6.4 and 6.7 Entries to Class C Internationals - Seems they should be discussed together

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:51 am

ICF Rule:
2.3 There are three types of international competitions:
Type A
Exclusively for national teams
Open to all Federations with a maximum of 3 boats per event per Federation.
Type B
Exclusively for national teams
Upon invitation of the organiser, with a maximum of 6 boats per event per Federation.
Type C
Open to all Federations
Number of competitors to be determined by the organisers.
Tees Kayak club propose that the Slalom Committee does not allow any C Classs International to be exclusively for national teams.

AND

6.7 To be inserted below point 5, page 41 of Yearbook, or equivalent in 2005
An ICF Class C International race can be reserved by the manager of a selected GB Team. In doing this, the following restrictions will come into effect. No athelete who competes in an age category equal or less than the reserving teams's age category may compete at that race e.g. if a race is reserved for the U18 age group, then only those selected for that team may compete, excluding anyone else within or below the U18 age limit. A senior or U23 athelete could compete

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:05 am

Ah contradictory vote..... Lets vote for having C Class open to all even if there is a team there, we will ignore the remote idea of voting against both. So Yes is no restirctions on Class C, No is the team manager can reserve the race.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:06 am

Why are these not together? They can't both succeed (although both could fail).

6.7 is a softening of the status quo where events are automatically reserved for teams.

Would love to see explanations can anyone help?

eastern slalom rep · Post by **eastern slalom rep** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:20 pm

ok, paddler rep man here again. colin has been astute and spotted that these two motions should be discussed together. i will do my best to ensure that this is the case at the agm. the two motions are basically against each other and if one is passed the other cannot be, so they need to be sorted at the same time.

the reasons for these proposals is to formalise/clarify/sort out the reserved races situation. hopefully after the agm, everyone will know exactly how to tell which races are availabe to whom.

ok, hope that helps.

etienne

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:06 pm

No probs at the AGM, Ettienne, all we do is bring a point of order at the begining (Irena will be expecting it by then) then the meeting can agree to change the order and discuss them together.

Smoggie · Post by **Smoggie** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:36 pm

So- i just wanted to say...I think (know) that the reserved race policy is unjust. Anyone who can support this policy CAN NOT be thinking in the best intrests of the sport and development of home-nation paddlers.

So-I would encourage people to support the Tees/Green Star motion and NOT Etienne's.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:59 am

Springing to Etienne's defence it is not his motion. It is a motion from the executive committee as a whole. Etienne represents paddlers on theexec - I am not sure if he even gets a vote. But as part of thecommittee he has to scept the committee decsiion in public.

You might as well accuse me. After all I have been the manager on under 23 trips, which are probably the most contraversial. Senior team only races A/B where mere mortals could not compete. Under 23 involvement stops anyone uner 23, including juniors.

Witout prejudice (in other words this does not neccesarily indicate my feelings or how I will vote), the intention behind the restriction of races is (I believe) two fold:
* To preserve the distinction of being selected for a British Team. If selected you get the chance to race at an event where no one else can compete.
* To ensure that the team can produce the best possible result, with water time dedicated to the team, who can co-ordinate the training to ensure that there is no distraction. Coaches (especially if funded, so paid just to coach the team) concentrate on the team members, who have won this right through being selected. There has been 'disharmony' as a result of teh over rigid application of this within some teasm, let alone with other paddlers present.

A side issue is that for any international, we have to designate a team manager. This is clear for the team, but all others have to also operate under their aegis, distracting the manager from providing the best possible support for the team.

Hope this helps put the other side of the debate, keep the commenst/views/votes coming, surely there are more people reading this than have voted?

Lynne · Post by **Lynne** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:05 pm

I should like to clarify the position of the Tees/Green Star motion that requests that the ICF rule regarding C Class internationals be adhered to - and to explain how this motion is in opposition to the motion submitted by Etienne.

A precedent has grown up of allowing GB teams to ‘reserve’ C Class Internationals for their exclusive use, barring other talented and aspiring paddlers from competition. Britain is alone in this practice.

The main reason cited for barring paddlers other than GB team members from competing, revolves around protectionism: it devalues the achievement of the GB Team. (Exec decision 6/04)

Paddlers gain GB status from doing better than their rivals in 2 out of 3 selection races in March/April and they are justly rewarded with the accolade of becoming a GB paddler, wearing the colours, receiving the best coaching at home and at camps abroad.

At C Class internationals, they are not protected from the ‘real’ world of possible defeat by ‘club athletes’ from European countries, so why should they be protected from our own paddlers who are prepared to travel hundreds of miles and spends hundreds of pounds of their own money in order to gain the experience that is essential to them if they are to progress to challenge for the top ranks?

The number of paddlers competing in slalom has declined greatly over the years. Problems that were experienced in the past, when the precedent was set, are no longer relevant today. The governing body vets all applications for C Class internationals and can, rightly, impose restrictions on those individuals who, for example, have previously brought the federation’s name into disrepute.

In status terms, individuals who compete along side a GB team can be differentiated by paddling for their home nation, or simply, like many other Europeans, paddling for their club.

We feel it is desirable and necessary to expose our top paddlers, who have not yet made the GB Squad, and our up-and-coming youngsters, to top class waters and competitions abroad. For the Prem paddlers, there were a pitiful 7 competitions last season, so every opportunity to compete at a C Class was a bonus.

However in Britain, clubs have a huge physical disadvantage: unlike Bayern Domagen, for example, we have the costly exercise of crossing the Channel in order to get to international competitions. Unlike them, we cannot pick and choose: Prague? Merano? Liptovsky? And when we can fit these trips into school/college/work holidays, we often find that some C Classes have been barred from our paddlers because a GB Team is taking part.

This is the reality that we are seeking your support to change.

If you support Etienne’s motion, you will effectively be enabling a ‘precedent’ set for a particular set of historical circumstances, to become enshrined in the rules and ‘same age’ paddlers will continue to be barred from competing in some C Class Internationals.

The ICF rule that A and B Class internationals are ‘restricted’ and that C Class internationals are ‘open’. We hope you will support our motion to conform to the ICF ruling as our European counterparts do and prevent the restrictive practice of ‘reserving’ races at this level.

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:37 am

It is not 'Etiennes motion' leave the poor guy alone, he is doing his best to represent paddlers.

It is a motion from the entire executive committee.

AND Thanks Lynne for the background, pity only those reading the board will have seen both sides. Guess which way I will vote?

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:52 am

Entry to ‘C’ Class Internationals
That the Slalom Committee does not allow any C Class International event to be exclusively for a National Team
Proposed by Tees Kayak Club and Seconded by Green Star Canoe Club
The motion was accepted with 23 votes for, 15 votes against and 4 abstentions.

Entry to ‘C’ Class Internationals
An ICF Class C international race can be reserved by the manager of a selected GB Team. In doing this, the following restrictions will come into effect. No athlete who competes in an age group equal to or less than the reserving team’s age category may compete at that race e.g. if a race is reserved for the U18 age group, then only those selected for that team may compete, excluding anyone else within or below the U18 age limit. A senior or U23 athlete could compete.
This was motion failed as motion above was accepted.

remember that as this was an ACM, all decisions have to be ratified by the elected committee, and possibly by the BCU board :ohwell: