By David

In four weeks New Zealand will conduct its trials to select a team to compete in the 2011 World Swimming Championships in Shanghai. As we expect, from anything designed by Jan Cameron, the New Zealand selection policy is a bundle of contradictions wrapped in a parcel called confusion.

The current selection process involves Jan Cameron setting qualifying times for each event. Swimmers are required to better Cameron’s standards in the final of their event at the national trials. The idea is that each swimmer has to perform “when the chips are down”; on one day, in the final. Cameron loves pretending she’s as tough as the United States where first and second go to the Olympic Games and third stays at home. We don’t have enough good swimmers to do that here, so Cameron makes everybody compete against a trial time instead.

There are a number of things screwed up about the selection process. First of all, Cameron does not play by the rules. On more than one occasion if the “right” people haven’t made the cut, Cameron has retrospectively altered the standard to make sure her chosen few are included. The most recent Commonwealth Games team was a classic example. Several swimmers didn’t swim Cameron’s times at the Trials. After the meet, Cameron announced an adjustment to the times. The chosen few were on the plane. Question: When is a standard, not a standard? Answer: When it’s set by Jan Cameron.

Having a hard and fast, one race rule is not appropriate in a country like New Zealand. We don’t have a pool of eight swimmers all good enough to swim in the Olympic final. We are not the United States or even Australia. A selection policy applicable and valid in Omaha, Nebraska is entirely inappropriate in New Zealand. We need to look after our resources. We need to offer our best swimmers a qualifying window; a period of time and a series of meets where the selection standard can be achieved. This is not about being tough, this is about winning the Olympic Games. We require a selection procedure that recognizes our size and our swimming resources.

The worst feature of Cameron’s current selection policy is its capacity to annihilate talent. Peter Snell would never have run in the Rome Olympic Games if Cameron had been the selector. Probably the biggest injustice I have seen in New Zealand swimming occurred because of Cameron’s selection folly. You see, in 2004 New Zealand swimming had a Peter Snell equivalent; a swimmer of untapped potential; a swimmer of character and courage. Unfortunately Melissa Ingram did not have a coach with the insight of a Lydiard. She had Jan Cameron and Ingram was left off the Athens Olympic team. She fought back to become one of the world’s best. Had she been able to swim in Athens, God knows how good she could have been in the Beijing Olympic Games, but for Cameron’s blind ideology.

And if you think the pool selection policy is bad, you should take a look at the minefield New Zealand’s long distance, open water swimmers have to negotiate. But before we look at the selection criteria it is relevant to take into account the status and position of this new Olympic event. Like all new events the world’s best athletes take a while to work through the learning curve of thoroughly understanding the event. That is not to say winning a long distance medal is easy. However, in the environment of a new event, there is a huge opportunity for New Zealand’s long distance swimmers to steal a march and win a London medal.

To be selected for this year’s World Championships or next year’s Olympic Games, Cameron decided the selection standard would be based on achieving a top four place in the Australian National Championships. However Australia are far stronger in men’s distance swimming just now than in the women’s events, which means New Zealand’s men have a far tougher qualifying hill to climb than our women.

So here is how this year’s New Zealand World Championship trial in the Australian Championships went. Cara Baker did really well. She came second but was almost five minutes slower than the winning Australian. She’s selected though and on her way to Shanghai. On the men’s side Kane Radford went one better than Baker and won the 5000 meter event. The two Australians he beat into second and third are on their way to the World Championships. But Radford has to stay home. Why? Because Cameron says the 5000 meter race at the World Championships doesn’t count, because 5000 meters is not on the Olympic program in London. In the pool though, I bet Cameron will pick Emily Thomas for the World Championships even if the only event she qualifies in is the 50 backstroke, and that’s not an Olympic event either. In any selection process the most important quality is to be fair. Cameron’s selection rules fail that test.

Incidentally, Radford also came seventh in the 10,000 meter event only fifty four seconds behind the Australian winner; proof positive that he is in a position to possibly win both distances in Shanghai and move on strongly to the 10,000 in London. But no, the winner of the Australian 5000 Championships is not going to Shanghai. According to Jan Cameron, he’s not good enough to represent her version of Swimming New Zealand. It’s little wonder she has just spent $6 million and has never won anything.

I’m told the Australians and the Americans can’t believe New Zealand’s best male distance swimmers are being left at home. They are thanking the swimming Gods that Jan Cameron has just made the chances of an Australian or an American winning the World Championships a whole heap easier.

For some reason distance swimmers get the rough end of the Cameron stick when it comes to selection and to the allocation of money. Pool swimmers are entitled to something called a MISH scholarship if they are ranked better than 75 in the world. Open water, distance swimmers however can only access MISH money if they have a ranking in a pool event; presumably the 1500 meters. One has to be a bit suspect of the legitimacy of using 1500 meter pool rankings to judge someone whose event is swimming 10,000 meters in open water. I can’t imagine Athletics New Zealand picking their marathon runners by how fast they run 5000 meters on the track. That obviously doesn’t worry Cameron though. It is this sort of nonsense that makes you wonder just how much that woman really knows about swimming.

The whole distance swimming regime in New Zealand is in need of serious surgery. The selection, the coaching, the funding – none of it is consistent, well-thought-out or fair. I’d certainly be sending Radford and Ryan (he won the New Zealand Championships) to this year’s World Championships in Shanghai. In addition I’d make sure there was one other swimmer besides Baker representing New Zealand in the women’s events. They could be just the people to win Cameron her first world medal. And, sadly, they’ve virtually cost Cameron and the country nothing.

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.

By David

I have no doubt there will be swimming people in New Zealand who will be interested in the Terms of Reference guiding the SPARC Review of SNZ’s performance. I doubt that this information will be published on the SNZ website, so here they are for your consideration.

The Sweetenham Review (referenced in this document) is clearly going to be an important part of this exercise as well. We can’t find anyone who knows what that report contained. We are just completing an Official Information Act request and will update at a later date.

DOWNLOAD DISTRIBUTED MICROSOFT WORD FILE HERE.

The contents of the Terms of Reference are as follows:

Terms of Reference
Independent Review of Swimming NZ’s High Performance Programme

Background

Swimming was confirmed as a Targeted sport by SPARC in 2006 with the intended outcome of swimmers winning medals at the Olympic Games in 2012 and beyond.

SPARC has invested $6M of high performance funding into Swimming NZ between 01 January 2007 and 31 December 2010. During that period swimming has not won a medal at either the world championships (long course) or Olympic Games.

SPARC funded a review of Swimming NZ’s high performance programme in 2008 by Bill Sweetenham (former Australian national coach and Performance Director British Swimming). The Sweetenham review provided recommendations on how the high performance programme should operate to deliver success in 2012.
Swimming’s lack of medal success combined with objective performance data and a critical review of its high performance programme following the Delhi Commonwealth Games has lead SPARC to commission a further review of Swimming NZ’s high performance programme.

Purpose of the review

The purpose of the review is to analyse Swimming NZ’s current high performance programme with a view to identifying whether barriers exist within the programme that are impeding New Zealand swimmers from achieving medal success in 2012 and beyond.

Outcome of the review

The review will identify barriers to success in Swimming NZ’s high performance programme, and provide recommendations around changes that need to be implemented to enhance the probability of medal success in 2012 and beyond.

The report will be submitted to SPARC’s High Performance Board and Swimming NZ’s Board. SPARC’s expectation is that the recommendations contained within the review will be implemented by Swimming NZ as a condition of ongoing funding. The report will assist the High Performance Board to determine an appropriate level of high performance investment in Swimming NZ beyond July 2011.

The final report will include commentary on, but not be limited to;

• Implementation of the Sweetenham review recommendations,
• Leadership of Swimming NZ’s high performance programme,
• Swimming NZ high performance programme culture,
• High performance coaching structure,
• Barriers to medal success on the world stage,
• Daily training environment for national squad members,
• Support for national squad athletes and coaches (centralised/decentralised),
• Stakeholder support for Swimming NZ’s high performance strategy,
• International comparisons (e.g. Australian, Canadian and UK models), and
• Feedback gained throughout the consultation process.

Review process

Consultation will be undertaken with the following stakeholders:

SNZ Board members (Chair and Deputy Chair)
SNZ Chief Executive Officer
SNZ senior management (GM level)
SNZ employed coaches
Coaches of athletes in the national squad not based in Auckland
National squad swimmers
Recently retired (post 2008) board members and national squad members
Former HP personnel (staff and coaches)
Emerging talent
SNZ Selectors
Swim Coaches and Teachers (SCAT)
SPARC HP personnel
NZAS service providers working with Swimming NZ’s high performance programme
NZOC Games Team Management
Other interested parties identified during review (e.g. concerned clubs, parents of young athletes)
Information will be collected via face to face and phone interviews (e.g. offshore based swimmers).

Critical information

The review will take into consideration;

• The 2008 Sweetenham review,
• Swimming NZ’s 2009-2012 high performance plan,
• Swimming NZ’s high performance structure, roles and responsibilities,
• Performance culture within the SNZ high performance programme,
• High performance programme daily training environment,
• Swimming NZ’s 2010 Commonwealth Games debrief,
• Objective performance data, and
• Feedback received throughout the consultation process.

Reviewer

The review will be conducted by Chris Ineson (Director Driving Forces) with support from SPARC as required.

Timeframe

Consultation will take place between 1 March and 30 March 2011 with the final report provided to SPARC by 30 April 2011.

By David

In our last Swimwatch post we wrote that SNZ had not bothered to mention the Christchurch appeal swim meets being held in Auckland and Rotorua. It looks like Swimwatch have shamed the shameless. The Auckland meet is now recorded on the SNZ website. The Bay of Plenty meet hasn’t made it yet. But we are pleased with your progress, SNZ. Your next big effort is to let your readers know that Bay of Plenty is planning a meet to support a struggling Christchurch community. While you are making changes to your website, would you please stop telling the world that Palmer and Boyle are swimming at the Millennium Institute. I’m pretty sure you know by now; they are both living and training in the United States.

However, today’s real news is that Mike Byrne, Swimming New Zealand’s CEO, turned up at the Millennium Institute this morning. Just look who came to breakfast! What on God’s good earth was this clandestine mission all about. Well let me tell you. He was in Auckland to address the Millennium swimmers about the pending SPARC investigation and his beloved Project Vanguard.

I’m pretty sure the first of those topics may be considered unwarranted interference in a semi-judicial process. However that sort of fine consideration is not something Byrne, Coulter or Cameron appear to lose much sleep over. However if I were involved in the SPARC investigation team I’d be mightily upset that some of my key witnesses may have been intimidated by their boss.

I would also be concerned at the spin Byrne put on the SPARC investigation. At his Auckland breakfast he made out that he is really pleased that the SPARC review is about to begin. He told the swimmers it was all about making the sport better. As near as it does not make any difference he vaguely implied that he was involved in the decision to bring SPARC into the sport. I have no idea why he didn’t come right out and say it was all his idea. He certainly left his athletic audience with that impression.

The reality of course is altogether different. SPARC are not in the habit of spending money investigating sports that they think are being well run. SPARC only send in an investigator when they think there is a problem. Byrne had nothing to do with the decision. I imagine the last thing Cameron and Byrne want is a Government investigator (Chris Ineson) examining their performance. This is a SPARC initiative. Let there be no misunderstanding in this investigation SPARC is the hunter and Byrne and Cameron, the hunted – no matter what spin he tells New Zealand’s best swimmers. It is sad though when any boss distorts the organization’s position to his employees.

Interestingly, Jan Cameron’s step daughter and Personal Assistant asked Byrne if anyone was going to lose their job as a result of the SPARC investigation. Byrne said, “Absolutely not.” Sure as hell, I hope that’s not true. It will surprise no one to find out that I think Cameron, Byrne and Coulter have passed their sell by date. Certainly their jobs are very much under review. Swimming will be better off if it puts the Cameron, Byrne and Coulter era behind it. Let’s all hope SPARC reach the same conclusion. Then Byrne can tell us all that his departure was actually his idea. I might be oversensitive here, but I wonder if the question about jobs was asked in order to manipulate impressionable swimmers into following the corporate line. Obedience will protect us all. That sounds like a really good environment from which to win the Olympic Games.

Strangely, given the makeup of his audience, Byrne then spent some time discussing Project Vanguard. He said the introduction of bureaucrats, like him, was vital to the sport’s survival. The manner in which he promotes paid staff at the expense of volunteers is simply disgusting.

Unbelievably he then informed the assembled swimmers that the vast majority of New Zealand swimming people supported the introduction of Project Vanguard. There were, he said, only a few misguided malcontents who disagreed with the brilliance of his new idea. Now that is simply not true. My guess is that New Zealand’s largest Region, Auckland is not going to vote itself out of existence. Counties and Bay of Plenty don’t seem to want a team of Mike Byrne clones running their affairs. My reading of the Waikato minutes suggests they are pretty lukewarm about the whole idea. Poverty Bay were so enthusiastic that they refused to attend Hemsworth’s Napier Sermon on the Mount. Given the tone of the Manawatu Remit I doubt that Region is prepared to vote themselves into oblivion just yet. Southland has such strong links with their Licensing Trust I can’t imagine them handing the management of that relationship over to a few Byrne lookalike foreigners. And as for Canterbury, when they hear that SNZ supported them in their hour of genuine need with the proceeds of some t-shirt sales, they might not be so quick to support Project Vanguard. I have no idea about the rest of the country but Byrne’s idea of wholehearted support and a few malcontents is far from the truth.

The New Zealand swimming community should recognize that Swimming New Zealand still has not asked for permission to move their Project Vanguard onto its next stage. By the instruction of the Annual Meeting, SNZ are required to obtain this approval. If they do not, the organization’s Board and its executive will be in contempt and should be impeached. An interim Board should be appointed until a new Board that complies with the direction of its stakeholders is elected. I do hope that in his discussions with swimming people the SPARC investigator, Chris Ineson, realizes the relationship that exist between Cameron, Byrne and Coulter’s lust for power and the sport’s inability to perform.