SAMPLE ISAF SUBMISSIONS

 

 

Submission 1:  That the decision on the selection of Men / Open Events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta be re-considered in accordance with ISAF regulation 16.1.3(a), and that a run-off vote be held between Keelboat and Multi-hull.

Reason:
 
This submission will provide for a run-off vote that will allow Council members to make a specific choice between these two Events.  This choice was not part of the November 2007 "vote for 6 out of 7" process, when the votes cast for Keelboat  and Multi-hull were extremely close (23 and 21), and the Multi-hull Event was excluded despite receiving more than 50% of votes cast. A run-off vote had been held by the Events Keelboat, in which Keelboat received substantially less support that Multihull. It is therefore probable that a run-off at Council would have produced a different outcome.

 

Article 41 requires of Councillors that “in the exercise of their votes they shall have regard to the interests of the sport of yachting throughout the world as a whole”. The word “shall” is mandatory. Accordingly no substantial branch of the sport should be excluded, unless there are practical difficulties or specific IOC recommendation to the contrary.

 

There are none for Multihulls, but some for Keelboats. The Review of the Olympic Programme, August 2002 stated that “if the Executive Board recommends the reduction in the number of athletes and events, the Commission believes these reductions could be made through the exclusion of keelboat sailing events”. Many Councillors may not have been aware of this.

 

Costly Keelboat infrastructure was then also required for the Paralympic Games, but now ISAF has approved a range of purpose-built centreboard and skiff dinghies, so there are cheaper alternatives, more widely sailed around the world.

 

While letters of concern had been received, the Executive’s decision on lack of urgency was premature because no formal Submissions had been lodged in the prescribed manner.  Regulation 1.6 is only concerned with submissions. It is not possible to rule on matters that may or not be submitted.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

Note that if there is a run-off vote, and if Multi-hull is selected, Council would then need to vote on whether Multi-hull should be Men or Open.

 

NB This requires a two-thirds majority of all Council members entitled to vote

 

Submission 2:  That the decision on the selection of Men / Open Events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta be re-considered in accordance with ISAF regulation 16.1.3(a), and that a run-off vote be held between 470 Men and Open Multi-hull.

Reason:
 
This submission will provide for a run-off vote that will allow Council members to make a specific choice between these two Events.  This choice was not part of the November 2007 "vote for 6 out of 7" process, when the votes cast for Keelboat  and Multi-hull were extremely close (23 and 21), and the Multi-hull Event was excluded despite receiving more than 50% of votes cast. A run-off vote had been held by the Events Keelboat, in which 2 Person Dinghy received less support that Multihull. It is therefore possible that a run-off at Council would have produced a different outcome.

 

Article 41 requires of Councillors that “in the exercise of their votes they shall have regard to the interests of the sport of yachting throughout the world as a whole”. The word “shall” is mandatory. Accordingly no substantial branch of the sport should be excluded, unless there are practical difficulties or specific IOC recommendation to the contrary.

 

The Review of the Olympic Programme, August 2002 issued a general recommendation that “Similar events…..should be avoided”. Many Councillors may not have been aware of this. Council approved two Events for 2 Person Dinghy. The other is more modern, has greater broadcast appeal and is rapidly increasing participation.

 

An Open 2 Person Multihull would better meet all five criteria for selecting Events and Equipment in Regulation 16.1.5 (a) that duplication 2 Person Dinghies for Men.

 

While letters of concern had been received, the Executive’s decision on lack of urgency was premature because no formal Submissions had been lodged in the prescribed manner.  Regulation 1.6 is only concerned with submissions. It is not possible to rule on matters that may or not be submitted.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

NB This requires a two-thirds majority of all Council members entitled to vote

 

Submission 3:  That the selection of Equipment for Dinghy Events be open to both mono- and multi-hull dinghies for the purposes of Events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta in accordance with ISAF Regulation 16.1.2

Reason:
 
Following the Events selection by Council in November, a substantial branch of the sport will otherwise be excluded from the Olympic Regatta. Article 41 requires of Councillors that “in the exercise of their votes they shall have regard to the interests of the sport of yachting throughout the world as a whole”. The word “shall” is mandatory. Accordingly all major disciplines should be included, unless there are practical difficulties or specific IOC recommendation to the contrary, and neither condition applies to Multihull racing. 

 

When the selection of Events was discussed, Goran Petersson said “the IOC guidance was to achieve universality, nation participation, medal spread and media appeal”. A wide range of options increases the ability of the Equipment Committee to meet all the criteria for selecting Events and Equipment in Regulation 16.1.5 (a). There are both International Monohull and Multihull Classes available as Equipment for selected Dinghy Events.

 

There is no longer a conflict with Regulation 18.17.4 which specifies the Equipment that may be used, because that was amended in November 2007 to apply only to Regional Games.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

NB This requires a simple majority vote

 

Submission 4:  That the Hobie 16 class be suitable Equipment for Men and Women 2 Person Dinghy Events in accordance with ISAF Regulation 16.1.2.

 

Reason:

As probably the most widely sold, sailed and raced 2 Person Dinghy in the world, Hobie 16 is ideally suited to meeting IOC guidance to achieve universality, nation participation, medal spread and media appeal.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

NB This requires a simple majority vote, but once made cannot be over-turned

 

Submission 5:  That the Tornado class be suitable Equipment for Men 2 Person Dinghy (High Performance) Event” in accordance with ISAF Regulation 16.1.2.

 

Reason:

As the highest-performance 2 Person Olympic Class, Tornado is ideally suited to meet ISAF performance requirements for this Event.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

NB This requires a simple majority vote, but once made cannot be over-turned

 

Submission 6:  That the Formula 18 - Hobie Tiger/Nacra 18/ Capricorn be suitable Equipment for Men 2 Person Dinghy (High Performance) Event” in accordance with ISAF Regulation 16.1.2.

 

Reason:

As the second highest-performance 2 Person ISAF International Dinghy Class, this is offers the best combination of high-performance, global participation and one-design cost control.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

NB This requires a simple majority vote, but once made cannot be over-turned

 

Submission 7:  That the selection of Equipment for Keelboat Events be open to both mono- and multi-hull boats for the purposes of Events for the 2012 Olympic Regatta in accordance with ISAF Regulation 16.1.2

Reason:
 
This submission will provide for a run-off vote that will allow Council members to make a specific choice between these two Events.  This choice was not part of the November 2007 "vote for 6 out of 7" process, when the votes cast for Keelboat  and Multi-hull were extremely close (23 and 21), and the Multi-hull Event was excluded despite receiving more than 50% of votes cast. A run-off vote had been held by the Events Keelboat, in which Keelboat received substantially less support that Multihull. It is therefore probable that a run-off at Council would have produced a different outcome.

 

Article 41 requires of Councillors that “in the exercise of their votes they shall have regard to the interests of the sport of yachting throughout the world as a whole”. The word “shall” is mandatory. Accordingly no substantial branch of the sport should be excluded, unless there are practical difficulties or specific IOC recommendation to the contrary.

 

There are none for Multihulls, but some for Keelboats. The Review of the Olympic Programme, August 2002 stated that “if the Executive Board recommends the reduction in the number of athletes and events, the Commission believes these reductions could be made through the exclusion of keelboat sailing events”. Many Councillors may not have been aware of this.

 

Costly Keelboat infrastructure was then also required for the Paralympic Games, but now ISAF has approved a range of purpose-built centreboard and skiff dinghies, so there are cheaper alternatives, more widely sailed around the world.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

Note that if there is a run-off vote, and if Multi-hull is selected, Council would then need to vote on whether Multi-hull should be Men or Open.

 

NB This requires a simple majority vote

 

Submission 8:  That the deadline for Equipment in Regulation 16.1.2 be changed from March 15th to bring it into line with the eight-week deadline before the Annual Conference.

Reason:

This removes the practical and legal difficulties of Equipment decisions, while the Events in which they may be used may still be subject to appeal under Regulation 16.1.3.

 

Inequitable treatment of Events is also avoided. Women Keelboat Match Racing will then not be given a special exception, because this will then be equally available for candidates for Olympic selection in all other Events.

 

This matter is urgent because the deadline for decisions on Equipment is imminent and it would be irrational to make such decisions without final decisions on the Events in which the Equipment is to be used.

 

NB This requires a simple majority vote