After four years as MTBO
Commission's Chairman, Sandor Talas announced last 21st December his
resignation. It was an irrevocable decision, based on a “serious
gap between the Council's and my view on the role of the MTBO
Commission, the optimal path to develop this discipline, and our
responsibility regarding the use of the limited time and enthusiasm
of our volunteers”. To the Portuguese Orienteering Blog, Sandor
explained the reasons that led him to take such an unexpected
position.
Four weeks ago, you resigned from
your place as MTBO Commission's Chairman. Was such outcome
inevitable?
Sandor Talas (S. T.) - This was
the final stage of a long process. During my four years as Chairman
of the MTBO Commission I considered resignation multiple times. Only
the plea and support of my friends in the Commission kept me going. I
kept making compromises in order to be able to push ahead the cause
of MTBO, but it was getting more and more difficult with each
compromise.
In many ways the last drop was both a
typical and interesting experience that recalled feelings from my
youth in Communist Hungary. The Council introduced new, Olympics
related tasks in the remit of the Commission: do annual evaluation of
MTBO against the Olympic evaluation criteria (when even FootO is
light-years away from the Olympic Games) and seek inclusion in the
Youth Olympic Games (an event only for Olympic sports).
I tried to discuss with the Vice
President responsible for the commission remits that it would be a
waste of resources for the MTBO Commission to spend scarce volunteer
time on this, and we should rather focus on the numerous development
challenges of MTBO. The Vice President decided that it was a waste of
time and resources to have a discussion, because these tasks should
be the same for all commissions. He also wrote me, and let me quote
this verbatim, because I would hate to twist his words: “All IOF
Commission should be committed to the vision of the IOF, hence those
Olympic Games related tasks can not be deleted in remits. If,
however, MTBO Commission is not committed to our vision to be
included in the Olympic and Paralympic Games, I can raise this for
discussion in our next Council meeting, and we'll see how to
proceed.”
That reminded me of the style of low
level Communist Party officials I met in the 80's in high school and
at university. Maybe that is the reason why I am a bit more sensitive
to this approach, especially in an amateur sports organization.
How hard was to take the decision of
your resignation?
S. T. - As I mentioned, this
wasn't a new idea. Passing the decision was a relief. Far less
pressure when you don't have to bang your head against the wall or
constantly thinking about how to get around artificial road blocks.
Also, now I can speak my mind without the constraints of the
position. In the meantime I have all the confidence that my friends
in the MTBO Commission will continue the work without my formal
membership. Of course, I will help them whenever it is required.
Did you have the support of all
members in the Commission?
S. T. - Well, they didn't
support my resignation. Some of them were quite disappointed when
they heard that I did. I had long discussions to ensure them that I'm
not leaving the sport, just my official role. But there was no
disagreement between us that the approach of the Council made little
sense. The only question was whether to stand up and debate it, or
just nod quietly and forget about it. It's a viable alternative
practiced by most commissions within the IOF structure. Say yes to
the Council and forget about pointless tasks. After all, what can the
Council do, if we don't do annual Olympic evaluation? Voice their
demands louder? Fire all the volunteers? It was simply me, who just
had enough of this comedy.
How do you evaluate your work in the
Commission?
S. T. - I have always mixed
feelings about my own work. We achieved a lot, but could have done
more. The most important for me is that, now, we have a broad based
international MTBO community. The MTBO elite was always closely knit
with great friendships across teams. Now we have also a youth and
junior community, not to talk about the vibrant masters group. Four
years ago there were few in the MTBO Group on facebook whom I didn't
know personally, while now I know probably less than half of the 1300
members. Numerous friendships formed across borders based on friendly
rivalries and the shared joy of MTBO. For me that is the greatest
achievement of an amateur sport like ours.
We have also achieved a lot in more
tangible areas: the quality of major international events have
improved; we have an official Youth and Junior European
Championships; there is a new major event program with a full week
competition for the World Championships. We also got the Masters
World Series going, the unofficial Masters World Cup (the name the
Council did not let us use). We also kept the rules evolving with the
times. For example, we were the first orienteering discipline to
allow the use of most GPS based devices. We have an accident an
injury database for fact based analysis of athletes’ safety, and we
were the first discipline to introduce regular event evaluation, four
years ago.
Unfortunately, as an illustration of
the weird situation within the IOF, the major achievement list would
not be complete without the things where success came from stopping
something happening. Escaping the threat of alternating World
Championships or a World Championships every second year; avoiding
mandatory 50% late fees on World Cups and World Championships; or
fending off the “Olympic style” only top 3 on podium (instead of
6) prize givings have to be mentioned as achievements, no matter how
sad it is.
There were major developments where we
played little direct role, but I would like to believe that helped to
catalyze events. MTBO has exploded in Sweden, we saw great activity
in Latvia and Turkey, increasing interest in Spain and in the United
States, just to name a few of the developments I was happy to see.
Regrettably, activity in some countries has declined, Slovakia being
the most painful loss, and some high potential countries like Norway
could not get started. The list of my ideas that I could not get
moving due to lack of energy or volunteers is too long to present
here. Probably the idea of a handbook on organizing the first MTBO
event in a new area is the one that comes back more often to my
dreams.
How difficult can be the leading
role in the MTBO Commission?
S. T. - There are many elements
that come together in a role like that and all of them have their
difficulty. Working with the commission members, organisers and event
advisers is like herding cats: trying to get volunteers with limited
time and many other professional and family priorities to accomplish
tasks on time and deliver quality events. Trying to explain coaches
and competitors that every solution is a compromise, no matter how
strong they feel about their view, some others feel just as strong
about different views.
I have to admit that the most tiring
was just standing in the finish areas of major events, feeling
responsibility for the outcome, hoping that everything works out
fine, but having no way to influence it. On many occasions I had my
entry to ride in the public competition, but by the time of my start
I was so tired that could not complete my course.
The most frustrating was the lack of
dialogue with the Council. Except for a single question of urgency
(WMTBOC Long qualification rule in 2014) the MTBO Commission was
never invited to discuss issues related to MTBO, or even asked
questions to help the Council to make an informed decision.
How do you see the present moment of
MTBO?
S. T. - I think that MTBO is
riding to the right direction. That’s why I could afford to resign
and stop making compromises. MTBO is a developing sport at a fairly
early stage of development. The first World Championship was
organized only 15 years ago. Compare that with 50 years for FootO.
There are many development challenges and some growing pains. The
elite sport is going through a transformation where there is a small
but growing group of more professional riders, while the “tourists”
disappeared from the World Championships and World Cups. The
important thing is that the base is increasing. There are more youth
and more masters involved. The latter is important also for the youth
because of the logistical challenges of getting to events. I believe
that the hearts and minds of masters is key to a faster development
of this sport.
The biggest challenge is to break
through the initial resistance of national federations dominated by
FootO people who resist broadening the base of orienteering, often
due to myopia or a concern that resources may need to be shared.
There is a similar resistance that young orienteers experienced 50
years ago, when aging tourists resisted the idea that forests can be
enjoyed while solving navigational problems running. Now aging
orienteers resist the idea that forests can be enjoyed while solving
navigational problems biking. Sweden is a great example that shows
the latent demand for various forms of orienteering living side by
side and broadening our community.
MTBO has the potential not only to
attract bike oriented young people and keep masters in the sport who
find running increasingly difficult. It can also spread orienteering
into areas that are not suitable for traditional FootO for lack of
forested areas or access issues. There is quite a bit of development
potential in this area to be exploited.
Are the Olympics part of the problem
or part of the solution for our sport?
S. T. - Olympics is a nice
dream. The problem is that tremendous resources being spent on this
dream, instead of development that would really benefit the sport.
First, I am not sure whether the changes that would come with it
would benefit our sport. The IOF leadership is fully focused on the
money and fame that they expect from the Olympic Games, but it would
bring substantial changes to our sport that I don't think most people
would appreciate. Just have a look at the maps and courses of the
World Games in Cali 2013 that was closest to a possible Olympic
event. Is that type of low-quality park race what we want to call the
pinnacle of orienteering?
The good thing is that we have
practically zero chance to get into the Olympics. We could not even
get on the shortlist of 8 candidate summer sports, neither in 2013,
nor in 2015. In his in depth introductory interview, in September,
Leho Haldna stated that “Foot Orienteering and Ski Orienteering
both have a realistic chance of inclusion in the Olympic Games. […]
Foot Orienteering was also evaluated by the IOC for inclusion in the
2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo. Even though we didn’t make it this
time, being considered is a really important step.” He forgot to
mention that this time all the recognised International Federations
were invited. 26 applied, including the IOF. It took the Programme
Panel exactly 2 weeks from the application deadline to evaluate 26
sports and publish the list of the 8 they asked to make a
presentation. One can imagine the depth of consideration orienteering
received.
Was the invitation to apply an
important step? Yes, but that was the result of 1977, when the
International Olympic Committee recognised the IOF. Not much Olympic
progress in the past 40 years since that achievement. Lets face it:
we are in one group with billiard, bridge, korfball, sumo, and tug of
war – to name a few sports that were also “considered” for
Tokyo 2020, applied like the IOF, but did not make the shortlist. If
you consider that billiard, sumo and many others are much more TV
friendly (and thus Olympic) friendly sports, you can deduce our
chances.
The bad thing is that the Council is
not willing to face realities, and – as described above – just
trying to intensify the Olympic effort. They claim that they have no
choice, because the strategic direction and vision of the Olympics is
set by the General Assembly. As usual, it is not mentioned that the
strategic direction with the Olympic vision was proposed by the
Council. Should they once honestly present how much effort and money
was spent on the Olympic dream and associated activities with no
meaningful result, and suggest a change of strategic direction, the
General Assembly would approve the new direction just as well.
The fascinating thing is that when I
talked to Council members individually, most of them gave the
impression that they don't really believe that the Olympic dream
would become a reality in their lifetime. Still, in public and
especially as a Council, they support the official line. Did I
mention that the situation reminded me of the Communist system I grew
up in?
In what way are you going to stay
close to MTBO?
S. T. - In what way am I going
to stay away from MTBO would be a better question (laughs). I was
already requested to keep presenting Event Adviser and Organizer
clinics. Various organisers of upcoming major events asked for my
help and advice “now that you are free”. I also got a call from
an “MTBO missionary” to discuss development in a new country. All
that in the past 10 days.
I plan to attend major events and meet
people to discuss ideas. I will also advise the MTBO Commission
whenever they ask for my views and insights. I would also like to
work on some pet ideas like a guide on organizing the first MTBO
event, and a guide on course setting. An interesting idea of doing
online presentations for athletes on rules and jury cases just popped
up. I hope that now, with less official obligations, I can find more
time and channel more energies into meaningful tasks to help the MTBO
community.
Is there anything else that you'd
like to add?
S. T. - Not really, I think this
is long and rich enough (laughs).
Joaquim Margarido
