DSN Mar 2021

Dragon Sport News - Emagazine
“The Independent Voice of Dragon Boat Sport” March 2021 Edition
We felt that the former could only be discussed as equal partners but that the later was for full and open discussion
At the IDBF Members Congress, held in Nottingham on 27 th August 1999, at the time of the IDBF’s 3 rd World Nations
Championships, the Delegates passed resolutions to the effect that:-
“ It is not appropriate for the ICF to recognise Dragon Boating, with participation figures in excess of 40 million
world-wide, as a new discipline of canoeing. …………The IDBF is willing to conduct all types of co-operation
with the ICF on the basis of equality between two independent sports”.
Following the IDBF Congress, in September 1999, I wrote a paper called the ‘Spirit of Qu Yuan’, which was circulated
to all IDBF and ICF Members, as well as the respective Councils of the GAISF, IDBF and ICF. In the paper I set out the
views and resolutions of the IDBF regarding the Madrid Declaration and the IDBF’s position with regard to any future
collaboration with the ICF.
Following a further meeting between the federations’ held in Amsterdam, on the 12 th May 2000, in August I sent a
letter to Ulrich Feldhoff, suggesting ways of resolving the situation. Ulrich again responded in a positive way when in a
letter dated 3 November 2000, he wrote:-
“ I received your letters. Your proposals are interesting to me and a good basis for further discussion with the
aim to find a solution which will be on good terms
Despite this positive letter, the minutes of the November 2000 ICF Congress, in Warsaw, recorded that:-
“The ICF President informed the delegates about the standing of talks with the IDBF. The ICF Executive
Committee has had many talks and negotiations with the International Dragon Boat Federation (IDBF). After
positive talks at the beginning the IDBF has now positions unacceptable for the ICF.
Also shown in Feldhoff’s report to the Warsaw Congress was the statement that:-
“The acceptance of dragon boating, rafting and outrigger has to be confirmed by the congress”.
However, there is no record in the 2000 ICF Congress
Minutes of any formal proposal being put to the
Delegates before the Congress or any vote accepting the
adoption of Dragon Boating or any other paddle sport, at
that Congress. A few years later in opposing the IDBF’s
application for GAISF Membership, the ICF Secretary-
General (Simon Toulson) informed the GAISF that the
2000 ICF Congress had passed a motion to adopt
Dragon Boating as an ICF Canoeing Discipline, despite
the fact is that the ICF Congress did not adopt any other
paddle sports at the 2000 Congress.
The April 1999 Madrid Declaration and the
subsequent push, in 2000 and 2001, to subsume
Dragon Boating as an ICF discipline, marked the start
of what has become known, within Dragon Boating, as
the ‘ICF incursion’ but it was only a statement of intent in
1999, as the ICF had neither the dragon boats or
experienced officials to organise events.
By the end of 2001, the federations had agreed to
disagree. The IDBF was firm in its opinion that the ICF
had never been actively involved in organising the sport,
which was not canoeing. The ICF’s opinion, on the other
hand, was that the ‘dragon boat’ was just another type of
‘canoe’ and should come under the ICF’s jurisdiction.
With this apparent impasse between the federations,
I suggested to the IDBF Council, that we should seek
Mediation with the ICF, through the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. The IDBF Council agreed
and so did the ICF Board. On the 22 nd April 2002, the
Federations met at the CAS in Lausanne. The Mediation
was chaired by Denis Oswald, a Swiss lawyer and the
President of the International Rowing Federation (FISA)
but unfortunately the Mediation was unsuccessful, as
neither side would change their basic positions.
Following the failure of the Mediation, the IDBF
Council proposed CAS Arbitration, which is the stage
where the CAS makes a binding decision in favour of one
side or the other. The ICF did not agree to Arbitration but
suggested, as an alternative, that the ICF and IDBF meet
once again, to discuss the issues between them.
The IDBF Council agreed to this meeting, which took
place in Amsterdam (2003) and a draft joint agreement of
co-operation and understanding was formulated for
further discussion by a Joint Working Committee (JWC).
The first meeting of the JWC, was held in May 2003 in
Madrid, with myself and Manfred Russ representing the
IDBF and José Perurena, the then ICF Secretary-General
and Volker Bernardi representing the ICF.
We finalized the 2003 Joint Agreement of Understanding
(JA), the key points of which were that the ICF
acknowledged the standing of the IDBF as the
established independent International Federation for
dragon boat sport and confirmed that the decision to
include Dragon Boat Racing as an ICF discipline, was
expressly taken for the purpose of providing Dragon Boat
services for ICF affiliated National Federations.
This meant that the ICF accepted the status of the IDBF
and that the ICF dragon boat racing was only for its own
Members’ and not in opposition to the IDBF.
A second meeting of the JWC was held in the UK and
many areas of co-operation discussed but subsequently
the ICF refused to sign the meeting minutes.
In April 2004, Jose Perurena Lopez (who became the ICF
President in 2008) informed the IDBF that the ICF had
decided to officially end the co-operation between the
ICF. In addition the ICF withdrew the ICF representatives
from the Joint Working Committee (JWC), and thus any
further dialogue with the IDBF was ended
Dragon Boating. " More than a Sport – a Tradition " 28.