Dear Whitewater Slalom Community,

It seems that once more the US will not send a C-2 to the World Championships.
I
consider this a serious mistake, for two excellent reasons, and one decent one.

1) It's bad for the sport internationally. We all know that it's a boost to the
sport when the
Pakistanis send their first competitor, or the Chinese, or any new country.
Correspondingly it's bad when a country withdraws. By withdrawing from
competition in
the C-2 class the US reduces the importance of the C-2 event on the
international scene.
If other countries follow the US lead and withdraw from C-2, it could lead to
the event
being dropped from the Olympics, or even from the World Championships. Now it's
true
that some people see C-2 as the least important event, but many others consider
it the
most exciting to watch, and the most photogenic. When Sports Illustrated chose
to run a
single photo from the 2000 trials, it chose the C-2 team of Haller and Taylor.
There are a
number of similar examples. Would they have simply run a different photo if C-2
had not
been in the competition? Maybe--but more likely, no photo at all. If you kill
C-2, you
hurt the overall sport as well; one of the most visually exciting classes will
be lost;
television coverage will be further reduced.

2) It's bad for the development of the sport within the US. If applied in other
years, it
would have prevented future champions from participating. For example, in 1975
Jon
Lugbill raced C-2 with his brother Ron, placing 22nd. Seeing the award ceremony
he
"went nuts," (as reported in Endicott's The Ultimate Run), and this experience
provided
emotional fuel for future paddling and training. Would Jon have pursued
whitewater
without this international experience? Maybe....

Another example: if you had used today's method, you would have excluded Joe
Jacobi
and Scott Strausbaugh from the 1987 World Championship team. Would Joe and
Scott
have nevertheless stuck with it to win a gold medal in 1992? Quite possibly
not. So the
percentage rule might well have removed the only Olympic Gold Medal ever won by
the US
in slalom. Bad rule. (By the way, repeat that three times: the only US Olympic
slalom gold
medal was won in the C-2 class.)

There aren't many Jon Lugbills, Strausbaughs and Jacobis, but the influence of
including,
rather than excluding, potential team members is widespread. Look, for example,
at Mark
Ciborowski, a C-2 team member in 1989 and 1991. Mark went back to his home
area,
Manchester, New Hampshire, and poured an enormous amount of effort into
developing a
permanent slalom course on the Merrimack river there. Two slalom races a year
are held
on the course he created, one spring and one fall, so that each year one to two
hundred
racers benefit from this site. Add to this, the exposure for slalom--the fall
race is held in
conjunction with the city's "Riverfest," a festival with many thousands of
attendees, all of
whom are exposed to the race. If you had excluded Mark, you would have dealt
New
England slalom a major blow. In general, excluding potential team members
diminishes
our already marginal sport.

3) It's patently unfair. Everyone knows that in some events the results are
more spread
out than in others; I have never trained for or competed in a running race in my
life, but at
one time I would have "made the percentage" in the half-mile, my time being
within 15%
of the then world record; many thousands of people, those who actually train,
are within
5%. That's because running, in and of itself, is easy. In a difficult sport,
like whitewater,
the results are naturally more spread out than in track. And within whitewater,
C-2 is the
most difficult event; results are naturally more spread out in C-2 than in the
other classes.
(Yes, this is in part because there are fewer competitors, but also, there are
fewer
competitors because it's more difficult.) To have the same standard for all the
classes is
as unfair as it would be to apply track percentages to whitewater.

I've hesitated to sound off on the percentage question before, because, since I
do still race
C-2, I'm an involved party. But I've decided to speak out, for two reasons:
one, it has
come to seem so obvious, that the percentages are a bad idea, that I think even
an
interested party can make the case and be believed. And two, I have a
suggestion that
does not involve me.

Two C-2 teams did qualify for World Cup participation, and I believe will travel
to Europe.
If one or both can swing the time off, and the financial burden, by all means
let them
compete in the Worlds.

I have heard the argument made that this will 1) Reduce the money available for
more
serious athletes, and 2) Reduce the coaching time for more serious athletes. If
this is a
real problem, by all means make both money and coaching time contingent on the
percentages. But don't make World Championship participation contingent. Get
some
boats on the water. Give up-and-coming teams the chance to see what the Worlds
are
like. Spread out national team participation. Promote the sport. For several
years, when I
was first competing, the US had the biggest team at the World Championships, and
some
Europeans laughed at this. They weren't laughing for long. By the late 70's
the US was
still sending a big team; it was also winning big time.

Inclusion, not exclusion, is the the US way, and has always been part of our
cussed,
disorganized, underfunded, but surprisingly effective road to the top. Let's
get back on
that road.

Sincerely,
Jamie McEwan
co-signed by:
Bill Endicott
Scott Strausbaugh
Joe Jacobi
Davey Hearn
Jennifer Hearn
Matt Taylor
Bob Robison
John R. Sweet