Archive for the ‘ Racing ’ Category

Anthony Mosse Time Comparisons – Is This A Problem?

Tuesday, January 26th, 2016

By David

Auckland Swimming has just completed the 2016 Antony Moss Swim Meet.  As I watched the results come in I had the impression that the standard of swimming wasn’t as good as we had seen at the same meet in the days of Hayley Palmer, Moss Burmister, Helen Norfolk, Toni Jeffs, Dean Kent and many others. I decided to test my perception.  The table below shows the winning time for the senior event in 2016 and four years earlier, 2012.  It tells a very sorry tale.  Ignoring swimmers from overseas, in 2016 twenty-eight of the thirty races were won in times slower than the winning times in 2012.  Not just slower, a lot slower.  The average male winner in 2016 is 6% slower than in 2012.  The average female winner in 2016 is 5.4% slower than the winner in 2012.  It appears the decline in performance is spread evenly over both sexes

Anyway, here is the table.  See what you think.

ANTONY MOSS COMPARISONS
WOMEN MEN
% DIFF. 2012 2016 EVENT 2016 2012 % DIFF.
12.8 26.00 29.83 50 FREE 23.58 23.54 0.2
8.4 57.24 1.02.46 100 FREE 52.36 51.78 1.1
8.7 2.02.99 2.14.68 200 FREE 1.57.46 1.51.93 10.7
7.2 4.22.67 4.42.96 400 FREE 4.18.57 4.06.24 4.8
3.8 30.23 31.41 50 BACK 28.07 27.41 2.4
1.5 1.06.34 1.07.36 100 BACK 1.07.33 59.94 11.0
7.3 2.21.97 2.33.06 200 BACK 2.10.03 2.11.88 -1.4
5.4 36.21 38.27 50 BRST 32.51 28.25 13.1
1.1 1.19.68 1.20.62 100 BRST 1.11.39 1.02.80 12.0
1.5 3.02.63 3.05.40 200 BRST 2.37.83 2.22.47 9.7
6.0 28.99 30.85 50 FLY 27.42 25.39 7.4
10.4 1.01.70 1.08.86 100 FLY 58.54 56.43 3.6
5.1 2.32.14 2.40.30 200 FLY 2.19.46 2.01.73 12.7
5.0 2.27.51 2.35.27 200 IM 2.16.43 2.14.46 1.4
-3.5 5.35.94 5.24.33 400 IM 4.51.67 4.46.43 1.8
5.4 4YR % AV 6.0
1.4 AN. % AV. 1.5

My curiosity had been aroused.  If standards had declined over the last four years, what would happen if we went back another four years to 2008.  And, would you believe it, the picture was even worse.  The average male winner in 2008 was a huge 7.4% faster than the average male winner in 2016.  The average female winner in 2008 was 7.5% faster than the average female winner in 2016. Once again the decline in standards appeared to be even over both sexes.  Auckland swimming is nothing like it was four years ago, and even less like it was eight years ago.  The figures simply do not lie.  

ANTONY MOSS COMPARISONS
WOMEN MEN
% DIFF. 2008 2016 EVENT 2016 2008 % DIFF.
10.3 26.75 29.83 50 FREE 23.58 23.58 0.0
7.8 57.57 1.02.46 100 FREE 52.36 52.91 -1.0
8.5 2.03.20 2.14.68 200 FREE 1.57.46 1.53.65 3.2
6.1 4.25.78 4.42.96 400 FREE 4.18.57 4.00.00 7.2
0 0
5.5 29.68 31.41 50 BACK 28.07 27.20 3.1
7.6 1.02.26 1.07.36 100 BACK 1.07.33 58.18 13.6
11.6 2.15.26 2.33.06 200 BACK 2.10.03 2.03.82 4.7
0 0
10.9 34.11 38.27 50 BRST 32.51 29.95 7.8
6.4 1.15.43 1.20.62 100 BRST 1.11.39 1.06.73 6.8
10.6 2.43.82 3.05.40 200 BRST 2.37.83 2.18.28 12.4
0 0
5.8 29.04 30.85 50 FLY 27.42 24.48 10.7
8.3 1.03.13 1.08.86 100 FLY 58.54 54.00 7.7
6.9 2.22.28 2.40.30 200 FLY 2.19.46 1.57.94 15.3
0 0
4.9 2.27.58 2.35.27 200 IM 2.16.43 2.02.80 10.0
1.4 5.19.93 5.24.33 400 IM 4.51.67 4.21.33 10.1
7.5 4YR % AV 7.4
0.9 AN. % AV. 0.9

But the real question, I suppose. is – why have standards declined?  It seems to me that there are only three factors that can cause a decline like this.  

    1. The swimmers are not what they were. The new generation of swimmers are just not prepared to train as hard or apply themselves as well to the task of swimming fast. Now I don’t think for a minute that the swimmers are not up to the task.  Good young people in 2016 are the equal of good young people in 2012 or 2008.  Working hard is not a dying art. Overseas experience suggests the opposite. Athletes today work harder that those that went before. Athletes that used to run 100 miles a week were once considered freaks of nature. Today Mo Farah and his friends do 50% more than that almost every week.

 

  • The swimmers are being badly coached. Coaches have failed New Zealand swimmers. But it’s not the coaches’ fault. Coaches have failed New Zealand swimmers because they (the coaches) have been failed by the third group – the sport’s management. The sport is not coach driven. And that is a terminally fatal fault. One of my swimmers, Lara Van Egten has just spent five weeks training in Los Angeles with one of the world’s most respected coaches, Mark Schubert. Here is how his club website describes the role of the coach. GWSC is a coach run operation. Only Coaches decide when and where athletes will be placed on the team. Remember: Swimmers Swim, Coaches Coach, Parents Parent.”

 

  1. The administration of the sport has failed its participants. Over eight years the management of the sport in New Zealand has undermined and eroded the position of coaches and swimmers in 101 different ways.  The sport has been badly managed.  And if you don’t believe me, scroll up this story and look at the numbers.  It’s a disaster. And it’s getting worse. If you don’t believe me ask why New Zealand’s best swimmers are training in Australia, California, Florida and Alabama. I’ve voiced this story on Swimwatch before. Ask why administrators allow individuals who have wrecked destruction in club after club are allowed to wander off to another club to obliterate the hard work of new victims. There’s a term for that – “weak management”. My Dad told me that a friend is someone you’d want around on a dark, wet night, lost in the deep bush. Well these figures suggest SNZ is lost; it’s pretty black out there and it’s certainly wet. Problem is swimming in New Zealand is having trouble finding a friend.    

FINA Ratify Swimming New Zealand World Record Application

Saturday, October 18th, 2014

C:\Users\Demo\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\EVMQDFSX\my_tombstone.jpg

C:\Users\Demo\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\U5C96E34\my_tombstone.jpg

TWIN DEATH NOTICE

Take note of today’s date, the 16th October 2014. On this day a Swimming New Zealand lie was accepted as the truth. Honesty and integrity in the sport of swimming in New Zealand died. On this day FINA assured the world they accepted the lie of Swimming New Zealand; had, they said, received all the assurances FINA required and good governance and sound judgement passed away.

Boyle’s 1500 Metre Swim

Tuesday, October 14th, 2014

By David

It must be said before this post goes up that nobody–I am willing to bet anywhere, including here at Swimwatch–holds Lauren Boyle in anything but the highest regard. She deserves admiration, recognition and continued success, and in no way is this meant to be a criticism or attack on Lauren’s swimming or character. What follows is a criticism solely of Swimming New Zealand and FINA. Lauren’s achievement in Wellington deserves nothing but respect; it is the national and international governing bodies that potentially let her down, and are continuing to let themselves and all involved in the sport of swimming down.

I see Craig Lord has written an interesting post on the SwimVortex.com website. In it he discusses the likelihood that FINA are going to approve Lauren Boyle’s 1500 swim as a world record. The decision is a disgrace. FINA, it seems are going to make a decision no better than the lie Swimming New Zealand told in completing the Record Application form. Lord’s post is well worth a read. Here is the link.

http://www.swimvortex.com/minimum-pool-rules-can-be-bypassed-for-world-record-swims-say-fina-experts/

There is no doubt that many in the swimming world are interested in the FINA decision. FINA’s integrity is well and truly under the spotlight. Is FINA capable of acting with integrity when it comes to the hard decisions? We are about to find out. Some idea of the extent of world interest in the decision can be found in the number of comments on the original SwimVortex story on the illegality of the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre. That story had 97 comments. In comparison the recent story about Michael Phelps late night driving misdemeanors had 42 comments.

It seems swimming people do care about how well their sport is governed. They do want to see a level playing field enforced. They do want FINA to stand for something more important than disqualifying a ten year old from Pahiatua for a non-continuous backstroke turn. And if Craig Lord is right it looks like they are going to be disappointed in the honesty of the world governing body.

One of the comments made on this second SwimVortex story was posted by me. I think it is an interesting opinion. Here is what I said.

It may be of interest to note the following huge anomaly. The meet Lauren swam the 1500 meter time was a provincial Championships – the Wellington Winter Short Course Championships. Three of four weeks later the same pool was converted to the “deep” end for the National Winter Championships. That is not a simple or cheap process.

It involves bringing in a heavy duty crane during the night and lifting a three ton boom over a second boom and relocating it at the deep end of the pool and of course returning the boom to its original position at the end of the National Meet – a process that with the altered electronics and the like must cost in the order of $30,000 – $50,000 dollars.

And so if signing Lauren’s application was so correct; so compliant with “all FINA rules” why did the SNZ National Association spend thousands of dollars converting the pool for their championships a month later. What a waste of time and money if all FINA rules had actually been met – as the record application claimed. Of course they spent the money for the Nationals because they knew their pool as it was configured for the provincial meet did not comply with FINA rules.

Why then did they allow their referee and CEO to sign a form saying it did? I’ve never drawn attention to that contradiction but $30,000 – $50,000 for a week’s meet seems like a lot to spend if they really thought the pool was fine.

Remember what the Record Application requires? It asked Swimming New Zealand to confirm that “ALL” FINA rules had been met when the record was set. Swimming New Zealand signed the application form swearing on a stack of bibles that was true – all FINA rules had been met.

It seems very simple. The events are mutually exclusive.

Either the existing pool met all FINA rules and there was no need to change the pool and all that money was wasted

or

The pool did not comply with FINA rules and the alterations were necessary and the people who signed Boyle’s record application lied.

Come on Swimming New Zealand you make great play of integrity, accountability and all that other stuff, which one was it. Was changing the pool an unnecessary waste of thousands of dollars or did you guys lie when you signed the record application?

 

The Start of Something Extraordinary?

Monday, August 25th, 2014

By David

I have just read Simon Plumb’s review of Swimming New Zealand (“NZ Team Swims Against Tide of Change”) posted on the Stuff website. He’s correct of course; every last word is right on the button. But I think there is more.

It was always ridiculously naïve to think that the wholesale replacement of the old Swimming New Zealand staff; that’s High Performance Director Jan Cameron, Head Coach Mark Regan and CEO Mike Byrne was going to revolutionize Swimming New Zealand. It is a common Miskimmin tactic; preferring to blame the personnel for poor performance rather than the deficiencies of his policy. But, the lowly performance of Swimming New Zealand was never about personalities. Many Swimwatch readers assumed I disliked Jan Cameron, Mark Regan and Mike Byrne. That was never true.

What I disliked and totally opposed was their centralized system of elite sport delivery; the folly of the Millennium Institute. The idea that one coach can fit all, the self-seeking allocation of millions to one privileged group, the socialist involvement of the government in an Auckland swim school and the devaluing, lack of trust directed at every club coach in the country has always been repulsive.

And under the new regime that hasn’t changed. If anything I think Regan was a far better coach than Lyles. Regan was clearly better for Boyle. Certainly Jan Cameron was light years better than Luis Villanueva. She expressed herself better and was clearly a more decisive and superior manager. Renford and Byrne are as different as chalk and cheese but the end result is about the same: so much of what they do is flat out wrong. For example their website trumpets that Swimming New Zealand is, “The start of something extraordinary” and yet when I go to their “Find a Club” page I notice that my club, West Auckland Aquatics, isn’t there. I wonder why? Swimwatch perhaps? Renford’s Swimming New Zealand can’t even get our name on their website list of New Zealand clubs; the club that was the home of National Coaches Ross Anderson and Donna Bouzaid that was the nursery of Lauren Boyle and gave New Zealand national representatives, John Steel, Johnny Munro. Ross Anderson Junior, Paul Kent, Jane Ip, Daniel Bell, Nick Sanders, Mark Herring, Brad Herring and a few that I’ve missed. Renford is right; this clearly is, “The start of something extraordinary.”

Overall the new management gang of Renford, Lyles and Villanueva is weaker than the team they replaced. Which means, of course, that if Jan Cameron couldn’t make her centralized policy of elite sport delivery work, the current gang have no chance. And that’s the way it’s turning out.

I know Miskimmin, at Sport New Zealand, is obsessed with what he calls “podium finishes”. However progress in a sport like swimming is more accurately measured by personal best times. The government’s Millennium swim school in Glasgow performed poorly, not only because Lauren Boyle was the sole medallist. The real disaster was the 11% personal best ratio. Only two swimmers, Boyle and Main, swam personal best times. Any normal team looks for a personal best ratio well over 50%. That was the tragedy of Glasgow. And the fact it was a whole team that failed tells me the fault lies fair and square with those who prepared the swimmers. Individual swimmers can let themselves and the team down occasionally, but when a whole team disintegrates, that’s a coaching and administration problem. Renford, Lyles and Villanueva take a bow.

So what happened in Brisbane? Villanueva threatened career decapitation if the swimmers did not improve; a threat I always thought was disingenuous and should have been directed at him and his fellow Mazda gang members. The table below lists the New Zealand performances at the 2014 Pan Pacific Games.

NAME

EVENT

TIME

PB

PODIUM PLACE

S. Lucie-Smith

200 Free

2.00.52

No

S. Lucie-Smith

200 Free

2.00.75

No

E Robson

200 Free

2.04.51

No

M Stanley

200 Free

1.48.74

No

M Stanley

200 Free

1.47.33

No

S Kent

200 Free

1.49.00

Yes

S Kent

200 Free

1.49.71

No

D Dunlop Barrett

200 Free

1.50.01

No

D Dunlop Barrett

200 Free

1.49.30

No

M Donaldson

200 Free

1.50.37

No

E Jackson

200 Free

1.51.39

No

C Main

100 Back

55.16

No

C Main

100 Back

54.70

No

E Robson

800 Free

8.49.80

No

S Lee

200 Fly

2.13.85

No

S Lee

200 Fly

2.13.08

No

L Boyle

800 Free

8.18.87

No

2nd

G Snyders

100 Breast

1.00.41

No

G Snyders

100 Breast

1.00.18

No

3rd

L Quilter

100 Free

55.87

No

L Quilter

100 Free

56.00

No

S Lucie Smith

100 Free

56.25

No

S Lucie Smith

100 Free

55.97

No

S Lee

100 Free

57.52

No

S Kent

100 Free

50.92

No

E Jackson

100 Free

51.24

No

Relay

4×200 Free W

8.04.58

No

Relay

4×200 Free M

7.13.83

Yes

S Lee

100 Fly

1.00.81

No

S Lee

100 Fly

1.00.44

No

L Quilter

100 Fly

1.01.00

No

L Boyle

400 Free

4.08.64

No

L Boyle

400 Free

4.05.33

No

3rd

E Robson

400 Free

4.16.63

No

E Robson

400 Free

4.15.92

No

S Lucie Smith

400 Free

4.18.49

No

S Lucie Smith

400 Free

4.15.19

No

M Stanley

400 Free

3.53.33

No

M Stanley

400 Free

3.50.75

No

D Dunlop Barrett

400 Free

3.54.05

No

D Dunlop Barrett

400 Free

3.53.96

No

E Jackson

400 Free

3.55.34

Yes

E Jackson

400 Free

3.52.32

Yes

C Main

200 Back

1.59.85

No

C Main

200 Back

1.59.63

No

Relay

4×100 Free W

3.47.51

No

M Donaldson

200 IM

2.01.45

No

M Donaldson

200 IM

2.01.34

No

L Quilter

50 Free

26.01

Yes

G Snyders

200 Breast

2.13.77

No

L Boyle

1500 Free

15.55.69

No

2nd

E Robinson

1500 Free

16.44.88

No

L Quilter

50 Free

26.10

No

Relay

4×100 M M

3.38.46

No

Summary

54 Swims

5 PBs

9%

Summary

0 Gold

2 Silver

2 Bronze

 

As far as I know there is not a swimming observer on the planet that would call an 9% personal best ratio, “the start of something extraordinary”. It is terrible. Every club coach in New Zealand would hide in shame at that result. When the Millennium swim school spends $2,000,000 preparing a women’s relay team that finishes 15 seconds, that’s the length of a 25m pool, behind the Australians, that’s the start of something pretty bloody abysmal.

Out of the 12 Pan Pacific Games held since 1985 the 2014 performance ranks 5th. New Zealand swimmers performed better in 1993, 1995, 1991 and 1985; before the days of $2,000,000 per year government grants, Mazda cars, Whole of Sport Plans and Millennium Institutes; before Miskimmin, Layton, Renford, Lyles and Villanueva. But give Villanueva credit, he is right about one thing; those responsible should pack their bags and leave New Zealand sport immediately. Miskimmin, Renford, Lyles, Villanueva and Layton, hasta la vista baby – Villanueva has told us, it’s time for you to go. The damage has been too great.

PS I see Swimming New Zealand have taken to publishing rubbish on their new website. Besides leaving our club off altogether, this week they announced the following stunning bit of news; “New Zealand has only won multiple individual medals four times previously at the Pan Pacific Championships.” That’s simply not true. I hope it is not a deliberate effort to misinform. SNZ has done that before. Multiple medals were won by New Zealand teams at the 1993 (5), 1995 (4), 1991 (3), 1989 (3) and 1997 (3). That’s five times. Really SNZ couldn’t – lie straight in bed that is.

Year

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Rank

1993

1

1

3

1

1995

1

1

2

2

1991

1

1

1

3

1985

1

4

2014

2

2

5

1989

1

2

6

1997

3

7

1987, 2010

1

8=

1999, 2002,2006

10=

 

PPS Swimwatch sources tell me rumours are rife in Spain that Villanueva is on his way back to Spain after the Presidential election in 2015. If that’s true Villanueva needs to come clean immediately and let the sport in New Zealand know. A person in his position is able to make many important decisions. It is not a position that should be occupied by a lame duck member of Miskimmin’s Mazda gang for another twelve months.

If it is true, Swimwatch will not be sad to see him go. However the critical decision is who will replace Villanueva? And will that replacement move the sport away from the failed policy of centralization and breathe life back into New Zealand’s domestic coaching talent. For that is where the future lies.

 

An Open Letter to FINA

Saturday, August 16th, 2014

Dear Sir,

SWIMMING NEW ZEALAND DEFECTIVE WORLD RECORD APPLICATION

We have been told by the CEO of Swimming New Zealand, Christian Renford, that an Application for a World Record will be submitted to FINA in the next seven days. The Application will be for a short course swim by Lauren Boyle over 1500 metres at the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre on Saturday 9th August 2014.

We believe there are a number of errors in this Application that need to be investigated by FINA and which, in our opinion, should cause FINA to decline this swim as a world record. We note that FINA rule SW 12.15 requires that “on receipt of the application and upon satisfaction that the information contained in the application, including a negative doping control test certificate, is accurate, the Honorary Secretary of FINA shall declare the new World Record”.

We believe the application is not accurate. We recommend that the following factors should be investigated by FINA. We are further of the view that if any or all of these items are confirmed the record application must be declined. The integrity of FINA’s rules and the world record setting process is sufficiently important that applications, like this one, that fail to meet FINA standards should be declined.

SW 12.5.2 Where a moveable bulkhead is used, course measurement of the lane must be confirmed at the conclusion of the session during which the time was achieved.

This 1500 swim was achieved in a pool where a moveable bulkhead is used. We ask FINA to establish that the course measurement of the lane used was undertaken at the conclusion of the Saturday evening session on the 9th August 2014. We have reason to believe that course measurement was not confirmed until after the meet, during the week commencing Monday 11th August 2014. In that time, of course, the bulkhead could have moved. We will never know. We note that the World Record Application Form also requires confirmation that the pool was properly measured immediately at the conclusion of the Saturday evening session. We are concerned this question may have been answered and signed by the meet referee and Swimming New Zealand’s representative improperly.

SW 12.12 Applications for World Records must be made on the FINA official forms (see next page) by the responsible authority of the organising or management committee of the competition and signed by an authorised representative of the Member in the country of the swimmer, certifying that all regulations have been observed including a negative doping test certification (DC 5.3.2).

We understand the Record Application Form has been signed by Matt Meehan as the “responsible authority of the management committee” and by Christian Renford as the “authorised representative of the Member”. We believe the form has been signed improperly. We believe both Meehan and Renford are aware that the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre, used in this record attempt, had shortcomings during the 1500 metre swim that were in violation of FINA rules; shortcomings that should have prevented Meehan and Renford signing the Record Application Form. In particular we refer to the following questions from the application form.

WORLD RECORD APPLICATION FORM

DEMANDE D’HOMOLOGATION DE RECORD DU MONDE

13. Was the water still? / L’eau du bassin était-elle calme?

The presence of a material current in the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre has been well documented for at least 15 years. The current was the subject of a formal protest submitted to the Auckland Region of SNZ a week before Boyle’s 1500 metre swim. The following information was included in the protest.

“Competing in a pool that does not comply with FINA Facility rules FR1.3 and FR2.11. Rule FR2.11 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.” Compelling evidence exists to show an “appreciable current” is present in the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre.

To test this we selected, at random, seven events from the New Zealand National SC Championships at distances of 200 and 400 meters. We analysed the performance of the winners of each of these events. We chose to examine the performance of the winners of each of the seven events because we believed these stronger swimmers should be least affected by any current and they could also be best expected to swim even lap times.

If their swimming was affected the current must be considered “appreciable”.

In all cases we did not include the first length in our evaluation as the time swum was affected by the dive start.

The table below shows the product of our analysis. The following points summarize these findings.

  1. In every event, male and female, there is a consistent variation between the times taken to swim in one direction compared to the other direction.
  2. The average variation over all events between the “into current” and “with current” lengths is 0.74 seconds per 25m length. What that means is that on average New Zealand’s best swimmers consistently took 0.74 of a second longer to swim one way in the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre than in the other direction. By any standard that meets the definition of “appreciable”; appreciable in terms of variation and its only explanation – a current.        

Event

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Even Av

Odd Av

F200 Br

17.60

19.08

17.99

19.55

18.33

19.72

19.11

18.26

19.45

F400Fr

15.26

16.49

15.65

16.06

15.61

16.31

15.50

15.51

16.29

M400Fr

14.32

14.95

14.30

14.87

14.67

14.69

14.79

14.52

14.91

F200Bk

15.82

16.56

16.18

16.43

15.99

16.57

15.63

15.91

16.52

M200Bk

14.74

15.67

15.13

14.94

14.26

15.65

13.81

14.49

15.42

F200Fl

15.83

16.86

16.41

17.34

16.91

17.55

15.93

16.27

17.25

M200Fl

14.48

15.61

15.21

14.88

14.72

15.33

15.25

14.92

15.27

Average

Per

25m

15.70

16.44

Conclusion

This protest is filed with a request that:

  1. The Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre be ruled in violation of FINA rule FR2.11 and as such is a non-complying facility.

In addition to the information contained in the protest, 25 metre splits were hand timed during Boyle’s 1500 metre swim. The table below shows 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 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. Boyle’s swim confirms the findings from the National Championship study and confirms the presence of a strong, appreciable current.

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

We also checked the validity of our hand timing by comparing each 50 metre time with the official 50 metre splits provided by the electronic timing equipment. The hand timing splits were within 0.13 seconds of the electronic times. The hand timing is accurate.

And finally associated with the hand timing a record was kept of the swimmer’s stroke count throughout the 1500 metres swim. Swimming with the current the swimmer recorded a consistent 17 strokes per length. Swimming against the current this increased to 18 strokes per length. The water in the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre is not still.

WORLD RECORD APPLICATION FORM

DEMANDE D’HOMOLOGATION DE RECORD DU MONDE

18. In my opinion all FINA Rules have been met / A mon avis, toutes les règles de la FINA ont été respectées.

In our view the officials who have submitted the world record application form to FINA have acted improperly answering this question. In addition to the rule violations noted above the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre is also in violation of FINA facility rule “FR 2.7 Starting Platforms”. In part this rule says, “The water depth from a distance of 1.0 metre to 6.0 metre from the end wall must be 1.35 metres where starting platforms are installed.” The Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre has a depth of only 1.2 metres from the wall where starting platforms are installed. This is a clear violation of FINA rules and should have prevented Meehan and Renford signing the Record Application.

FINA has previously been asked about the issue of the depth of the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre. On that occasion FINA advised Swimming New Zealand that continued use of the shallow end of the pool could invalidate any competition. Swimming New Zealand chose to ignore the advice of FINA and continued to hold competitions in a non-complying pool. And now in spite of the FINA two year old warning of serious consequences, Swimming New Zealand is asking FINA to ignore their own instruction and award a world record.

And finally, former SNZ National Coaching Director, Clive Rushton, has provided us with this historical perspective. “On 22 June 2003 a Policy document was approved by the then SNZ Council “To provide clear guidelines for the allocation and safe management of SNZ national competitions.

It opened with the following, categorical statement:

“All SNZ national competition facilities shall adhere to the FINA minimum facility standards and SNZ minimum facility standards.”

And then followed up with:

“SNZ may waive certain standards for pools if they do not materially interfere with the running of the competitions; compromise the health and safety of competitors, officials or spectators; or expose SNZ to undue legal or financial risk. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis by SNZ Council.”

There then followed a list of suitable pools in which the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre was clearly labeled – “Pool does not meet FINA Minimum standard but is approved by SNZ for designated competitions.”

The Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre was ruled by Swimming New Zealand as a FINA non-compliant pool back in 2003 and it has not changed since then. On the grounds of Swimming New Zealand’s own admission the request for the ratification of the Boyle 1500 metre swim as a world record should be declined.

CONCLUSION 

We submit that the following shortcomings in the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre mean Swimming New Zealand should never have signed a world record application form, should never have submitted a world record application form to FINA and FINA should not approve the application as a world record.

  1. The pool was reportedly not measured in accordance in accordance with FINA rule SW 2.5.2.
  2. The pool has a significant and well recorded current that affected this 1500 metre swim and is in violation of FINA rules FR 1.3 and FR2.11.
  3. The depth of the pool, where starting blocks are installed, of 1.2 meters, is below the FINA minimum depth requirement of 1.35 meters and is in violation of FINA rule FR 2.7.

 

David Wright, ASCA Level 5

New Zealand Swim Coach