In reply to Chris the Tall:
Not suggesting that they BMC should invent a crystal ball.
But above anecdotal evidence do they study what climbing is and the potential risks to the existing sport for which they represent.
For example;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2114 << Mostly moaning about a lack of money for competition climbers and how the Olympics could help
From:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/the-olympics-faster-higher-stronger
"Of course, the ultimate decision about whether or not climbing will be part of the Olympics rests with the IOC. Does it have a real chance of getting in? There are certainly factors in climbing’s favour. The IOC is known to be intrigued by the success of the X-Games and has favoured other less conventional sports, particularly skiing and snowboarding disciplines in the Winter Games.
Then there are powerful new revenue streams for the IOC to exploit. There isn’t a huge industry built around korfball, but there are some powerful brands associated with climbing, like North Face, which must be aching to get a stronger association with the Olympics. And outdoor sports can boast a high participation factor, certainly higher than many current Olympic disciplines."
^ALSO - mostly about money.. the IOC being a money driven, fairly bent and lacking moral compass are wondering if they can make a bit more cash with Climbing
"Those who support the BMC backing the IFSC’s bid for Olympic participation argue that if the BMC said no to the Olympics British climbing would lose out – and so would the BMC. Competitions officer Rob Adie says: ‘I don't think the IFSC would ever demand us to resign, but I don’t think they would be too happy if we say: “We don't support Sport Climbing becoming an Olympic sport, but oh, by the way, can we host the World Championships in 2013 please?”
^ We should support it to appease organisations with a lot to gain for political reasons?
"Adie says the main argument for voting yes is to remain involved in the decision-making process leading up to Olympic participation. ‘The IFSC are pursuing this without our support, so it is not a question of whether we agree with it, it is whether we want to be involved, and in the meantime allow us to host international events in the UK."
^ So - vote yes so that we can have an effect on it if it does go ahead - instead of what is best for climbing and climbers
"The BMC is a member of two international organisations, the IFSC and the UIAA, whose stated objectives include getting climbing into the Olympics. So if the BMC said no to the Olympics then they would be in violation of their obligations as members. They would have to allow a new body to take care of competitions."
^ Again - politics - not what they feel is objectively best for climbing and climbers
"And if climbing did achieve Olympic status, would the BMC be turning its back on a lot of new money that could help all its work – including access?"
^ Again - about money
"For all kinds of reasons, climbing outside still draws most of the talent and gets most of the media attention, certainly in Britain. But I’m willing to bet that if there were an Olympic gold medal up for grabs, many top climbers would reconsider – and the climbing public would be riveted."
^ Of course - less time doing real climbing - more time doing what is now necessary to try to earn a living
"How would that impact on British climbing generally? That can only remain speculation, but it will happen with or without the co-operation of the BMC. The IFSC is going to seek Olympic status with or without the BMC’s support"
^ Sure - but it would have a detrimental effect on a bid if one of the large bodies of a recent host country does not support the bid?
"Currently, the BMC only gets ten percent of its income from the Sports Council. Only 12 percent of its specialist programme budget is absorbed by competitions. The Olympics would change all that.
That flood of money would inevitably be spent on a very small number of climbers, coaches and administrators. Ordinary members might wonder what’s in it for them, especially, as the official warned, other grants might become vulnerable. Losing an access officer while taking on coaching staff would alienate ordinary members like nothing else. The character of the BMC might change for good."
^ No shit!
"Other sports have been down this road before. Log on to the British Canoe Union’s website and the first impression you get is that canoeing is all about competing and little else. There is no mention of access and conservation work at all, despite both being burning issues for ordinary canoeists.
For recreational paddlers, that’s frustrating. One stalwart from the canoeing scene told me that the BCU’s relationship with competitions has become ‘a case of the tail wagging the dog. It’s the debate of the day in many clubs and is creating a lot of discontent.’ Canoeists traditionally entered the sport through clubs and then specialised, for example as slalom canoeists or sea kayakers. Young paddlers are now more likely to be switched on by competitive kayaking. That is having an impact on how the sport develops."
^ OK - so - why has the BMC not done a study on the full remit of 'like' sports that have entered the Olympics and looked at the following:
- How it has changed these organisations
- How it has changed the outward focus of these sports
- What members of these organisations think about the process after it has happened
- How the money influx - being 100% Olympic focused has damaged the community and culture of a pre-existing sport
- If there has been any real benefit to the broader sport; opposed to a small number of coaches, teams & training facilities (with data to back this up)
- How the organisation's involved focus has changed, from what - to what
With this sort of study (instead of random anecdotal debate) they could have determined what was best for climbing over-all and been vocal about the result; regardless of what it is.
This would have been a far more professional way of handling a potentially-irreversible change to the activity they represent. Using results of these studies, and the data collected; then they should go to debates & votes.
Searching the BMC site; I cannot find anything published that suggests they have looked into this properly.