I was interested to read the editorial written by Craig Lord and published on the Swim Vortex website on September 6 2017. In it Lord discusses the bizarre FINA organiser’s approved decision to appoint Park Tae-hwan an ambassador to the 2019 World Championships. Lord’s position is summarised early in the post.

“Forgiveness is essential. To forget and wipe the slate clean and expect that to send the right message on clean sport is folly.”

I agree with that. But before discussing why, I have a confession to make. A few years ago Craig Lord argued strenuously for “shiny” swimsuits to be banned. I, on the other hand, argued that the LZR suits were just fine. They were, I said, simply progress in the same way that the rubber track at Crystal Palace was progress over White City’s cinders. Fibre glass pole-vault poles, titanium golf clubs, composite tennis racquets, carbon fiber skis and tennis hawk-eye machines would all be banned if the Craig Lord logic had its way. But Lord won the day. In July 2009 the suits were banned.  

And Craig Lord was right and I was absolutely wrong. Swimming is a better human competition today than it had become in the yearlong LZR experiment. Lord’s campaign kept the sport alive as a primal contest between human beings.

I suspect his war on the use of drugs is doing the same thing. And on this occasion he will get no argument from me. I think his view that “forgiveness is essential” is important. But so is his stand that once caught the slate should never be wiped clean.

Some would however question the idea that there should be forgiveness. With increasing frequency I hear calls from athletes and commentators that one guilty verdict should mean a lifetime ban. I do not agree. There have been many cases where an athlete has been caught by ignorance or error or misfortune. In these cases capital punishment for a first offense would be excessive.

Take for example Jessica Hardy. At the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team Trials, Hardy qualified for the USA Olympic Team. A few weeks later Hardy’s attorney confirmed that both her “A” and “B” samples from a test administered on July 4 were positive for clenbuterol. Media coverage of the issue noted that tainted supplements had played a part in some previous instances of bans. An example offered was the American swimmer Kicker Vencill, who won a lawsuit against a company that provided him with tainted supplements that resulted in a positive dope test and two-year ban from the sport.

And of course in New Zealand the Trent Bray case is a classic example of how a clean athlete can fall foul of the testing process. Bray went to the District Court to appeal against a positive test and won. The judge ruled that containers used in the testing were incorrect and that it took too long for the sample to be tested in Sydney. It turned out that Bray’s urine had been lying, quietly stewing, on a shelf in the sun while the laboratory staff went off on a two week Christmas holiday.  

And in my coaching career I had a fifteen year old swimmer tested during the New Zealand National Championships. Because of the Bray experience I asked the NZ Drug Agency for the travel details of the swimmer’s samples. I was supplied with the sample numbers and airway loading numbers for the trip from New Zealand to the testing laboratory in Australia. I was however deeply concerned to see that the sample numbers that left New Zealand and the airway bill record were different from the sample numbers and airway bill number received at the laboratory. Naturally I asked for an explanation. The Agency said they were very sorry but the paperwork had gone missing in Auckland and a new set of papers had been prepared. But, I was assured, the sample was still from my swimmer. For something as serious as a drug test it was appallingly bad management; someone should have lost their job. Fortunately the test was negative.

An even younger swimmer of mine, she was 12 at the time, also had a close call with the drug testers. She had swum well in the morning heats of the New South Wales Championships and qualified fastest for the evening final. When we got into the car to go to the finals I asked if she had enjoyed her afternoon rest. She said she had felt a bit of nasal congestion and so, with a friend, had walked to a local pharmacy and been given some Coldrex. She said it had worked perfectly. I, of course, went crazy. She swam. She won the final and was not tested. But that event taught me that it is never too early to teach swimmers the caution required to stay clean. The swimmer became the most careful and cleanest athlete through the balance of her pretty stellar career.         

And so mistakes do happen. As someone who wrote a lot better than me once said, “Consider this – that in the course of justice none of us should see salvation.” Mitigating circumstances do need to be taken into account; forgiveness is essential.

But forgiveness should not mean reward either. I have no problem with Park being back in the pool. But to reward him as an ambassador to the 2019 World Championships is ridiculous. He is not a role model. He’s a cheat who got caught and has been granted forgiveness. FINA do the sport no favors at all when they act in ways that reward bad behavior. I suspect the decision to make Park an ambassador reflects far worse on those bestowing the reward than it does on Park. But the way FINA behaves I’m not sure our disapproval is going to matter much. A few all expenses paid first class flights to some Asian resort will soon ease the pain of Swimwatch criticism. It will not however justify the reward they have approved for Park.

But I do have one last drug testing story. When Toni Jeffs was swimming well she was forever being called in for a drug test; in competition, out of competition, it was endless. Every two months she had to front up to the testing Agency. I think the fact she enjoyed lifting heavy weights and looked strong made them think she must be cheating. She wasn’t of course. In fact she was very careful, almost picky, about her health food diet. I thought it was tough that one hundred kilometers a week in the pool and five days of weights seemed to make her a target for their attention.

One afternoon I noticed the Drug Agency representative sitting in the stands at the pool obviously waiting for Toni to finish training. I went into the pool shop and bought a packet of Tic-Tac candy. I gave one to Toni who sprinted off down the pool. Gradually she got slower and slower until I provided a second Tic Tac. Off she went again at full speed. This slowing down, Tic Tac, speed-up process was repeated four or five times. The Drug Agency representative recorded every detail. Her pen was working at a hundred miles an hour. Finally she got up and left and we heard no more. Fortunately Toni was not tested in New Zealand for about twelve months after that. Italian peppermint could have had her banned for life.