The biggest force behind all of this was Mike Spracklen. Spracklen was the man who made Steve Redgrave, but left England because the British ARA was behaving as normal and under-appreciated Spracklen's immense talents. In Canada, Spracklen turned the men's heavyweight sweep program around, a process which had as its culmination the Canadian Eight's victory at the big event on the Estany de Banyoles, dethroning the dominant Germans to win the 1992 Olympics. The USRA lured Spracklen away from Canada, and he set up shop in San Diego ready to rebuild the US heavy men in his image. Meanwhile, the women were also busy building up their program in preparation for 1996. Both eights were among the favorites.
After all the hype, the two US Eights did nothing. All that disruption to people's lives to adapt to the new philosophy of what has to be done to win gold resulted in two unimpressive underperformances. I had a chance to watch the finals on television - I had been working during the week and not been able to see the heats. I waited for NBC to get its act together with great anticipation, and in the end found the races anti-climactic. While I cannot comment from the inside, I was very disappointed by what I observed. Personally, I think it is a shame to move away from the club system, but I recognize that the selection and training process needed some redirection in order for the United States to compete. However, I don't see the San Diego training regime as viable, and I look forward to the return to the club system in some modified form.
The US women simply were not racing it. They looked surprised that Belorussia had beaten them earlier in the week and that Canada had pushed them so hard in the rep. Then, when Romania jumped out to a commanding lead in the final and failed to die (as Romania has so often done in the past), they seemed to give up hope. Unable to push back on Canada, they faded into the oblivion of an uncompetitive fourth place.
The men were simply dreadful. I had hoped to examine Spracklen's technique to see what he is doing (he has been so innovative in the past and tried something interesting with this crew in 1995), but it wasn't worth it. Bodies were everywhere - this wasn't technique at all. I don't know what to call what they were doing, but it wasn't much of anything. The Dutch rowed a fantastic race and walked away with the gold, with the Germans second.
Actually, overall I was very surprised by the level of technique displayed in the finals - I would have expected better. If the Danish lightweight 4- had gotten its catches in, for example, it would have flown. It still won gold by being stronger than the Canadians, who lost their finishes in the end ensuring that they couldn't pull back. The Americans had a boat sky at the catch.
One great performance came from the US men's hvwt 4x, which finished second when it hadn't even been expected to make the finals. It looked good, too. Some say that it is the product of the new system. I would rather view it as the product of a dedicated squad of scullers who have been working with this goal under the expert guidance of Igor Grinko for several years, quietly getting on with it while the other US squads have experimented with new regimes.
I'd also like to know what happened to the Brits, particularly both men's and women's eights and the men's ltwt 4-. Those three crews did not even make the finals, when they all should have. The British women have been training very hard for this and I was saddened not to see them in the final. The men have worked hard as well, but have only had one year under the current regime - the ever-useless ARA waited until May 1995 to hire Sean Bowden and to try to get its house in order, and this may have been too late. As for the lightweights, given the success of recent years I was shocked by this result. Considering that the ltwt 8+ finished fourth at Strathclyde does not even lend the suggestion that perhaps the wrong four were selected to go to Atlanta.
Britain's sole gold was won by none other than Redgrave and Pinsent. Overlooked, perhaps, in this event so dominated by one man for a decade was how tight the pack was behind R & P. The Americans Holland and Peterson - who left Spracklen's San Diego center to go back to Boston in order to let Harvard's lightweight coach Charlie Butt finish them - led the Brits for much of their semi-final, and even so stayed within two seconds at the finish. However, those two second were enough for four crews. The other semi was tight, as was the final (except for the Brits who pushed out ahead) and the B-final. This is perhaps one of the most competitive events in the sport right now, and it will be interesting to see what happens when Redgrave is gone.
There were the inevitible messes in Atlanta, the fault of the organizing committee. I could tell about a billion stories from Barcelona in 1992 that might match those told about Atlanta, so I will not join in the chorus of critics. Running an Olympics is hard work. One thing I will say, though, is that whatever the trouble, the athletes themselves must be put first. As long as the competitive conditions are top-notch for the athletes who have worked so hard to get there, then other quibbles can be forgiven. I was not under the impression that these Olympics catered to the athletes.
Without having to mention other sports, the conditions were certainly not great for the rowers. Stories abounded in the international press of transport problems, among other things. But I would argue that the fault for this must lie equally with FISA, the international rowing federation. It was FISA who insisted that the rowers be housed in the main Olympic Village in Atlanta although the rowing events were being held a long long distance away. This was a bad move.
In 1992, the Rowing venue was the Estany de Banyoles, 80 miles north of Barcelona. We had our own mini-Olympic Village and our own administration. The boat tents were one minute from the bedrooms. The lake is one of the nicest rowing venues in the world. We had our own kitchen which catered to rowers' infamous appetites (and served better food than the kitchens in Barcelona's Olympic Village, too). We also did not have to deal with the constant mobs in the city. After the rowing events finished, the whole operation in Banyoles was shut down and everyone went down to Barcelona to join in the festivities there. The event, therefore, maximized conditions for the rowing events, and once the business at hand for the athletes was complete, there was still another week of the Games left to play and left to become part of the general scene.
But Denis Oswald, President of FISA, lamented that rowing was getting marginalized. Even though few cities had good courses in them, he felt that it was important for the rowers to stay in the main Olympic Village in future years and commute to the venue. So, starting in Atlanta, this is how things are done. The problems were inevitble given this approach. Of course, ACOG made them far worse through ineptitude, but these problems would not have existed at all if it weren't for Oswald and FISA.
Oswald's latest brilliant idea is to cut back substancially on sweep rowing and lightweight rowing. This is a hot topic on the rec.sport.rowing newsgroup currently. Oswald has given the sport many years of good service, but he is beginning to lose his mind. Before he does any more damage, maybe it is time for him to go.