Issue 101 - August 1997

Rush to defend the eight

Three proposals are on the table for reducing the overall number of competitors from the 606 permitted at the Atlanta Olympics to the 550 maximum set for Sydney. FISA's Council has published an analysis of the proposals and has decided that the Olympic programme and qualification system should fulfil five main conditions - universality, consistency, influence on national programmes and general development, compatibility with the world championship programme, and anticipation of future decisions by the International Olympic Committee.

The three methods of reducing the number of rowers in Sydney are, broadly:

1. Reduction in number of boats through the 14 events by 10 per cent.
2. Exclusion of the eight from the Olympic quota
3. The French proposal adding men's and women's lightweight singles and men's lightweight pairs to the events while reducing the number of boats in some existing events.

Applying the five conditions, the first proposal scores pluses on universality and consistency, minuses on compatibility with world champs and future decisions by the IOC. The second scores pluses on all but also records a minus as well as a plus on general development and national programmes. The third scores plus and minus on universality, and minuses on consistency, general development and future decisions of the IOC. Not surprisingly, the FISA Council concludes that it does not favour the French proposal, while it does not opt for either of the others.

The French president's analysis reaches a different conclusion from that of FISA, being cited as one of the grounds for Professor Masseglia challenging Denis Oswald for the FISA presidency (see Denis menaces Denis). Meanwhile, a strong defence of the eight and its paramount importance has surfaced from Australia. A letter to FISA from John Coates, FISA continental representative and president of the Australian Olympic Committee, states clearly that he does not favour the second or third proposal.

A second letter reveals that Coates has consulted Phil Coles of the IOC's working group on the 2000 Olympic Programme and summarises his response. Coles 'does not recall that rowing was strongly criticised in Atlanta for its lack of universality'. He says that rowing reduction is of similar percentage to other sports. He opines that the Olympic Games 'are for the world's best athletes and they must comprise the great majority of the qualified athletes in each sport', and that 'universality must be genuine and not achieved through soft qualifications'. He feels that by preparing for further cuts (i.e. excluding eights from the quota) rowing is more likely to bring about that change as a solution to the IOC's overall programme.

Finally, Coles asserts that rowing's position on the Olympic programme and its large numbers have never been seriously questioned. The eight epitomises that position 'and is the blue riband event for both the men's and women's programme'. He strongly warns against interfearing with the tradition by reducing the eight's significance. There is also mounting defence of the eight from the countries which have traditionally regarded it as the most important boat.

© Copyright Chris Dodd, 1997.