TargetTalk

The following was posted on the ISSF Web Site today:-

The Chairman of the ISSF Athletes Committee, 2008 Olympic Champion Abhinav Bindra (IND), released a statement addressing his fellow athletes, today. Bindra stress the importance of “looking at the bigger picture” when considering the recommendations for the Tokyo 2020 Shooting sport Olympic program, voted by the Athletes Committee and subsequently released by the ISSF Ad Hoc Committee last October 24.

Dear Friends,

In this post I would like to inform you of the latest developments from the Athletes Committee Meeting which was held in Munich. As all of you are aware that complying with Agenda 2020 is of prime importance in order for us to maintain our strong position within the Olympic Movement.

The IOC is now working with all international federations to achieve 50 percent female participation in the Olympic Games and to stimulate women's participation and involvement in sport by creating more participation opportunities at the Olympic Games by Tokyo 2020. The IOC encourages the inclusion of mixed gender team events.

Shooting currently has nine men's events and six women's events on the Olympic program so major changes are necessary.

The ISSF leadership brought the issue up to the ISSF Athletes Committee way back in 2015 when the newly elected Committee first convened in January 2015. In fact, the Athlete Committee was the first Committee the issue was brought up to. From the very moment this was brought up to us we realized that this was going to be a very challenging situation. In all our reports and posts we continuously encouraged all athletes to read the Agenda 2020 and offer us suggestions and possible solutions to achieve the benchmarks set by the IOC.

In November 2015, the Athletes Committee after much deliberation recommended to the ISSF that we should try and preserve the integrity of the current program and convert the events of 50m Rifle Prone Men, 50m Pistol Men and Double Trap Men into mixed gender team events. This was our stated position to the ISSF Ad Hoc Committee in 2015.

However, this year we were updated of the evaluation process in more details by both the ISSF leadership and by IOC member Ms. Danka Bartekova who is our liaison to the IOC Athletes Committee. Several factors such as universality, sport presentation, grassroots development, sustainability, environmental and cost factors were taken into consideration. The huge success of the 10m Air Mixed Team events at the Youth Olympics was also considered and we were informed of the encouraging response of the IOC towards the mixed events. We were also informed of the details which were needed to be submitted by the ISSF to the IOC such as current participation, event existence, youth participation and accessibility.

Taking into consideration all factors the Athletes Committee had to review our stated position of 2015. This was an immensely difficult and emotional situation for us as we understand the sensitivity of many athletes who would be affected by any decision. We had many deliberations amongst ourselves, ISSF Coaches Committee, and different Section Committees and the ISSF leadership.

The guiding principle was to look at situation in a holistic manner which would be beneficial in long term for the shooting sport in order for us to maintain our presence in the Olympic movement.

We conducted a vote within the Athletes Committee in order for us to come up with our recommendations. The result of the vote was to replace the Double Trap men event to a Mixed Gender Trap event, 50m Prone Men into a Mixed Gender Air Rifle event and 50m Pistol Men into a Mixed Gender Air Pistol event.

We can understand that many athletes would not be satisfied with this. In fact, none of us are and we realize that this is a very difficult scenario. The Athletes Committee requests that everybody should look at the bigger picture and consider the many factors that are important for us to ensure our strong presence within the Olympic movement.

I hope this gives all of you an insight into what went behind coming up with our recommendations and that it was done in the most transparent and democratic fashion.

ABHINAV BINDRA
Chairman, ISSF Athletes Committee

I find this to be a sad and half-assed solution.

The way to achieve gender equality in shooting is to make all disciplines mixed gender individual events, not by removing one of the most popular entry level discipline (50m prone rifle) and one of the most traditional one (50m free pistol).

I sincerely hope that this athletes committee is able to show some spine when the issue of removing these disciplines also from the world cup comes up and make them mixed gender events instead of removing them.

Well, that's the official viewpoint.

The guiding principle was to look at situation in a holistic manner which would be beneficial in long term for the shooting sport in order for us to maintain our presence in the Olympic movement.

We conducted a vote within the Athletes Committee in order for us to come up with our recommendations. The result of the vote was to replace the Double Trap men event to a Mixed Gender Trap event, 50m Prone Men into a Mixed Gender Air Rifle event and 50m Pistol Men into a Mixed Gender Air Pistol event.

We can understand that many athletes would not be satisfied with this. In fact, none of us are and we realize that this is a very difficult scenario. The Athletes Committee requests that everybody should look at the bigger picture and consider the many factors that are important for us to ensure our strong presence within the Olympic movement.

Holistic. It's a funny, slippery word in English. It can mean to look at all solutions, or it can mean to include all in a decision-making processes. The most common form means to consider all aspects of a problem and arrive at an overall solution rather than to ignore parts of the issue. The root word, "holism," is a theory that the nature of the universe is seen as a series of interacting, living parts, such as human beings.

This difference matters because businessmen and women often get confused about the meaning and application of the word. I don't advocate using it in general in my practice (the National Association of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) utilize the term in how attorneys assist the elderly with end of life care, but it has a very specific and technical meaning there) because of the miscommunication that can occur, such as has occured here.

You see, the problem is that Mr. Bindra, who I am certain is a fine person, uses the world holistic to describe what is needed, but the ISSF has not used a holistic process in achieving the decision. I firmly believe that the decision was a difficult one, but I believe that, if he wishes to proceed in a holistic manner, he should ask the "parts" of the shooting body what they think and believe.

Here's why I don't think that this has happened. Eley, RWS, and other ammunition manufacturers have advertising all over these events for years. I see their advertisements in USA Shooting, and I see them on banners at the world cup. Morini's owner, who makes free pistols, has stated (very gently and politely) that athletes need to take a look at the decision. These organizations stand to economically loose a fair bit, as do Rink and other such specialists. And the fact that at least one has indicated some concern is troubling. I do not believe that people are being consulted, which is NOT a holistic solution. If the solution truly does take into consideration what Mr. Bindra says it does, then I firmly believe that the decisionmaking process should be shared with the athletes and coaches to better understand (and predict) when events of this magnitude occur.

Mr. Bindra states that the decision was not easy and that no one is satisfied. If this is indeed the case, I would like to see the minutes of the committee that came to this conclusion in order to see what they considered in coming to this decision. I think that satisfaction is impossible, but at the very least transparacy can be achieved and the holistic process better understood (which is one of the points of holism in the first place) if the factors considered are known. For all we know, the ISSF committee could have gone out, had several drinks and voted at a bar to destroy Free Pistol. I am going to assume that's not what happened, but we have very little information to work with. I'd like to see a more open dialogue.

Without these minutes and given the evidence of lack of involvement that I just talked about, I am forced to consider the word "holism" to be another way of saying "it's for your own good. Do what we say." That the opposite of a holistic process. It does not take into consideration everyone's viewpoints, merely the viewpoints of those who are in a place to exercise power. "Trust us, we know what we are doing."

I do not believe that is what Mr. Bindra meant by holism, at least I hope not. I believe that there should be no problem sharing the minutes of the committee that made this severe decision. I think that would assist everyone in coming to terms with the process and why the decision was made.

And, by the way, the minutes section of the ISSF in general should be updated. You have at least ten subsections.

http://www.issf-sports.org/theissf/orga ... ports.ashx

Given the size of the organizational structure listed on the website, surely there is more-up-to-date minutes then that. The South Carolina Bar Association creates and publishes more minutes in a month than the ISSF has published online in two years. The whole point of holism is transparency and collective decision-making.

Either someone horribly mistranslated the word holism, or you are not using it correctly. I am hoping that it is the former.

Good post from Morini
https://www.facebook.com/groups/6518881 ... 043991480/

Basically showing that 50 meter Men's pistol did NOT have the fewest number of participants. both 25 meter women sport pistol and men's 25 meter rapid fire had less.
"Dear Shooting friends,

here you have the number of participants in 2016:

10m Air Rifle Men: 585 Participants
50m Rifle Prone Men: 550 Participants
10m Air Rifle Women: 513 Participants
10 Air Pistol Men: 451 Participants
50m Rifle 3 position Men: 438 Participants
10m Air Pistol Women: 425 Participants
50m Rifle 3 Position Women: 403 Participants
50m Pistol Men: 386 Participants
25m Sport Pistol Women: 348 Participants
25m Rapid Fire Men: 239 Participants

As you can see 50m Pistol is far away from being the worst event.
It will be nice to know who is in the Ad-Hoc committee and to know how they went to this recommendations.

What we know is that Mr. Gary L. Anderson (gary.anderson@issf-sports.org) and Mrs. Susan B. Abbott (usaabbott@yahoo.com) wants to keep 25m Rapid Fire Men because:
"....The 25m RFP event now provides one of Shooting’s most interesting Finals and since this event is tied to the continuation of the 25m Pistol Women event, its elimination could be dangerous for all 25m pistol shooting....."

If you really want to keep 25m pistol shooting you can propose to have the 25m range build in the 50m range. This will save money at IOC and they will for sure like it."

I find it ironic that:

ABHINAV BINDRA wrote:.....
The huge success of the 10m Air Mixed Team events at the Youth Olympics was also considered and we were informed of the encouraging response of the IOC towards the mixed events. We were also informed of the details which were needed to be submitted by the ISSF to the IOC such as current participation, event existence, youth participation and accessibility.

Either ironic or simple stupidity that they would use this example and then in the same timeframe release rules that guts the international youth program with the 140mm rule.
Clearly, the right hand knows not what the left is doing.

And --> JR
You are spot on! Convert them all to mixed and they could bring back RT.

I was attempting to find out more information about these new mixed gender team events and found this:
http://www.issf-sports.org/getfile.aspx ... y_2013.pdf
I do not know how accurate these rules are for the new events. If anyone knows better please let me know.

It appears that the team events are an extra event for top air pistol and rifle shooters, and teams are formed in ad-hoc manner.

In general it is also troublesome to introduce team events to shooting which is inherently an individual sport.
You improve your performance in team events by improving your own individual performance and win a team event by hoping that you will be assigned with a partner who is also able to achieve good performance on that particular day.
I might be overlooking something, but to me it appears that the only function of the team is to encourage and guide your team member for better performance (if talking to your team member is even allowed by rules), but this is only assuming that you happen to be paired with a person who speaks some language you both are able understand.

I fail to understand what kind of value will teams will bring over individual events. I also personally do not believe that athletes will value medals from these team events as much as those from the events they are replacing.

I can understand some of the rationale behind the decisions, but that does not make them a good idea.

10m AP and 50m FP use the same skill sets. Yes, I know about doping the wind, but they are both fundamentally the same slow-fire event. Meaning that one or the other is a likely target for chopping.

What worries me is that RFP target bays are scarce. I don't think there are more than two dozen in the United States...if that many. 50 meter pistol has the advantage of requiring nothing more than a target holder, not an expensive turning target apparatus. It seems to me that ISSF shot itself in the base here....unless they were to rewrite the RFP rules around inexpensive shot timers instead of costly turning target systems. Which they have not done.

The mixed teams? That seems very contrived. I've serious doubts that they will prove popular.

Personally, I think a better approach would be to make RF and FP both mixed events. Over on the MLAIC side of the community, we have a single women's event. All the others are mixed...and the women do very, very well indeed. I would bet that the competitor with the most MLAIC medals is Tania Heber, of Germany. A formidable competitor.

Another approach would have been to have a rotation, the way the fencing community handled the IOC squeezing their slots. Instead of tossing one event out of the Olympic Games permanently, the FIE chose to rotate events out of the schedule. This kept all events in the mix.

I'll add that ISSF needs to make a counterproposal to the IOC, to break the Summer Games into separate Spring, Summer, and Autumn Games. One per quadrennium. This would dramatically ease the logistic burden of hosting the Olympics. Instead of having to find facilities for 35,000 athletes and staff, the host country would only need to lodge 12,000 people or so...about the size of the Winter Olympics today. A far more reasonable proposition, and one that would significantly reduce the pressure to limit the number of competitors.

jhmartin wrote: Either ironic or simple stupidity that they would use this example and then in the same timeframe release rules that guts the international youth program with the 140mm rule.

Are you saying that you have the advantage over most of us in having read the FULL rule?

ChipEck wrote: Basically showing that 50 meter Men's pistol did NOT have the fewest number of participants. both 25 meter women sport pistol and men's 25 meter rapid fire had less.

Drop either of them and you will probably lose them both, and still have the gender inequality problem.

They will not build a 25m range, or take the expense of incorporating it into another range, for just one event.

IIRC, the IOC banned team events in shooting back in 1932, alledging there was not a case of team interplaying but a simple adding of scores (which can be said - albeit slightly different - of running and swimming relay events, but WHO´S gonna touch the OG star sports).

Now they´re supporting mixed team events.

Definitely, the ISSF has settled for elitism. What they want is a bunch of financially fully supported shooters to show at WCs, and they give sh.... about grassroots!!!

How are the clubs to get youngsters to shoot if rules are amended by the minute, expensive equipment has to be dropped all of a sudden following an impromptu decision (read jackets, wooden stocks, .22 short pistols for RFP, etc)??

How do we train promising athletes for their international matches is the finals format are impossible to run without expensive ( and EXCLUSIVELY ACCEPTED) SIUS-ASCOR electronic targets? In my country we only have a few of these, not enough for holding an official two-countries concours.

Look at the scoreboards, and you´ll see it´s eurocentrically biased, with the Koreans and the Chinese jumping on the wagon due to state-sponsored programs.

And as for Mr. Bindra, I don´t care if he´s an OK guy, neither about his Olympic gold: if he´s not in accordance with what the IOC has imposed on them, then he should quit with his hands clean, unless he prizes his seat at the ISSF more than his conscience. I couldn´t care less for his excuses and / or apologizing.

As the saying goes, "excuses are like rainbows after the storm: beautiful but useless"

Has anybody bothered reading the IOC's Agenda 2020.
Rio had 11544 athletes: the IOC want it limited to 10500.
Rio had 306 events: the IOC want it limited to 310.
If the ISSF can keep us in the Olympics with 15 events then they will have done extremely well.

Mr. Levene, from reading your answers in several threads I think you´re completely identified with the ISSF ruling authorities, from which I don´t mean any offense, hope none taken.

But what I´d like you to explain is how can we benefit of these measures?

STP, SP (men), CFP have gone down the drain, sometimes national championships are a joke in those events, with only a few shooters showing, which is completely understandable considering they have only a quadriennial oportunity to compete abroad.

I myself, apart from still shooting senior, am president of the club I belong to and a member of the board of the National Shooting Federation, and sometimes I´ve had heated arguments regarding the despective treatment of grassroots. Once I compared the Federations (at the level you want to put them) as childrn stealing fruits from a neighbour´s tree: they don´t care for the owner, they don´t help him clean the garden or pick up the fruit, and then they complain when the tree is cut because the owner got tired of growing its produce helplessly.

The ISSF wants to stay in the OG because they say there´s a lot of money coming from them, and Olympic Sports receive wider support yhan those that are not in the program.

But when due to these elitist and senseless rule amendments drive the youngsters away from shooting, they will be cut from the OG just the same, because of lack of representation.

In times when we need more formal events (and dynamic ones for it) to counterbalance the spread of spray-and-prey, cinematographic disciplines like TS (haven´t you noticed everything is "tactical" nowadays?), PPC, IPSC, what do we offer to the newbie? We give them a .22 semiauto and tell him that if he really, really works hard, he can shoot a national once a year and a WCH every four?

I sincerely hope you can throw some light to the question.

TIA

Renzo

renzo wrote:Mr. Levene, from reading your answers in several threads I think you´re completely identified with the ISSF ruling authorities, from which I don´t mean any offense, hope none taken.

But what I´d like you to explain is how can we benefit of these measures?

No offence taken.

I agree with most others, and I'm sure the ISSF, that it would be great if we could maintain the current Olympic programme, or even add to it to give gender equality.

The IOC have made it clear that cannot happen: their Games, their rules.

My views on the present problems are:-

1) The ISSF must do everything in their power to ensure that shooting remains in the Olympics with as many events as possible.
2) Losing shooting from the Olympics would have a detrimental effect on elite programmes in many countries and would also be a large financial loss to the ISSF itself.
3) Losing shooting from the Olympics will lose the aura of "respectability", resulting in many youth groups dropping shooting from their programmes.
4) Go to point 1)

David Levene wrote:

jhmartin wrote: Either ironic or simple stupidity that they would use this example and then in the same timeframe release rules that guts the international youth program with the 140mm rule.

Are you saying that you have the advantage over most of us in having read the FULL rule?

I have read the 140mm rule, yes. And most of the youth stocks do not conform.
Now ... if they have changed the rule again (i.e. originally 130, then 140) - no, I have not seen a change, only a condesending note saying that only one wood stock in the finals.......

Thanks David for your prompt and detailed answer.

I´d like to digress on point 3), about the alledged "respectability" that Olympic participation would give to the shooting sports.

Today, we need more shooters, just to delay or stop (I doubt we could reverse) the global pressure on gun ownership limitations, irrespective of their sporting use.

After all (I´m not rubbing my finger in the wound, but posing an example) that "respectability" was of no use to you Britons when the axe chop came on handguns, nor it will be to any of us if we don´t increase our ranks dramatically.

I hope you believe me that very few shooters (at least that I know) take up the sport thinking in the OG, that´s a question that arises later in their careers, when (and if) they show the talent and the drive to even attempt to reach that level.

Greetings from Argentina

Renzo

jhmartin wrote: I have read the 140mm rule, yes. And most of the youth stocks do not conform..

In my country the national federation has stated that the rule will NOT be enforced al the national level, warning int´nl shooters to adapt their equipment when shooting abroad.

That´s the end result of such nonsense................. excepto for the stock manufacturers, who were obviously anxious to sell their new models with no arguments to do that!!!

David Levene wrote: The IOC have made it clear that cannot happen: their Games, their rules.

My views on the present problems are:-

1) The ISSF must do everything in their power to ensure that shooting remains in the Olympics with as many events as possible.

-- WHY? From my point of view IOC directions to ISSF making silly changes are destroying the sport. I agree with Renzo that making major changes to the rules every quad .... no, excuse me, EVERY YEAR is doing more to drive shooters away. Youth programs and many competitors just wanting to compete in a national match (they KNOW they have no chance to make an international squad) are being driven away.

David Levene wrote:2) Losing shooting from the Olympics would have a detrimental effect on elite programmes in many countries and would also be a large financial loss to the ISSF itself.

I could really give a rip on a "huge" financial loss to ISSF ... too may pigs at a trough for their own self serving agendas. I probably agree that loosing shooting from the Olympics will have a detrimental and negative effect for some countrys ... BUT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. The IOC is CLEARLY pushing shooting out, again from my perspective (a cynical guess---) it's only a quad or two away. Why let them destroy the sport entirely rather than maybe fighting and pulling away before the sport is trashed?

David Levene wrote:3) Losing shooting from the Olympics will lose the aura of "respectability", resulting in many youth groups dropping shooting from their programmes.

I call BS there. Here in the USA we have almost no visibility or "respectibility" ... and our youth shooting programs are very robust ... now how we are treating these as feeder programs ... well, I'll admit hard work needs to be done there.

David Levene wrote:4) Go to point 1)

HUH ???

renzo wrote:

jhmartin wrote: I have read the 140mm rule, yes. And most of the youth stocks do not conform..

In my country the national federation has stated that the rule will NOT be enforced al the national level, warning int´nl shooters to adapt their equipment when shooting abroad.

Here in the US as well ... HOWEVER, why are you setting up a shooter to fail?
If a shooter gains a slot on an international squad with (as it is here in the USA) say 2-3 weeks until the squad leaves, does ANYBODY really think a junior shooter (as my best example) is going to pick up a new gun and perform at/near their peak?

jhmartin wrote:

renzo wrote:

jhmartin wrote: I have read the 140mm rule, yes. And most of the youth stocks do not conform..

In my country the national federation has stated that the rule will NOT be enforced al the national level, warning int´nl shooters to adapt their equipment when shooting abroad.

Here in the US as well ... HOWEVER, why are you setting up a shooter to fail?
If a shooter gains a slot on an international squad with (as it is here in the USA) say 2-3 weeks until the squad leaves, does ANYBODY really think a junior shooter (as my best example) is going to pick up a new gun and perform at/near their peak?

Martin: I already said it was nonsense......................................