By David
Some readers may remember that I filed a Disputes Tribunal claim asking that Swimming New Zealand be ordered to refund the protest fee I paid questioning the legality of the Wellington Swimming Pool. I argued that Swimming New Zealand had rejected my complaint but had immediately altered the pool in line with my protest. Their words said “No” but their actions said my protest was valid.
However the real motivation for my Tribunal claim was the hurt inflicted on a Raumati Swimming Club member by Swimming New Zealand continuing to use the shallow end of that dangerous pool. You may remember the ten year old who lost her front teeth diving into the Wellington Pool. My protest was aimed at preventing just that sort of tragedy. I’m told that the damaged teeth will not be fully repaired until this young lady is twenty years of age. Well done Swimming New Zealand.
If my claim caused Swimming New Zealand some disruption; some upset; cost them money; pissed them off a bit; then I would be well pleased. There is no way that young girl should lose her teeth while the hierarchy of Swimming New Zealand continued to drink their lattes in the Millennium coffee shop oblivious to her condition. Swimming New Zealand deserved some discomfort. Winning was not the point. Being a thorn in their side was all that mattered.
Well, here is what happened. I filed the claim and this week received an email from a Tribunal Case Manager, Nicole Gordon. The news it contained was as disappointing as it was expected.
The Tribunal wishes to advise Mr Wright that the Tribunal is unlikely to have jurisdiction to hear this matter. The Tribunal can only hear matters relating to contract and to destruction or damage to property (see section 10 of the Disputes Tribunals Act). It appears that your claim does not fall under those headings. In addition, the Tribunal cannot hear claims that fall under an enactment (as appears to be the case here) nor claims that are purely for economic loss (as appears to be the case here).
But most dark clouds have a silver lining. And this one was no exception. Swimming New Zealand had commissioned the Affordable Lawyer to prepare an “OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL TO DEAL WITH DISPUTE, AND DEFENCE.”
It was only a couple of pages and certainly would have cost Swimming New Zealand less than repairing a set of front teeth. But there’s probably $500 worth of time in the defence document. And that’s the important bit. In my view Swimming New Zealand ignored my advice; they made a decision that cost a member her teeth. The pain of $500 is well deserved.
Swimming New Zealand’s defence said the following.
The respondent objects to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with this dispute. Further, in the event that the Tribunal considers it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute, the respondent denies that it has any liability to the applicant or that the Tribunal may award the relief sought by the applicant. The decision of the meet director is final, and there is no right of appeal in respect of it. The decision reached by the meet director was correct. As explained by the meet director in his response to the protest, FINA Rules FR1.3 and FR1.4 are applicable. FR1.3 refers to the requirement that events held under FINA Rules:
The meet director determined that the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre complied with Rules FR1.3 and FR1.4. He was correct to do so. For the reasons outlined above, even if he was not correct to do so, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to find in favour of the applicant in respect of this dispute.
All that still begs the question – if the Wellington pool is so bloody fantastic why do Swimming New Zealand members lose teeth diving into it and why did Swimming New Zealand pay to have the pool altered for national events?
But the real message from this defence document is that not much has changed in the management of Swimming New Zealand. In my opinion the same insufferable arrogance that ruined the sport of swimming for ten years is alive and well today. Nothing has changed. We do no wrong, we have all the answers, don’t question our excellence, don’t challenge our integrity and don’t expect accountability.
You don’t believe me? Then think about a little girl in Raumati for a moment and then read their lawyer’s opinion one more time. You bet I’m delighted I cost them their $500 lawyer’s fee.
And so what’s next. Well another protest, is the answer. At the next event I attend at the Wellington Pool I’m going to ask for the event to be shifted to Auckland. My protest will be based on FINA Rule FR 2.11. This Rule says
During competition the water in the pool must be kept at a constant level, with no appreciable movement. In order to observe health regulations in force in most countries, inflow and outflow is permissible as long as no appreciable current or turbulence is created.
My protest will be based on three facts.
- A comment on this site, received from Swimming New Zealand’s long time ex National Coach, Clive Rushton that says, “There is a current. There always has been a current. It’s a strong current. It’s a different strength of current on the stand side to the window side. Next time you’re there, between sessions when the pool is empty, scrunch up a piece of paper and drop it in the window-side shallow end. Watch.”
- My experience of the Rushton test. Yes, I scrunched a piece of paper and dropped it in the window-side shallow end and I watched. Clive is right. With foils my scrunched paper could have won the America’s Cup.
- The practical experiences of watching New Zealand’s best swimmer, Lauren Boyle, compete in two 200 metre events. Each length “against” the current took Boyle an extra stroke compared to the length where she was swept along by Wellington’s favourable tide. Before any of this was discussed on Swimwatch, other swimmers were mentioning the feeling of a current in the pool.
The new Swimming New Zealand asked us to monitor their performance. I have done that. The results are not much different from the old version. Let’s see how they respond to this next little test.