By David

Academics have spent considerable time discussing the value of sport. Does it build character or simply reveal character? Both arguments have their vocal supporters. However on one aspect there appears to be consensus. Both sides agree with Dr Stewart Robbins the chair of the School of Physical Education at York University in Canada. Dr Robbins says;

“Sport is inherently neither good nor bad. The positive and negative effects associated with sport do not result from participation but from the nature of the experience. In the hands of the right people with the right attitudes, sport can be a positive, character-building experience. It provides one of the best opportunities for children to come in contact with rules and social values. It plays a prime role in promoting values such as tolerance, fairness, and responsibility.

The idea that sport builds character comes from 19th-century Britain. The key virtue the British tried to instil in young people through sport was a sense of fairness and justice. Following rules, not cheating, and learning how to be good winners and losers were considered by headmasters to be part of what it meant to be a good citizen.

The notion that sport builds character does not sit well with today’s critics of competitive sport. The external pressures of high profits and high salaries have often led to the corruption of these ideals. Instead of building character, competitive sport, which values winning above all else, challenges this notion. The more important winning becomes, the more the rewards for fair play and other values are likely to be diminished.”

And in Dr Robbin’s argument lies the most fundamental failure of Miskimmin’s Swimming New Zealand. The negative effects of swimming in New Zealand do not result from participation but from the nature of the experience. In the hands of the right people with the right attitudes, swimming can be a positive, character-building experience. But in the Miskimmin model the external pressures of big spending and high salaries have led to the corruption of these ideals. The more important winning and status and power and big salaries and Mazda SUVs have become, the more the rewards for fair play, following the rules, not cheating, and learning how to be good winners and losers have diminished.”

That is an important accusation. It is saying that Miskimmin’s swimming is failing its most basic social duty, to educate and benefit the people of New Zealand. You may well ask, “If that is the case give us an example.”

Well, take the current swim team selected for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games. They were selected on the basis of a document called, “Nomination Criteria – 2014 Commonwealth Games (Pool)”. This sets out the times swimmers must swim in order to be selected for an individual event. Four swimmers qualified on this basis;

Lauren Boyle 200m freestyle, 400m freestyle, 800m freestyle, 4x200m freestyle relay

Corey Main 100m backstroke

Glenn Snyders 100m breaststroke, 200m breaststroke

Matthew Stanley 400m freestyle, 4x200m freestyle relay

The Nomination Criteria document also sets out the times swimmers must swim in order to be selected for a relay event. Ten swimmers qualified on this basis;

Mitchell Donaldson 4x200m freestyle

Dylan-Dunlop Barrett 4x200m freestyle relay

Tash Hind 4x200m freestyle relay

Ewan Jackson 4x200m freestyle relay

Steven Kent 4x200m freestyle relay

Samantha Lee 4x200m freestyle relay, 4 x 100 freestyle relay

Samantha Lucie-Smith 4x200m freestyle relay, 4 x 100 freestyle relay

Laura Quilter 4 x 100m freestyle relay

Ellen Quirke 4 x 100m freestyle relay

Emma Robinson 4x200m freestyle relay

Nowhere – absolutely nowhere – in the Nomination Criteria is there any mention of the fact that a relay swimmer can be selected for an individual event. The only provision that may allow that sort of change is a Nomination Criteria clause that says:

SNZ may amend this Nomination Criteria at any time prior to the Nomination Date, with the approval of the NZOC, by giving reasonable notice to all athletes eligible for nomination.

However the first mention of the change that allows relay swimmers to compete in individual events was made on the 11 June 2014 in the Swimming New Zealand team announcement. This said;

“Note that swimmers may swim in other events for the Commonwealth Games.”

Swimming New Zealand cheated. The change was not “prior to the Nomination Date”. I bet the change never had NZOC approval prior to being made. And all the eligible athletes were not given reasonable notice. Swimming New Zealand cheated.

Someone like Swimming New Zealand Board member Margaret McKee should be ashamed. I happen to know the environment that nurtured her swimming career. I stayed at her coach’s home for about five years. Beth Meade would never have tolerated an organization cheating like this. There was no place for sporting dishonesty in the Beth Meade Comet Club. Margaret McKee could do Swimming New Zealand a real service by insisting they apply some decent standards to the way they run the sport. Margaret McKee needs to remember that, “the positive and negative effects associated with sport do not result from participation but from the nature of the experience.”

The nature of the experience in this instance has been to teach every swimmer in New Zealand that if things don’t go the way you want; if the results are not going to justify the salaries and the Mazdas – then make up a new rule; change the law; cheat.

So that’s an example of the way Swimming New Zealand is failing in its most basic duty. And it’s not as though the relay swimmers are even close to qualifying. The table below shows the ten relay swimmers and compares their trial’s swims with the Commonwealth Games’ qualifying times. I have shown the amount each swimmer is behind the qualifying time as a percentage. I did this because ASCA have 3% as a rule of thumb guide to a good year’s progress. Well, if that’s true the average New Zealand relay swimmer is eleven month’s training away from swimming a Games qualifying standard. The closest is Samantha Lucie-Smith in the 200 free and Dylan Dunlop-Barrett in the 400 free. But none of them get anywhere near Kurt Crosland (0.5%) who is being left home in Dunedin.

Name	Event	Qual. Time	Trial Time	Deficit %
Mitchell Donaldson	100 free	49.00	51.44	5.0
	200 free	1.47.55	1.48.80	1.1
Ewan Jackson	100 free	49.00	50.83	3.7
	200 free	1.47.55	1.50.34	2.6
	400 free	3.48.67	3.59.09	4.6
Steven Kent	100 free	49.00	50.54	3.1
	200 free	1.47.55	1.49.34	1.7
Samantha Lee	100 free	54.67	56.73	3.7
	200 free	1.58.09	2.01.53	2.9
	100 fly	58.54	59.52	1.7
Samantha Lucie-Smith	100 free	54.67	55.69	1.9
	200 free	1.58.09	1.59.02	0.8
	400 free	4.07.69	4.12.23	1.8
Laura Quilter	50 free	25.16	26.06	3.6
	100 free	54.67	56.86	4.0
	100 fly	58.54	1.00.30	3.2
Ellen Quirke	100 free	54.67	56.51	3.4
	200 free	1.58.09	2.03.80	4.8
Emma Robinson	200 free	1.58.09	1.59.69	1.4
	400 free	4.07.69	4.15.28	3.1
	800 free	8.30.12	8.37.30	1.4
Dylan-Dunlop Barrett	200 free	1.47.55	1.49.14	1.5
	400 free	3.48.67	3.50.61	0.9
Tash Hind	200 free	1.58.09	2.00.93	2.4
	400 free	4.07.69	4.20.74	5.3
	400 IM	4.42.25	4.51.18	3.2
	200 IM	2.12.78	2.17.70	3.7
Average Deficit				2.8
Kurt Crosland	100 back	54.63	54.88	0.5

The longer this shambles goes on, the clearer it becomes. Miskimmin’s Swimming New Zealand and those he has appointed are not working. Decent swimming people need to claim back their sport.