ISAF Regulations Were Not Followed

In order to facilitate decisions related to Olympic event and/or equipment, the ISAF Council has, upon recommendation from the ISAF Olympic Commission in 2010, adopted a detailed selection protocol for future Olympic Games, starting with the 2016 Games in Rio. That protocol constitutes Article 23 of ISAF’s current Regulations. The vote that took place at the 2012 ISAF Mid-Year Meeting to select between the RS:X and Kiteboard equipment options for the 2016 Olympic competition (“The Vote”) is the most recent decision in a chain of events at ISAF that started two years earlier (click here for a chronology of those events).

We are of the opinion that as a result of a number of irregularities over that time period, the conditions necessary for “The Vote” to take place were not fulfilled on May 5, 2012 and that the outcome of that vote is therefore invalid.

  1. Wrong Trials: The Kiteboarding Format Trials that took place in Santander were designed to evaluate the feasibility of adding Kiteboarding to ISAF events, not to select Olympic equipment.
  2. Incomplete Evaluation: The Evaluation Report that resulted from those trials should have included the RS:X.
  3. Wrong Criteria: The evaluation team failed to use the correct set of evaluation criteria in its reports.
  4. Unchecked Bias: The publication of the reports was too close to the Mid-Year Meeting to allow anyone to fully understand the bias in those reports and analyze the consequences.
  5. No Contract: The equipment contracts between ISAF, the Kiteboarding Class and Kiteboarding manufacturers were not in place in time to satisfy ISAF Regulations.

RECOMMENDATION: The ISAF Council has an opportunity to remedy this situation and proceed with this equipment selection at its Annual Meeting in November 2012. Since this would constitute an initial equipment selection and not a change to a previously selected equipment, and since the November 2012 deadline has not passed, the provisions of Article 23.1.7 (the “75% motion”) do not apply, and the vote would only require a simple 50% majority.

You may click on the individual links above for a full analysis of each of those points, or here for the full report in a single document.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s