A recent report by Dr Tony Rice, Lead Scientist at Rowing Australia, points to something baffling going on within Rowing Australia. It tells of an unpublished equipment trial and reveals that it is not straightforward to get new innovations into the rowing world. It also provides a rare window into the workings of Rowing Australia, one of the world’s leading and richly funded rowing institutions.
The unpublished trial was the testing of a prototype of the Randall foil in 2018. The Randall foil is a new design concept for rowing blades and works by applying a hydrofoil to the top edge of a rowing blade. The foil is designed to optimise the performance, hold, grip and energy transfer from the rower into the water. The University of Porto has measured that both peak and average power transfer is dramatically increased through the use of the foil concept. The team led by Ricardo Cardoso used a testing method not common to rowing but is the gold standard for all other water sports like canoeing and kayaking. The test is conducted in a swimming pool and performance is measured by rowing against a tethered strain gauge. The research was published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine, and featured as the lead article in The Science of Rowing. Yet, Rowing Australia in their report, did not agree with the University of Porto’s study and described the trial conditions being too different to be relevant.
For many decades, Rowing Australia has been internationally recognised as a provider of the very best in high-performance sports governance. Australia has historically been a medal producing powerhouse with oarswomen and men leaving a lasting legacy in our sport. Many look to Rowing Australia as the gold standard in policy, structures, practices and culture. I have much to thank Rowing Australia for and am both a product of and a lifelong participant in a sport that has brought so much purpose to my life. In recent years, domestically at least, Rowing Australia has been facing criticism that it is solely focused on maintaining its status quo, and is too slow in incorporating change, something that we often hear complaints about across all sports, depending on who you ask.
I had contacted Rowing Australia and the Australian Institute of Sport when preliminary trials of a new oar foil concept were showing measurable improvements in boat speed. And with the assistance of an Australian Olympic Medalist, the design carried a weight of credibility. Given that Australia has produced a number of sporting innovations like the Winged Keel and the LZR speed swimming suits, I had anticipated that the foil design would be of great interest. In 2018 Rowing Australia agreed to test the design at the Hancock Prospecting Women’s National Training Centre. On the morning of the trial, I received word that it was moved from the Sydney International Regatta Centre, the site of the 2000 Olympic games, to a fast flowing and windy section of the Nepean River. Despite this change, I was still optimistic that the results would speak for themselves. Two double sculls raced 5 x1k alternating with/without foils alongside a squad of single scullers serving as a control group with crews wired-up with the PEACH instrumentation. After the trial, I spoke with the crews who were excited to find out the results and said that they would be interested to do a follow-up over 2k.
Then we waited for the data to be published and as far as I’m aware, the data never saw the light of day. There was no communication from Rowing Australia explaining why. Later In 2020 there was an enquiry by the Government into Rowing Australia’s for the non-use of the foil after Martino Goretti won the 2019 World Championship, beating the undefeated Australian Sean Murphy. Rowing Australia stated to Senate Estimates that the 2018 test on the foil was inconclusive – no effect, positive or negative – on rowing performance. Based on these results there was no further testing or interest in the design by Rowing Australia. After two years of waiting I got an answer, but the answer only raised more questions.
I was surprised that there was no effect. Just considering this from a research perspective, how could sticking a 30cm strip of plastic on a rowing oar have no effect? In science such a result is referred to as a ‘Null’ are considered very important to scientific research because they help to eliminate potential explanations and can refine future experiments. Such a null result can be used to inform the scientific community of what does not work, which can be just as valuable as knowing what does work. For the rowing community, this null finding for the foil could have meant that we may have misunderstood how oar shape affects performance. Yet Rowing Australia had not communicated this finding or used this as an opportunity to investigate these questions. These answers alone could have helped oar designers better understand the physical science of our sport because null results are just as important to research.
Currently, the CEO of Rowing Australia “stands by” the report. This new report contradicts what Rowing Australia had originally said to Senate Estimates and it left me wondering what had happened to the initial testing data. I guess that doesn’t matter, these things happen, the real question is why pass up an opportunity to adopt an innovation which may benefit Australian rowers through the performance gains the innovation offers?
The implications for the Randall foil can be seen in terms of opportunities lost but there are much more significant considerations. Perhaps it is time for the rowing world to take a chance on new innovations and to be transparent about testing.
The new Minister of Sport Anika Wells has decided not to pursue the matter any further as it relates to the actions of the previous government.
About The Author
