It is an inescapable fact that competition in the Olympic classes is now so tight that sailors in every class – even the so-called manufacturers’ classes – strive to gain each and every possible advantage they can from their equipment. In those classes where competitors supply their own boats the situation is even more marked.

Competing boatbuilders, sailmakers, riggers and of course the sailors themselves work endlessly testing, developing, testing in a constant cycle. Indeed it is perhaps this exhaustive process that serves to set the Olympic classes apart from more ‘normal’ small boat competitions.

There are, of course, those who say that this is all wrong and the Olympic Regatta should simply be a test of the skills of the competitors in perfectly matched equipment. The need for (and expense of) technically skilled support staff is

also often raised as a problem. These people are certainly required, as we can be sure no one is suggesting that each sailor should cut their own sail or build their own boat.

More critically, experience within the British Olympic team, through three Olympic cycles, has proved beyond any doubt that ultimately

the sailors must have a profound understanding of their equipment if they are to reach the very top. Not until the summer of 2000 did Europe gold medallist Shirley Robertson really take charge of her own development programme. The results speak for themselves; technicians are just that – it’s the sailors who win medals.

The truth is that classes with scope for development will be with us in the Olympics for years to come. But along with the continuing significance of development, recent rule-induced difficulties in these classes should also not be ignored.