I wanted to take a minute to explain the thought behind the first paragraph of the last Swimwatch post. Here is what the paragraph said.

The paragraph describes the cynical use of money to manipulate sports federations into accepting Sport NZ’s commitment to centralised national training facilities. There are two ways of looking at the proposition of possible illegality. Many will dismiss the notion as fanciful nonsense. Others might at least wonder if it has some merit. But, before considering the legal position, it is worthwhile discussing the amazing arrogance that underpins Miskimmin’s policy on swimming, cycling and rowing training. Along with his mates at High Performance Sport New Zealand Miskimmin has formulated an obsession with centralised national training centres. The swimming facility at the Millennium Institute was the first of its type; encouraged by the promotion the idea got from Jan Cameron.

Since then Miskimmin has extended the centralised concept into rowing, cycling and canoeing. He tried to snare athletics but the independence, resistance and success of Willis, Walsh and Adams saw his grand design founder.

The real question arising from Miskimmin insistence that sports adopt his centralised training policy is – who the hell is Miskimmin to decide what training works best in swimming? What knowledge does he have on the subject? None that I know of. And yet two or three generations of young New Zealander swimmers have committed themselves to a concept designed by a hockey player; an ignorant novice of things swimming. What a pathetic joke.

But is Sport NZ’s promotion of centralised programs illegal? It may be is the answer. Why?

Well, I do not like the smell of bribery. The general definition of bribery is the giving or receiving of something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return. It includes offering, giving or receiving any item of value to influence the actions of an official.

I doubt that there can be any argument Sport NZ required swimming to adopt a centralised training model. Miskimmin was fully committed to the idea. It extended his personal influence, justified generous wage increases and massaged his ego. Here is how the commitment of Sport NZ to centralised training was reported on Stuff.

And so I think we can safely say there was a demand from the Miskimmin gang that sports “focus on the national training centre”. We can say that because Sport NZ’s representatives told us that was their intention. In fact they said money would be used to “force” compliance.

Critical to the suggestion that the demand amounted to a bribe however is the way the demand was viewed by Swimming New Zealand. Did the behaviour of Swimming New Zealand reflect compliance with the demand and was the amount of money paid to Swimming New Zealand linked to compliance with the policy? In other words did Sport NZ give and did Swimming New Zealand receive funding in exchange for the action of consistently supporting and following the Sport NZ’s centralised training plans? Did Sport NZ offer and pay funds in order to influence the actions and obtain the compliance of Swimming New Zealand officials?

There is a mountain of evidence that supports the view that Sport NZ demands rank first, last and always in the minds of Swimming New Zealand officials. Johns’ reaction to a recent cut in funding was to say, “We need to make sure as much funding as possible is put into the swimmers, into the national training centre.” He is clearly admitting that firing good coaches and other cuts are acceptable but, for the love of God, make sure that the Sport NZ national training centre gets all the money it needs.

Bruce Cotterill, the Swimming New Zealand Chairman, was even more transparently servile in acknowledging the influence of Sport NZ’s money. This is his reaction reported in the NZ Herald.

The reaction of Johns and Cotterill clearly suggest that their behaviour and decisions are being controlled by the demands of Sport NZ. Miskimmin says to Cotterill, “Jump” and Cotterill says, “How high?” Sport NZ demanded that Swimming New Zealand pursue a policy of centralised training and Cotterill and Johns have bent over backwards to comply.

Sport NZ even imposed an element of sanction on their supply of money. Until recently any athlete not training in the high performance centre was denied Sport NZ funding. Swimmers in the American University system or in Australia were punished for their decision. And Swimming New Zealand thought that was just fine.

But why so much obedience? Is it because Cotterill and Johns thought it through and decided centralised training is accepted around the world as the best way to Olympic glory. I doubt that could be true. Most countries have discarded centralised training. New Zealand has tried it for twenty years with no success. So why did they cling to a failing, discredited policy?

Money of course. And that’s why it seems like a bribe. Sport NZ’s function should be to financially support Swimming New Zealand’s plans. But they don’t. Instead Sport NZ set the policy and provides financial support based on swimming following a predetermined Sport NZ plan. If that is the case it appears to meet the definition of a bribe.

I’d love to be able to prove the suspicion of bribery. This is what the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 Section 105 (2) says.

What a lovely thought – Miskimmin, Johns and Cotterill sharing a room for 7 years in the Tongariro/Rangipo Prison. From the road it looks like a pleasant spot to do some male bonding.