By David

Wikipedia is an easy to use and quick reference document. I had reason today to look up the meaning of “dirty tricks”; the type used by Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal. Here is what Wikipedia had to say on the subject.

Dirty tricks are unethical, duplicitous, slanderous or illegal tactics employed to destroy or diminish the effectiveness of political or business opponents; manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent are easily described as dirty tricks. They serve to tie up the opponent into defending against and answering false charges rather than explaining their policies and platform.

The definition perfectly describes an incident involving Swimming New Zealand and the current Review Committee that I experienced yesterday. I was asked to join a conference call with two members of the current Swimming New Zealand Review Committee, the Chairman, Chris Moller and Sue Suckling. You may remember they are the same two members of the Review Committee that I met in Wellington a month ago.

I assumed that the purpose of the conference call was to follow up on our constructive Wellington discussion; a not altogether unreasonable conclusion given that the first sentence in their email invitation said, “Good Morning David, Chris and Sue would like to have a follow up interview with you via teleconference.”

But this telephone conversation had nothing to do with “following up” on our Wellington discussion. In the words of Wikipedia that description of our telephone call was unethical and duplicitous. This conversation was a “kangaroo court” aimed at launching a personal attack that would destroy me and the views I represented. And what vehicle did Moller and Suckling choose to make their assault? They chose the protest I made at the 2012 Age Group Nationals regarding the depth of the Kilbirnie Pool.

For thirty minutes I was assaulted and bullied by a stream of questions clearly aimed at proving my protest was ill-timed and malicious; just another David Wright “beat-up”. Swimming New Zealand had clearly lobbied Moller and Suckling with their version of the Kilbirnie protest in order to discredit the author of the protest and trash his swimming views. Moller and Suckling appeared only too happy to gather evidence to support Mike Byrne’s “David Wright dirty tricks crusade”.

How else would you explain this series of questions?

• Why did you leave it until the first day of the meet to file your protest?
• Why haven’t you protested before?
• Were you working in collusion with the Auckland Swimming Region when you filed the protest?
• Are you going to take the protest further?
• Is the Auckland Swimming Region going to take the protest further?
• When did you find out about the depth of the Kilbirnie Pool?
• Who actually filed the protest and what was the sequence of events after that?
• What was the name of the Auckland Swimming Region’s team manager?
• What’s the name of the President of the West Auckland Aquatics Club?
• What prompted you to file the protest now?

And so it went on. Thirty minutes spent demanding to know why I had protested an illegal and dangerous pool. Thirty minutes spent trying to find out why I had protested and the procedure I had followed. Now there are two things I think are relevant about their line of interrogation.

First, what on God’s good earth did anything in this conference call have to do with the work of the Swimming New Zealand Review Committee? I do hope Moller and Suckling are not charging for the time they spent on this conference call. They are employed to investigate the structure of swimming in New Zealand; not the motives and method used by a West Auckland swim coach to file a protest at a swim meet. I can find nothing in the terms of reference directing the Committee’s work that suggests protests at a swim meet should draw this amount of attention. The motive for the call was only ever to establish that the protest was the work of a natural born trouble maker, hell bent on destroying the sport. Never mind the message, get the messenger and get him good.

Secondly, through the entire call, the laser-like focus of the conversation was the motive and process used by me to file the protest. Not one mention was made, not one question was asked, about the decision of Swimming New Zealand to send 650 swimmers headfirst into a pool that the world governing body of swimming, FINA, says is too shallow and is dangerous; like breaking your neck dangerous. All Moller and Suckling were interested in was, is David Wright a trouble maker and how can we manufacture this protest to prove it? Not one thought or question about the right to govern of Swimming New Zealand officials and employees who put their members in harm’s way and describe any effort to curb their irresponsibility as a “beat-up”. It is a sad day when the government of New Zealand’s money is spent finding fault with the reputation of a swimming coach ahead of the welfare and safety of 650 young people. The politics of swimming may be of interest to you Chris Moller and Sue Suckling. But you have no right or authority to put politics ahead of the good health of swimming members.

It is worthwhile repeating the Wikipedia definition of “dirty tricks”.

Dirty tricks are unethical, duplicitous, slanderous or illegal tactics employed to destroy or diminish the effectiveness of political or business opponents; manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent are easily described as dirty tricks. They serve to tie up the opponent into defending against and answering false charges rather than explaining their policies and platform.

Well I certainly spent a portion of yesterday tied up defending myself against and answering false charges rather than explaining my policies and platform. I guess that means Moller and Suckling have something in common with Richard Nixon. Certainly those that they work for appear to understand well the tactics of Watergate.