By David

Not all the feedback received in response to Swimwatch stories is posted on the site’s comment’s page. Quite frequently I receive emails discussing the blog’s shortcomings. Occasionally I receive messages supporting a story. Two emails arrived recently that I think merit further discussion; one from Vancouver, Canada and the other from Wellington, New Zealand.

The Canadian one was interesting. It provided an alternative point of view to the discussion about whether Alex Baumann, the Canadian who runs High Performance Sport New Zealand, should have arranged for his daughter to swim in the Swimming New Zealand High Performance program, especially when his daughter has represented Canada and the New Zealand program is funded by the New Zealand tax payer.

I am told that when Baumann is asked about the subject he defends his daughter’s presence on the Swimming New Zealand High Performance program with the following argument. Tabitha, his daughter , is only swimming at the Millennium Institute on a trial basis. She is paying the going rate in swimming fees and she is considering changing her allegiance to swim for New Zealand. As I say, that’s what I have been told. It certainly sounds like the sort of defence a father would use in this circumstance.

But let’s look at what Baumann is reported to have said. Tabitha is only at the New Zealand funded Institute program on a trial basis. I don’t know exactly how long Tabitha has been swimming in New Zealand’s national program, but it must be in the order of three weeks. Please tell me – how long does a trial take? Three or four days? Possibly. Three, four, five or six weeks is not a trial. No matter what Alex Baumann or anyone else calls it, in my opinion, that’s membership.

And then Tabitha’s dad is reported as saying he is paying training fees. I’d love to know what that involves. The Millennium program costs $1.6 million for twelve swimmers in Wellington and eight in Auckland; twenty in total. That means the New Zealand tax payer is stumping up with $80,000 per swimmer per year; $1,500 per swimmer per week. So tell me Alex Baumann how much is Tabitha paying – $1,500 per week? Is she meeting the full cost of her training or is the New Zealand tax payer partially funding her involvement.

And finally, I am told, Tabitha is considering swimming for New Zealand. That is good news. However if she is being subsidized by New Zealand to swim she needs to make a commitment to our country first. “Considering” is not good enough. Making the commitment comes first, or at least it should.

Alex Baumann has done his best to defend his daughter’s presence in our national government’s swim program. However, his arguments sound pretty hollow to me; “a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

The Wellington email discussed Philip Rush’s conviction for driving a car in the Wellington suburb of Mirimar with more than twice legal limit of alcohol. Under normal circumstance that would have been bad enough. Except for Philip Rush it was his fourth appearance as a defendant in a drink driving case. Four cases, four criminal convictions. That’s not a good record at all. Especially when Rush’s job involves mentoring young New Zealanders involved in open water swimming. I would have thought his behaviour deserved a dishonourable discharge.

But apparently not. Rush is still employed. More than that Swimming New Zealand provided the court with a glowing testimonial detailing Rush’s personal achievements in swimming and his contribution to Swimming New Zealand. The court was told Rush was a member of the SNZ coaching staff, manager of the National Youth and Age programme and that included establishing the Outward Bound leadership camp. Outside of the formal scope of his employment Swimming New Zealand said that Rush had mentored several young swimmers.

It probably surprises no one to learn that the position of Swimming New Zealand did not meet with universal approval. I am told, Christian Renford, the new CEO of Swimming New Zealand, was asked why Rush wasn’t sacked for this, his fourth conviction. I am told Renford defended Swimming New Zealand’s support of Rush with the following arguments.

The Rush employment contract was prepared by the previous administration. It was so poorly worded, so devoid of standards and expectations that dismissing Rush was simply not possible. My correspondent was left with the impression that Renford was trying to make the case that he could not manage the business as he would have wanted because of the failures committed in the Byrne and Cameron era.

Let’s look at what has been reported to be Renford’s defence. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the wording of an employment contract can protect a serial drink driving record. However there is also merit in the argument that even repeat offenders deserve an employer who treats them in a fair and reasonable manner. It seems Philip Rush certainly got the benefit of fair and reasonable treatment.

From this you can probably detect that while I would have preferred to see Rush kicked out of swimming, I am prepared to accept there may be grounds for believing Swimming New Zealand acted properly in continuing to employ Philip Rush.

However what none of that explains is why Swimming New Zealand burst into print with a glowing testimonial. Surely the Byrne and Cameron era Employment Contracts do not require the organization defend every employee’s criminal behaviour. Swimming New Zealand did way, way more than continue to employ Philip Rush. Swimming New Zealand wrote to a District Court judge telling her what a fine employee she had in her courtroom. That’s the behaviour I find objectionable. Continuing to employ Philip Rush is one thing – taking his side in a New Zealand court case is another thing altogether. In my view that is a step way too far. Perhaps it is an error of judgement that should raise the question of whether Christian Renford has the qualities required for his job at Swimming New Zealand.