This is the third Swimwatch article on the subject of Steve Johns’ “insanity” comment. For readers who may have missed what Steve said here is the report from the NZ Herald.

I accept that three articles on a subject this simple is probably too many. For that I apologise. However, I may have done Steve an injustice. And that needs to be put right. You see in my first two articles I was convinced Steve was having a crack at his Board bosses. The way I read it, I thought Johns’ comment was saying Bruce Cotterill and the Board were guilty because they supported the insane cause of centralised training. It was the cause of centralised training that was insane. Worse than that Bruce and others accepted $30 million from the New Zealand taxpayer and wasted it on the insane cause called the “centralised model”.  It seemed to me that Steve was directing the blame for the failures of swimming away from himself and towards those who pursued an insane policy.

In Steve’s words the assumption of guilt would have been fair enough. After all Steve said that any Chairman and Board who would “continue with the centralised model and expect to get different results is the definition of insanity.” That is exactly what Bruce Cotterill and his five mates on the Board have done. For twenty years and at a cost of $30 million the current Board and many before them continued with the insane centralised model and expected to get a different result. Bruce and the Board were as guilty as hell. It was time to lock them up and throw away the key.

That is what I thought Steve was saying. I’m sure you agree it is a fair enough interpretation of the NZ Herald report especially when it happens to match my view of this case. I think Bruce and various Boards are guilty of wasting 20 years and $30 million chasing an insane policy. I think the Boards are guilty of professional negligence. In any public company I would hold them guilty of dereliction of their duty of care. I would happily turn the key in the lock and throw it out the window. I thought Steve and I were buddies in arms. I was puzzled how Steve got away with publically proclaiming the guilt of his bosses but reluctantly I admired him for doing it. Steely Steve seemed to have got this one right.

But now I’m not so sure. I think I may have read Steve’s comment incorrectly. I don’t think he sees things the way I do at all. And that is the reason for writing this third article.

I think what Steve is saying is not that Bruce and the Board are guilty of pursuing an insane policy. I think what he is saying is that it is not the policy that is insane it is those who promoted the policy. Steve and the Board are innocent because they are insane. Steve is pleading insanity to escape censure and establish innocence.

“Not guilty by reason of insanity” is one of the most recognisable legal phrases in the world; so recognisable that I should have picked Steve’s defense straight away. What Steve now seems to be saying is that Bruce and the Board are innocent because they are mentally incapable of being legally responsible for their actions.

Section 23 of the Crimes Act 1963 outlines the insanity defense. It says, “No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted
by him when laboring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such
an extent as to render him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.”

Steve has identified the perfect defense. Of course when 20 years and $30 million dollars are wasted like this those responsible could quite reasonably be considered “incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.”

It is not difficult to believe that had Bruce and his Board had their full faculties they would have put a stop to the waste. Had they read anything on Swimwatch they would have been aware of the problem. Steve is right. Insanity of those who promoted the centralised policy is the only possible explanation; the only logical reason. The act describes insanity as “laboring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind”. I think that is what Steve is arguing in his quote and he may well be right.

I guess the sad feature of Steve’s defense is that if we accept the conclusion of “not guilty by reason of insanity” then Bruce and his Board will escape without a conviction. If Steve is saying it is not the act of wasting 20 years and $30 million that is insane; if he is saying the people who committed the waste are insane then, not guilty is the only conclusion.

Of course I don’t like that. I think those responsible for the waste of time, money and two generations of New Zealand’s best swimmers need to be hung up by their finger nails on an Antares Place lamppost. But it seems Steve has outsmarted me again. His public proclamation of innocence by reason of insanity could see the guilty walk free.