Several recent Swimwatch posts have discussed the outrageous discrepancy between the money sporting bureaucrats give themselves and the rewards paid to swimmers. But it is not only in the area of pay that the Board of Swimming New Zealand is negligent in their care of swimming members.

But, before discussing the specifics, I want to mention the Facebook criticism of Chelle Pratt, “Why always focus on the negative”. Comments like this are especially dangerous. They excuse behaviour that has caused untold damage. Because Chelle Pratt wants to close down debate, she enables bad behaviour. Her opinion is in stark contrast to others who do want the truth to be told, who do want to do the right thing. When bad things happen we all hit a crossroad of the ultimate choice, to either shout “hey, that can’t be right”, or stay silent. Chelle advocates staying silent; we prefer, “it can’t be right”.

But back to the negligence of the Board of Swimming New Zealand.

Swimming New Zealand has failed to prevent bad things happening. They have often failed to take responsibility for unscrupulous behavior and have then added to the distress by failing to find appropriate ways of correcting the mess. Swimming New Zealand have even spent money brushing the truth under the carpet and sought ways to discredit those raising red flags.

Consider these examples.

Example One

In 2014, Lauren Boyle swam a terrific World Short Course 1500m record of 15:22.69. Swimming New Zealand began the process of ratification by sending FINA a signed World Record Application form.

On Swimwatch I pointed out, correctly, that the FINA World Record Application Form requires the referee to sign only if “All FINA Rules” had been complied with. Surely, safety and facility rules that specify minimum water depths are very much in play when a world record is set. The record, I said was fine. Swimming New Zealand lying about the depth of the Wellington pool certainly was not.

The complaint was all the more relevant because a young swimmer from the Raumati Club had recently broken teeth at the facility, as a result of diving into water too shallow for that to be safe. So, athlete safety was definitely an issue.

Swimming New Zealand said, “No the rules said “should” – their decision and signature were just fine. So much for the safety of athletes. So much for Swimming New Zealand’s attitude to the truth. So much for sticking to rules written by people who do indeed have athlete safety and fairness in mind.

And what was Swimming New Zealand’s final comment on the decision to abandon their duty of responsibility to their members. In a classic piece of sweeping the truth under the carpet, the Swimming New Zealand Chairman, Brett Layton, said this in his Annual Report.

A lowlight was the attempt by bloggers and media commentators to discredit Lauren’s 1500m freestyle record by claiming the pool was too shallow. Guidelines are not obligations, they are recommendations. The credibility the opinions of these bloggers deserve is clear; absolutely none.

Example Two

The in-group at Swimming New Zealand gives every impression of being above the rules.

For example in 2013 Swimming New Zealand’s Open Water Manager, Philip Rush, was sentenced after he was caught in the Wellington suburb of Miramar, behind the wheel with a breath alcohol reading of 829 micrograms per litre – more than twice the legal limit of 400mcg/l.

Rush had three previous drink-driving convictions in 1989, 1996 and 1998. This was conviction number four. I’m told that’s a serious offence and carries tough penalties.

And yet for his fourth drink driving conviction Philip Rush was slapped on the wrist with a wet bus pass; disqualified from driving for a year and a day and given 140 hours of community work. According to this judge, mentoring swimmers satisfied the definition of community work.

What on earth, who on earth, could have convinced Judge Thomas to stray so far from the sentencing guide lines? Well, we can now reveal who convinced this judge of the District Court to cock a snoop at, to arrogantly ignore “tough penalties” for a “serious offender”. Swimming New Zealand – that’s who.

Swimming New Zealand provided Rush with a glowing letter of support. Would you believe it? Philip Rush appears to breach at least three Swimming New Zealand Code of Conduct Rules and Swimming New Zealand tells the court the guy is actually Mother Theresa.

However all that completely ignores the child protection aspect of the Rush convictions. Some lunatic judge in Wellington says a four times convicted drunk driver should spend his community service “mentoring” young swimmers. Swimming New Zealand adds to the lunacy by pointing out the benefit of placing New Zealand’s young swimmers in Philip Rush’s care. For their unashamed disregard of the standards and responsibilities of the sport the Board of Swimming New Zealand should have been dismissed.

Example Three

In 2002 I had to protest Jo Davidson, a senior official, who took referees down to the underwater viewing windows during the Open Long Course National Championship heat at the West Wave pool and instructed them to disqualify one of my swimmers, in the finals, for a fault she thought she saw. That was just flat out cheating. The swimmer won the final.

The protest was based on FINA Rule SW 2.7.1 which says,

“Judges of stroke shall be located on each side of the pool.”

It does not give them permission to go under the pool in the heats to inspect swimmers, in order to find something they can’t see from the pool deck. And it certainly does not give them permission to disqualify a swimmer, twelve hours later, in the final.

The protest committee agreed. Jo Davidson looked as though she’d been caught with her fingers in the cookie jar; as well she might.

What was Swimming New Zealand’s reaction to this blatant cheating? She was rewarded of course.

She was appointed an official at the 8^th Oceania Championships, the 11^th Oceania Championships, the Noumea, the Pacific Games and the 13^th World Championships in Rome. In 2011 SNZ awarded her a NZ Swimming Honours Award and in 2013 Swimming New Zealand decided Jo Davidson was Technical Official of the Year.

Conclusion

And so you can see how Swimming New Zealand’s history is littered with examples of the Board acting to preserve its own interests rather than protecting its members. Integrity and honesty are lacking in much that the Board does. That is why whistle-blowing and flag waving are not only okay, they are the duty of every member. History says the Board of Swimming New Zealand cannot be trusted to do what’s right on their own.