YouthSailing, the RYA and Catamarans

I don't think using Thatcher as a +ve analogy is helping you ...

People were training junior sailors long before the RYA was given a responsibility to train sailors, and in countries where the RYA has no such responsibility.

None of the current major Youth/Junior classes - Cadets, Optis, Mirrors, 420s, 29ers, Toppers, Lasers, Techno boards - have been created by the RYA or any other national body.

So why is the lack of a training cat the RYA's responsibility? Are you saying that cat sailors - those who often style themselves as being rebels, iconoclasts who don't bow to the system - are powerless to actually get off their butts and create a junior class? There are some big and powerful cat companies, why can't they all get together and agree on a Junior class?

Could someone explain the connection between a catamaran olympic class and an absence of a suitable cat for five-year olds? Is the RYA saying the Tornado should be dropped as an olympic class, because there isn't a suitable catamaran for children starting school? (Compare with Opies).

Maybe they are saying that cats represent a small minority of the craft sailing at national level and therefore should be dropped from Games. If this is true, the cat sailing fraternity could answer it by saying "hey, we've decided to do a lot of junior and beginner training for cat sailors so in a few year's time we'll be much more popular". Then the numbers argument would fade away. The French have lots of junior and Youth cats, they are not trying to dump cats from the Youth Worlds and Games.

Maybe the RYA feel (correctly or not) that the cats are not pulling their weight in attracting new people to the sport and therefore don't deserve to be treated like the areas that are?

Maybe they feel that there should be a logical progression, as there is in most other areas of the sport, from kid to adult? (OK, the decision to dump the F18, which seems pretty daft, does weaken this point, but there are possible good reasons for it).

I'm NOT saying these are brilliant reasons, but they are possible and not too stupid.

This is interesting. Let us have some lateral thinking. For example, is the number of doctors determined by the number of children studying biology at the age of five? Should a person wishing to be prime minister have a degree in politics? (Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry). Similarly, people can learn to sail in a monohull, and then migrate to cats later on.

In many activities early training IS important to later success. Science, music, politics, motor racing, etc are all dominated by people who showed early talent and /or were trained in a similar field (law for politicians, etc).

Sure, you can move across, as the success of mono and windsurfer sailors in Tornadoes demonstrates. But if you can move across from mono to cat and there is no reason to train kids in cats, then the cat should surely go from the Youth Worlds and be replaced by the more popular (among Youth in the UK at national level) skiff type?

More importantly,  I'm sure you'll find that kids do NOT normally migrate from monos to cats (or boards) or vice versa. Therefore if you don't have a strong Junior cat class, cats will always stay as a minority. Mono sailors may also be less interested in supporting a part of sailing that doesn't support junior training.

The RYA is behaving like a sporting body in the old USSR.
 
Or maybe they are behaving like a sporting body in a democracy? If they view sailors as voting with their feet (or with their bums on boats) then they will take the view that the majority of sailors have DEMOCRATICALLY voted to support monohulls, and the RYA is therefore possibly only following the wishes of its "voters".

Edited by Chris 249

The head of the US Sailing Cat Champs Committee agreed (publically, on
Sailing Anarchy on 30th May) that he could find NO proper backing for
the 25% figure despite searching for it.

As he (John Williams) wrote in response to my doubting the 25% figure;
"I'm right there with you on the 25% assertion. Since it was first brought
up on a conference call about two weeks ago, I've been asking where that
number comes from... so far, it seems only to have been pulled from
some pretty thin anecdotal evidence. I've not used that figure as a result
and have urged others to not rely on it to strengthen the case."

I've seen the same figure thrown around in Oz about 25 years ago -
again, no backing for it.The Y & Y Nationals Attendance Table shows that
cats are a fraction of 25% in numbers. So does the US Sailing association
membership figures. So does an annual survey of OD national titles
created by an SA reader. Yachting Australia's 2001 survey showed that cat
sailors make up nothing like 25% of membership.  Given the huge number
of people who sail big boats (about 10,000 in the RTI alone) and cruise,
the 25% figure seems waaaay off according to anything I can find.All the
numbers I can find indicate that 10% is unlikely, but sure, there SHOULD
be a cat at the Olympics and at the Youth worlds. I'm just trying to point
out that the RYA may not be totally unreasonable and therefore if cat
sailors took charge of their own destiny (like other forms of sailing have
in the past) then surely they could be convinced to save the cats.


Edited by Chris 249

Originally posted by Scooby_simon Chris, You mention Hobie / Nacra training boats – we do not know if the RYA approached these (or any other companies) for support before they chopped the youth cat squad, I wonder if they did so and the manufacturers said Nope, not interested, or if the RYA did not even bother.   But to some extent, why should the RYA bother to approach a cat builder for support? Most or all of the dinghy and board Junior classes were created without direct National Authority or ISAF involvement, why should cats be special cases? Maybe one question is not "did the RYA ask for support from Hobie or Nacra for training boats", but rather "why didn't Hobie and Nacra already create a junior class off their own bat, just like Laser did with 4.7s and Radials, Bic does with Technos and Alohas, Mistral did with MJOD, the Bethwaite bunch did with the 29er, RS and Topper do with Teras and Fevas, etc? Again, why rely on National Authorities to create junior cat classes when they have rarely (or never) created junior dinghy or board classes? Why can't sailors or builders create junior classes themselves, just like they did in other forms of sailing?

But why use the nationals tables -

Where else is there a better record that we can get to easily? Surely Nationals turnout is a reasonable indicator of numbers of interested and active sailors? Sure, many may just sail at clubs, but the same applies to monos.

by your example there were 1000+ boats doing the RIOW, but how many leadmines have national champs ?

756 - more than there are cats. And of course, the crew numbers on the leadmines range from 1 to about 14, probably averaging 5 or 6. I think when I calc'd it earlier this thread, there were 4000+ leadmine sailors at Nationals, versus some 400 cat sailors. There's little evidence of cats being 25% of sailors when they are outnumbered 10/1 by leadmine sailors, without even counting dinghies and boards.

I actually think the numbers are not that relavent.  There should be a Cat racing as part of the youth programme and a cat at the olympics.

Sure, fair point - but then why bring them up? And does it look good for cat sailors to be talking numbers that even guys like the head of US Sailing's cat champs committee says have no foundation?

How many Hobie 16's are therev world wide ?

Lots - but there is NO evidence ever produced that says that cats are 25% of sailing or racing as commonly claimed. Such wild claims surely do a lot of harm to cat sailing and its credibility.

I'd expect either side of this issue can produce stats to back up anything they like.

I don't think so....I have NEVER seen any bit of evidence to back up the 25% claim, and nor has the head of US sailing's cat committee despite his searches.

 
The situation remains that there should be a youth cat and an Olympic Cat.

Sure.....but let's base that on truth, rather than on numbers that don't stack up on the evidence.

Now I really must go to bed, I've spoent no where near enough time sleepinbg in the last few weeks.....  [/QUOTE]

Edited by Chris 249

These are the the minutes of the meeting between UKRA & the RYA on 8 October. I was not present but Nick Dewhirst (Chairman of UKCRA) sent them to me to distribute.

They will brief you prior to the meeting at Grafham

Cheers

Bob

MINUTES OF MEETING BETWEEN UK CATAMARAN REPRESENTATIVES AND RYA – 1530-1730 ON MON 8 OCT 07

 

Throughout the MINUTES, RYA representatives are referred to as ‘RYA’ and UK CATAMARAN representatives are referred to as ‘UKCRA’

 

Present:

 

UKCRA:

 

Nick Dewhirst (UKCRA Chairman)

Catherine Howland (Shearwater)

John Alani (F16)

Lee Davies (UKIDA)

Graham Eeles (Tornado Builder)

Grant Piggott (F18)

David Scarfe (BHCCA)

Chris Laming (Hobie parent)

Brian Phipps (Windsport)

Rob White (SL16)

Reg White (Tornado Gold Medallist)

 

RYA:

 

Eddie Ramsden (Council Chairman)

John Derbyshire (Racing Manager/Performance Director)

John White (Sport Development Manager)

Chris Atkins (Racing Committee Chairman)

Carla Stanley (420/Optimists/Olympic Steering Group)

 

 

 

RYA opened the meeting and stated that, in their opinion, the purpose of the meeting was to achieve a better understanding of issues raised and to review the relationship between the RYA and UK catamaran sailors.  Secondly, they wanted to achieve a way forward to develop catamaran sailing at all levels.  RYA further stated that although the RYA has its own clear processes of internal communication, they wished to develop a better method of communicating externally, particularly with the catamaran community.

 

UKCRA stated that their objective for the meeting was to ascertain how the RYA arrived at its decision to forward the Submissions (129-07 & 103-07) and to hope for an agreement to manoeuvre and re-submit them.  UKCRA further stated that they wished to discuss the Olympic selections, particularly the issue of multihulls generally, not necessarily ‘Tornadoes’.  They then wished to move on to discuss the subject of classes for selection at the ISAF World Championships and then finally move on towards achieving common goals and objectives between UKCRA and RYA.

 

RYA stated their Association remit as defined within the ‘Racing Committee’ as being to - ‘Protect and promote boating, represent members internationally, represent GBR at ISAF, influence ISAF policy in GBR interests and to deliver an elite programme’.  To achieve this, they had three roles – ‘Increase number of racers, increase frequency of races, increase enjoyment of racing’.

 

UKCRA asked if the remit and roles were on the RYA website.  RYA responded that they were not sure. RYA undertook to provide a copy of its Charter.

 

The RYA stated that their organisation had very much become a business and that decisions had to be made accordingly.  RYA went on to describe regional organisation and structure and how the regional representatives influence the Council.  They stated that main communications were via their website and magazine and that every January there is a Youth Stakeholders Conference.  Racing issues are discussed at a December Conference and there is a Commodores Conference at the RYA Dinghy how.

 

RYA continued, stating that, on the Racing Managements side, there is a ‘fourth role’, that of  -‘Producing Olympic results’ and that a youth programme exists to deliver youths to the Olympic programme.

 

RYA stated that their responsibilities cover a large area – eg power boating etc, therefore Racing Policy is delegated to the Racing Committee and then promulgated on the website prior to the ISAF meeting.  They stated that it is not always possible for Council members to have an oversight of the work of the Committees and working groups.  An earlier ‘Cruiser Submission’ had been withdrawn following a ‘Dispute’.

 

UKCRA asked why the current issue had come to light so late in the process.

 

RYA stated the ‘Submission Process’ requires agenda items to be with ISAF by 1 Aug for that year.  Anyone in the RYA can submit to the Race Committee who then decide if it is in the interest of the RYA and sailing generally.  RYA continued, stating that they were the largest Member National Authority (MNA) in ISAF with 100,000 members and that USSailing were second largest with 30,000.  They stated that they therefore had to use their influence carefully.

 

UKCRA asked if MNA’s votes and hence influence, were weighted according to size of membership.  RYA replied that this was generally the case since smaller MNAs may share seats when at times RYA may have two seats out of the 40 total.

 

RYA stated that ISAF Youth issues were covered at the January Youth Conference and that Olympic matters covered by the Olympic Steering Group (OSG).  They continued, RYA needs sailing to stay Olympic for funding in the UK and other countries plus ISAF funding from the International Olympic Committee (IOC).  Furthermore, Olympic sailing remained vulnerable if number of sailing nations and entrants fell, if cost was prohibitive, if value of televising dropped and if media appeal dropped.  Strengths for Olympic sailing included the Eco angle and the fact that female participation was in excess of 30%.  ISAF’s Olympic goals were to increase nations participating, increase media appeal and increase number of female athletes.  Therefore, RYA’s submission for the Olympic events was based on the requirement for ISAF to choose 10 out of 13 events.  RYA submitted 4 male crewed boats, 4 female boats – to either maximise ‘nations participating’ or boats that provided ‘maximum media appeal’.  The two remaining, the RYA stated, should be chosen from keel/male, keel/female, singlehanded/male/heavy, multi/male, multi/female or multi/open.  RYA further stated that, while not ‘anti-catamaran’ they would be content with whatever ended up in the two remaining slots.

 

UKCRA asked for the names of the members of the OSG responsible for the Submission.  RYA declined.  UKCRA asked who were the three members that RYA stated were Tornado sailors. When revealed, UKCRA stated that these were past not current or recent competitors and pre-dated the Tornado upgrade to three-sails. RYA answered that they provided sufficient ‘knowledge’ for the RYA to makes its decisions on this matter. RYA also apologised for possible misunderstanding

 

RYA acknowledged the good performance of multihulls, the fact they could be sailed ‘Open’ or ‘single-sex’ and that they were not susceptible to Rule 42.  They however stated that, in the balance of the 4 criteria mentioned previously (number of sailing nations, cost, value of televising and media appeal) multihulls were of questionable affordable equipment.

 

UKCRA emphasised that they were pursuing the case of multihulls in general, not necessarily Tornadoes, but in any event, Tornadoes were not necessarily more expensive to run than other classes since the major costs come with standard overheads such as travel etc.

 

UKCRA and RYA discussed the various merits of multihulls and other classes against the criteria used to select classes favoured by RYA and therefore forwarded by Submission.  UKCRA advised that, given the ‘black and white’ objective nature of the above criteria, RYA had a responsibility not only to its members, but also to ISAF and all the other MNAs to weigh the respective merits of the classes on offer, including multihulls.  UKCRA produced a scorecard matrix that had already been used to go through this process and that clearly showed multihulls come out as the top scoring class which best satisfies the requirements of the above criteria.  RYA admitted the scorecard was a good method.  UKCRA asked if RYA would therefore reconsider either withdrawing Submission 103-07 based on their acknowledged lack of research and consultation.  RYA replied that they were content that the ISAF conference would result in sufficient dialogue to ensure the correct classes were chosen.  UKCRA reminded RYA of their (RYA’s) earlier comments regarding being very influential at ISAF and re-iterated the requirement to go to ISAF with a full selection of classes that were well thought out, logical and could be argued for in any forum.  RYA were further advised that their ’content with what ever classes fill the last two places’ view would be misinterpreted by other MNAs as a lack of regard for multihulls and that they were merely passing a difficult decision onto another party and therefore absolving themselves of any responsibility should multihulls not be selected.

 

UKCRA handed out a selection of the comments made on the recent e-petition against the Submissions.

 

UKCRA asked if it was still possible for RYA to change Submissions prior to 1 Nov 07. RYA confirmed that it was possible to withdraw or amend, provided the amendments were not substantial owing to the need for one person to represent several countries. RYA refused to do so, stating that they would be guided by views from other representatives expressed at the ISAF conference. RYA also refused to identify whether they had a preferential pecking order.

 

UKCRA asked why multihull organisations had not been consulted or informed prior to the Submissions.  RYA asked why multihulls had no representation on RYA, UKCRA responded stating that they used to but the committee had been closed down a number of years ago.

 

UKCRA asked finally if multihulls would be included in an amended submission for RYAs proposed classes.  RYA stated it was too late but asked what UKCRA might provide research material to help RYA influence the ISAF conference.  RYA requested ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ to assist in the creation of its own ‘scorecard’.  UKCRA pointed out that this was an admission of lack of knowledge of multihulls prior to the Submissions and that they were therefore ultimately flawed and that they should be withdrawn with immediate effect.  RYA responded by stating they would still not withdraw the Submissions.

 

UKCRA concluded that it hoped RYA would withdraw or amend its Submissions, or at least commit itself to voting for multihulls, that it did not accept RYA position as UKCRA scorecard showed that multihulls met Olympic requirements best and suggested that the subject be closed as it had become clear that it was not possible to reach agreement.

 

Discussion moved on to the subject of the Youth Submission (129-07).

 

RYA stated their Youth Steering Committee (YSC) had a remit to support 2 handed trapeze and skiff sailing and that the RYA believes youth championships are all inclusive while achieving pathway to Olympic Campaign.  The Youth Steering Group (YSG) has a remit to select/de-select as required but struggles to find parents willing to buy boats of many different types.  The YSG uses boat purchase to steer direction.  RYA stated the requirement for properly funded youth programmes.

 

UKCRA and RYA discussed the run down of the Catamaran Youth squad and disputed whether numbers dropped because RYA ran the squad down.  RYA replied, a decision was made in 2003 to reduce the youth catamaran program based on its success at that time.

 

RYA asked what UKCRA wanted from them to re-establish youth catamaran sailing.  UKCRA replied that they needed a properly funded and RYA supported youth catamaran programme, from grass routes to junior and youth squad level, similar to the French program

 

RYA consulted with themselves regarding the possibility of a club based development programme but then stated that the shortage of clubs willing to take on a cat youth programme was restrictive.  UKCRA stated that although clubs lacked infrastructure, the RYA had a programme that was growing and successful until being culled by RYA in 2004 and that current youth cat success was a remnant of the pre-2004 programme. UKCRA called on RYA to re-build the junior and youth cat program and work on club based catamaran entry programs similar to Team 15.

 

UKCRA stated that for multihulls to have Olympic success, a fully funded Youth programme was essential, therefore both Submissions had to be withdrawn.  RYA stated that the original 129-07 Submission had been amended to include multihulls but UKCRA pointed out that ISAF would almost certainly only accept 7 entries and that one from the revised RYA list would have to be dropped.  RYA stated they were content to give the problem back to ISAF but that an option may be compulsory mixed multihull crews.

 

RYA then stated that they would consider further evidence for the Olympic issue and were willing to engage with UKCRA in the form of a joint working group to look at ways to re-invigorate  youth cat sailing but that the Submissions would still stand.

 

The meeting concluded in agreement that both sides still disputed the Submissions and the RYA’s commitment to youth and Olympic multihull sailing.

 

The meeting ended on time at 5.30.

 

Minutes produced by UKCRA. RYA offered opportunity to comment on accuracy, but declined.