By David

Swimwatch readers have little idea of how much I do not want to write this post. The sadness with which I approach the task is deep and profound. You see, I have been looking forward to the prospect of a SPARC Review of Swimming New Zealand’s High Performance Program. Surely any reasonable investigator could see the destructive and unproductive shambles that Cameron, Byrne and Coulter have produced and would report accordingly. Now, I do not think so. There is the real prospect that the Review will be a shame; a charade performed by a small coterie of Wellington sporting civil servants. The prospect of our sport getting a fair trial is slim indeed.

Why is this so? Well the guy appointed to investigate Coulter, Cameron and Byrne’s performance is Chris Ineson. He has been involved in swimming reform before. In September 2005 he wrote a Report for Swimming New Zealand called “Report on Swimming New Zealand’s Service Delivery Capability”. That report is the blue print for the whole Project Vanguard crusade. Ineson wrote the bible that his disciples, Cameron, Byrne and Coulter, use every day to guide their Project Vanguard dreams. Even if error is found, is it likely that Ineson will crucify those who toil to put his 2005 recommendations into effect? Ineson comes to the task with a record. He has a vested interest in the outcome; a vested interest that would have seen others excuse themselves from the position. Given the nature of his previous involvement with Swimming New Zealand, Ineson’s acceptance of this new role is a most inauspicious start. It reflects badly on his objectivity.

Readers are probably thinking I must be exaggerating the dangers of Ineson’s predisposition. But consider this. Already Ineson has called on Jan Cameron’s Personal Assistant, that’s her step daughter, to arrange meeting times for athletes wanting to express their opinion on the Millennium folly. Does he really believe any sane swimmer is going to risk their livelihood going through a Jan Cameron relative to complain about their boss? Better to put up with Jan than be out on the dole. Given the appointment procedure, Ineson should not be surprised if complaints from Millennium athletes are in short supply. The dangers of making an appointment compound the intimidating visit to the Millennium Institute this week by Byrne. His message was clear – if you swimmers speak out negatively about Swimming New Zealand then our funding will be cut and you swimmers will lose out. Fear and intimidation; does the trick every time.

And consider also that in the past two years Cameron, Byrne and Coulter have spent quarter of a million dollars wandering around New Zealand selling Ineson’s 2005 Project Vanguard scheme. Almost word for word Swimming New Zealand’s Auckland gathering described the Ineson plan. Here are extracts taken from his report. See what you think.

Quote One: The winding up of the regions will require a strategy to properly manage the change. An arrangement will be made with SNZ that all Regional funds and assets have a sunset clause (3-5 years) after which all remaining assets/funds to be forwarded to SNZ.

So there you have it; straight from the Ineson bible. All the cash, half a million dollars of Auckland’s equipment at the West Wave Pool and reserves from sixteen Regions built up by good swimming people in over one hundred years of raffles and sausage sizzles, gone in a heartbeat; gone in a Byrne, Coulter, Cameron money grab. It is disgusting. And Ineson gave them the idea and told them how to do it. Does it seem likely to you that, no matter what their level of incompetence, Ineson would recommend the departure of minions about to give his 2005 report some legitimacy?

Quote Two: The end result is that the development of infrastructure, management and administration of grass roots sport lagged behind its national office. As sport became more professional and as volunteers gave way to paid staff many regions struggled to keep pace with the changes in sport’s administration.

I love the way sporting carpetbaggers like Byrne, Cameron and Coulter try and balance their contempt for volunteers with the obvious need to pay lip service to their work. Ineson struggles with the same problem. At the end of the day though, just as Ineson has done here, they have to come right out and say that they are better because they are paid. And there is simply no evidence to support that assertion. If that was true why did swimming have twice the number of registered swimmers when the Wellington office was staffed by one part time paid worker called Donnella Tait. The truth is, there has been a direct relationship between the increase in the number of paid head office personnel and the decline in the number of registered swimmers.

I’m paid to work in swimming but that does not make me a good coach. Lydiard coached Snell and Halberg and was never paid a penny. Jelley coached Walker for the same remuneration. I have known a dozen unpaid regional administrators who have forgotten more about swimming and business administration that the combined knowledge of Byrne, Coulter and Cameron. In New Zealand I know of one who runs a multimillion dollar sign writing business, another owns his own bank, another is the wife and the sister of two New Zealand sporting icons and another is a multimillion dollar property developer. Would I trust these “amateurs” or Mike Byrne with my $6 million investment in swimming? Let me tell you, the answer is not even close. I don’t know how many of you have read Cameron’s letters from New Delhi. The standard of English is dreadful. Worse than the eighth grade classes, I’m told, she once taught. The other day one of Swimming New Zealand’s “professionals” had to ask one of the Auckland Region’s volunteers what a Rangitoto relay meant. Clearly, paid does not mean good.

My concern is that the judge and the accused in this case are peas in a pod. They think the same way. They say the same things. They share the same space. A key word in the SPARC specification was that this Review would be “independent”. It will fail that test.

Quote Three: The challenge for Swimming is to step back and look critically at its 16 Regional structure to ensure it is performing as it should and that it represents the future direction of the Sport in New Zealand.

Do you see what I mean? To these guys, Ineson included, all swimming’s problems are the Region’s fault. But that’s not what Ineson has been called in to investigate. The problem here is that the most “professional” part of the organization, the part where everyone involved gets handsomely paid, is the part that’s a mess. The country’s elite program has followed the advice of the Byrnes, the Camerons, the Coulters and the Inesons and it hasn’t worked.  It’s a shambles. Paying everyone hasn’t produced a result. In fact New Zealand’s results have got way, way worse. Cameron’s form of professionalism hasn’t ever won a medal in a world championship swimming race. She has spent six million dollars. She has followed the advice of Coulter, Byrne and Ineson and has won nothing. Not a cracker.

I’m just really worried that to expect Ineson to admit that the “professional model” scheme he proposed in 2005 hasn’t worked, is asking a lot. He’d rather drink a cup of cold sick than admit his beloved “professionals” have screwed up. I hope I’m wrong. I hope I’ve done Ineson a major disservice: in which case I will be the first to apologize without qualification. But that’s the way it seems right now.