Discussion: Who influences WOC format?

Eric suggested that the other WOC thread was too diverse, and specific issues would get split off. Lost in the general verbiage was an interesting question from Nixon...

@Nixon There are many people not happy with the direction the IOF are taking WOC. How do we go about trying to stop the negative changes?

Leave aside for a moment whether you support the proposed changes, status quo, or something else. Related, how much say should we as spectators have on what we get to see, compared with the WOC athletes themselves, their coaching setup, and the publicity/money people.

Smaller federations should have something say I think. It's not good for anyone if WOC has become or becomes pointelss for most federations to organize. What format changes would it take to make it viable for for example Barbados to held WOC lets say 2025?

>What format changes would it take to make it viable for for example Barbados to held WOC lets say 2025?

as was mentioned in the other thread ... Alternate years with sprint and forest WOCs

It solves so many problems.

All federations have been asked for feedback.

It seems from several posts on AP that people think that the IOF is running a secret evil process. Perhaps you should take a look at the WOC In the Future page on the IOF site and educate yourself on what has happened in this process so far? The transparity and communication could perhaps be better than it is, but it's far from a closed process.

The IOF asked all fedarations for feedback and the COF in turn asked its athletes for feedback. In the letter we wrote, among many other things, we said that "it would be a sad development for our sport if all developing nations were excluded fromt he Long distance format" and we asked for a minimum of one guaranteed spot if the qualifier is removed. We also proposed the concept of alternating years with sprint and forest WOCs. I'm confident that all nations' feedback have been carefully considered, but it's not a trivial process to get over 50 nations to agree.

If you are an "average Joe" spectator orienteer, no, you have not been included in this process, but the names of the people involved are not secret. If you have strong feelings on the topic, perhaps you should write a letter with your own proposal and submit it to the IOF project group? In any case, your posts on AP are guaranteed to have zero influence on the design of the future WOC program...

So uninformed Nixon is an "average Joe" spectator orienteer? Will you tell him or shall I? Good to hear that COF athletes are getting a direct say though.

I'd be surprised if most federations didn't supply the IOF wuth input from their athletes?

If Mr Nixon is a national team runner, or part of a national high performance program or similar, his federation should have asked him and his colleagues for feedback.

@candyman

Could you let us know what the BOF preferences are? Those of us who have signed up to organising the thing in 2015 would quite like to know...

You can see a summary of the comments received from federations here.

Since there were many important details missing from the WIF proposal such as qualification methods without qualification races, it was very difficult to say more than "there are many important details missing", and it is the details which will make all the difference.

Mirroring what pi said above, this process has actually been managed quite well by the IOF. They have asked for feedback from all federations, and had responses from 14 (Looking at the list there are a few missing that I would have expected to have opinions). How each federation has managed their own feedback process has probably varied largely. Here in Sweden we asked our national team runners and a number of other internationally attuned individuals for input. We also liaised with a number of other federations (among them the US and Canada) to understand global issues and shared our response freely.

Note as well that the process is not complete yet. The IOF Council presented their conclusions at the recent Presidents Meeting and a final round of comments will be issued prior to the decisions to be made at next summers IOF Congress. So in consideration of the question that this thread started with, the member federations ultimately influence the WOC format for the future. So that is the path to go.

On another note, shortly after asking for comments relative to the "WOC in the future" project, the IOF Council also sent out a report about "Progress on the IOF strategic issues 2006 - 2012 and IOF Strategic Direction 2012-2018". This document sets the future direction for IOF and includes things like goals for olympic inclusion and priority setting of IOF projects. They asked member federations for feedback and comments on the future direction of IOFs work. In this case only 5 (FIVE) federations answered. Not much to base a future direction upon. Council also presented this work at the recent Presidents Meeting and stated that another round of comments would be asked for. So if you are interested I suggest checking on this with your member federation also.

Thanks TyrTom!

TyrTom: Have those IOF report been published anywhere? I can only find "Strategic Directions 2006-2012" on their homepage.

only 5 (FIVE) federations

I think this is worth to make an answer. My thoughts which has been created in my mind from my first years when I stepped in orienteering in 2000. A little bit long but I hope not too boring for people who decide what is our vision and what we should do in the future.

I deeply respect what IOF and major orienteering countries are doing and trying to develop orienteering to become a truly global sport. On the other hand you must be realistic about what is the starting position and what orienteering really mean in the global world today.

Most of the federations still work on voluntary basis with no employees and with very small budgets. To do all the work around events, equipment, maps, coaching, national teams burns all the energy and time from people willing to develop this sport. So things like IOF, strategic direction,... are not very high on the priority list for small o federations. Maybe with exception for president who probably from time to time looks what it is going on. Things like this were not on the agenda of our federation executive board in the last decade. It is frustrating for the voluntary community to deal with these high hopes when we have so much things to put in order first. I would say that in many countries outside TOP 20 it is more or lees the same pattern.

Our THE only one strategic direction/question in last 20 years was: Should we develop orienteering as a competitve sport or only as a recreational sport for people who like orienteering. It is hard to understand/think that this could be considered as a worthy question. But it is. Not from me but majority think very rational about what it is possible to do with limited time, budget, workforce, etc. so recreational views have priority compare to more competitive views of the sport.

Competitive sport and much needed federation structure with goals, directions and activity plan is a dream for us. People don't have a lof of sports background and don't know much about what makes one sport to become important. More you try to develop this more time and people you need. So rational decision is not to do more than it is necessary to have a good race. We can afford to send the best juniors and seniors to the championships but that is more or less because we need some sport motivation for clubs and people to work and to stay in orienteering. Clubs and people spend a lot of their free time - many hours every year, so their work is appricieted very much by the o community. In last 20 years we have developed techical side of the sport to the very high level with recreational approach but mostly we have left aside the competitive questions because we wanted to keep and to maintain what we have and what we truly need. A recreational community who likes orienteering. So in our case that means for orienteering to become a SPORT is still a very long way.

But to be constructive I will make one reply/question which I would like to be answered.

Strategic direction
Some International sports federations have development departments and people who deal with specific regions, who knows the problems and also knows the specific of each country in the region so he/she could give help to make things better. Can we form this kind of department?

Activity plan
Send coaches to summer camps into development countries and don't be happy with the few people who participate at the Oringen academy each year. Bring the best athletes, champs with you or make promotional tours with the best athletes at least one time per year in one region and give focus on personal advice than just to give general advices. We can't organize WOC/Wcup events but if you are interested we will bring a few media, people from clubs, sport organizations, university, people who are responsible to promote sport and sport values, etc. We can do something. Make an example or repeat what you already do in your country also in other countries. Can you afford this, can IOF afford this? We will help you to make as good as it is possible as this is exactly what we need to have to get better understanding from others what orienteering really is. Make a plan also for this activity! Make also an open communication channel within IOF and ask individuals for some comments. We don't have budget to pay somebody to be present at IOF meetings. In most cases in each country only a few people are interested in these questions and you will probably get more quality info from raw data/responses from individuals than from federations. Formal ways are good but many federations don't work like TOP 10 federations. You can't lose nothing but today approaches tells me more about what kind of communications IOF prefer. IOF like formal ways because they can't do/hasn't practiced any other ways. But sometimes this is a good way to achieve results you want; to get responses! Think differently, act differently than other sports. We are different.

And one specific question about IOFs Olympic goal.

How many IOC representatives already observe WOC and how many NOC representatives and presidents were present at WOC in the last 10 years? Have you been able to attracted their attention or not! What was the outcome for WOC 2011?

That is the reality and these "FIVE" tells you more about that we all (including other more important federations) trust you and IOF that Strategic Directions are good and you will find a good solutions to make a good activity plan.

But please don't require from us (small O federations) to think bureaucratic. We can't afford this type of luxury and you should know this.

I just wrote down (what could be a good support) what DEN proposed by formal ways.

Presidents Conference, Hungary 2009
At this point DEN made the comment that it is also important for the IOF when considering Regional Development to consider ways in which existing member federations could be supported in encouraging a growth in numbers within those federations rather than a singular focus on developing new countries.

kofols - are you not arguing against yourself ;-) If the IOF becomes less formal in its decision making, and takes its inputs from more informal channels - well then we will have an "old boys club" (as we call it), where the people who influence the future are those who hang out with the IOF decision makers. I think we would all not like that very much - it is much better to have a more formal process, as frustrating and bureaucratic as it can become.

And when I read this last big posting of yours it occurs to me that this post itself could be a perfect response to the IOF request for information - which shows that there is no problem with not enough time or not enough motivation to respond to the IOF. Perhaps the problem is that there is poor structure in national federations, so that people like you (obviously passionate and very articulate) should have the ability to speak on behalf of your federation?

I think one of the reasons CAN does well at responding to the IOF is that we have a structure which allows the federation to delegate the response to the people who are most capable and most motivated to respond.

Eriol>> I haven't actually checked the IOF site, but they are public documents and we have published the report and our response on the Swedish federation site. (the first part of the last document is in Swedish, scroll down for the text that was sent to the IOF)

kofols and AZ>> Very interesting discussion which I will respond too, but it will have to be later.....

Lundanes not happy to be associated with the future of WOC: http://news.worldofo.com/2011/09/13/lundanes-looks...

Gueorgiou: "To be honest, I am really not optimistic for the future of orienteering if IOF keeps going on that direction. Yes, I will feel extremy lucky to have experienced the good age of orienteering, but I will feel really sorry for the youngsters and I think it will be quite boring to become a coach also"

Hubman: "(on the IOF's future of WOC plans)...I find it very questionable. In my opinion, the IOF would better focus on the disciplines that we have already"

I wonder if the above three athletes have as much influence as some old men in suits? I doubt it.

I believe that the athletes and the federations have a say. To voice your opinion, direct your concerns via your federation and organize a formal letter to the IOF project group. If they receive a storm of letters, there will be a reaction.

Again, these guys are not going to base decisions on AP postings. Put your energy into the proper channels. Make it happen!

TyrTom: Tack! But I think you were much to nice to them in your criticism. Let's have a look at the key goals:

75 members by 2008 and 80 members by 2012. - Simple and measurable goal which so far has been fulfilled to exactly 0% and there is a major risk it will still be 0% by the end of 2012.

At least 70% of members shall be full members (53 in 2008 and 56 in 2012) - So the goal has been made irrelevant, not half-fulfilled. Does this also mean that federations that only exist on paper will be kicked out?

Our main events – World Championships and World Cup events – shall meet all quality standards in terms of event concept and arena presentation - This was measured before WOC 2011, probably it will be still be in the yellow sector now, but not closer to green than it was a year ago.

All major events shall be covered by international TV broadcasting networks - Here I agree completely with SOFT. If the IOF thinks "international TV broadcasting networks" are irrelevant in the 21st century then say so.

At least two World Cup events per Olympiad shall be held outside of Europe - Was this one impossible to fake? This goal definitely has been prioritized a lot lower than event quality and revenue.

Strengthen our presence at the World Games and the World Masters Games - So how are the plans for World Games 2013 going? Someone at IOF should be working really hard at this because it won't just miraculously happen in Colombia...

Seek inclusion in the Olympic Games and in regional and other multi-sport games - Has just one application been made? In my book that's not more than 30% success. For instance, the Panamerican Games will be held in a regional orienteering stronghold in 2015. Many of our competitors for inclusion in the olympics such as Karate, Squash and Bowling are contested in those games. What contacts have IOF had with PASO, the local organizers and orienteering clubs in the area?

Maintain and extend the presence of IOF personnel on multi-sport bodies. - So current presence has only been maintained, right?

Our credibility on the world sporting stage, as defined by the IOC document Evaluation Criteria for Sports and Disciplines, shall improve - Can't be improved much when it's apparently already above 90%. Haven't had a look at the criteria, but I doubt it.

But maybe this criticism is way to specific and unbureaucratic for the IOF? I mean this report is just a paper about writing papers about things IOF would like to do if they are not busy writing other papers.

As for the points kofols raised, I'm completely with him. Not all federations have a decision-making process which is as streamlined as Canadas. But I think I will take the advice and put my energy into slightly more formal channels.

Right, lots of feedback asked, there was also survey 2009. Based on the feedback over the years they came up with the current proposal. Maybe feedback from athletes and federations has been about removing middle and adding chase start race and turning relays into mixed sprint relay. It that's the case, then fine, most of the athletes should be now happy. But if athletes/federations hasn't asked for that but insted there is some old men in suits who are behind the proposal then we get back to the subject.

Most of the users of this forums are hobby spectator orienteers who know they hava and should not have any influence. We just spactate WIF drama here. And it's getting better, I can see it may soon get to the level of the micr-o drama. My guess is they will now ask for feedback and based on it the long final gets 1 min start interval and "runners choice" spreading.

No, no I didn't mean that. I was trying to say that with ONLY formal bureaucratic correspondence IOF probably won't get any reply and that should IOF know from the past experiences. This second informal/formal open communication channel within IOF I see as a good substitute when federation can't attend the yearly IOF meeting or in cases when federations have poor structure and are not able to make adequate response in a formal way (we are in both categories). I found that this was already suggested by Australia in 2007 at Non EU meeting.

It is nice to hear that your federation is on good track but it is obviously that others don’t have the capacity to do this or they just thougth that IOF not need their help to make a good strategy and plan. Some countries also communicate their wishes through their representative in the IOF council and commissions. My opinion is that IOF officials should search/trying to find also other ways to get more responses, at least from half of the IOF member countries as when they would thought that it is no big problem to have only 5 or 14 responses than we will really get the “Old boys club”. Maybe we already have it as I don’t understand how could be possible that most of the best athletes and probably federations are against the last version of new WOC programme if "we" have a good decision making process. Can I assume that most of these 14 countries which made a reply suggested this kind of a new WOC programme or is this just the personal view/solution of IOF officials? They could say that it is no room for Middle ChaseF if only 5 Final events are preferred and whole thing would look very differentlly. What are the other reasons that they prefer MiddleChaseF over MiddleF besides that federation "clearly preferred Chasing start over mass start"? Is this TV and media proposal and we believe them more than our experinces. Do we really don't have any traditional opinion leaders in orienteering community?

But because it is not productive only to say it is not good enough or bad I really like to see different proposals, ideas and not just what IOF can do through this process. So what is the CAN idea of new WOC programme?

And here is my view of planning and analyzing

What I was trying to say with “think differently, act differently” is what Sweden articulated in their response. In this process we (together with IOF) should be able to develop better evaluation criteria for all key goals. From the outcome of the analysis we should better understand about what was really achieved in one period and did we make the right and sufficient key goals when we were planning. It is a continuous process and that is way I think that for the next period we need more specific and more accurate measurements also for Regional development goals.

To have goals and strategy is O.K. but we should be also realistic about what we can really do as realistic goals can be more inspiring than unrealistic. It shouldn’t happened that for the key goal “All major events shall be covered by international TV Broadcasting networks” that Sweden as one who play the major role in this key goal understand the goal differently than IOF. Is this because of lack of communication in the process of planning or misunderstanding about what our key goal really is. I am with Sweden here as I think that IOF should develop more specific and numerical indicators where it is possible as they are more accurate and they don’t lie. E.g. Do we need for this goal sub indicators (how many minutes, in how many countries, TV right revenues ...)? Can somebody with planning and using past experience say what it is today position and what should be the target for the next period or do we in fact need/want to look in these sub key goals indicators at all? I think they are important for our communication and future planning.

One of that kind of unrealistic goals inspired only by IOC evaluation criteria document was number of IOF members. To reach this target of 75 IOF members we putted this as a key goal already in 1996 for the 2002 but we are still not there yet. More sub indicators should be part of this key goal (Olympic inclusion) and that is why I asked about how good we were at attracting the IOC and NOC officials in the past.

It is also important that group of people who are preparing a strategy and plan are not the same who makes evaluation and analysis after the end of the period.

Be more creative than in the past should also be our motto. But the question is: Can they?

Here is Norway's proposal.
http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/...

"In this review we have consulted media experts, athletes, coaches... " so they must have consulted Lundanes, long world champion. So he should blame his own federation, not IOF work group. IOF group has done great job if feedback has been like that.

And as usual there's something rotten in the state of Norway. If I cared a bit less about orienteering I would just bring the popcorn and watch the drama unfold too...

That Norway proposal is quite traditional, and different from the radical IOF proposals...

Day 1- Opening
Day 2 – Sprint: Prologue and knock-out – 1 WOC title.
Day 3 – Middle distance – Prologue
Day 4 – Middle distance – Chase start - 1 WOC title.
Day 5 - Rest day
Day 6 – Relay- 1 WOC title.
Day 7 – Long distance- 1 WOC title.

No mass-start, mixed gender "diversification" etc.

If men in suits = Tore Sagvolden & Bjørnar Valstad then I'm getting old :(


@Jagge. "hobby spectator orienteers who know they hava and should not have any influence."

With the IOF's stated position to appeal to spectators, and the de facto position that "hobby spectator orienteers" will put the thing on, for free, in our spare time (see AP discussion on USA2017), ignoring our views seems a bit, well, rash.

For the nothing that its worth, I like the proposals. A festival of comedy formats to keep us punters amused, followed by a single proper race to determine a single proper world champion of orienteering.

So, no independent navigation in WOC finals at all? Wow Norway.

Well, proposal of replacing today's middle with chase and sprint with knock out and suggesting having long with 1 min start interval is not something I would call traditional. But I guess you are right as usual, IOF took it yet one step further.

Don't forget that "runners choice" rears its ugly head again!

So, no independent navigation in WOC finals at all?

I guess athletes still has to find their way to event areas and competition center, and from home to airport :)

Looking at this from another point of view, what means has the IOF to help develop orienteering in member states?

Does what the IOF does/does not do have any impact what happens on smaller nations except through WOC and allocation of WREs?

ISOM/ISSOM are great, but that's been a while.

Since IOF exists, it must do stuff. And its primary "vehicle" is WOC. Is there another path it could take?

I just had a closer look at what IOF really does and found these things:

- They organise clinics for things like mapmaking and event organisation.
- They collect compasses for developing o-nations. (Wonder what they will do when they realise a compass from Finland doesn't work very well in Mozambique?)
- They write a lot of inspirational reports about elite athletes on their homepage.

Anything else not directly related to WOC/WRE/WG?

The Swedish WOC week response as published on orientering.se. Note that federations have responded to the specific WIF proposal from the IOF working group to be found here!. Further down on the page is a list of working group members.

Not sure how athletes and coach representatives feel about being referred to as "men in suits" :-)

PS I didn't mean to be negative re IOF in my last post. The clinics are important. It was more, there is pressure on IOF to help develop the sport - what options do they have?

[On a side note... Ahh Tommy B my favourite person in O. ]

And its primary "vehicle" is WOC. Is there another path it could take?

I have a few suggestions... A boyscout leader cloning program, a little troll breeding farm (fill in the blanks), a leveraged bribery program to benefit the wellbeing of third-nation IOC members. Feel free to add your own!

Come on... does anyone seriously think that the IOF has instruments at its disposal that would have more impact on orienteering development than the WOC?

I would argue that the current programme at WOC is decent. The proposed changes would be of at best very small benefit and risk being deleterious.

Spending the effort n advertising and marketing around WC/WOC, and development projects in regions might be more effective than playing with the programme. What will they have to come up with in five years time?

Spending the effort n advertising and marketing around WC/WOC, and development projects in regions might be more effective than playing with the programme. What will they have to come up with in five years time?

That is a very good point. Considering all prior changes to the program were motivated the same way and didn't lead to any immediate gains in popularity, what says it will be different this time?

I would argue that the current programme at WOC is decent. The proposed changes would be of at best very small benefit and risk being deleterious.

Spending the effort n advertising and marketing around WC/WOC, and development projects in regions might be more effective than playing with the programme.

I happen to agree with all of this. I think the WOC, IOF's best promotion vehicle, works well with the current program, and the best way to increase its impact is not through tinkering with the program. Perhaps the appropriate steps would be to have more WOC-like events in more of the world, specifically in the Americas where the potential for growth is the largest.

So like say, a week of WC races twice a year, plus WOC? 2005/2006 style?

Tundra/Desert: Did you see my note about the Panamerican games? I was kind of hoping someone who knew anything about it would respond...

The Swedish WOC week response as published on orientering.se. Note that federations have responded to the specific WIF proposal from the IOF working group to be found here!

@TyrTom: That response is very well thought through - I'd love to see a response from the IOF Council describing the thoughts behind their new proposal in that kind of detail.

IOF has a really powerful tool with WOC.

-When IOF adopted the sprint format in WOC, it wasn't long before the US had S/M/L race weekends and Sprint Series Champs. WOC was a direct motivation for this, and now clubs nationwide are investing time and money on new ISSOM maps. WOC can steer priorities and resources.

-The mass start is often scoffed at as 'not real orienteering'. For better or worse, clubs worldwide base their event schedules around time trials. 50 years of time-trial based WOC certainly has something to do with this. WOC can legitimize or marginalize.

Since trickle down effects may be the most important in the long term, I'd love to see this certain things addressed. Will the format be suitable in developing nations? How will a format be implemented by clubs on a budget? Can it be adapted to be fun/attractive to less skilled beginners?

Example of how this would affect my decision making: If you just want to get first across the finish line scoring at WOC, a prologue/chase might be just as good as a mass start. But if you want first across the finish line scoring to be adopted worldwide and locally, you are probably better off supporting the mass start, because two-stage events are more logistically difficult to organize locally and will always be rare; but mass start events have very simple logistics and have potential for wide adoption.

@eriol: PanAm games are in Toronto and Hamilton in 2015. GHO hasn't directly or indirectly been asked to do anything on the orienteering front. But the 2015 games organizationally appear to be an absolute mess with changing deadlines, rumours of back room deals for the decision of awarding the venues and more. Many people I know will try to make sure they aren't around when the games are being hosted.

Here is a list and location of the sports (Hamilton is the 'west zone' in the Toronto-centric World).

http://www.toronto2015.org/venue-map-en.html

I understand there were moves afoot from some of the southern European countries to get orienteering into the Mediterranean Games, but don't know if anything has happened with that.

As far as a few of the other items on the list posted earlier are concerned:

- there was an application to get ski orienteering into the Winter Olympics but it was unsuccessful.

- there's a fair chance that the target of two World Cup series outside Europe per Olympiad will be met for 2012-2016 - one is already confirmed and a second bid is likely.

One thing that needs to be taken into account in some of this discussion is that the IOF doesn't actually have all that much money - from memory I think it has three staff (not all full-time) and an annual turnover of something like EUR 300K. This makes it a similar size to, say, Orienteering Australia and a much smaller organisation than SOFT (in fact it would presumably be smaller than just about any decent-sized club in the Nordic countries).

So there's a Non-Europe meeting is there? I didn't know there was any NE forum other than AP.

Hammer: Yeah, I pretty much knew. I don't think anyone expects local orienteers to do anything about it and it 's probably too late now. But I still think the PanAm games is the next logical step from World Games. It will have to be either IOF or a combination of Canada/US/Brazil federations that take the initiative to make it happen in the future.

blairtrewin: I personally think IOF has been given unrealistic goals considering their financial situation. But IOF doesn't really want to admit that, instead they just pretend to do a lot of things, like working for olympic inclusion.

In some areas traditional time-trial based forest orienteering is rapidly losing popularity while participation in urban, mass-start, park and score style events is increasing.

If WOC remains as it is does it risk becoming increasingly disconnected from the grass-roots of the sport? Does it matter?

Should developing nations be trying to emulate WOC formats to promote the sport? It would make more sense if they adopted the formats which are increasing in popularity and attracting newcomers.

Perhaps the IOF should provide some more leadership on promoting formats of orienteering which are better suited for mass-participation and growing the sport rather than changing the formats at the World Championships?

Mediterranean Games

Italians are leading the CONFEDERATION OF MEDITERRANEAN
ORIENTEERING FEDERATIONS (COMOF) which was constituted on Nov 12th 2010. We got the GA minutes and invitation to join but I don't know more as our federation didn't decide to become a member.

We (probably I but probably also an Executive board) also don't know what are the conditions for new sports to be inluded into MG and maybe this was the reason that federation didn't step in at this year spring COMOF meeting. I have took a look at ICMG rules but there was nothing specific about this process. ICMG will have General Assembly in Mersin (Turkey) on the 15th October 2011 so probably Italians are doing something in this direction.

It would be nice to get into MG but when I read the ICMG rules once again I noticed that IOF is entilted to make a move as much as COMOF. I don't know if it is necessary to have one more organization but if we need it to get into MG IOF should more actively support COMOF. Some federations like our has also principle problems to pay membership fee to one more organization. I don't know who are the members right now but it is not good that we are not united. If IOF want to make a move which is more than just administrating than they could invest more time and some money also in COMOF so all the countries will be part of the COMOF right away. Only legal support is just obligatory support and that is so rigid position from IOF. (Probably same as for PanAm games - We are waiting you Americans to do a move).

MG could have at least same importance as WG for the IOF and future Orienteering development. I think even more because the fact is that MG are sport games for Olympic and Non-Olympic sports. Regional games are in my eyes more important than World games for Olympic inclusion as regional development is the key of success to get more people into sport and at the end you could get a community willing to watch WOC on TV. Average Joe will watch football or something else in 99%. Who will watch WOC if nobody is interested in elite orienteering other than Scandi and a few other countries? We need growth on regional level. Do we know what kind of follow up results we achieved in Chinese Taipei after WG2009? We don't know because that was not part of the IOF analysis of strategic directions in 2006-2012. But it is important that we measure each IOF event by some common agreed indicators. We should learn something out of it and not just searching to find new countries willing to stage an IOF event. If they did it they must educute federations what are the results, they must be more open with what they really do.

At least in our case National Olympic committee makes bigger priority to MG which are 2nd by importance after the Olympics. WG are on last 7th place. At least for WG2009 athletes got a little better support than for WG2005. Non olympic sport federations have been insisted in previous years that WG should be on the same level as MG but that was not happend. Also some other sport games which are part of IOC vision get better suport e.g. Youth Olympic games (YOG) and European Youth Olympic festival (EYOF - winter, summer) and other our regional and traditional sports games as Youth games Alpe - Jadran (winter, summer) and Youth games of three regions.

One reason that our goverment and Olympic committee act like this is also because Olympic sports don't want to be treated lower than Non-Olympic sports. And they exploit their rights which are written in Olympic Charter. So 90% of money given by goverment and NOC is for Olympic sports as they could nearly change the Rules as they want. And they did it. Non-olympic sports have almost no chances in these process. We have tried a few times but the machine is strong and work united. At the end it is everything by the Rules! System work for Olympic sports and not for Non-Olympic sports. Some more traditional non olympic sports were allowed to get into the club but this is just politics. We get only some crumbs after the lunch is finished.

Guiding principles

....to strengthen the World Championships as the primary showcase for orienteering by positioning it for high quality TV coverage.

I believe all or at leat weight in this TV issue. If you think of the suggested changes, it's all about generate action one could easily shoot with TV cameras. Sprint relay, knock out sprint, chase, shorter start interval in general. Atheltes running together/grous in front of TV cameras, lesss waiting time. "Blocks" and the rest day in between is for TV gear logistics in mind (not for athletes to recover).

Unfortunately "what is good O for TV" is not discussed, studied and asked feedback, insted the ideology behind their thinking is from last millenium. Im 90's there was no GPS tracking, no lightweight wireless cameras and wireless networks, and so on. Back then the argumets behind having chase and mass starts races were more reasonable. But that was two decades ago. We also know now better, sprint proven to be really difficult to shoot and in general makes rather poor TV show compared to for example middle. Based on 90's thinking sprint should have been much much better.

If TV is WIF's main and virtually only goal, just say it. Then work groups, federations, atheltes, coaches and we hobby spectators could discuss what makes good O format for TV. And test those formats. You don't need TV production to test it, 5-8 regular video cameras and gps tracking whould do, just edit "real time" race report video afterwars. If race format works for TV it should be easy to make cool video reports too.

When we have good idea and some sort of consessus about good TV formats and formats has been used at national level (if format works there is takes for sure) and all find if fun and fair, then it time to start discussing should we get one of those to a championship events or not.

Why does 'live' tv appear to be the controlling feature (leading to e.g. short start blocks, mass start, etc)?

Orienteering strikes me as a sport that is singularly not suited to live tv (except for the existing enthusiasts, and that can't be the purpose of aiming for tv coverage).

In contrast it strikes me as a sport that is completely suited to a highlights package type programme (making use of good gps, good commentary, and good editing). Whether or not this would still make it popular to a general audience I'm unsure. But if tv is the be-all and end-all, then being realistic about the pros and cons of the sport, and possible coverage might be a good start.

As soon as you emphasise highlights rather than live, the style of events that can be covered increases greatly (and allows more traditional racing to be part of the whole package).

Agreed. I think a highlights show would be much better. The presenters could go over the map with an ex-pro, look at the routes etc. And you can pick the runners who run well and show more of their footage, rather than the chaotic mish-mash we got at WOC this year. It's much easier to get a flow, a story line, with highlights. Trying to watch the sprint live is impossible because it all happens so quickly. Start, 2 TV controls and finish and people starting every mintues; impossible to keep up!

@T/D
Come on... does anyone seriously think that the IOF has instruments at its disposal that would have more impact on orienteering development than the WOC?

Yes, I think they must find/develop these instruments. But if they can't or they are not willing to do then they must step down no matter how much they like to lead the IOF. They were chasing these 75 IOF members target as it was the only last obstacle to get into Olympics. But they forgot that we need to become also part of other regional sport games in the last 15 or more years. Is the problem that these initiatives don't have support as they suppose to have because IOF can't collect fees out of these events? It also seems that Olympic sports are much quickier in developing their new non-olympic disciplines and push it from the bottom to the Regional and finally to the Olympics.

So GBR should probably try on their own to push orienteering into Commonwealth games and try to develop orienteering in their influence regions. So IOF need just to wait some 20-30 years before will be everything ready to collect fees for WOC and RC! That kind of governance we should avoid!

@candyman
Should developing nations be trying to emulate WOC formats to promote the sport? It would make more sense if they adopted the formats which are increasing in popularity and attracting newcomers.

If you speak for Elite programme than YES but developing nations and some of us small o federations are developing only recreational way of orienteering. That means that complicated technical formats have no chance to be popular. I don't know which formats you have in mind but I still see that individual sprint (to some extent), middle and long will be the most popular in any case. Just compare how many relay events are in Scandinavia and around the world but it is a WOC format.

Most of the TV events here are seen with 8 hours delay, race in the morning, on tv in the evening. Some are live, most are not. I must say some exitement is missing if it's not live. On the other hand many highlights show possibilites are not used, the show it usually done and seen as if it was live.

Some highlights show thinking from the past:
http://www.suunnistus.info/sf/browser/showfile?cus...
http://okansas.blogspot.com/2005/08/live-orienteer...

@T/D ... does anyone seriously think that the IOF has instruments at its disposal that would have more impact on orienteering development than the WOC?

Yes. The two main positive developments in the last ~10 years are e-punching and ISSOM. Both pushed hard by IOF, top-down, in part through WOC. I don't know what's next, but I guess it will have something to do with GPS (tracking, mapping, use for navigation).
The WOC format has been a bit of a fail. Short races limped along for a bit, then abandoned in 2001. There's the odd serious middle and sprint in the UK, but the thing that's really taken off is urban (London urban race is now UKs largest one day O-event). Nobody is talking about it for WOC, but I certainly don't think it would have taken off without ISSOM, and probably not without e-punching.

Live TV is a waste of time: the real action is when athletes are lost Watching people run past easy TV controls and up the run-in is like watching soccer coverage where they show you the throw-ins rather than the goals. I feel that edited highlights should be workable, but I've never seen a good example based around a competition rather than the "here's some people doing nutty things in the woods" angle.

E-punching pushed hard by the IOF? That's not the way the story is told in Scandinavia. Here it was private companies and a few enthusiastic individuals that pushed, and they didn't even need to push hard... The only thing done top-down was rules for how it should be used and in Finland and Norway a generl decision on what system to use.

Big and thoughtful post by Olav Lundanes in the comments of http://news.worldofo.com/2011/09/13/lundanes-looks...

Eriol - the PanAm Games are a good multi-sport games goal for orienteering. But we need to strengthen/increase the number of federations first. 42 countries belong to PASO, less that 10 currently have orienteering federations, so there is no way that a bid to include orienteering in Toronto would have been successful. I think that PanAm Games inclusion would be realistic in the next 10-20 years, if we can strengthen the South American federations and develop a Mexican federation.

I think the Australians may have mixed views about working in with a multisport games - the World Masters Games. But then, after grizzling the first time they undertook to do it again. Any comment? And of course others including Canada have done it.

charm: No, 14 countries in the Americas currently have orienteering federations. Compare with Water-skiing which has 17 and is on the PanAm games...

Live TV is a waste of time

I am not so sure about that. There is need for live picture, web if not TV. It's difficult to imagine we stop doing web video feed at all any more, but instead make highlights video and show it couple of days later on youtube. Studying what is the best systematic way to do it live picture can't be bad idea or waste of time. What if we find out middle with 2 min start interval is the one of the very best formats for live picture? Wouldn't that be useful information and something to build on. And some facts to use against these silly sprint-knock-out-beer-chase-relay ideas. And WOC is not the only O event out there, TV friendly formats could be used in non champinship events, so it's not that bad thing to study the issue.

@Eriol
I was nearly sure that you will check the situation. You are right. We are just too slow in these processes as we are not trying to find solutions for inclusion. We are too polite and humble. We are just not as creative as we think we are when it comes to these questions. We should have more courage as you would need a few years for inclusion anyway. If you feel that you should take the initiative than make a plan what you should know, what are the conditions for inclusion for new sports, ask American federations, IOF what they know and what they can do, what is their time schedule. They said that have some people with orienteering background in these multisport organizations and definitely they should help as they have contacts and know how to dance thru these bureaucratic processes. Waiting for more member countries without knowing the facts or making any further step is bureaucratic way of thinking.

jagge - Live tv is of interest to those of us who are already into the sport, and those who know the people involved. Yes, some level of web-streaming adds to the 'watching' of WOC from afar. But, it doesnt need to be much. The most important thing for that to work, is good updating of splits, good live gps, and good commentary - a background shot of one spectator control and the finish is all that is needed to add to this.

However, this clearly is not how to use tv to attract more people to the sport (apparently one of the driving forces behind the bastardisation of some of the events). TV coverage must have time to tell a story, explain mistakes, interview particpants, etc - this doesnt work live. As someone said earlier, we really have to understand who we are trying to market the sport too - and then work out what to do.

Olav's article is even more worrying. Graeme commented earlier about Tore and Bjornar clearly not being 'suits'. However, if ex- best in the world elites are putting names to ideas that aren't supported by the present team, and in doign so thus selling it as supported by the athletes, we are in a real mess.

In the last years I come to a conclusion that as much as we orienteers like orienteering and like to have technical aspects of orienteering we are very lousy when it comes to the systematically approaches! It was said that IOF is small. So what! I think that a lot of hobby orienteers around the world are willing to help and are able to do something also when it comes to global issues and projects under the IOF. Many of them are working for IOF but many of them could help from time to time. They must just decide to be more open, more creative, share more inside information with the federation and interested o communities and learn how to communicate with the public. Think differentlly, act differentlly!

Put out the projects and ask/invite orienteers what kind of help you need, where you think you are short. I am sure that o community is very educated and will help and not just observing and making criticism. A lot of orienteers are very passionate about orienteering and it is logical that most of the posts are negative examples because people hoped for better and more quality results. Think differently, act differently and criticism will disappear. I see that most of the people including myself are posting these examples because we want to see a change, to help or inform what should be also good to analyze before we (they) decide what we can and what we can’t do.

It is great to read proposals and comments from people who are members of IOF commissions or work in federations as it is really what IOF should also do. E.g. IOF made WOC survey in 2009 and I also posted my comments. It is normally that when you do public survey you also make public the report and notice all the people who were giving you the inputs. That is something normal to me. Communication can't go just in one way. IOF officials think that they will do what they can do by themselves but than they should think to make a much shorter plan and a much lower goals than in the past. We all know that it is impossible to run so many projects with so little human and financial resources, especially now when the projects are getting bigger and bigger.

We like to do things as we do in the woods, always trying to find new ideas, routes, changing our mind without to make a full execution of one task. We would definitely need to have more persons with ThierryG attitude in IOF as then we could do something from start to finish.

We can’t afford to act as large sport organizations. We are (still) a small sport!

Huippuliiga O series has been on tv here since 2004. We have seen sprints, chases, mass starts and all. Typical setup (minimum) that works pretty well/best so (even live) is about like this example.:

example course (big blue dot is TV camera. just example course, not an old TV course)

- about 3 cameras, one at start finish area, one in forest, on handheld one for interviews and stuff like that.
- gps tracking, with operator or two.
- 1 or 2 min start interval.

- Cameras can shoot athletes starting, approaching #1 and taking route choice to #2. And again to #9 (same as #1) and again to #13. GPS tracking shows section 2-9, longer route choise legs are placed there.

- at first commentators show map and discuss day's course, route choice options and tricky places. First runners start during this. Then they show athletes starting, taking #1, picking route choise to #2 (=one of the options alredy discussed). Then they start picking gps tracking from the long loop, comparing route choises, comparing each runner against leader at that point (in mass start mode), mistakes and time lost/gain by route choices. Later on camera moves to showing runners coming to #9. And in the end the decissive moments, last runner who has chance to win comes to #9, gps tracking in mass start mode trough short last loop, TV at #13, last control and finally finishing. Then interviews, then the whole race animation in mass start mode, maybe clip from flowering ceremony and then it's over.

No dead waiting time, all the time happens enough - at least comparing one some runner against intermediate leader using GPS tracking mass start mode (often animating faster tahn real time from 5min ago to now). There is always mistakes, those can be picked up too to show how someone destroyed his chances. There is enough going on, but not too much or too fast, commentators have time to notice, show and talk about it. And the setup isn't that big after all, not that many cameras needed after all, and not too much wires because forest TV is'n that far.

--

Sprints haven't been succesfull. Too much going on all too fast, no-one has a clue what is happening. GPS tracing doesn't work, for buidings and the accuracy needed for 1:5000 scale. About ten sprint tv shoes so far, all of them have failed.

Mass start and chase has not worked either. You need lots of cameras and if you have only some you end up having lots of vaiting time wihtout any live picture of runners. Just gps tracking, and that's just messy grup of dots. Less differences in route choices, less personal mistakes (for following). Makes it boring compared to individual start race.

Non orienteers has said the same. Forest races are intresting, it is easier to understand, easier to see what happens (route choises and mistakes) and commentators are "better" (=they have time to explain and are not clueless as in sprints). And they have said they find sprints ridiculous, too confusing and boring. What has surprised me is they have found gps tracking interesting and addictive - not nerdy as I thought, maybe car gps navigation makes it look "normal".

Unfortunately latest TV evnts this year has been just sprints and one forest chase, without much syccess. I wonder has there been pressure from somewhere to try these formats. I hope they go back to better (forest middle) TV formats next year.

I wonder has WIF group watched all those TV programs we have had here during last 8 years. They should have.

@jagge: First thanks a lot for a very good script of TV from a typical Finnish race! Then I'll try to do some summarizing about the process here, as I think it might not be clear to all (sorry for long post).

Jagge wrote: I wonder has WIF group watched all those TV programs we have had here during last 8 years. They should have.

The WIF group's suggestions are actually quite good (in my opinion) compared to what they got to work with. They were asked to suggest a new WOC program which should include both mass-start and mixed sprint relay. They crossed the mandate and suggested chasing start instead of mass-start (which is good - chasing start should be easier to produce in a good way for TV) - but included the mixed sprint relay as they were asked to. The WIF group also suggested to keep the middle, the long, the sprint and the relay - but to get rid of qualification races. The "problem" is what the IOF Council decided based on the input from the federations. Based on the input from the federations which I have seen/heard so far, you could set up basically any new WOC program (but I've only seen a few). The IOF Council made their choice based on the WIF group work and the input from the federations (CAN, DEN, EST, FIN, GBR, IRL, JPN, NOR, NZL, POL, RUS, SUI, SWE, USA). I have not seen all the input from the federations, but here are some:

- Sweden
- Norway [as it looks to me, it looks like Norway has most reason to be happy with the suggestion from the IOF Council (although I am not sure exactly who in Norway this is....)]
- Canada (only summary by pi here on AP)
- Edit: added GBR [posted by candyman below]

Here is the summary of the input from the 14 federations as prepared by the IOF Council:
- Removing of qualification races is generally accepted
– Chasing start is clearly preferred over mass start as a “first-to-finish“ format.
– Qualification by WOC is favoured to a higher degree than qualification by World Ranking
– Six medal events were felt to create a too heavy a programme for both athletes and organisers
– Some argued for having a WOC week shorter than 8 days
– New formats should be well tested before being introduced on the WOC programme
– Hesitation to the sprint relay among some federations
– The possibility to have a separate sprint WOC, or to have alternating sprint and “forest“ WOCs every second year were mentioned by some federations.
– The need for live quality TV broadcast from WOC is seen differently – highest priority for some, no priority for others

My summary:
* Actually the only one of the bullet points in the summary of the feedback pointing in direction of removing the individual middle distance is the following: "Six medal events were felt to create a too heavy a programme for both athletes and organisers"
* None of the bullet points in the summary of the feedback suggests that the sprint relay is more important than the traditional relay
* None of the bullet points in the summary of the feedback suggests that a chasing start is to be preferred ahead of an individual middle distance

But as I have not seen all the feedback but just IOFs summary, it is not possible to make any real judgement of this. If the process would be even more transparent, it would be easier in that regard. Thanks to Norway and Sweden for posting their responses.

Based on the input I've seen and heard from federations, a different conclusion suggesting alternating traditional WOCs and sprint WOCs would be just as probable a choice based on the input given. But some in the IOF are against this - as I understand it it may be partly due to lower income for IOF with a "smaller" sprint WOC every alternating year.

A general summary of the feedback from GBR athletes, coaches and selectors to the WIF group:

Strong desire for current disciplines to be preserved.

Broad concern over the elimination of qualification races including the dilution of the quality of the fields and lack of opportunity for athletes form developing nations.

Concerns over both WRL and previous WOC results for allocating places, in particular strong opinion against elimination of Middle Qualification but more acceptance of elimination Long Qualification IF an acceptable alternative method could be found.

Strong opinion that every country should be guaranteed at least one place for every discipline.

Some concern that adding more medal days would dilute the competition as the best runners would be forced to miss more disciplines.

Concern over the mixed relay format which was largely untested.

Concern over grouping the events in to 'blocks' as it will result in more athletes having to race in finals on consecutive days.

Generally positive about exploring new formats anwhich could bring excitement and improved spectator enjoyment, however new disciplines should be thoroughly tested and proved in World Cup series before WOC inclusion.

Suggestion that Long race should be held at the end of the week - crowning the King and Queen of orienteering.

It was identified that many important issues were not included as part of the remit of the WOC in the Future Group and given the constraints they had done a good job. However to do a proper review they should have been given more flexibility to consider a wider range of options.

Alternatives

There was a strong opinion that having alternating urban and forest WOCs would be a considerable improvement over the current proposal.

There was also strong support for returning to having WOC every second year alternating with a revamped World Cup series.

@Eriol - well, it depends how you count those countries. Sure there are 14 countries listed in the IOF's website, but I count that nine of them are listed as "Provisional Members". I'm not sure what that means, but it sure doesn't sound good. At the last WOC - well I was going to count how many PASO countries attended but I'd be amazed if it was more than five. But the exact number isn't important - the point is that 'hardly any' countries have active orienteering and so why would the other countries (who don't have active programs) support adding to the Pan Am program a new sport that nobody in their country participates in? They probably wouldn't.

As for comparing to Water Skiing - there is basically no point in making that comparison. Water Skiinig is "In" and orienteering is "Out" of Pan Am games. The important comparisons are with other sports that are "Out", and the comparison needs to be made along the criteria that PASO uses when adding new sports.

Those hopeless & evil bureaucrats ;-) at the IOF actually hosted a presentation about this very subject at the last WOC (relating to what it takes to be added into the Olympics). I wonder if there are any notes from that presentation anywhere? Understanding the process of how to get added is kind of important

@jankoc
The WIF group's suggestions are actually quite good .....- but included the mixed sprint relay as they were asked to.

This part about mixed relay you should investigate or tell us who are they if you know? It must be clear as people don't know who is drinking and who is paying.

From news at IOF WIF page you can't be sure who are they. In Ozine article 3/2010 you have this information:
".....and a new relay with two women and two men in the team is on the way."

In WIF News 28 January 2011 you have:
Furthermore, the group is proposing to introduce a sprint-style relay with mixed teams of two men and two women, such as on the World Games programme.

From AUS report of Presidents Conference 2009 it is clear that atlhetes didn't propose the mixed relay. It was also stated: There was a greater acceptance of new forms and experimentation with event models within the World Cup program than within the World Championship program.

IOF hasn't published IOF General Assembly minutes from Trondeheim 2010 on their page so I could assume that GA only voted for mixed relay. But who proposed this to GA? If this was IOF Council or WIF itself or in cooperation with any Federations why you can't say that.

To be clear: I am not against that we get a fifth discipline. We could say that this is "Olympic discipline" if we need it but writing that they were asked to is not correct.

@kofols: As far as I know the mixed relay was suggested by the IOF (Council? Presidents conference? General Assembly?) based on positive feedback by the IOC after World Games. But if somebody else has more information, please correct me. It is not a suggestion by the WIF group - it was input to the WIF group that this should be part of the program.

@candyman
Strong opinion that every country should be guaranteed at least one place for every discipline.

After SWE federation also GBR athletes for this solution. I am working on WRL proposal as I see that it can be done much better than today and it can be more fair to non-EU athletes. I see the problems and long term solutions in same way as they for middle and Long. WRL changes should be part of a new WOC proposal. Also WRL is one of the IOC evaluation criteria.

I think one of the biggest flaws with the proposal to eliminate qualifications was that there was no alternative system proposed, it simply isn't good enough to say that they will work one out later.

I think if a good proposal was put forward there would be a lot more acceptance of eliminating the qualification races.

Yes. The two main positive developments in the last ~10 years are e-punching and ISSOM.

And where would ISSOM be without the WOC giving legitimacy to the Sprint as a format? My guess is it'd be confined to PWT-like novelties.

I think WOC should remain the same and IOF can do whatever they like but call it Orienteering World Games. They can have their fun boys and girls treasure hunts or whatever.. But WOC will still run yearly and noone can complain.

Agreed with tomtom

@AZ
Sure there are 14 countries listed in the IOF's website, but I count that nine of them are listed as "Provisional Members". I'm not sure what that means, but it sure doesn't sound good.

Interesting. I would say that provisional status has different meaning before and now. Till 2010 I would say that each provisional status was confirmed by next IOF General Assembly when member must become full member or associate member. In IOF statutes is now written how long provisional member can retain provisonal membership status. From what I read I understood that new member can hold provisional status for max. two or three Congress periods.

Here is the list of last approved applications for provisional membership or confirmed for full membership by IOF Council or IOF GA (data from IOF page).

2011 - Cyprus (No.73)
2010 - Montenegro (No.72)
2010 - Barbados (No.71 full membership)
2008 - Panama (No.70)
2008 - Moldova (full membership)
2008 - Kyrgyzstan (No.69)
2008 - Mozambique (No.68)
2006 - DPR Korea (full membership)
2005 - Georgia (No.67)
2005 - Somalia (No.66)
2005 - Kenya (No.65)

So probably all federations except Panama should become full members at next GA in 2012 but it can't happen if the federation will not apply for it. So what IOF can do? But as you said: "But the exact number isn't important - the point is that 'hardly any' countries have active orienteering..."

My answer is: Development projects should include more than just WOC, IOF clinics, compass project or Oringen Academy. It is good that 10 people from development countries each year visit Oringen academy but if you can send 10 people from SWE into development countries you could educate 1000 people. Check regional development proposal from Helge Søgaard (DEN) at EU meeting in 2009. That is development we need! We can't chase just this IOC criteria of 75 members because we are not Triathlon!

I also don't understand why IOF doesn't promote more on their website good examples as it was made by France this year - International Relations Project for the WOC. I remembered that WOC2003 also had such a project and our athletes also got support to go to the WOC. At that time we felt that somebody understand what means that your are undeveloped when it comes to Elite orienteering. Now "undeveloped" means that individuals in one country don't have a clue what orienteering is.

We NEED development commission, department or whatever IOF wants to call it!

Wauuuu! EWG rock! Helge Søgaard for president!

There are no more provisional members. All members are full members.

If only the IOF had access to the enthusiasm and energy expended on this thread and some other related ones...

Tundra/Desert: It's the associate member status that has been removed, provisional member is something different I think. But it makes no difference because the IOF will never kick anyone out anyway, the 75 member goal is all that matters.

AZ: Comparison with other "out" sports is only relevant if there is a cap on number of events or athletes. The Summer Olympics is capped at 10500 athletes at the moment, but my understanding is that PanAm games has no such cap. According to wikipedia the number of participants are expected to increase from 6000 in 2011 to 8000 in 2015 without any increase in number of events, so plenty of space it seems.

kofols: IOF doesn't promote O-ringen Academy either, even though they are supposed to be co-hosts for it. I'm starting to doubt if there even was an Academy this year, can't find any evidence anywhere.

jankoc: So the IOC liked the mix-relay? My instinct would then be the opposite of IOF:s. The IOC has only seen simple exhibition-races at World Games. They will love REAL orienteering such as this years WOC-relay! If they ever get to experience it, that is...

Invitation to O-Ringen Academy International 2011
Invitation to O-Ringen Academy International 2010

It is true. The only public information is Inivation itself. No news from IOF. Two very obviously IOF weaknesses are promotion and development with management of the projects/follow-up tasks. It is strange that IOF just like to talk so much about development and promotion but don't have marketing/media not development commission. So strategy and activity plans on these areas are mosty made ad hoc when it is needed. It is great that we have Oringen Academy but if I can't read nothing about except invitation it is quite easy to see that IOF just like to promote itself and not the sport. IOF just don't know how to do also dissemination of effects of its projects. Maybe SWE federation has any reports about it but I haven't checked.

I couldn't find any reports from the Academy on the Swedish federation homepage either, and they are the other co-hosts. But there were some people from places like Turkey and Serbia that represented "Club Academy" in the races, so I think there must have been one after all.

I apologize, I was wrong. Provisional status is different from the former associate status. Provisional members can send teams to the WOC, so for all practical purposes there is not much difference between a provisional and a full member.

Eriol/kofols>> O-Ringen academy 2011 info here (oringen.se page)
participants photo
Curriculum

I think the total number of participants 2011 was just over 20. The past 4 years it has been between ~20 and ~50

Note that O-Ringen Academy has changed over the past 2-3 years also. Previously everyone did the same basic program, kind of a one-time deal. Now you can come back to Academy for a deeper continuing education. Several paople have returned several times for more inspiration as their own skills grow.

Also, to a previous point from kofols, there are plans for moving O-Ringen Academy abroad, i.e. following up participant countries at home by sending educators to them. However, we need to somehow find additional funding for this if it is going to happen. The O-Ringen and SOFT are already putting nearly 40 kEUR into O-Ringen Academy per year.

I agree with your point that more regional development needs to focus on growth in already established countries, instead of necessarily only finding new countries to establish in. Or preferrably both :-)

Thanks Tom! I made just a quick search through SOFT page and forgot to look at Oringen page. Just as curiousity, is it possible to dream about regional Oringen Academy also in countries like our in a few years time, let say before oo.cup or similar event in Slovenia? Countries like our probably can finance part of all costs, arange logistics, accommodation, etc. Probably also the program would need to be adopted. Maybe mix of 3-5 people (SOFT, club officials, coaches, athletes) who would be willing to spend a week or 10 days abroad. If IOF and SWE can cover travels expenses I see that could be quite possible to find a solution to make it happen. It is great that you share these information.

I wonder if these people will influence WOC

http://news.worldofo.com/2011/09/29/the-orienteeri...

Obviously not judging by the IOF's latest Ozine magazine:

http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12...

DOF will nominate Helge Søgaard for new IOF president.

It is really nice to see this proposal. I am also glad that my speculations from last september have come to reality. I hope that he will get enough support and I think small nations like us should support him.