BERLIN — Doubtlessly, the International Olympic Committee’s decision to pass on softball and instead propose rugby and golf for addition to the 2016 Summer Games will be seen by some advocates of women’s sport as a setback, a step back, a slap in the face delivered by the proverbial ol’ boys’ network.

It’s none of those things.

It’s not.

The IOC, in pushing for rugby and golf, said no Thursday not only to softball but to baseball, karate, squash and roller sports.

It’s indisputable that the IOC’s move marked the latest turn in a drive to off both baseball and softball that has has been churning within the most influential IOC circles since 2002.

But booting softball does not mean the IOC’s action Thursday was sexist or designed to further gender inequality.

Just the opposite.

Facts are facts.

This assuredly may not be the most popular thing to point out, especially in the United States, where the campaign to reinstate softball — the IOC banned it in 2005, effective in 2012 — was headquartered.

This is not going to be the most popular thing to point out in my own house. Just two days ago, we had signed up our 10-year-old daughter, who loves softball (bragging dad here: and has been an age-group all-star), for a special fall-ball season in the California town where we live (the “regular” softball season for us is in the spring).

But, again, facts are facts.

The IOC moved decisively Thursday to add 36 more women to the 2012 Olympics by approving women’s boxing. Boxing had been the last male-only sport in the Summer Games. To add those 36 women, boxing had to eliminate 36 spots for men.

“Historic,” said the president of the international boxing federation, C.K. Wu. Added IOC president Jacques Rogge, “I can only rejoice about the inclusion of women’s boxing.”

Women’s boxing is in — done deal — for 2012. Rugby and golf must still pass separate yes-or-no votes this October at an all-delegates IOC assembly in Copenhagen to make it in for 2016.

Rugby would add 144 women, 12 teams of 12. (As well as 144 men; same formula.)

Golf would add 60 women. (As well as 60 men).

The Olympic softball tournament featured eight teams of 15, or 120 women.

Assuming both rugby and golf make it, and if one includes women’s boxing in the equation, the IOC’s actions Thursday thus add up to a plus-124 for women’s sport.

That’s simply not discriminatory. It could even be argued it’s progressive.

Is the simple math of plus-124 likely to prove solace of any sort for softball boosters? No way.They were disappointed, extremely so, and understandably.

“It’s a death blow to the sport in one sense,” Don Porter, the president of the international softball federation, said just a few minutes after the IOC announcement about rugby and golf had been made.

“But,” he vowed, “we are going to get up from it.”

The campaign to seek softball’s reinstatement — it and baseball were booted off the program in 2005, effective in 2012 — had been classy, sophisticated and sought to take full advantage of all the political oomph that could be mustered.

Former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch — he was president when softball was brought onto the program, along with baseball — was even recruited to serve as honorary chair of softball’s get-back campaign.

Letters flooded in from all over in support of the campaign. “There’s a whole stack of them, about six inches high,” Porter had said earlier this week on the phone.

“These young people have the right and the opportunity to play a sport and they ought to be able to play this sport and they ought to have an Olympic dream,” Porter also said.

At the same time, he acknowledged, “Being deserving doesn’t always mean you win.”

The blunt reality is that softball, as the votes later indicated, never had a chance.

Voting was done by secret ballot within the IOC’s policy-making executive board; there were a total of 14 voters; Rogge would have been a 15th but traditionally does not vote.

To make the 2016 program, a sport thus had to gain a majority of eight votes.

In the first bloc of voting, rugby got seven votes in the first round, nine in the second.

Softball: one vote in the first round, two in the second.

Golf had to go four rounds in the second bloc to get the nod, finally getting to nine in that fourth round.

Softball: two votes in all four rounds.

Baseball, similarly, never had a chance. First bloc: two votes in the first round, one vote in the second. Second bloc: two, two, one and thus eliminated, not even making it to the fourth round.

Going forward, it won’t be until 2013 that softball gets another chance — for 2020. Same for baseball. And four years from now, it will be even more difficult for either softball or baseball to make it back.

And by “even more difficult,” that may mean for baseball “virtually impossible.” Baseball doesn’t send its best players to the Games, it’s viewed as too American and the headlines keep testifying to doping-related scandals. Some or all of that has to change before baseball gets more than one or two votes from those who matter.

The numbers show that softball obviously has a long way to go, too. But for softball, the eternal optimist might suggest that perhaps “even more difficult” need not ultimately prove a “death knell.” Simply put, softball has things going for it that baseball doesn’t. The Games are the pinnacle of the softball calendar, for instance; moreover, softball has never had a doping scandal.

The maximum number of sports at any Summer Games is 28. Without getting too technical about this incredibly arcane niche, the number of “core” sports for 2020 onward is 25. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for softball to wedge its way back in if, say, one of the 26 sports on the 2012 program falters?

Just to pick the most obvious: taekwondo.

With judo, wrestling and — as the IOC affirmed Thursday — boxing fixtures on the program, are the Games really best served with one more combat sport? And at that, a sport that’s about kicking?

Don’t they do that already in soccer?

That, of course, is a discussion for another day. The discussion Thursday in the softball camp was about disappointment and frustration.

There was no talk, however, by Porter or any of his supporters about how some ol’ boys had gotten together to effect a grave disservice to the general cause of women in sport.

Because the numbers don’t lie: that’s not what happened.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 13th, 2009 at 9:06 am and is filed under alanabrahamson. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.