O'ING: Global Growing Pains
A sneak preview of an article about to appear in "Orienteering Today":
THE GROWING PAINS OF BECOMING A GLOBAL SPORT
International decision-makers must quickly learn to assess issues on a global basis, or run the risk of damaging the sport’s long-term prospects, argues Rob Crawford*
Politicians, including sporting politicians, must always guard against the natural temptation of preserving self-interest at the expense of unity. The latest decision by the IOF to include Micr-O in next year’s WOC has motivated me to write the following article.
Allow me to indulge in the sharing of personal experience. Those who competed at a World Cup race in Leuk, Switzerland in 1996 will never forget the day. A sudden thunderstorm struck during the men’s mass-start race, eventually washing away a temporary bridge over a ravine used to get from the last control to the finish. The last third of the men’s field, including myself, was stopped at the last control and directed to the finish using a road bridge 1km away.
Some hours later, the official results were published and the last third of the field could not be ranked. A little puzzled, a visit to the event centre to find out why resulted in a lively discussion with the IOF Controller. I can still clearly remember being told by this person that, because the top 45 could be ranked (for World Cup points), the rest of the results “did not matter”.
Puzzlement quickly turned into rage, as I tried (and failed) to politely point out that I had not given up my employment, and spent thousands of dollars of my own money, to come and participate in an international race to be told that my result “did not matter”. My point was lost on him.
At times, I wonder whether such arrogance still exists in the orienteering world. Some readers may not care, but there is one word to explain why you should – “Olympics”. Orienteering has the Olympic dream. Personally I think the dream is too far away, and I will be very surprised if this happens in my lifetime. If it does, I will be very happy to be wrong, and eat my slice of “humble pie”.
Many decisions are based around the Olympic dream. We must make our sport more visible, attract sponsors and media, to move our sport closer to the dream. Annual world championships, professional arena production, and now Micr-O are all needed for this “progress”. I can see, and understand, this. But do the decision-makers understand the cumulative effect that all these choices have on the less-developed orienteering nations?
Why is this so important? To answer, let me refer you to the IOC report that assessed our bid for Ski-orienteering to be included in the winter Olympics. They state: “concerns were expressed over the low participation in ski orienteering of countries outside
Europe”. Have we learned the lesson this report gave us? International issues must be decided with more balance. It is not acceptable to continually make choices that benefit the strong orienteering nations which at the same time damages the ability of other nations to continue their own development. Another Olympic report published this year, relating to the evaluation of summer sports, listed 33 criteria that sports were evaluated on. It may come as a surprise, but it is not nearly enough just to have 75 affiliated nations and the sport on TV to become an Olympic sport. Under the heading of “universality”, here are some of the criteria sports were evaluated on:
Results of World Championships
Number of affiliated national federations
Participation by national federations in World Championships
Participation by national federations in Junior World Championships
Even the simplest analysis of this report can see that no matter if Orienteering has 100 affiliated nations; if only 40 countries are participating at World Championships and medals are won by the same 6 countries, the Olympic dream is no closer to reality.
Therefore the argument, in simple language, of “let us make the strong nations stronger and then worry about the rest” will not work. You may find, in 20 or 30 years time, “the rest” may be in such a bad state of affairs that the years of neglect will not easily be reversed.
The major decision affecting countries such as my own is of course the move to annual world championships. That has been a bullet to our ability to develop a high performance programme. I am sure our nation is not alone. Regular participation at World Championships is just as difficult now as when we commenced in 1976. The politicians will tell you that there were 37 nations at the recent WOC held in Japan. That may be true, but is only a simple analysis. Of more relevance is the number of nations competing in the relay, which indicates a significant presence at the event. In 2003: 37 men and 30 women; in 2004: 33 men and 24 women; in 2005: 27 men and 22 women. The alarm bells should be ringing. Will the New Zealand women’s team, 9th in 2005, be at the start line in 2006? The answer is not 100% yes.
The move to annual world championships is not the only example. Last year for WOC, we had an athlete available for the relay only. Unfortunately, our Federation could not pay the entry fees and the athlete understandably refused to pay the full entry fee (because the entry fee is a “package fee”). The organisers would not accommodate our request for a reduced entry fee for the athlete. Correspondence from the IOF stated, in part, “you will be happy to know that Council has decided to propose that the rules for all disciplines be harmonised with the new Ski-O Rules” (2 June 2004). Bulletin 2 for WOC 2006 has just been published and the entry fee is still a package fee; the rules have not changed.
Yes, this is only a small matter, but may I be excused for wondering how the IOF can make a major decision to include Micr-O in WOC in about 6 weeks, yet to change one line in the Competition Rules has taken more than 15 months (and counting)? Is this a symptom of the attitude first experienced in 1996?
The EPG report made the worthwhile suggestion that every 4 years the World Championships should be held outside of Europe. This idea is not new; it has been suggested before. Yet even if I believe there is the willpower within the orienteering world to make this happen (which I don’t), has anyone stopped to think how the increasing demands on WOC organisers (professional arena production, maybe Micr-O?) will affect this laudable aim?
This article should be viewed as an early warning. There will always be decisions on international issues where conflicts arise. The key to managing such conflict is to achieve a balance. Too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport. If Orienteering truly wishes to become a global sport and reach the Olympic stage, self-interest must be put aside, a greater effort made to understand the needs and aspirations of all affiliated members, and balanced decision-making that provides incentives for achievement by all, as opposed to a select few.
*Rob Crawford is President of the New Zealand Orienteering Federation and an associate member of the IOF Foot-O Committee.
THE GROWING PAINS OF BECOMING A GLOBAL SPORT
International decision-makers must quickly learn to assess issues on a global basis, or run the risk of damaging the sport’s long-term prospects, argues Rob Crawford*
Politicians, including sporting politicians, must always guard against the natural temptation of preserving self-interest at the expense of unity. The latest decision by the IOF to include Micr-O in next year’s WOC has motivated me to write the following article.
Allow me to indulge in the sharing of personal experience. Those who competed at a World Cup race in Leuk, Switzerland in 1996 will never forget the day. A sudden thunderstorm struck during the men’s mass-start race, eventually washing away a temporary bridge over a ravine used to get from the last control to the finish. The last third of the men’s field, including myself, was stopped at the last control and directed to the finish using a road bridge 1km away.
Some hours later, the official results were published and the last third of the field could not be ranked. A little puzzled, a visit to the event centre to find out why resulted in a lively discussion with the IOF Controller. I can still clearly remember being told by this person that, because the top 45 could be ranked (for World Cup points), the rest of the results “did not matter”.
Puzzlement quickly turned into rage, as I tried (and failed) to politely point out that I had not given up my employment, and spent thousands of dollars of my own money, to come and participate in an international race to be told that my result “did not matter”. My point was lost on him.
At times, I wonder whether such arrogance still exists in the orienteering world. Some readers may not care, but there is one word to explain why you should – “Olympics”. Orienteering has the Olympic dream. Personally I think the dream is too far away, and I will be very surprised if this happens in my lifetime. If it does, I will be very happy to be wrong, and eat my slice of “humble pie”.
Many decisions are based around the Olympic dream. We must make our sport more visible, attract sponsors and media, to move our sport closer to the dream. Annual world championships, professional arena production, and now Micr-O are all needed for this “progress”. I can see, and understand, this. But do the decision-makers understand the cumulative effect that all these choices have on the less-developed orienteering nations?
Why is this so important? To answer, let me refer you to the IOC report that assessed our bid for Ski-orienteering to be included in the winter Olympics. They state: “concerns were expressed over the low participation in ski orienteering of countries outside
Europe”. Have we learned the lesson this report gave us? International issues must be decided with more balance. It is not acceptable to continually make choices that benefit the strong orienteering nations which at the same time damages the ability of other nations to continue their own development. Another Olympic report published this year, relating to the evaluation of summer sports, listed 33 criteria that sports were evaluated on. It may come as a surprise, but it is not nearly enough just to have 75 affiliated nations and the sport on TV to become an Olympic sport. Under the heading of “universality”, here are some of the criteria sports were evaluated on:
Results of World Championships
Number of affiliated national federations
Participation by national federations in World Championships
Participation by national federations in Junior World Championships
Even the simplest analysis of this report can see that no matter if Orienteering has 100 affiliated nations; if only 40 countries are participating at World Championships and medals are won by the same 6 countries, the Olympic dream is no closer to reality.
Therefore the argument, in simple language, of “let us make the strong nations stronger and then worry about the rest” will not work. You may find, in 20 or 30 years time, “the rest” may be in such a bad state of affairs that the years of neglect will not easily be reversed.
The major decision affecting countries such as my own is of course the move to annual world championships. That has been a bullet to our ability to develop a high performance programme. I am sure our nation is not alone. Regular participation at World Championships is just as difficult now as when we commenced in 1976. The politicians will tell you that there were 37 nations at the recent WOC held in Japan. That may be true, but is only a simple analysis. Of more relevance is the number of nations competing in the relay, which indicates a significant presence at the event. In 2003: 37 men and 30 women; in 2004: 33 men and 24 women; in 2005: 27 men and 22 women. The alarm bells should be ringing. Will the New Zealand women’s team, 9th in 2005, be at the start line in 2006? The answer is not 100% yes.
The move to annual world championships is not the only example. Last year for WOC, we had an athlete available for the relay only. Unfortunately, our Federation could not pay the entry fees and the athlete understandably refused to pay the full entry fee (because the entry fee is a “package fee”). The organisers would not accommodate our request for a reduced entry fee for the athlete. Correspondence from the IOF stated, in part, “you will be happy to know that Council has decided to propose that the rules for all disciplines be harmonised with the new Ski-O Rules” (2 June 2004). Bulletin 2 for WOC 2006 has just been published and the entry fee is still a package fee; the rules have not changed.
Yes, this is only a small matter, but may I be excused for wondering how the IOF can make a major decision to include Micr-O in WOC in about 6 weeks, yet to change one line in the Competition Rules has taken more than 15 months (and counting)? Is this a symptom of the attitude first experienced in 1996?
The EPG report made the worthwhile suggestion that every 4 years the World Championships should be held outside of Europe. This idea is not new; it has been suggested before. Yet even if I believe there is the willpower within the orienteering world to make this happen (which I don’t), has anyone stopped to think how the increasing demands on WOC organisers (professional arena production, maybe Micr-O?) will affect this laudable aim?
This article should be viewed as an early warning. There will always be decisions on international issues where conflicts arise. The key to managing such conflict is to achieve a balance. Too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport. If Orienteering truly wishes to become a global sport and reach the Olympic stage, self-interest must be put aside, a greater effort made to understand the needs and aspirations of all affiliated members, and balanced decision-making that provides incentives for achievement by all, as opposed to a select few.
*Rob Crawford is President of the New Zealand Orienteering Federation and an associate member of the IOF Foot-O Committee.
Labels: orienteering
posted by Rob Crawford at 6:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home