IOC & Softball

[MA Softball Ump]

Here is part of an email that I just received. Although the issue is known, some of the info is new (at least for me):


----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fanning
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:34 PM
Subject: ioc
February 9, 2006

Fellow softball fans, players, coaches, umpires and administrators

July 9, 2005, a dark day in softball history. Do you remember what happened on that day? It was the infamous day that the decision was rendered by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) at their 117th session to no longer include softball in the Games effective 2012. It was a real kick to the gut of the softball community. It took away our softball breath for a moment, but we were told that there was a light at the end of the tunnel. The IOC had lumped the dirty game of baseball and softball together as one. A collective uproar was heard, not only in the United States, but around the world. How dare they remove a sport that has all of the character that IOC President Jacques Rogge looked for in his competition? After all the Lord of the Rings stated publicly that he wanted sports that were clean, no drug scandals, had a big female contingent and are competed universally. That’s softball!

Well once the softball fanatics regained their collective breath we were informed that the light at the end of the tunnel would be the 118th IOC session, which was when softball would be reconsidered and be reinstated. Well that day came today and what do you think happened? The Executive Board of The IOC did not jettison softball again, but they did not reinstate our game either. Instead the powers to be at the IOC voted to not to consider to re-consider the reinstatement of softball in the Games. That’s correct they took a vote not to vote. And why was that you ask? Well it is my opinion that the IOC did not want to look like they rushed to too quick a conclusion back in 2005. They felt that it was to soon after their original decree to make any changes and look like they were about to eat crow, or squab, what ever bird they were might have had to ingest. So softball was not even considered for London 2012.

Now all of this could have been avoided if the vote went softball’s way in 2005. And who do we have to blame for this infliction of injustice? Well in my opinion the fault lays squarely in one persons lap. That person is one of the IOC’s Vice Presidents, first elected to the IOC in 1994. He has also been president of FITA, the international governing body of archery. ARCHERY! But now comes the cruelest kick of all, he is from the United States. Notice I said he is from the U.S. According to the IOC bylaws he doesn’t represent the U.S. but is the IOC representative to the U.S. He is the official messenger of Messer. Rogge. And why do I think that this person is responsible. On that day in 2005 the official vote tally was tied. Softball needed just one more vote to remain in the games, but this individual decided to sit on his voting hand and abstained from voting. Who was that quiet man? Well according to many national publications, his name is, James L. Easton of California. Does the name sound familiar? For those of you that can not complete the puzzle, Jimbo has a few other titles. Chairman and Chief Executive of Easton Sports. That’s right the company that has the audacity to charge John and Jane softball player $200.00 for a bat. Now I don’t know this for sure but I would be willing to wager that Mr. Easton has never abstained from a vote involving archery. To say that I am perplexed by his actions is, well an understatement of great proportions. How dare he bite the hand that feeds him? He did a severe disservice to his stockholders, but more importantly the softball nation that has supported his company.

I am personally going to let

Mr. James Easton
Chairman & C.E.O
Easton Sports Inc.
7855 Haskell Ave. Suite 200
Van Nuys, CA. 91406

know of my displeasure with his past actions in regards to softball. And until such time that Mr. Easton holds his hands high for softball at the 119th IOC session I will, and I encourage everyone else to, boycott any products manufactured by or distributed by Easton Sports. Who knows if production and sales diminish, Mr. Easton may have to close his factory in Mexico. After all it was he who is the only one responsible for softball to be removed from the games in the first place. If he had gotten of his high and mighty derriere back in Singapore in 2005 there would have been no need for the animosity towards either him or his company. But he can right his previous wrongs and perform the Heimlich maneuver on his fellow IOC Executive Board Members and help them dislodge that crow.

Well we still have the Olympics in 2008 were softball will be played. Hopefully at that time the IOC will take their blinders of and see softball for what it really is a highly competitive game that is played by females from a wide spectrum of ethnic, social, economic backgrounds. Played in 130 Olympic member’s countries by amateurs with no political agenda. The IOC wants sports whose venues will continue to be used well after the Olympics leave a host city. When is the last time you or someone you know has been to a velodrome? Many a softball player or fan has been to or played on the former sites of Olympic softball. There has to be a way to remove the politics from the Olympics. After all the IOC’s mission is to promote sportsmanship and fair play.

I know that the dedicated group of softball representatives that fought hard and long to get softball into the games originally will once again take the fight to the IOC and convince the powers to be that an egregious act happened in July of 2005. Remember this fight is not about any one organization. It’s not indigenous to the United States. It a time when softball fans, player, coaches, umpires and administrators must ban together and have our softball voices heard whatever it takes.

Oh did I mention that the two disciplines that are replacing softball, karate and squash. How apropos, they gave softball a mighty kick and the IOC can have squash with its crow.

Please feel free to pass along this information and also contact Mr. Easton.

Regards
Jim Fanning
Saugus, MA.

FULL STORY
Latest news, Highlights of the week, and the Olympic Review Olympic programme for London 2012 confirmed 09 February 2006 IOC session do not consider baseball and softball for reinstatement into the 2012 Olympic Programme

The 118th IOC Session gathered in Turin today decided that a vote on the reinstatement of baseball and softball into the Olympic programme of the 2012 London Olympic Games should not be put on this morning’s session agenda.

This means that the decision taken during the 117th Session in Singapore to have 26 sports on the programme in London stands.

The results of the vote are as follows:

Baseball:
Box given: 95
Participants: 90
Abstentions: 2
Valid Ballots: 88
Majority: 45
NO: 46
YES: 42

Softball:
Box given: 95
Participants: 92
Abstentions: 2
Valid Ballots: 90
Majority: 46
NO: 47
YES: 43

------------END ORIGINAL MESSAGE-----------------

[IRISHMAFIA]

While I do believe that Mr. Easton acted in an inappropriate manner for the individual holding this position, Mr. Fanning is incorrect. Jim Easton abstained at least four times on votes, all involving sports which use similar equipment that is sold by or produced by Easton Sports.

I would love to know who abstained from voting this week to simply bring the issue to the floor for discussion. That's correct, discussion, not necessarily a vote. Obviously though, if discussed a vote would be imminent.

While Mr. Easton may be satisfied with his "principles", I'm not and for two reasons.

1. If an individual is not going participate and represent their country at a level of 100%, that person should not hold the seat.

2. IOC rules dictate that the chair will inform a voting member when there is a conflict of interest to be considered. From what I understand from other publications and a member of the ISF board, no such notice was given to Mr. Easton.

[3afan]

while it is a real shame that softball is out in 2012 - for now - I don't think it will really affect the game here in the USA. girls are not going to stop playing, or not start playing, just becausae the game is not na olympic sport. IMO ....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by 3afan
while it is a real shame that softball is out in 2012 - for now - I don't think it will really affect the game here in the USA. girls are not going to stop playing, or not start playing, just becausae the game is not na olympic sport. IMO ....

The concern was more with grants for development and training of the national team, not to mention exposure for the game in general.

Also, the JO games skyrocketed after the '96 Olympics as did the interest in the NCAA Championships. No, without that exposure, and target in some cases, it may very well affect the participation and, to a greater respect, the fan base to some level in this country.

What's worse is that the game which was gaining international recognition is now knocked down a notch or so. This means fewer countries may be willing to put out monies for a softball program if there is no place to go.

This is why it is important for ISF to try to stay strong, and that may very well mean a tightening of their financial belt which, in turn, will reduce some of the international participation.


I expect our European affiliates will be struck just as hard, if not harder, that the US

[mcrowder]

I think it sucks that it's out too... but I'm trying to understand the math:

Softball:
Box given: 95
Participants: 92
Abstentions: 2
Valid Ballots: 90
Majority: 46
NO: 47
YES: 43

The poster is trying to say that if one of the abstentions was instead a YES vote, all would be right with the world. Based on this data, even if BOTH abstentions were YES's, the vote still fails, 47-45.

[BretMan]

The numbers you are quoting are the results of a vote taken just a few days ago at the 118th IOC session. The issue being voted on was whether or not to reconsider the exclusion of BB/SB from the Olympics.

The vote that Mr. Easton abstained from was taken during the 117th IOC session, which was held last July. That was the original vote that eliminted BB/SB from the games, and the vote where one more "yes" would have saved softball.

[Edited by BretMan on Feb 13th, 2006 at 09:17 AM]

[jwl868]

mcrowder - I believe the original poster listed the vote count just for completeness. And that is good parliamentary form to list the vote count.

You are right - the 2 formal abstentions would not have affected this outcome. But it is interesting to note that the first line "Box Given" suggests that there 95 members who are eligible to cast votes, and that only 92 "participated" in the vote. By themselves, the three who didn't "participate" wouldn't have made a difference, even if they were "yes" votes (43 + 3 = 46) which is less than the 47 No votes. (By "participate", I am also including the two who must have taken the trouble to announce or otherwise officially indicate that they were abstaining.)

(In the IOC charter, the majority is based on the sum of the number of votes cast. Abstentions are not included in the sum. Blank ballots are not included in the sum. "Spoiled" (an undefined IOC term) votes are not counted. This is described in the Charter that can be found at the IOC website.)

But toss in an assumption that the two abstaining voters could have voted as Yes votes, and you potentially have 48 yes to 47 no (with all 95 ballots cast, majority becomes 48).

(I am guessing about the missing three voters. Maybe they didn't show up, or maybe they handed back or displayed blank ballots or sat on their hands. One non-vote may have been the Chairman who purposely withheld his vote so as to appear impartial as the vote went his way. The IOC charter states that the Chairman votes only "in the event of a tie". (Somewhat restrictive in that the Chairman ought to be allowed to vote to create a tie and thus defeat a motion if he/she is against it, but I digress.) [I'm not sure of the voting method – if it was a role-call or a "count of hands", then the Chairman could withhold his/her vote until the count was complete.] [Per the Charter, a secret ballot is only performed when the Charter calls for it (elections are the only such cases), if the Chairman so decides, or if one-quarter of the members call for it.] [Maybe the "yes" side thought they had a lock – but if they really thought that there would be some sort of retribution to "yes" voters, they should have tried to muster enough votes to ask for a secret ballot.]

Assuming that there was no change in the make-up of the Session, how did two other members decide they had to abstain? [That's rhetorical.]

Joe

[MA Softball Ump]

Be of good cheer..... Curling remains as a viable and supported sport!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by MA Softball Ump
Be of good cheer..... Curling remains as a viable and supported sport!!

Is there anyone out there that doesn't understand curling is nothing, but shuffleboard on ice?

And, BTW, it is a very supported sport.

[MA Softball Ump]

Since we are currently dominating snowboarding, that may be the next sport to bite the dust.

Maybe I missed the audience shot, but it did not sound like there was a huge crowd at the curling competition when it was on this morning.... (I saw about 4 - 5 minutes before I HAD to switch!).

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Is there anyone out there that doesn't understand curling is nothing, but shuffleboard on ice?

And, BTW, it is a very supported sport.

Shuffleboard on ice, where you're allowed to move the sand during the shot.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mcrowder

Shuffleboard on ice, where you're allowed to move the sand during the shot.

That's wax, buddy! And you haven't seen some of the folks with whom I've shot horse collar.

[MRdog]

As a HS softball coach and a softball fan in general I agree with what is being said about what a mistake the IOC made and I do hope they will come to their senses before too long. However, I don't feel we need to be negative about the other olympic sports such as karate, squash, and yes, even curling. Let's build up our sport on its own merit not by trashing the other sports. Softball can stand on its own and I'm sure we will see it in 2012.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by MRdog
Softball can stand on its own and I'm sure we will see it in 2012.

You may see softball in 2012 and it may be in London, but not as part of the Olympics.

There would have to be complete rebellion and melt down of the IOC for it to even be mentioned again for 2012.

[MRdog]

I not opposed to either rebellion or meltdown!