyone know, by the way, that rowing will be a demonstration sport
> >at Sydney in 2000 if it loses only a handful of countries from its list of
> >competitors.....  It is widely regarded as the province of the rich,
> >developed countries, and is on the IOC borderline as far as a global sport
> >is concerned, which is somewhere around 60 countries.
> >  Anything we can do about it?  

> All politics and money.  Personally I vote they yank synchronized swimming
> and archery. And that may happen as more and more sports jockey for the
> medal places.

        Agree totally.  Perfect understanding of how things get done!

Quote:

> What to do?  Other then offer rowing lessons in Iceland, Zaire, (and if
> these countries do have crews, my apologies) or any other place that does
> not have a national crew team, we need to have national associations that
> stay in the faces of IOC officals.  We need more TV coverage, etc.
> Visability and popularity help keep the medal spots.  Sponsorships, TV
> licenses and ticket sales support the IOC, and they will pout in events that
> add to that formula.

        True, true, all true

Quote:

> OHMMMM    OHMMMM   OHMMMmoney.,......

        Wish it were that easy.  Perhaps if we ALL chant!  And look how
far the olympics have come...what lofty ideals.  I lived in Atlanta for
the last two years.  You wouldn't believe the incredible mess, politics
of every ilk, money-grabbing, finger-pointing, etc. (or, maybe you would).
I called ACOG (Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games) one day early
in the whole planning process just to try something out.  I -- after
being routed around their phone system for awhile -- suggested that
Atlanta do something REALLY different and REALLY new for their theme,
opening, and closing ceremonies:

        1.  No stupid mascot.
        2.  No fire-breathers, modern dance troups, pyrotechnics, dancing
                peaches, etc. -- just a dignified opening and closing
                that re-established the notion of sportsmanship, fair play,
                national pride, and focused (God forbid) on the athletes
                as opposed to politicians and local business and civic
                headlines grabbers.
        3.  Be sublime, I suggested.  Don't try to "out-fancy" Barcelona
                or Lillehammer.

There was silence on the other end.  Then a "What????"  Then they hung up.

                        Jim Locke

                        http://wsnet.com:80/~jiml/mrc/mrc.html

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by A.J. Pot » Fri, 03 Feb 1995 19:41:29

: Anyhoo...  It is my understanding that the IOC will yank the crew events if
: they lose participation from seven of the countries claiming crew teams.
: This has to  do with the cap on the # of athletes allowed at the games *in
: toto*.  Seems bneach blanket volleyball and the triathletes want a medal
: chance, so they have to cut some events to make room for the New, hipper,
: mod events.

I thought the new Olympic qualifying rules were supposed to sort out this
exact problem... If I remember correctly the object was to ensure both
that no duff crews got in from the established nations while trying to
encourage non-rowing nations to enter.

In fact it was because there were so many rowers turning up at Banyoles -
30 percent more than they had anticipated - that they set up the quota
thing. Although  I have sympathy with those in the 'European Block'
(including North America) who now have a harder time qualifying, it will
ensure that only first-rate crews get a look-in. And I wouldn't have too
much time for some, say, double-sculler from France who just missed the cut
and sulked that there was a doubler from Bhutan on the start line who was
patently inferior. You can bet your bananas that that suller would get
much more coverage in Bhutan for just getting there than the Frenchman
who wouldn't make the final and might get a few column inches in the
better newspapers.

OK, I didn't make that point very well. I don't even know if they have
newspapers in Bhutan. But I don't think we have to worry too much about
a selection of nations putting forward crews to the Olympics. As for
Iceland and Zaire, Mobabbb, well Congo (which is nearly Zaire) had a
finalist in the 2+ at Barcelona, and my old chum Asta
Reynisdottir-Geirrson is Icelandic, and National Champion of GB in the
2-, and Henley Champion in the 2- too! AND she keeps apearing in Magazine
articles back home for her achievements, which though fairly modest by GB
standards help to raise the profile of rowing in Iceland.

The trouble is, they couldn't row in Iceland if they tried. Keirkergruggen
trugsplock, as they say there.

'Spose it depends whether you think the Olympics should be a celebration
of world sport, or an arena for the very best. Methinks they can be both
if we are magnanimous enough.

Alistair James Potts.

(Back in business, back to unreality)
 -------------------
Trinity Hall and Cambridge University. And Scotland and other places too.

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by Rupert Bad » Sat, 04 Feb 1995 01:16:54

Alistair Potts said, in a follow-up to Mobabb:

Quote:
>'Spose it depends whether you think the Olympics should be a celebration  
>of world sport, or an arena for the very best. Methinks they can be both  
>if we are magnanimous enough.

The key question seems to be what determines the maximum number of sports
that can be practiced at one olympics.  Mobabb's post suggested a fixed
number, a sort of zero-sum game, but I don't see why this is the case? Well
money, obviously, but it's cheaper to play lots of tiddlywinks(or bridge)
than build a beach volleyball court, and I don't see that as a option
(oops, maybe Bridge is already an olympic sport, but the point is the
same).

And how can you equate the world's best beach volleyball team with the US
Heavyweight 8 (just an example, RQ :^). Tricky stuff!

Rupert
--
--- "Everybody knows I'm a rude boy
---  Walking the streets of dreams..."
                                      ---- Laurel Aitken ----

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by Clyde W Voigtland » Sat, 04 Feb 1995 02:07:44

Correct, mobabb--it IS about numbers.  As I recall, rowing
contributes ( (or as the IOC would have it, ties up) the second
largest contingent of athletes (track/field is #1).  Politics
comes in in that I don't hear anybody calling for a reduction
in track/field.  Money comes in because for many countries,
it's a lot cheaper to give an athlete a swimming suit and
teach them how to grin in synchrony, or a bow, or a pair
of running shoes, than it is to provide a competition-grade
shell.

There of course is an alternative--reduce the number of
Olympic rowing events--Ron Chen, confirm or correct this, but
I believ e that FISA is investigating this alternative.

New events will continue to be added to the Olympics.  Org.
Commmittees will continue to look for "hip" sports that
have TV-viewer appeal--$$$.  The concept of the athlete will
continue to change (my $0.02--once one goes beyond rowing,
the decathlon, the pentathlon, and soccer, there isn't a
lot of difference).  And just wait until virtual reality
really catches on!
333
--
C.W. Voigtlander

               Et clamor meus ad te veniat

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by Ronald K. Ch » Sat, 04 Feb 1995 14:01:55

And now a small plug for FISA . . .

For one, all those rumors about rowing being yanked from the Olympics
are a bit overstated, I think.  FISA having adopted the qualification
system to limit the number of athletes, the IOC has expressed
satisfaction with the state of affairs after Atlanta.  Anyway, that's
the official line from FISA.

And believe it or not, Iceland is a member of FISA. I can't put my
hands on my FISA directory at the moment, but I think Zaire
might be as well.  Even if it is not, many African nations have
recently become members, due in large measure to the efforts of Matt
Smith, FISA's development director, who circles the globe regularly in
order to diversify the sport.  Sometime he does this at personal peril
when he visits more remote regions of the globe.  (He was telling many
an interesting tale at the Worlds about his exploits.)

--

Ass't Professor of Law                Rutgers Law School, 15 Washington St.
(201) 648-5160                                             Newark, NJ 07102

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by Mark Rusc » Sat, 04 Feb 1995 18:57:37


: Correct, mobabb--it IS about numbers.  As I recall, rowing
: contributes ( (or as the IOC would have it, ties up) the second
: largest contingent of athletes (track/field is #1).  Politics
: comes in in that I don't hear anybody calling for a reduction
: in track/field. [more stuff deleted]

At least the track/field teams are made up of people doing obviously
different events. All the rowing events add up to the same thing: racing
over a 2000 metre course. Do many people outside the sport make much
distinction between the different boat classes? In the small boats
(the single and pairs) you can at least identify individuals which I
would have said is an important factor in improving the exposure of
a sport. The larger boats seem to be groups of indistinguishable
athletes all doing the same thing (I could also suggest that they
they are in these crews because they are not outstanding enough to
compete in the small boats, but I am an intelligent rower and can see
that we must have all the different boat classes:-)

mark at Furnivall

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by LEONARD VINCENT DIPLO » Sun, 05 Feb 1995 06:01:08



[stuff deleted]

Quote:
>in track/field.  Money comes in because for many countries,
>it's a lot cheaper to give an athlete a swimming suit and
>teach them how to grin in synchrony, or a bow, or a pair

                                           ^^^
[ditto]

I think it has already gone further than you realize.  It's my understanding
that archery has already been dropped on the basis that its four hour matches
were not marketable on television.  But have no fear, dropping one of the
oldest sports in our history has paved the way for the introduction of ground
breaking pursuits like beach volleyball.

I believe that you are absolutely correct Clyde.  Money and marketability are
the keys to any sports' participation at the Olympics.  As such, rowing may be
in trouble down the road unless it starts to appeal to a broader audience.  

Maybe we could change our image a little... replace our current national team
uniforms of singlets and uni's to speedos and bikinis; or even change the race
format to 'full contact rowing' with race settings like the Library turn at the
Trent or the Weeks bridge turn at the Charles.

--
=================================
Len Diplock
University of Toronto Rowing Club

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by Jay Feen » Sun, 05 Feb 1995 06:03:59


Well I would agree with Ron, that elimination from the Olympics is
exaggerated.  In a recent FISA Info issue there was a column on the
results of a survey conducted by the German magazine "Sport Intern"  
The survey was conducted world wide asking to lists the 16 sports
which would be considered indispensable to the Olympic Sport
program...

Athletics [track and field], Gymnastics, swimming tied for first
place, second place was basketball and third was rowing....[only one
point behind basketball and 2 points from first.

In terms of 'international participation' in the sport....there was
also a few more nations added this year bring the number to 94
nations [although the FISA directory only lists something like 80].

What is interesting is the quota system which has been taken up by the
sport for the Olympics.  As previously stated, it is only outnumbered
by track and field in terms of participants and that yes, the numbers
of athletes showing up in 92 far outnumbered the estimates.

The quota system goes as follows:

Men events   total # boats allowed
1x               20
2x               18
4-               14
2-               18
4x               14
8+               10
L2x              18
L4-              16

Womens events
1x               16
2x               14
2-               14
4x                9
8+                8
L2x              16

Now what is interesting is how do you fill these slots?

1.  A country first can qualify in the previous years worlds.
2.  Winning a spot from a qualification regatta held about a month
before the olympics.

Taking the chart above the break down looks like this:

Men events   total #   Slots from worlds  slots from qual regatta
1x               20        15                 5
2x               18        14                 4
4-               14        10                 4
2-               18        13                 5
4x               14        11                 3
8+               10         8                 2
L2x              18        14                 4
L4-              16        12                 4

Womens events
1x               16        11                 5
2x               14        10                 4
2-               14         9                 5
4x                9         7                 2
8+                8         6                 2
L2x              16        12                 4

Now to ensure that a representation of development countries in the
sport are allowed to participate the qualification regattas slots are
limited depending on the continent of the participant.

For instance in the mens lightweight 2x the 4 extra qualification
slots are allocated so that one entry is for the top Asian finisher,
on for the top Latin American finisher and 2 from the European
competitors [this includes the US]....mens 1x has it divided 1 each
for Asia, Africa and Latin America and 2 from Europe.

Hope this helps out with how the quota system will be
implemented...this starts in '96.

-Jay Feenan

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by Charles E Ehrli » Thu, 09 Feb 1995 00:57:23



Quote:

>Maybe we could change our image a little... replace our current national team
>uniforms of singlets and uni's to speedos and bikinis; or even change the race
>format to 'full contact rowing' with race settings like the Library turn at the
>Trent or the Weeks bridge turn at the Charles.

Or Olympic bumps racing?
How's that for a stupid idea.  I think that before we pollute our sport
with such absurdities, we would be better off pulling out of the Olympic
movement altogether.  No, I hope that does not happen.  I agree that we
should continue to promote rowing internationally and to encourage it at
all levels within each country.
But if the IOC starts to make silly demands, maybe we should reconsider
whether the sport will actually benefit by retaining Olympic status.

An interesting parallel to consider: the off-and-on debate over whether
crew should become an official NCAA (US Nat'l Collegiate Athletics Assoc.)
sport.  It is not currently, and the biggest argument against gaining
this status is usually the one about undue interference in governance.

Charles Ehrlich
Wolfson College (Oxford)

 
 
 

IOC (was getting nasty)

Post by USRowin » Fri, 10 Feb 1995 23:51:47

FYI, Zaire was not a member when 1994 began but Zimbabwe was.