For years I have supported the Adidas’ brand. I can tell you how long actually. It began in 1981. That was the year Alison won the Scottish Cross Country title, the UK indoor 1500 meter championship and represented the UK in meets against East Germany, France, Italy and Norway. She also won a major 3000 meters race against the UK 3000 meter champion in Cork, Ireland. And Adidas noticed. The company’s representative told Alison he had seen she usually wore Adidas shoes. Would she like to accept a contract that provided her with free Adidas gear?

Alison agreed. Sadly there was no money involved but from then on, when new shoes or training gear was needed, a phone call to the representative would result in a parcel being delivered to our home address. The whole thing worked extremely well until Alison retired from competitive running. As a sign of our support I began buying Adidas. So that’s thirty-seven years of wearing their brand.

But yesterday I changed loyalties. I became a Nike fan. Because yesterday Nike announced their most recent “Just Do It” campaign with the news that former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was going to be the face of the promotion. The first advertisement featured Kaepernick’s face with the words across the picture saying, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”

Why do I admire that enough to put aside my Adidas loyalty? Well, first of all, the slogan – Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. What a great thought. In my trip through sport I’ve come across a hundred gutless wonders who either don’t believe in anything or are too afraid to sacrifice anything in the name of a good cause.

Take the author of the NZ Swim Facebook page, Dave Crampton. He sent me a dozen emails or messages containing harsh criticism of Swimming Wellington and Swimming New Zealand. He encouraged me to write stories that parroted his opinions. He wanted to then approve the stories before they were posted on Swimwatch. He was the tough guy when he thought his comments were between him and me. But when I published a story with a selection of his more volatile emails he fell apart. I got eight phone calls the night the story came out. I didn’t answer any of them because I knew all I would hear was a plea to take the story down. In my opinion if it was good enough for Crampton to write the emails it was good enough for those he wrote about to read them.

But Crampton is certainly not alone. Brian Palmer talked to me on the phone many, many evenings, sometimes until well past midnight about the sins of Peter Miskimmin. But when faced with the reality of fronting Peter Miskimmin he folded like a pack of cards. The regional delegates at Swimming New Zealand Annual Meetings know the organisation is being badly run but lack the courage to tell Cotterill to sling his hook. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told by swimming people that they never read Swimwatch. I know they are lying when they go onto debate something they can only know by reading it in Swimwatch.

Yes, swimming is full of behind the door warriors. But Colin Kaepernick is not one of those. He had concerns about police violence against African-Americans. He resolved to protest by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem. A huge number of Americans, including Trump, hated him for it. He lost his job as quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers. He lost his reputation and many millions of dollars. But he never wavered. He stood firm.

And so did another American, Senator John McCain. The courage he showed to vote down Trump’s attempt to repeal Obama care showed a similar rebellious character. Both men couldn’t be more different; couldn’t be more the same. And that deserves all of our respect.

But so does Nike. In spite of the hatred being poured all over Kaepernick by the most powerful forces in the United States, Nike saw a man of courage and principle. Ignoring the huge risks involved Nike decided he would be the 2018 face of their business. And they paid a huge price for backing their beliefs. Almost four billion US dollars was wiped off the Stock Exchange value of the company’s shares. Pictures appeared all over the internet of right-wing bigots burning their Nike shoes. Like Kaepernick, Nike did not fold. The share price has since recovered. The majority of Americans did the right thing and supported a just cause – just as the majority had supported Hillary Clinton.

Out of respect for Kaepernick and admiration for Nike I will support them in the only way I can. I will write this post and I will wear their gear. And I will thank the athlete and the company for providing me with the best example of fighting for a cause. They have lifted my spirits. They have given me steel to continue the fight to reform the disaster that is Swimming New Zealand, its Board and its management.

I see that Swimming Wellington has issued their final letter on the subject of disciplinary proceedings conducted in relation to the ex-coach of the Masterton Swimming Club. The letter, dated the 10 August, tells us that the coach committed the following transgressions.

1. The coach gave a swimmer an energy drink and told her not to tell her parents.
2. The coach showed a swimmer her phone that contained obscenities.
3. The coach attempted to block the Swimming Wellington investigation.
4. The coach excluded some swimmers from information and activities.

For this list of crimes the coach has been suspended from coaching in Wellington for a year and has to complete an approved counselling session. All that seems fair enough. Certainly Swimming Wellington appears to have done their best to follow correct and open procedures in relation to the investigation and dispensing justice. The coach appears to have been kept properly informed throughout the investigation and decision process.

What I want to do here is question the role Steve Johns and Nevill Sutton played in the investigation. Nevill Sutton is the Chairman of the New Zealand Swim Coaches and Teachers Association (NZSCTA). He lives in Wellington and is on the Swimming Wellington Disputes and Disciplinary Panel. He was also copied with the final letter in his role as the NZSCTA Chairman. In other words he was up to his eyeballs in the case, I suspect thoroughly obsessed with beating up on a miscreant coach.

Whether Sutton should be a member of the disciplinary panel at the same time as he is Chairman of the NZSCTA union charged, in part, with the coach’s protection is a problem. In most circles, I suspect, that would be called a conflict of interest. But that doesn’t seem to worry Sutton.

And that behaviour, in my opinion, has been pretty typical of Sutton during his, far too long, tenure as the NZSCTA Chairman. When there is a chance to curry favour with those in power by beating up on the weak Sutton, is in there, with bells and whistles. Of course Sutton would stand on his soap box and claim he was protecting the reputation of all New Zealand’s coaches. The one bad apple had to be dealt with.

But when it is difficult Sutton is not so tough. Tough? He is more like a marshmallow. Remember when he was going to defend the sacking of Donna Bouzaid and Gary Hurring? That died a death. Remember his pathetic response to the decision to continue using the shallow end of the Kilbirnie Pool. That was pathetic. In my opinion he is weak and ineffectual. Sadly the lack of leadership means that the NZSCTA is equally ineffective as a union representing New Zealand coaches.

Let’s test my theory, shall we? I am involved in a disciplinary case with Swimming New Zealand (SNZ). The accusations made against me were far worse than the Masterton case. Giving a swimmer a can of V doesn’t get anywhere near what I was accused of. SNZ decided to investigate and, for three days, I was interrogated by their independent investigator. A report was sent to SNZ and it was buried. Before the investigation SNZ promised to give me a copy but that never happened. They lied. On the basis of their promise and common justice I asked for a copy of the report. Steve Johns declined my request. The Privacy Commissioner is currently investigating that decision.

If ever a case screamed injustice this one does. I incurred substantial costs defending myself against trumped up accusations. I was made promises that were never kept. I assume I was cleared of the charges, but I don’t know. None of that matters to those who run SNZ. As far as they are concerned I am not entitled to see the final decision.

And so Nevill Sutton here is a case for you to investigate. Why do I pay my $100 NZSCTA annual membership? Not just to get into the National Championships. I want to be represented. I want the union to protect my employment conditions. What are you going to do about it? You showed how tough you were beating up on a Masterton coach for handing out a can of V. Let’s see if you are as tough in dealing with Steve Johns. You can beat up on New Zealand coaches. Can you defend them?

My guess is, not a chance. Bravery and principle are not the first words than spring to my mind when I think of Nevill Sutton. But we will see.

Which brings me to Steve Johns. I see he has been copied with the Wellington final letter. If Wellington or anyone else thinks they will get justice from that quarter, forget it. Remember this is the guy who reneged on a SNZ promise to provide me with a copy of the report into the accusations made against me. On the basis of that evidence, I wouldn’t trust a word he says. If he can lie about that he can lie about anything. Cotterill should be equally ashamed. As Chairman he has a duty to ensure the staff in his organisation honour their commitments. In this instance he has not done that. Even if I had not been given the assurance of access to the report, the laws of privacy and natural justice require Cotterill to insist that I am provided with the report. All those fine words Cotterill writes and speaks mean nothing when the organisation he runs is a cesspool of dishonesty. The pair of them couldn’t lie straight in bed.

And so, apart from avoiding handing out cans of V to your swimmers, what are the lessons from the Masterton case? In my opinion the case teaches us very little about coaching behaviour. One of the complaints isn’t even about coaching. It’s about obstruction of justice. Two of the other three are hardly capital crimes. Most coaches have given a swimmer a soft drink occasionally and treat conscientious swimmers better than others. I bought Eyad a cup of coffee this morning and asked him if his parents would approve. Worse than that SNZ saw me do it. Does that earn me a year’s suspension? Of course not.

As for treating conscientious swimmers better, I did read recently where Michael Phelps’ coach, Bob Bowman, said, “Of course dedicated swimmers get preferential treatment. For a start they are at training more often. If you want to improve your individual skills, working with someone one on one is very effective. I advise talking with the coach of your team to set it up, but I think it’s very good.” He is right. I talk to Eyad more often than the once a week fitness swimmer. By definition he is treated differently. Does that mean Bowman and I should serve one year bans?  Of course not.

Obscenities on the coach’s phone sounds like the worst charge. It was a dumb move to put obscenities beside club members names and even dumber to show them to one of the swimmers. Whether that justifies a year’s suspension and a lifetime reputation wound is doubtful.

But, when compared to my case, what Masterton does do is highlight how badly we are served by our masters. Nevill Sutton, Bruce Cotterill and Steve Johns have behaved appallingly. They are as sanctimonious as saints when it comes to a squabble in rural Wairarapa but disappear like cowards when the going gets tough. Sutton will feel as proud as punch; a judicial giant that has been able to beat up on a small-town swim coach. But will he take on Steve Johns in a case of real injustice? Not bloody likely is the answer to that. No wonder the sport is in a mess.

I don’t even want to write this post. Complaining about someone’s English skills is small minded and petty. I know that. But the rubbish published by Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) really begs for someone to say something. Who writes the stuff they publish on their website and Facebook page? We know Steve Johns was no academic giant. Is it him or is it SNZ’s much vaunted “Communications Department”? Perhaps it’s both. Whatever the answer, SNZ really need to employ a year eleven high school student to read and correct their posts before publication.

SNZ’s most recent post is titled, “Swimming New Zealand and AUSTSWIM to announce partnership”. It is about the SNZ decision to join forces with the Australians to improve the provision of swim lessons in New Zealand. I will not highlight here all the spelling and grammatical errors in the SNZ post. Instead I will focus on the senseless and wild use of abbreviations. They are so random that understanding the subject becomes annoyingly difficult.

The way normal people treat abbreviations is to write the full name in the first instance and then in brackets the abbreviation; for example Swimming New Zealand (SNZ). From then on the reader knows that every time SNZ appears it means Swimming New Zealand. That seems pretty simple. And it is, except if you are SNZ.

For example the first paragraph of the learn-to-swim post tells us correctly that, in the balance of the post, Swimming New Zealand will be referred to as SNZ and the Australasian Council for the Teachers of Swimming and Water Safety will be known as AUSTSWIM.

But then in paragraph two, Swimming New Zealand is again called Swimming New Zealand and AUSTSWIM is AUSTSWIM. One is abbreviated and the other is not. How does that work? Paragraph two also introduces a new abbreviation by telling us that Memorandum of Understanding will hence forth be known as MOU. That information seems a bit unnecessary when paragraph two is the only occasion Memorandum of Understanding is mentioned. There is no point in abbreviating something if it is never used again.

Paragraph four tells us that the New Zealand Recreation Association will be abbreviated to NZRA. But on the only other occasion the New Zealand Recreation Association is mentioned, in paragraph five, it is not abbreviated. Once again the abbreviation is explained but never used.

In paragraph six, Swimming New Zealand is back to being called Swimming New Zealand. All that effort, in paragraph one, to explain the meaning of SNZ for it to then be ignored. Paragraph six also wrongly capitalises “New Zealand Swimming Community”.

Paragraph seven again fails to abbreviate Swimming New Zealand and ridiculously capitalises the “New Zealand Swimming and Water Safety community”.

Paragraph nine tells us that AUSTSWIM is the Australasian Council for the Teaching of Swimming and Water Safety. SNZ told us that in paragraph one. It’s hard to understand why it needs repetition.

Paragraph twelve is a victory of sorts. Swimming New Zealand was abbreviated to SNZ in paragraph one. But on three occasions after that the abbreviation was ignored until paragraph twelve. Finally here Swimming New Zealand is referred to again as SNZ, not once but on three occasions in the same paragraph. Paragraph twelve also tells us that the National Sports Organisation will be referred to as NSO. Sadly that seems unnecessary when paragraph twelve is the only occasion National Sports Organisation is mentioned.

The final paragraph thirteen contains the final fine example of abbreviating Swimming New Zealand to SNZ. It took three shots to get it right. But in the end they made it.

In case you find all the above difficult to follow, here is the link to the SNZ article where this abuse of abbreviations occurs.  https://swimming.org.nz/article.php?group_id=33458

The only reason I mention this stuff is because the poor English makes reading and understanding the message difficult. When SNZ make such a hash out of writing 500 words it leaves the reader wondering how well the organisation is being managed. There are many more difficult things to do in good management than preparing a literate press release. What else is SNZ getting wrong when they get something as simple as this wrong? I suspect the answer to that is – quite a bit.

I suspect and hope that Steve Hansen’s request for government funding for the All Blacks was made tongue-in-cheek. Here is how Newshub reported Hansen’s request.

More recently the departing CEO of the Crusaders franchise, Hamish Riach, put a case forward asking the sport and the government to seriously consider funding players’ wages. Riach argued government money was the only way to match the attractive salaries being offered by northern hemisphere clubs. The government should come to the financial aid of a sport wanting to keep players in New Zealand.

Please, for all that’s best in the sport, for the memory of players like Colin Meads, Ron Jarden, Bob Scott, Johah Lomu, Dave Gallaher and George Nepia, please, rugby, drop the whole idea. Stay away from government money. Never mention it again. Consider for a moment what you have and what you could lose.

Above all the Rugby Union has freedom. Its financial independence gives it the freedom to elect its Board in a way that suits its members. It can approve sponsorship deals and agree media contracts. It independently and freely controls and manages its own affairs. Along with the government’s money that would disappear. That is the price the government levies for its money. How do we know that? Simply because that is the price that has been charged in every other case. Just consider swimming.

When Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) first accepted government money the amount was small. Government income was seen as a fringe benefit, providing a small subsidy towards the cost of running the organisation. As you can see from the table below government money accounted for only 8% of the sport’s total income. Today swimming can’t live without the government’s money. Swimming is as dependent on the government for survival as the most dependent social welfare beneficiary. In 2017 government income accounted for 64% of the sport’s total income. In 17 years the dependence on government funding has gone from 8% to 64%.

And that’s the way it is with government money. It starts off as a small subsidy for a specific purpose and grows like cancer until the organisation dies, unable to survive without government assistance. That is where swimming is at now. Consider the moaning and groaning coming from Cotterill and Johns when Sport New Zealand reduced their handout. Little did SNZ understand that those cuts were probably the most positive changes to the funding of SNZ that have occurred in 20 years. But Cotterill and Johns don’t like standing on their own two feet – and it shows.

Why is it like that? There are two reasons. First the management is lazy. It is easier to fill out a Sport New Zealand application form that it is to go out and earn a living. Like many beneficiaries, government-dependent sports become used to their government dole payment. It beats working for a living. Just ask Johns and Cotterill. They are hooked beneficiaries.

And second, the CEO of Sport New Zealand, Peter Miskimmin, wants sport to be dependent on his money. It is his source of power. He is a spider who likes nothing more than to see sports biggest prey lured by money into his funding web. He would love to see the CEO of the Rugby Union coming to his door begging for money. Miskimmin already has Steve Johns and Bruce Cotterill on their knees but to have Steve Tew join them – now that really would be an achievement.

But beware – Miskimmin is an expert at extracting a huge price in return for his money. The way he goes about exerting his control is a well-worn path. He has used it successfully in swimming, rowing, cycling and football. First he waits for the first signs of a drop in performance. In the case of rugby that might mean losing a couple of Bledisloe Cup games or failing to win the next World Cup. Expressing sympathy for their plight Miskimmin offers to pay for a Rugby Review. A grateful sport takes the bait and agrees to the Review. In the case of swimming Brian Palmer and Bronwen Radford naively agreed to Miskimmin’s Swimming Review even after they were warned where it would lead – and it has.

Miskimmin then appoints one of his Director’s Institute friends to head the Review. In the case of swimming that was Moller. Dozens of submissions are submitted but none of them matter. The head of the Reviews only function is to write a report that puts in place the Miskimmin blueprint. Critical features are always the same. The Review will recommend:

1. A new Board selected in part by elections and in part by appointments. The appointment process ensures Miskimmin control of the sport. In swimming Bruce Cotterill is Miskimmin’s hired hand.
2. A new and usually foreign CEO.
3. A new and usually foreign Head Coach.
4. A revised competition structure.

And that’s it; game, set and match. A grateful sport accepts Miskimmin’s plan, knowing that to turn him down would automatically lead to the loss of all government funding. From then on Miskimmin is in control. The amount of government funding can be manipulated at will. Board elections are completely undemocratic. Sport New Zealand becomes the final arbiter of who gets hired and fired. Independence and freedom are things of the past; replaced with servitude and control – just like SNZ.

That is the price of Miskimmin’s money. No amount of money is worth it. I cannot imagine Hansen or Tew falling for it. Surely they are made of sterner stuff than Palmer and Radford. There is nothing wrong with joking around about having Miskimmin pay the players. But, for the sake of New Zealand’s national game, never ever put that as a serious proposition. You will gain a few dollars and lose the world.

It has been a fairly dull week. Eyad is working hard to prepare for the Auckland and then the New Zealand winter championships. Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) hasn’t said much. At least that means they are not causing any further harm. But it doesn’t help provide interesting topics for a blog like Swimwatch. When things go quiet I have occasionally written about events from the past. Let me tell you then about the day I first met my then ten month old grandson, Sam.

The day began in the lovely Dutch capital city of The Hague. If you are ever visiting the Netherlands, skip Amsterdam and spend some time in The Hague. It is a beautiful place. Lovely tree lined streets, picturesque canals, international cafes and warm and friendly natives. I was there by chance and misfortune. I had completed the Mare Nostrum series of swim meets in Canet, Barcelona and Monaco. In the drive from Monaco to the Netherlands I stayed a night in a small ski-chalet hotel in the middle of Switzerland. I drove on the next morning for 900 kilometres towards the Netherlands before I realized I had left my briefcase, my passport and my computer at the hotel. The problem was the hotel was so small I had paid with cash and had no idea of its name or even its exact location; except that it was 900 kilometres behind me. I decided to drive on to The Hague and get a new passport from the New Zealand Embassy. I needed the passport quickly because in two days I was due to fly to England to attend my daughter Jane’s wedding. The New Zealand Embassy was stunningly helpful and in one day I had a new passport.

The next day began well. I had booked a flight from Amsterdam to the London City Airport. I was looking forward to landing alongside the Thames, in the centre of London City, rather than at the sprawling mass of Heathrow. Mind you Heathrow is not all bad. In Terminal Three Departures they have an Oyster Bar that has food to die for. If you get a chance try their oyster and crayfish supper. With a cold Budweiser; that’s close to heaven.

Anyway back to the Amsterdam flight. It was a lovely day as we flew west over the English Channel and the Home Counties towards London City. As we descended along the Thames I could tell the pilot was setting up to land. But it was not to be. Suddenly our descent stopped and we began climbing away towards the north, away from London. After about ten minutes the pilot announced that there was a problem with the airplane’s flaps and we were diverting to the longer runway at Stanstead Airport.

I was not unduly worried. I had done enough of my own flying to know that a landing without flaps required care but with plenty of runway should be a safe enough exercise. But I was surprised when the pilot added that when we landed a fire engine would race alongside to spray foam on the wheels to prevent fire. “But don’t worry.” he said in a, perfect for the occasion, German accent, “This is perfectly normal.”

Landing without flaps, with a fire engine spraying the wheels with foam – even with my limited 1500 hours of flight time I figured “perfectly normal” might be a bit hopeful. In the event the landing was close to normal. Sure enough the airplane touched down fast but well, the fire engine appeared alongside but did not spray foam and we taxied into the terminal at Stanstead.

What I was not aware of was in Reading Jane and Alison had been watching my flight from Amsterdam on Flight Tracker. They had seen us line up to land in London and then head off north to Stanstead. When I called to let them know where I was they said, “Yes we know where you are. What happened?” So much for my story about surviving a mid-air crisis.

I caught a bus into London and then the tube to Paddington Station. Tube rides in London are normally fairly peaceful affairs. But this one; not so much. Two guys in my carriage began to argue and then fight. They were soon rolling around the floor of the carriage, swearing and throwing wild punches. The driver must have communicated with the police because when the train stopped two policemen came on and separated the two combatants. They put handcuffs on them both and started to push them towards the doors. In a broad east London accent one of the fighters said, “I can’t get off here.”

“Why not?” asked the policeman.

“It’s not my station!” came the perfectly logical reply.

The rest of my day went without incident. I arrived at Jane’s place and received an enthusiastic welcome. I met Sam who even at less than a year old had an expression that said, “There seems to be far too much excitement over your arrival.”

Quite a day. Quite a way to conclude my Mare Nostrum trip. And it ended with a stroke of good fortune. The next day I was looking at Google Maps trying to see the location of the Swiss hotel that had my briefcase. Amazingly there, on Google Maps, was a photograph of the hotel. I called them and, yes they remembered the New Zealander and, yes they had my briefcase. Two days later it arrived in Reading. This story has been written on the “lost” computer.

Editors Note:  While the above is a true story, it doesn’t quite convey the total chaos and laughter of that day.