Response to POC’s August 18, 2011 Position Paper
Magna est veritas et prevalebit. The truth is mighty and it shall prevail.
The Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) is averse to the truth. In this response, the Philippine Dragon Boat
Federation (PDBF) points out a number of falsities in POC’s position paper, which was first made public during the
August 18 Committee Meeting of the Youth and Sports Development Committee at the House of Representative, and thus, sets the record straight.
First falsity: The POC insinuates that the PDBF is not affiliated to an international federation recognized by the
International Olympic Committee (IOC), thereby misusing Rule 30 of the Olympic Charter (2010 version) on the
National Federations stating:
“To be recognized by an NOC and accepted as a member of such NOC, a national federation must:
Exercise a specific, real and on-going sports activity
Be affiliated to an IF recognized by the IOC
And be governed by and comply in all aspects with both the Olympic Charter and the rules of its IF.”
It furthers that “ the International Dragon Boat Federation (IDBF) is not an International Federation recognized by the IOC .”
We would like to make clear that the PDBF is affiliated with the International Dragon Boat Federation (IDBF), which in turn is a member of the General Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF or now known as
SportAccord). As per the IOC website (http://www.olympic.org/ioc-governance-affiliate-organisations), the GAISF or SportAccord is one of four International Federation (IF) Associations affiliated/recognized by the IOC. The other affiliated/recognized IF associations are:
Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF),
Association of the International Olympic Winter Sports Federations (AIOWF), and
Association of IOC-Recognized International Sports Federations (ARISF).
Logically, the PDBF should be recognized by the POC due to its affiliation with the IDBF and GAISF/SportAccord.
Before we forget, the POC has kept on using the 2010 version of the Olympic Charter when in fact a new Olympic charter was put in force starting July 8, 2011. In the new charter, rule 30 of 2010 version is now Rule 29.
Second falsity: The POC claims that the IFs listed under number 2 of rule 46 of the 2010 Olympic Charter (see below; italics provided to mean that the section was directly lifted from POC’s position paper) are the ONLY IFs recognized by the IOC. In effect, such assertion excludes the IDBF as an IOC-recognized IF.
Number 2 of rule 46 of the Olympic Charter defines the Summer Olympic International
Federations recognized by it as follows:
– International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF);
– International Rowing Federation (FISA);
– International Badminton Federation (IBF);
– International Baseball Federation (IBAF);
– International Basketball Federation (FIBA);
– International Boxing Association (AIBA);
– International Canoe Federation (ICF);
– International Cycling Union (UCI);
– International Equestrian Federation (FEI);
1

– International Fencing Federation (FIE);
– International Association Football Federation (FIFA);
– International Gymnastic Federation (FIG);
– International Weightlifting Federation (IWF);
– International Handball Federation (IHF);
– International Hockey Federation (FIH);
– International Judo Federation (IJF);
– International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA);
– International Swimming Federation (FINA);
– International Union of the Modern Pentathlon (UIPM);
– International Softball Federation (ISF);
– World Taekwondo Federation (WTF);
– International Tennis Federation (ITF);
– International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF);
– International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF);
– International Archery Federation (FITA);
– International Triathlon Union (ITU);
– International Sailing Federation (ISAF);
– International Volleyball Federation (FIVB).
However, this section was totally taken out of context by the POC. To reiterate, POC’s hasty claim made it appear that the IFs listed in number 2 of rule 46 of the 2010 Olympic Charter are the ONLY IFs recognized by the IOC. We would like to reveal that the POC has not quoted in its entirety number 2 of rule 46 (see below; part omitted by
POC in BOLD ), hence, it has resulted to such a misleading and alarming claim.
2. Provisions applicable to the Games of the Olympiad
2.1 Inclusion of sports in the programme
2.1.1 The sports included in the programme consist of a sports core (hereafter
"the core") and additional sports.
2.1.2 The core includes at least 25 sports chosen by the Session upon proposal by the IOC Executive Board among the sports governed by the following IFs:
- International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF);
- International Rowing Federation (FISA);
- International Badminton Federation (IBF);
- International Baseball Federation (IBAF);
- International Basketball Federation (FIBA);
- International Boxing Association (AIBA);
- International Canoe Federation (ICF);
- International Cycling Union (UCI);
- International Equestrian Federation (FEI);
- International Fencing Federation (FIE);
- International Association Football Federation (FIFA);
- International Gymnastic Federation (FIG);
- International Weightlifting Federation (IWF);
- International Handball Federation (IHF);
- International Hockey Federation (FIH);
- International Judo Federation (IJF);
- International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA);
- International Swimming Federation (FINA);
- International Union of the Modern Pentathlon (UIPM);
2

- International Softball Federation (ISF);
- World Taekwondo Federation (WTF);
- International Tennis Federation (ITF);
- International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF);
- International Shooting Sport Federation (ISSF);
- International Archery Federation (FITA);
- International Triathlon Union (ITU);
- International Sailing Federation (ISAF);
- International Volleyball Federation (FIVB).
Clearly, the IFs in the list that the POC claims are the only IFs recognized by the IOC and accordingly, the only IFs
(and their respective member national federations) the POC should recognize, are only the IFs in charge of the
CORE sports to be included in the Olympic Programme events (in this case, the Games of the Olympiad ). With that, these IFS are not the sole IFs recognized by the IOC. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the 2010 Olympic Charter is a list of IOC-recognized IFs. Even the new version , i.e., the Olympic Charter that was put in force starting July 8,
2011 wherein rule 46 is now rule 45, shows no list of IOC-recognized IFs .
Assuming POC’s claim on IOC-recognized IFs is an indisputable truth, it follows that twelve out of the thirty seven
National Sports Associations (see below) listed under “Regular Members of the Philippine Olympic Committee”
(in http://www.olympic.ph/philsnsa.html [Accessed August 22, 2011]) are not affiliated with IOC-recognized IFs and in effect, should not have been previously recognized as well :
Billiard Sports Confederation of the Philippines;
Philippine Bowling Congress;
National Chess Federation of the Philippines;
National Golf Association of the Philippines;
Philippine Karatedo Federation;
Philippine Lawn Bowls Association;
Philippine Pencak Silat Association;
Phillipine Amateur Sepak Takraw Association;
Philippine Skating Union;
Philippine Amateur Soft Tennis Foundation;
Squash Rackets Association of the Philippines; and
Wushu Federation of the Philippines
Third falsity : The POC erroneously used the IOC stipulation included in the quoted section below:
“3. Number 1.2 of the Bye-law to Rules 28 and 29 of the Olympic Charter states that:
An NOC shall not recognize more than one national federation for each sport governed by an IF.”
The full bye-law statement of Number 1.2 reads (section used by POC in BOLD ):
Proof must be adduced that the national federations which are members of the NOC exercise a specific and real on-going sports activity in their country and internationally, in particular by organising and participating in competitions and implementing training programmes for athletes.
An NOC shall not recognise more than one national federation for each sport governed by an
IF.
Such national federations or the representatives chosen by them must constitute the voting majority of the NOC and of its executive organ. At least five national federations included in an
NOC must be affiliated to the IFs governing sports included in the programme of the Olympic
Games.
The POC has intentionally omitted the significant premises and supporting statements of the bye-law in order to achieve a self-fulfilling but incorrect interpretation that supports its claim. Going back to the accurate stipulations
3

of rule 1.2 of Bye-law to rule 28, we ask, has the PCKF exercised any specific and real on-going sports activity in the
Philippines or has it competed internationally when it comes to dragon boat? As the bye-law states, the POC now has to adduce (adduce is defined as “ to cite [reasons, examples, etc.] as evidence or proof” ) proof that the PCKF have indeed done so. Much like the IOC directive stating that dragon boat is to be placed under canoe-kayak federation that the POC has yet to produce.
On another note, if POC’s interpretation of “ An NOC shall not recognise more than one national federation for each sport governed by an IF ” is held true, why does the POC recognize separately the Philippine Sailing
Association (PSA) and Philippine Boardsailing Federation Inc (PBFI) when all sailing events (including boardsailing) is covered by the International Sailing Federation (ISAF)?
Fourth falsity: The POC also erroneously read the stipulations it has cited in the section found below:
“4. Number 1.3 of the Bye-law to Rules 28 and 29 of the Olympic Charter states that:
If there is any doubt as to the signification of the interpretation of the statutes of an NOC, or there is a contradiction between such statutes and the Olympic Charter, the latter takes precedence.
Note: It is very clear that while the POC Charter allows us to affiliate other sports not recognized by the IOC-recognized International Federations (regional sports like Pencak Silat and Sepak
Takraw, as examples). In the case of Dragon Boat which is clearly a discipline of canoeing, the
Olympic Charter stating all the above Olympic rules takes precedence.”
The full bye-law of Number 1.3 reads:
1.3 The approval of an applicant's statutes by the IOC Executive Board is a condition for recognition. The same condition applies to any subsequent change or amendment to the statutes of an NOC. Such statutes shall, at all times, comply with the Olympic Charter to which they must refer expressly. If there is any doubt as to the signification or interpretation of the statutes of an
NOC, or if there is a contradiction between such statutes and the Olympic Charter, the latter takes precedence.
Again, this is another section that has been taken out of context by the POC. The above bye-law does NOT allude to affiliating other sports (or national federations [whether it is regional or international] not recognized by the
IOC-recognized IFs. This bye-law applies to the application of an NOC with the IOC. As a matter of fact, this bye-law
Number 1.3 is under Section 29 Composition of NOCs, under NOC recognition . Again, it does NOT apply to affiliation of others sports (or national federations) to the IOC and/or POC.
Fifth falsity: In their conclusion, the POC stated in its Resolution No. 2011-01 (passed during their Executive Board
Meeing on January 19, 2011 ) the following:
“Resolved , as it is, hereby resolved to adopt the POSITION of the Institutional Relations and
Governance Department of the IOC-NOC Relations Department of the International Olympic
Committee that Dragon Boat is a discipline of Canoe-Kayak and that accordingly, the sport of
Dragon Boat in the Philippines shall be integrated into the Philippine Canoe-Kayak Federation which is affiliated to the International Canoe Federation.
Resolved, further, that to facilitate the smooth and peaceful transition into the merger, a committee composed of Mr. Manny Lopez as Chairman and Mr. Mark Joseph and Col. Jeff
Tamayo as members be, as it is hereby constituted.”
The POC position paper states that prior to making its decision:
4

“... the POC Executive Board received two important communications (the substantive portions of the two emails hereunder quoted) from Mr. Jerome Poivey, Head of Institutional Relations and Governance of the NOC Relations Department of the International Olympic Committee dated 2 December 2010 and
24 January 2011, respectively -
The first email is addressed to Mr. Mark P. Joseph, Deputy Secretary General of the POC, and states:
Dear Mark,
‘It is a pleasure to meet with you again and sorry for the late answer.
As discussed with you and after checking with the IOC Sports Department, we wish to confirm that:
1. Dragonboat is a discipline of the International Canoe Federation (ICF) http://www.canoeicf.com/icf/aboutoursports/Dragon-Boat.
Html
...
The second email is addressed to Mr. Manuel T. Lopez, POC 1 st
Vice-President nd Chairman of the POC
Membership Committee, and states:
Thank you very much for your letter to Pere Miro.
In response to your request, we recommend that your NOC follows the position indicated by the
International Canoe Federation (ICF).
Consequently and given that ‘Dragon Boat Racing’ is listed as one of the ICF disciplines. Your NOC should affiliate the National Canoe Federation that is affiliated with the ICF and which is at the same time the controlling body for Dragon Boat racing in the Philippines.
...”
Hereon, WE POST THESE CHALLENGES AGAINST THE POC .
1.
Mr. Poivey quotes only the ICF, not the GAISF/SportAccord (a recognized IF association of the IOC). As early as 2007, the IDBF has been recognized as a member of GAISF/SportAccord. To name a few sites: http://www.sportaccord.com/en/members/index.php?idContent=644&idIndex=32 http://dragonboatnet.com/DBN-News-GAISF1.php
http://www.idbf.org/
It is also strange that Mr. Poivey of the IOC should quote an IF website to back his confirmation. Why did
Mr. Poivey not provide the IOC website page that contains the so-called IOC confirmation that dragon boat is under canoe-kayak?
Incidentally, the POC position paper DID NOT state what Mr. Joseph’s inquiry is to Mr. Poivey.
2.
In the second email, the POC position paper again DID NOT state the content of Mr. Lopez’s letter to Mr.
Miro.
Yet, we should note that the response of Mr. Miro was to follow the position of the ICF, not the IOC, with no reference to the IDBF or GAISF/SportAccord.
5

3.
Note that the resolution released by the POC is dated January 19. The POC claims that these two emails are their basis PRIOR to making its decision for the resolution. However, please note that one of the emails is dated January 24, five days after the date of release of the POC resolution.
4.
In the USA, there is no directive from the IOC to place dragon boat under the USA Canoe-Kayak and as a matter of fact, the US Dragon Boat Federation exists separately from USACK. The same separation exists in Canada, another dragon boat powerhouse.
POC’s position paper of August 18 only goes to show that they are at their best in keeping the public shortchanged and misinformed ALL THE TIME. We dare the POC to produce the original IOC documents with the
“directive” saying that dragon boat should be under canoe-kayak.
This is no longer a matter of duty, but of truth. There is no room for politics in sports.
6