British Rowing’s€¦ · lightweight rowing events and we have now seen South Africa win gold in LM4- in 2012 and, in our lightweight finals, some of the closest and most exciting

British Rowing’s Submission on FISA Principles November 2015

1

Possible Governance Changes 1. British Rowing is in favour of the FISA Council remaining as specialists and not

representatives of geographic regions, federations or specific disciplines. We would also suggest that FISA considers whether it would be beneficial to the organisation and sport if the Executive Board was drawn from a separate group of people, independent of the Commissions, whose primary focus would be supporting the International Federation (IF) and staff at a strategic level. This Board could be part elected and part appointed/co-opted and include skills-based independent, or co-opted members, with specific experience. These independent members should have a maximum number of terms. This would leave the Commission Chairs free to concentrate on the work of their Commissions.

2. We support enhancing the links between the confederations and FISA and would suggest that the countries in each respective region elect the representatives of the confederations, in line with the European Board of Management structure.

3. Any change to help improve and encourage the gender balance in National Federations

(NFs) is welcomed. For example, you have suggested that NFs would only be entitled to three votes at Congress if they had not only met the usual criteria of sending a minimum number of crews to major championships throughout the cycle, but also that those crews must include both genders. We support this suggestion. Another suggestion that has been made, and something we would also support, would be that those nations entitled to send three delegates must send both male and female genders in their delegation to Congress if they wish to fill their quota.

4. We would welcome discussion about whether fixed terms of office should apply for

some, or all, voluntary posts in FISA. This is a clearly a topical subject given the focus on governance at both an international and domestic level and would ensure we have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency and good governance. The move to re-appoint commissions when the Chair of that commission is elected every four years is welcomed. However, there is still a tendency for incumbent Chairs to be automatically re-elected, uncontested, and in some organisations this can lead to institutionalisation, where everyone thinks the same way. Bringing in new people and moving people around can help innovation by bringing fresh thoughts and perspectives.

5. Currently the changes to the FISA Constitution can only happen in the Extraordinary

Congress after the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The IOC’s Agenda 2020 and with the IOC Executive ultimately responsible for selecting (or approving) the events for inclusion three years before the Games, this current arrangement may be problematic to NFs. We would welcome a discussion about whether it is possible to agree our own rules/constitutional changes prior to the Olympic and Paralympic Games cycle in which they become effective, so that athletes, coaches, NFs and, as importantly, national funding partners know what rule changes there may be, well in advance.

Possible Rule Changes for 2017 1. In order to ensure a more equal spread of resources within NFs there should be equal

opportunities (i.e. events, and where appropriate quotas) for male and female rowers at all championships and at all levels. The current situation serves to reinforce the imbalance in resources and culture that exists at all levels of our sport.

2

2. Whilst we understand the need for rules to prevent athletes nation-hopping, you will be aware there is still an issue with the ruling applying to Junior World Championship level. We would support a review of this ruling so that young people with dual nationalities growing up in countries such as Northern Ireland can choose which nation they represent once they have left school and are no longer dependent on their parent’s place of residence.

3. The area where British Rowing would like to see most change is in the para-rowing

events. We believe it is critical that para-rowing retains its position as a Paralympic sport and that we continue to integrate para-rowing into the FISA World Championship programme. First and foremost, we strongly support the proposed change to the distance in race length to 2000m to enable the para-rowing events to be given a central place in our World Championships programme and give them the same field of play as their able-bodied counterparts.

4. We do not support further changes to the strapping rules at this time. The

implementation of these rules has much improved, although we should still be vigilant about consistency of application. We believe the strapping rules should be left to bed-in for a while and reviewed at a later date once any changes to classification have been reviewed and implemented.

5. We believe that there needs to be a proportionate balance between the principles of

universality, a classification system that caters for those with severe disabilities, and ensuring that nations can find athletes to compete in appropriate boat types. This balance will need careful consideration.

6. Appendix 1details British Rowing’s responses to each question in the three ‘para-rowing’

newsletters circulated earlier this month. Appendix 2 includes British Rowing’s proposal in this area submitted in January 2014.

Proposed Event Programme Principles 1. As the IOC moves to a system of selecting events rather than sports, rowing need to be

building strength and depth in all rowing disciplines, thereby promoting the sport as one which has diversity and choice for a broader range of participant, competitor and spectator. Such a move must include the further development of opportunities in beach sprints, coastal rowing, indoor rowing and possible new formats, as well as our traditionally non-Olympic boat classes. In light of Agenda 2020, all disciplines could be potential future Olympic events.

2. Related to diversity and spectator engagement, the presentation of our sport can and should be further improved. Rowing, with all its disciplines, is an exciting sport to watch, if you know what you are watching. However, the general public are not always aware of what it takes to win, or how hard our athletes train and race. Our sport needs to be more entertaining to the viewer and must have greater appeal to the general sports fan. We need more high profile events throughout the year and our athletes to be household names across the world. We need to be able to convey to the viewer what is happening inside the boat and offer the spectator greater insight into our sport as many others sports are now doing (F1 being an extreme example). The development of micro-cameras, data collection and transmission technology is now advanced and relatively available. We must use this while also looking at the way we distinguish

3

between crews (e.g. coloured kit and/or boats) and dramatically improve the sports broadcasting appeal and experience.

3. British Rowing recognises the need to ensure that rowing remains a core Olympic sport and strongly supports FISA in maintaining this position. We believe that FISA must move immediately to equal medals for men and women and equal participation at the Olympic Games.

4. It is important that we do not lose the non-Olympic boat classes from the World Championships, and in order to do this we believe that we should promote all boat classes equally at the FISA World Championships including non-Olympic and Paralympic boat classes. There should be no separation by having different finals days which gives the impression of certain boat classes having greater value than others. A change to 2,000m for the para-rowing crews will help with this integration.

5. British Rowing acknowledges and supports the fact that our sport is a strength and

endurance sport, and this unique blend should be retained. We believe that the 2000m Olympic distance should not be held sacred if it has a significant impact on the cost and availability of facilities for host nations. Some work needs to be done to establish what the minimum distance might be for a strength and endurance sport and so that advice can be provided to those inevitably wishing to build new courses to a shorter (and cheaper) distance.

6. British Rowing would encourage FISA to try new and innovative formats and distances

elsewhere (as already tested at YOG, other national sprint races and at the Commonwealth Regatta) to increase popularity of the sport. However there is no strong support within British Rowing to move away from the current 2000m (or thereabouts) format for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is worth noting that British Rowing does not support the argument that shorter distances will encourage doping as performance enhancing substances are available that enhance both strength and endurance sport equally. While consideration needs to be given to how FISA will support clean sport across all disciplines the threat of doping should not be a determining factor against shorter formats.

7. Doubling up, in particular into the 8+, would allow FISA/IOC to cut the number of

athletes and/or increase the number of nations participating. However there has been some negative media around sports such as swimming where it is possible to win multiple medals, and runs contrary to our arguments for the unique nature of the rowing competition and the physiology of the rower. Therefore, this will require careful consideration.

8. We believe that fairness is a key principle of our sport and whilst we cannot guarantee

perfect conditions at all times, as an outdoor sport we should work to try and ensure safe and fair conditions for athletes. The number of lanes could be flexible as long as it provides suitable competition and opportunities to ensure the fastest crews are those that win medals. We would support the retention of six racing lanes.

9. The Olympic, and the Paralympic, Regatta should showcase the very best crews from

around the world and ensure the fastest crews are able to race for medals in the final. The current system of qualification may need some refining but has been tried and tested over many cycles and would appear to result in the top crews generally making the finals at the Games. Further increasing the number of small boats may increase universality but we need to be cautious about its impact on the quality of competition.

4

10. Media and broadcasting coverage is an increasingly important and vital factor. With regards to the timings and number of days of finals at Major Events, there will always be potential for compromise if we wish to ensure rowing is well covered by the media. This is an area where FISA have been proactive as well as sensitive to the athletes. We would support the current four final days and the continued work to increase the profile of the sport. We would also encourage greater dialogue with past and existing athletes to better understand what constraints legitimately exist in presenting the sport and what existing constraints can be overcome (for example the use of drones and the potential for cameras on boats).

11. There is some conflicting evidence about the introduction of lightweight events and its

impact on universality. However it is clear that there are nations that rely on the lightweight boat classes and are more competitive in these classes than in the openweight classes. The IOC (Exec Board, Atlanta, March 1993) acknowledged that it would take at least until 2000 for Asian and African countries to reach semi-finals in lightweight rowing events and we have now seen South Africa win gold in LM4- in 2012 and, in our lightweight finals, some of the closest and most exciting racing. Other non-traditional rowing nations are now beginning to make significant steps in the lightweight classes.

12. We believe that the variety of boat types and disciplines (sculling and sweep) adds

variety to the Olympic Regatta, and allows a degree of technical and physiological specialisation since all athletes compete over the one distance. We believe there is a case (for presentational and media reasons) for not repeating the boat type between lightweight and openweight. We also believe that we should strive for a balance – or symmetry - between men’s and women’s crews across each discipline and boat type, which will encourage equality in allocation of resources and should ultimately help promote entries in women’s events.

13. Mixed gender events happen already in rowing around the world and have done so for

many years. However, other than at Paralympic Games, they are not generally taken seriously. One concern is whether mixed crews may have an impact on participation in some countries where men and women training together may not be acceptable for cultural or religious reasons. In our experience in Britain, the mixed gender boats have been a difficult aspect in selecting and developing our Paralympic crews.

14. The number of days that the World Championships programme takes makes this an

expensive event to host. It would be worth FISA considering ways of reducing some of the overheads by, for example, holding another rowing event alongside to provide revenue (as triathlon does with a masters’ event at the same time) or working with other IFs such as canoeing or triathlon to agree major events within a few days of one another.

5

Appendix 1 – British Rowing Response to FISA Para-Rowing Newsletters 2 November 2015

x Visually Impaired Goggles x Strapping for AS Para-rowers x Minimal Impairment in the LTAMix4+ x Minimal Impairments

3 November 2015

x Classification Studies x Classification Workshop

9 November 2015

x 1000m Race Distance x LTAMix2x

Underlying Principles We believe that there are two underlying principles that should guide future changes to Para-rowing, these are:

1. that Para-rowing remains a Paralympic sport and strengthens its position within the IPC acknowledging IPC’s emphasis on Universality, where each sport has representation from all five continents and athletes compete in attractive, high quality, easy to understand competition with an appropriate gender and disability balance.

2. that Rowing retains its position as a sport with an integrated World Championships programme and where possible additional international regattas become integrated. In order to achieve this a move to 2000m in line with the Olympic distance is fundamental.

In answering the questions posed in this series of newsletters these two principles have been considered. • Visually Impaired Goggles – British Rowing would support this change. • Strapping for AS Para-Rowers – British Rowing would not support this wording change: At the recent WRCs FISA’s good work meant that all of the AS rowers were abiding by the rules and there was minimal discussion around this topic in the boating area and during racing. The proposed new wording removes the requirement for people to actually ‘wear’ the chest strap and also mean the back of the seat height would become deregulated so long as it reaches the lumbar region. This would bring about a very significant change in some rowers' functional movements so unless this is accompanied with a change in classification it could significantly change the AS1x event. In order to prevent this classification must be looked at before significant strapping changes are made. Until there is a greater understanding of the implications of the proposed change FISA should stick with the rules that may be longwinded but are currently understood and work. • Minimal Impairments in the LTAMix 4+ - British Rowing would not support any additional regulations as these make it harder for a nation to boat a crew.

6

In particular there is no evidence to support why this proposal is needed/what it would achieve. It should be noted that both of the two leading LTAMix4+s at the WRC (USA and GBR) had 20 point equivalent rowers in their crews. (USA included a trans-tibia amputee). Whilst recognizing the IPC’s desire to promote high support needs athletes this proposal might have a seriously detrimental effect on the number of nations, and continents, competing in the LTAMx4+ event. Rowing already has some significant impairments in the AS and TA events and we could look at ways to promote and increase this sport class. • Minimal Impairments – British Rowing would support research to investigate the minimal impairment criteria for all sport classes and to ensure that they are rowing specific and hence will support the Task Force initiative. • British Rowing would support the creation of a classification task force and will nominate a coach with experience of coaching TA and AS rowers to be considered for this initiative. • Information gathered from this task force should be used to inform changes to both classification and AS strapping regulations rather than de-regulate strapping wording before fully understanding the implications of any change. • British Rowing is running a National level classification workshop at its own cost in November 2015. • GBRT [British Rowing] would support the race distance increasing to align with Olympic events (currently 2000m) as this is essential if rowing is to remain an integrated sport. • GBRT [British Rowing] would not support changing the boat types to ASMix2x and TA1x for the following reasons:

a. on safety grounds; we do not believe it is desirable to have a rescuer in a safety boat attempting to undo a minimum of 6 straps in two locations.

b. there are only 11 nations from 3 continents who at the 2015 WRCs boated both a female and male AS sculler. AS scullers by the nature of their impairments would be the hardest group of rowers to form a crew boat from.

c. the AS1xs currently provide the sport with the greatest universality from all of the boat classes- this should not be compromised. The single event is currently a great draw for rowers if anything FISA should consider offering a greater number of small boats as these are far easier for a wide range of nations to participate in competitively.

7

Table showing Nations and Continents (regions) for AS classes at the 2015 WRCs and hypothetically the nations who could have entered as ASMix2x event. Plus nations entering the TAMix2x and LTAMix4+

ASM ASW Hypothetical ASmix2x

TAMix2x LTAMix4+

ARG ARG ARG AUS AUS AUS BLR BLR BRA AUT AZE BRA BRA FRA BLR BLR GBR GBR GBR BRA BRA GER HUN ISR CAN BUL HUN ITA ITA CHN CHN ISR JPN JPN FRA CZE ITA KOR NED GBR GBR JPN MEX POL GER GER KOR RUS RUS ISR HKG MEX USA UKR ITA HUN NOR USA KOR IRL RSA POL ITA RUS RSA JPN USA RUS KOR UKR LTU USA MEX NED POL RUS UKR USA 23 nations/ 5 continents (regions)

15/4 11/3 12/4 17/5

This change could potentially remove two continents and many nations from the AS category. Arguably moving the TA event to 1x could improve rowing universality, as we know there are nations who cannot boat a TA2x because they do not have two eligible rowers. • British Rowing might support the de-regulation of the AS1x hull so that fine singles could be used with pontoon floats; we appreciate the desire to ‘speed up’ the 1xs events over a longer racing distance. However we do not feel this change is a high priority. It is worth noting that this is not something that we have tested and we would have concerns regarding cost and accessibility for many NFs and how this may adversely impact universality in this boat class. For example seating would need to fit within the width of the sax-boards of a fine single: current seating equipment may become redundant and new research and equipment may need to be developed. In addition safety research would need to be undertaken with regard to the appropriate height and span separation of the pontoon floats and the potential to capsize/right the boat. There is a threat that boat deregulation could favour more wealthy nations who can easily switch to top racing shells and potentially even look at innovative designs (This may lead to other implications in terms of safety and the need for different regulations around boat design

8

in this area that possibly have not been considered.) The unintended consequences require careful analysis and consideration. • British Rowing has been unable to support the LTAMix2x as there has been no occasion where we have had both an eligible female and male to be able to form a crew. Priority has always been given to forming the LTAMix4 which over the past cycle has always included at least one rower who is eligible for the LTA2x. A challenge for this boat class is that the impairments have to be more significant to achieve the 20 point cut off and any rower with a significant arm impairment is unlikely to be able to scull and is more suited to sweep rowing therefore is unable to take part in this event. Finally, as a previously suggested way forward I would refer you to the document written by British Rowing in January 2014 “Para-Rowing Raising the Bar” (attached here as Appendix 2) and previously presented to the Para-rowing commission, as a way for FISA to address universality. If helpful the statistics in this document could be updated.

9

Appendix 2 – Para-Rowing - The Next Step: A Proposal for 2020 Since gaining Paralympic status in 2005 Para-Rowing has seen improvement in the standard of all boat classes but is the sport really progressing towards its full potential? GBR believe there is room for progression both in terms of standard and participation numbers. The aim of this document is to explore the progression in Para-Rowing over the last 8 years, compare and contrast this with the fortunes of Para-Canoe and propose a new set of boat classes for consideration. Growth in Participation: Table: World Championship/Paralympic Games Participation since 2005 Year Number of Federations -

Rowing

Number of Federations - Canoeing

2005 10 (44 rowers) ^ - 2006 16 (81 rowers) - 2007 23 (118 rowers) - 2008 23 (96 rowers) - 2009 19 (84 rowers) 7 (29 athletes) 2010 19 (65 rowers) 28 (63 athletes) ^ 2011 25 (117 rowers) 26 (74 athletes) 2012 23 (96 rowers)* 31 (100 athletes) 2013 17 (69 rowers) 33 (130 athletes)

* Paralympic Games - restricted numbers ^ Sport gains Paralympic Status

10

As can be seen above, participation levels for Para-Canoe continue to rise with an expanding athlete pool, and a greater number of national federations represented than in Para-rowing. One possible explanation for this is the availability of individual events in each classification. This boat class selection has also led to the sport being offered 6 Gold Medal events at the 2016 Games in comparison to the 4 on offer in Para-rowing. Of further concern, the classifications on offer in Para-Canoe are nearly identical to those in Para-Rowing giving the limited number of eligible individuals who may choose Para-Rowing another sporting option. If Para-rowing is to keep up with the progression of Para-Canoe and move to the next level of competition a change of boat classes may be of benefit. The current classes have served rowing well and allowed an even split of male to female rowers with a total rower number of 96 (+12 coxes) rising to 120 (132 with coxes) if the LTA2x is included post 2016. The table below shows the entry by boat class since 2006. Year ASW1x ASM1x TAMix2x LTAMix4+ LTAMix2x

2006 7 12 11 10 - 2007 12 16 16 14 - 2008* 12 12 12 12 - 2009 6 12 11 11 - 2010 6 11 6 9 - 2011 12 17 12 16 2012* 12 12 12 12 - 2013 9 12 8 6 4 TOTAL 76 104 88 90 4

The current mixed crew boats limit the number of National Federations entering TA and LTA boat classes. Potential reasons for this are: 1) National federations are not in a position to form a full crew in a given classification. This leaves classified rowers, who are eager to compete with no opportunity to race. 2) Some National Federations are not in a position to boat mixed crews for religious/cultural reasons.

11

3) The perception of mixed events limits rowers’ willingness to compete in them. For many rowers the option to compete in an individual event where the result is solely of their making is attractive. Para-Canoe now offers this alternative in very similar classifications to rowing. Proposed Change to Boat Classes: One option for a new format post 2016 could include the following boat classes: ASW1x, ASM1x, TAW1x, TAM1x, LTAW1x, LTAM1x, LTAW2-, LTAM2- For the purposes of a Paralympic Games, an entry of 12 per single’s event and 9 per pair’s event would give an entry of 108 rowers. This would leave the overall numbers unchanged, along with the 50:50 male to female ratio. Should there be an increase in rowing numbers post 2016 to 120, this would facilitate all events being 12 entries. In order to facilitate the different levels of LTA classification, the pair’s events could be open to rowers losing 20 points in any one limb and visually impaired rowers. Those rowers with minimal disabilities, losing 10 points in one limb or 15 across two limbs, could be eligible for the single’s events. The potential benefits in a shift to these boat classes may be: 1) Eligible rowers no longer in the position of not being able to compete due to lack of crewmate(s) 2) Increased representation of National Federations 3) Increased participation in TA and LTA events 4) A potential increase in the number of Paralympic Medal events 5) An increase in standard of the boats competing in the TA and LTA classifications 6) Greater media interest in Para-Rowing as individuals will generally be a greater draw than a crew of variable line up. To try and illustrate the above please see the below examples: Example 1: National Federation X has a Para-Rowing programme comprising of the following rowers: 1 x TA Male 2 x LTA Male 1 x LTA Female With the current boat classes they do not enter. With a shift to the proposed classes they may enter up to 3 boat classes. Example 2: National Federation Y has 4 LTA rowers, 2 male and 2 female. Three of the rowers are highly experienced while one of the female rowers is very inexperienced and limits the performance of the LTA4+. With the current boat classes they may enter a poor LTA4+ or choose not to enter. With a shift to the proposed classes they may enter 2 high performing boats with a view to developing the 2nd female rower for the next year, or they may enter a male boat that is of a competitive standard, and a development female boat.

12

Example 3: National Federation X has a Para-Rowing programme comprising of the following rowers: 1 x AS Male 1 x AS Female 1 x TA Male With the current boat classes the TA athlete would be left in the position of not competing while both of his training partners are free to enter competitions. The proposed classes would cater for all rowers to compete.