«
»

What They Don’t Want You To Know

By David

This post will make more sense if you read the previous story “Unbroken Record or a Broken Back?” first.   

Update: Craig Lord at Swimvortex has written about this issue today as well. It’s definitely worth a read.

Would you believe it? Swimming New Zealand and Swimming Wellington don’t time the 25 metre lap times in the Kilbirnie Pool any more. It is hard to escape the feeling that’s because they don’t want you and me to know what effect the current in their pool is having. However Swimming New Zealand, please take note, you have nowhere to hide. Sitting in the stands last Saturday night was one of New Zealand’s most respected swim coaches and he did time each 25 metre split. He also sent them to Swimwatch. Our apologies for the two missed times early in Boyle’s swim.

The table below gives you an exclusive look into each of Lauren Boyle’s 25 metre times and shows clearly the effect the Wellington pool had on her performance; an effect that is in huge violation of FINA rules. On average Boyle took 0.57 of a second longer to swim into the current than with the current; an average variation of 3.6% per length. And still they claim there is no appreciable current.

Those officials and employees responsible for this fiasco should pack their personal belongings and leave the sport immediately. Miskimmin has effectively run swimming in New Zealand for several years now. In his time Valerie Adams came within a whisker of missing an Olympic Gold Medal and now Boyle looks dead certain to miss a world record. Miskimmin should join Renford, Villanueva and the Board of Swimming New Zealand waiting to catch a bus out of town.

In no world should an athlete compete in a regional championships in her own country, break a world record and have it be in danger of not counting because of a known, reported issue that both her national body and the regional centre have been aware of for years.

LAUREN BOYLE 25 METRE SPLITS WORLD BEST 1500 TIME 9 AUGUST 2014

Cumulative Splits

Lap Times

 

With Current

Into Current

13.56

28.36

13.56

14.80

42.36

–

14.00

0

–

1.28.87

0

0

1.43.09

1.59.31

14.22

16.22

2.14.21

2.30.01

14.90

15.80

2.45.02

3.00.35

15.01

15.33

3.15.47

3.31.06

15.12

15.59

3.46.18

4.01.56

15.12

15.38

4.16.89

4.32.22

15.33

15.33

4.47.33

5.03.06

15.11

15.73

5.18.15

5.33.85

15.09

15.70

5.48.94

6.04.30

15.09

15.36

6.19.42

6.35.22

15.12

15.82

6.50.72

7.06.02

15.50

15.30

7.21.25

7.36.66

15.23

15.41

7.51.77

8.07.95

15.11

16.18

8.23.32

8.38.99

15.37

15.67

8.54.16

9.09.94

15.17

15.78

9.25.19

9.41.01

15.25

15.82

9.56.37

10.12.12

15.36

15.75

10.27.45

10.43.14

15.33

15.69

10.58.70

11.14.61

15.56

15.91

11.30.06

11.45.88

15.45

15.82

12.01.43

12.17.14

15.55

15.71

12.32.25

12.47.98

15.11

15.64

13.03.50

13.19.10

15.52

15.60

13.34.55

13.50.06

15.45

15.51

14.05.17

14.20.89

15.11

15.72

14.36.04

14.51.96

15.15

15.92

15.06.58

15.22.50

14.62

15.92

Average Each

25 metres

15.09

15.66

Difference Per

25 metres

 

0.57

 

 

This entry was posted on Monday, August 11th, 2014 at 9:54 pm and is filed under Racing . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

  • Swimfan

    I think we should start again, all NZ records including age group records made in that pool should be wiped. Swimming NZ should put out for tender every year all national events, only the pools that meet the FINA standards should be considered. If swimmers, coaches and parents have to travel further so be it, regions not complaint should not have the opportunity to stage such events. At the moment Wellington holds both the NZ Short-Course and Age Groups championships by default, I also notice they get the NZ Secondary Schools this year as well. Smaller towns willing to comply to FINA standards would benefit economically it would be better for the regions, swimmers and sport as a whole.

  • David

    I agree with Swimfan. I spent last weekend in Tauranga. The pool there is 2m deep and ten lanes wide. I didn’t have time to check currents and the like. It maybe needs to upgrade its starting blocks and improve the number of spectator seats but compared to Wellington it is a gem. Boyle should have swum there. However if this world record fiasco results in the disappearance of those in SNZ and Sport NZ responsible for centralized provision of the sport and for a lost world record, then Lauren Boyle may just have made her most valuable contribution to NZ swimming.

  • Clive Rushton

    Prediction: no world record form will be submitted.

  • h2tk

    Mr Rushton, we are talking about people who have more front than Brighton Pier. Of course the form will be shamelessly submitted by Matt Meehan. Guaranteed. He was the one (I think David you can confirm this) who turned down the original protest about depth at NAGS several years ago.

  • David

    I can’t remember what the name of the guy was. He never bothered to speak to me. Neither did the Jury of Appeal for that matter. That’s how important they viewed swimmer safety. I see Renford and Villanueva (The Lone Ranger and Tonto) have burst into the news today. Renford argues that the coach who timed Boyle’s splits from the stands got them wrong. The coach was actually on the pool deck and didn’t get them wrong. Hasn’t he noticed how close they are to the “official” 50 splits. And Villanueva argues that lots of pools have a current so Kilbirnie is just fine. Neither of them even talk about the depth problem. However the “Rules” say still water and SNZ cannot sign for that.
    Perhaps now we can see why these two foreigners should return to their homeland. Talents like Renford’s are historically more valued in Australia.

  • SwimMum

    Well at least Swimming Wellington can provide enough officials for meets – Auckland Swimming should be embarrassed at their inability to provide sufficient officials for meets such as NZ Opens.
    Why all the negativity – surely you should be supporting swimming as a sport and celebrating Lauren’s success – not trying to point score.

  • SwimMum

    Also the Facilities Rules that apply for the meet held are “should be” rules not “must be” rules i.e. FR1.1 states world champs etc “must be held” in pools that meet certain rules. The event Lauren swam at would fall under FR1.3 – “should be” conducted in pools etc etc – that “should” allows a leeway that a “must” does not allow.

  • h2tk

    Deary me SwimMum so it is a JAFA thing. You have missed the issues entirely. So your region would rather stick needles in their eyes than change the configuration of your pool, or insist that the Council upgrade the filter system to stop the raging current that has been an issue since the pool was built?

    Thank goodness there are other media including the British swimming correspondent Craig Lord who do see the issues:
    http://www.swimvortex.com/has-the-fina-rule-book-on-wr-standards-been-given-the-wellington-boot-by-nzl/

  • Justsayin

    Maybe swim mum should read the Craig lord blog for the definition of should be and must be. Very wellington to define the rules to suit, and before Auckland is lambasted about officials, swim mum may want to take a closer look at wellingtons ratio of qualified vs unqualified rule. Thats a whole new blog….just sayin

  • Tom

    @SwimMum – To be fair, David has consistently and enthusiastically praised Lauren’s efforts on this website for some time. I’d suggest that if Lauren’s record doesn’t stand (and I personally hope that it does) then the blame lies squarely at the feet of SNZ, not David and supposed ‘point scoring’. They’ve been informed the pool in question may be non-compliant, yet it would appear they’ve chosen to disregard those warnings. Your’s, mine or anyone else’s personal feelings about David doesn’t change that.

  • h2tk

    Ahh SwimMum, Craig Lord gives a very elementary lesson about “should” and “must”. Check out the link below.

    If you are going to go down that nonsense path then explain why FR2.7 Starting Platforms uses the phrase “… must be1.35m metres where starting platforms are installed.”

    Using your logic then any rules from FR2 Swimming Pools, which are the minimum standard facilities rules referred to in FR1.3, are optional rules. OK, so are FR2.1 Length rules optional even though they use the word “must” repeatedly throughout? Is having measures of tolerance in FR2.2 certified by surveyors or qualified officials optional because they only use the word “should”? Is numbering in FR2.8 optional because it uses the word “must”? How about we suspend the backstroke flags just 1m above the pool because FR2.9 only uses the word “shall”.

    That anyone would buy into this logic is quite astonishing and frankly opens this community up to nothing but ridicule.

  • Roland
  • Jo

    David I see you have not changed still a horrible person, with a terrible reputation, are you sure all this drama you are trying to create has nothing to do with being kicked out of Kilbirnie pool in the 1990s and not being allowed in there?