|
|
Prophets and seers abound as the new millennium dawns. Most foresee catastrophes of one sort or another. The great majority of predictions will prove to be wrong. Apart from death and taxes, only one thing is sure: that the new century will bring enormous changes. The "status quo" is not an option. The world in 2100, and with it the air sports movement, will look very different from the way it looks now. We in the FAI must face up to the challenge of change. Let me give three examples. New Centres of Gravity: In the 20th century, the greatest concentrations of air sport activity were in North America and Europe. In Western Europe in particular, constraints on flying (regulatory pressures, airspace restrictions, environmental concerns) are becoming ever tougher. At the same time, the general public, satiated with consumer goods and spectacular TV images, has become blasé about aviation. But in other parts of the world, where economic prosperity, and even the certainty of a daily square meal, remains a dream for the majority, so does the idea of flight. In China last month, the World Grand Prix of Aerobatics attracted a TV audience of several hundred million. Throughout Asia, Africa and parts of South America, as economic prosperity spreads and the bare necessities of life become taken for granted, people will start looking to the skies to realise their dreams. The FAI must adapt to this new reality. The End of Hierarchy: As the century draws to a close, there is ample evidence in the developed world of the collapse of authoritarian structures. Families, associations, even national governments are under increasing pressure to justify their existence. The Internet, and the globalisation of commerce, mean that authorities can no longer wield monopoly power. The individual has - or will soon have - unprecedented powers of choice. In these circumstances, representative bodies like the FAI will only survive if they truly represent their members. The FAI will have to adapt to this new reality. Aids to Performance: What is a "champion"? Or a "record-holder". In the hey-day of amateurism in sport, in the first half of the 20th century, it was considered rather bad form for athletes to do too much training, since this could artificially improve performance and give an advantage to the lucky few who had time on their hands and did not have to work for a living. At the end of the 20th century, in an era of professional sport, the emphasis is on preventing athletes from taking drugs that may enhance performance - because such substances are injurious to health, and also because they confer an unfair advantage. With today's perspective, the fight against doping is totally justified. But if completely safe performance-enhancing substances became freely available to all at modest prices, it is conceivable that, in time, the doping debate might begin to seem as quaint as the earlier "training" controversy. Attention could then turn to whether cloning is an acceptable performance-enhancing practice. Is a cloned champion a "real" champion. Will the 2100 version of the FAI Sporting Code (now occupying several gigabytes of hard-disk space, and incapable of being read in its entirety in one uncloned lifetime) contain a rule that states: "No clone of a previous FAI champion or record-holder may enter a Championship or attempt a record in the same discipline and category as the distinction held by his or her cellular progenitor." The FAI may have to adapt to this new reality. I am happy to leave this one to my (uncloned) successors. Best wishes for the new century.
|
