Schoolboy error...

Don't worry, I think they'll all read the sailing instructions at the Olympics!

I'd say that was justification for not choosing the winner of a trials but selecting the most promising. If you had a choice of breaking a class rule (which has no bearing whatsoever on perfomance) or not sailing what are you going to do?

Originally posted by Graeme These are 'professional' sailors, being funded .......no excuses for not preparing at that level.  If I was a potential sponsor or considering becoming I'd be thinking hard about my investment.

Not in the 1988 example I quoted.  That was well before lottery funding when most sailors campaigned on an absolute shoestring, mostly using their own money. 

But to agree with Contender 541, yes, it did actually show the failings of the 'first past the post' selection system.  In that Olympic cycle we had both male and female world champions in the 470 class, both of whom had also performed exceptionally well in the pre-olympic regatta.  Unfortunately, in the trials in Weymouth bay neither pair were selected. 

In the case of the men, Jason Belben and Andy Hemmings had trained and trained at Weymouth so knew the sailing conditions inside out.  They went to Pusan and did not excel, nor did the female pairing of Sue Hay and Debbie Jarvis, who beat Cathy Foster and Jackie Patten (sp?) because of the tied halyard protest.

The RYA stuck by their selection system,.






Edited by winging it