By David

The title of this post is a parody the title of an article in the Dominion Post and on the Stuff website this morning. The headline said, “Swim-record protest like water off a duck’s back” and was meant to demonstrate the contempt Swimming New Zealand had for our protests about the depth and current in the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre.

It is not often we get to hear publically from the CEO of the new Swimming New Zealand. He appears to prefer the Miskimmin style of management – “If it’s not written down, I never said it.” Less than generous others call it mushroom management – keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

However here, at last and thanks to the Dom-Post, we have Renford on the record. So let’s examine what he said to reporter Toby Robson on the 13 August 2014.

First the introduction.

Swimming New Zealand believes doubts raised about the legitimacy of Lauren Boyle’s world record 1500m swim in Wellington on Saturday are so flimsy they do not warrant an investigation.

Swimwatch website operator and Auckland-based swimming coach David Wright has protested Boyle’s record on the grounds he believes a current in the Kilbirnie Aquatic Centre pool means the facility does not meet Fina regulations.

However, SNZ chief executive Christian Renford yesterday labelled the claims “unsubstantiated”, “disappointing” and lacking in integrity.

This is Renford setting out his stall. Note there is no mention of the depth issue. But my protests at the use of the Kilbirnie Pool were about its current and its depth. I guess Renford wants to stay as far away from the question of depth as possible. To address that issue means admitting the organization, for which he is responsible, is ignoring the safety of every swimmer, in its care, who swims in the shallow end of the Kilbirnie Pool.

And secondly it appears Renford has decided that when he wants to avoid answering difficult questions he will string together a list of insulting adjectives – “flimsy, unsubstantiated, disappointing and lacking in integrity”. It’s a pretty standard defence used by the guilty. Avoid the evidence, just insult the accusation. Incidentally Renford seems to love that word integrity. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

And then he says this.

“We have a situation where a few people seem to have taken some unofficial times and splits from hand timing by an unnamed person sitting in the grandstand,” Renford said. “It’s pretty unsubstantiated, so to be relatively blunt there just isn’t really a lot to respond to.

“There are split times missing. We are talking about world records and integrity and I just don’t think we can respond to this [in an official capacity].”

This is fascinating. “A few people” – I am afraid there are more than a few people watching Renford’s behaviour. For example the number of people reading Swimwatch has risen to 700 a day. Not only are there more than a few, there are some respected, heavy hitters in the world of swimming journalism checking on Renford’s and Swimming New Zealand’s “integrity”. Names like Rushton, Lord and Marsteller are not swimming froth to be dismissed by the likes of Renford. They are concerned and they are watching him closely.

And next, “an unnamed person sitting in the grandstand”. The person is not unnamed. It was Jon Winter who published the 25 metre times on Twitter. He was not sitting in the grandstand but was on the pool deck throughout the race. Was Renford told this stuff or did he just make it up?

And finally, “there just isn’t really a lot to respond to” and “I just don’t think we can respond to this.” Here he goes again; back to the ploy of trivialising the complaint. In this paragraph Renford uses a couple of untruths to defend SNZ’s use of the Kilbirnie Pool. And then says the lies confirm the validity of dismissing our protest. I do hope Renford’s misstatements were only unfortunate errors.

And then a call for the sympathy vote.   

“I don’t know what the swimmers would take from it, but I find it very distracting and very sad that what should be a positive event for the sport and for Lauren, the athlete concerned, gets tarnished by what are unsubstantiated accusations. He doubted Fina would take seriously hand timed splits from the grandstand when Boyle’s swim was timed using world class equipment. Wright believes his split times clearly prove that swimming in one direction at Kilbirnie is faster than swimming in the other. He says that is a violation of Fina rules.”

I fail to see what is unsubstantiated about our protests. The sign on the side of the Kilbirnie Pool tells me the depth is 1.2 metres. The FINA rule book requires 1.35 metres; there doesn’t seem to be much unsubstantiated about that. Perhaps the word has a different meaning in Australia. And as for the current is concerned, Lauren’s splits are pretty substantiated. I know the Renfords of this world will distort the truth by questioning the validity of Jon Winter’s hand timing. Renford has bent over backward to portray Jon as a drunken sailor needing binoculars to see the end of the pool. However we are able to check the accuracy of Winter’s timing every 50 metres by comparing Winter’s times with Renford’s electronic timing. I have done that and have discovered that Jon Winters hand times average a mere 0.13 seconds different from Renford’s precious “world class equipment”. The comparison is included at the conclusion of this post. Jon knew what he was doing alright. And I do hope the distortions his splits prove are taken very seriously by FINA. Protecting the rules is not a matter to be taken lightly. Renford should want the same. Is he looking for the truth?

There are of course some athletes who don’t like what I am doing. Corney Swanepoel for example got really heated about it all and urged me to climb back into whatever hole I called home. I ask those who feel that way to pause and consider whether what we do here might just result in a better SNZ, a better Wellington Pool and a better sport. We already have got SNZ to shift the Nationals to the deep end of the Wellington Pool. Now we need more.

And then unbelievably the Australian rowing administrator said this.

Renford acknowledged there was some debate about “flows” in pools around the world, but believed the effects were in all likelihood infinitesimal.

In the case of the Wellington Pool we know full well the effect of the current. Per 25 metres, Lauren Boyle was 0.57 of a second faster swimming with the current that against the current. Renford is the only swimming administrator in the world that would call that infinitesimal. He is unique. But then perhaps he has another agenda. I wonder if position and power have become more important than the truth.   

And finally Renford concludes with this gem.

“Are we prepared to take the word, or at least run with the word of an unidentified person in the grandstand . . . and taken on a hand stopwatch? That’s the part that, to be honest, confuses me the most. I don’t understand why there is any attention on this. It’s the man on the grassy knoll.”

Well Renford should feel confused no longer. The person is not unidentified, he was not in the grandstand and his times are close to identical to Swimming New Zealand’s “world class equipment”. Oh, and the issue here is in two parts – the current and the depth. I live in hope that, with this explanation, Renford may have a Road to Damascus experience. Perhaps he will join the good guys on the grassy knoll making sure swimmers like Boyle are always provided with a FINA compliant swimming pool.

PS: One correspondent to Swimwatch wonders whether Renford also breeched FINA Rule 12.4 in respect of Boyle’s swim. This rule says, “In the event of an individual race against time being sanctioned by a Member, as a time trial during a competition, then an advertisement at least three (3) days before the attempt is to be made shall not be necessary.” And so, did SNZ sanction the Lauren Boyle’s swim three days prior to her swim? I doubt they did. Even Boyle is reported as saying she did not have a record attempt in mind. If SNZ did sanction the attempt, please show us the document.  If SNZ breeched yet another rule and didn’t sanction the time trial, is Renford hard at work tonight, typing a post-dated approval? They couldn’t run a piss up in Speights Brewery.

A COMPARISON BETWEEN RENFORD’S WORLD CLASS EQUIPMENT AND JON WINTER’S WORLD CLASS THUMB AND STOP WATCH

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

By David

Absolute unreserved congratulations to Lauren Boyle: what a fantastic 1500 meter swim in a world best time. She continues to prove herself as a true class act – an athlete New Zealand can be very proud of. But is it a world record? Unfortunately, of course it’s not. No honest referee could possibly sign the FINA World Record Application Form. Here is what questions 13 and 17 on that form ask the referee to confirm.

WORLD RECORD APPLICATION FORM

DEMANDE D’HOMOLOGATION DE RECORD DU MONDE

13. Was the water still?

17. In my opinion all FINA Rules have been met

Let’s look at each of these questions; was the water still? A week ago (i.e. before the swim), I submitted a facility’s protest to Swimming New Zealand through Auckland Swimming. The protest was posted on Swimwatch in the article titled “Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre”. Given the turn of events created by Lauren Boyle’s swim it may be worth reading. However in summary the protest was based on the following faults in the Wellington pool.

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. It is reasonable to expect that “flat” strokes (breaststroke and butterfly) will be more affected by swimming into a current. This is confirmed by the data where the variation between the “into current” and “with current” lengths in these strokes is an average of 0.84 seconds per length.
3. Rotating strokes (backstroke and freestyle) show a significant but lower variation of 0.67 seconds per length.
4. 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.

Since submitting the protest Boyle has recorded her world best time. I was interested to read that she swam the race taking 17 strokes in one direction and 18 in the other. A current maybe? The comment was left by “FGT” and on the linked-to article.

Clearly, faced with this hard, provable data there is no referee in the world who could answer, “Yes” to the question, “Was the water still?” Or is there? Remember this is Swimming New Zealand we are talking about. This organization has lied and swept under the carpet before. Will they do it again? We shall see.

And then there is the second question – “In my opinion all FINA Rules have been met.”

As we already know the presence of a raging current in the Wellington pool rules out a positive answer to that question. But, there is more. Two years ago I filed another protest about the Wellington Pool. On this occasion my concern was, and it still is, that the pool at the shallow end was well below the minimum depth required by FINA rules. Here is what Swimwatch said at the time.

In that case it was most certainly my initiative that caused the storm clouds to gather. At its shallow end the Kilbirnie Pool does not comply with the minimum depth required by FINA Rules. In fact the pool is bloody dangerous. Along with my $50 filing fee, I lost the protest. However, shortly after the Championships, Swimming New Zealand received a rap over the knuckles from FINA. Events, FINA said, held in the Kilbirnie Pool ran the risk of not being recognized by the world governing body. FINA’s judgment made the officials that discarded my protest look stupid.

In association with the Wellington City Council, and at a cost of what I’ve been told was $250,000, Swimming New Zealand altered the Kilbirnie Pool so that competitions could be held at the deep end of the main pool. I might have lost my $50 but New Zealand swimmers were safe. At the next short course National Championships the races all began at the deep end of the Wellington Pool. FINA’s rules had been satisfied in full. The risk of broken necks, grazed torsos, black eyes and worse had been eliminated.

Of course I did not get any thanks for initiating the change. Quite the contrary in fact. Chris Moller and Sue Suckling, the authors of the 2012 Swimming New Zealand founding document, called me and interrogated my motives. For thirty minutes Perry Moller Mason tried to prove that my Kilbirnie Pool protest was frivolous; founded solely on a need to cause trouble; a baseless distraction; proof that I was a malcontent hell bent on causing harm. I thought Moller was pathetically ignorant. If he got a kick out of questioning my motives; if he thought the history of my protest was more important that the safety of New Zealand swimmers, he was stupid and of no concern to me. Wellington was having to pay $250,000 to provide a safe pool and that was fine by me.

Or at least that’s what I thought until tonight.

Unbeknown to me the idiots that run Swimming New Zealand and the Wellington Swimming Region continued to run local meets from the pool’s shallow end. I told them it was wrong. FINA told them it was wrong. But when we weren’t there, when our backs were turned they used the shallow end of the pool anyway. The deep end was reserved for the National Championships when the troublemakers were in town. These people are disgusting. Genuine safety concerns were either neglected or by-passed in their obsession to prove me wrong.

Well last week their chickens came home to roost. You see last weekend the Wellington Short Course Championships were held in the shallow end of the Kilbirnie Pool. I understand one club had four swimmers hit the bottom of the pool. One of them, an eleven year old girl, had her front teeth smashed out – gone, her teeth lying on the tiles at the shallow end of the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre.  Wellington City Council, Renford, Moller and Layton take note – I paid $50 to warn you that competitive swimmers diving into the shallow end of your pool was dangerous and you let the Wellington Swimming Region do it anyway. In my view, that’s criminal neglect. And I hope you are made to pay in full measure. Another one of the injured, a ten year old girl, grazed her face during the start of a 200 meter breaststroke race. She swam on to achieve an eighteen second personal best time. Instead of delight, she burst into tears that mixed with her cuts and blood. She hadn’t stopped because she thought her coach and family would be disappointed.

And so Swimming New Zealand, Wellington Swimming and the Wellington City Council have been told for two years that their pool does not comply with FINA rules. For two years they have harassed the author of Swimwatch and ignored our advice. And now, because of their own stupidity, they can’t honestly sign a world record application form. There is no still water in their pool and the pool depth is way too shallow. The application simply cannot be submitted. But this is a Swimming New Zealand capable of just about anything. Let’s see what they do.

We warned them the “would pay in full measure”. Hopefully that day has arrived.

However, if they are honest and don’t sign the form Renford, Villanueva and the leaders of Swimming Wellington should be sacked for ignoring our advice and our protests. If they are not honest and sign the forms they should be sacked as well, for being dishonest and ignoring our advice and our protests.

Either way if the price of getting that pool fixed is a lost world record, then so be it. Something really bad was going to happen before Swimming New Zealand and Swimming Wellington did anything. A set of broken teeth was not enough to cause them to change. I’m just glad it’s a lost world record and not some young swimmer lying in a hospital bed with a broken back. Faced with that choice I’m picking even Lauren Boyle might be pleased with the fate of her lost world record.

By David

I hear the Wellington Winter Swimming Championships are being held this weekend. And guess what? They are starting each race from the shallow end of the pool. That’s the end that does not meet the FINA minimum depth standard. That’s the end FINA told Swimming New Zealand should not be used. That’s the end several of my swimmers have grazed and bumped knees and toes diving into. That’s the end a young Raumati swimmer lost her teeth diving into its dangerous water.

Isn’t it just too bloody incredible for words? Wellington administrators go into committee to discuss their plans to close this blog and at the same time approve the use of a really dangerous swimming pool. Mark Berge and Sam Rossiter-Stead should be ashamed. They let their names go forward as potential administrators of the year and at the same time sit on a Board that approves the use of a substandard swimming pool. I’d just love to hear them defend that position in a court of law.

But the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre is illegal for more than its depth. Today I filed a protest with Swimming Auckland asking them to submit my protest to the organisers of the New Zealand Winter Championships. Before I copy the protest, so that you can read it for yourself, let me tell you of another Swimming New Zealand, and possibly Auckland Swimming decision that marks this as another bad day for the sport of swimming. I was told by the Swimming Auckland CEO that I could submit my protest but Swimming New Zealand had increased the fee from $NZ50 to Swiss Francs 100, that’s $NZ160. I am a bit suspicious about the increase. I spoke to three prominent administrators and this was the first they had ever heard of the 220% increase in the cost of a New Zealand protest.

I do hope the increase is not aimed specifically at David Wright. If it is SNZ will have a legal dispute on their hands. And if it is an across the board legitimate increase what a ridiculous amount to ask struggling parents to pay who have kids who love swimming but who want to question an unfair or incorrect decision. Talk about user friendly. I guess someone has to pay for the Mazdas. I told our senior swimmer today about the increase. One wag commented, “Seems like there is one thing Olympian about the performance of Swimming New Zealand – the fee they charge us for asking a question.”

Anyway here is my protest. Your comments for and against are most welcome.

FACILITIES PROTEST 2014

NEW ZEALAND SHORT COURSE CHAMPIONSHIPS

Protest

This protest has been prepared by West Auckland Aquatics with a request that it be submitted by the Auckland Team Manager to those running the 2014 New Zealand Short Course Nationals. The protest reflects our concern that swimmers are:

1. 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.
2. The performance of swimmers competing in the Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre will be adversely affected (possibly by an average of three seconds per 200 meters) compared to swimmers competing in a complying pool such as West Wave in Auckland.
3. Expecting swimmers to qualify for international events, such as the World SC Championships, in a non-complying pool where a discernable current is present is unfair and discriminatory.

Procedure

This protest had its origin in the 2013 New Zealand Short Course Nationals when West Auckland noted that the club’s swimmers were consistently swimming slower in one direction compared to the other direction. The club noted that the variation in speed affected all swimmers from those who did not make it past the heats, to finalists and in one case a Championship winner.

Further investigation revealed another anomaly. The club’s best breaststroke swimmer and national short course champion was required to take an extra stroke to complete every second length. Over 200m her reliable 8 stokes per 25m race plan was 8/9/8/9. In the woman’s 200 freestyle the race plan of another West Auckland swimmer was also upset. Her normal 16 strokes per 25m race plan became 16/17/16/17. Both swimmers just could not reach the end of each second length in their normal number of strokes.

Clearly there was an abnormality. Could it possibly be that a current was present?

To test this, the West Auckland Aquatics coach, during the lunch break, put an empty plastic bottle in the pool and watched it float quickly down the length of the short course pool. Most certainly there was an “appreciable current”.

However the effect of a possible current on a plastic bottle and West Auckland Aquatic swimmers, although persuasive on its own, was not sufficient evidence on which to base a formal facility protest. Was there an effect on swimmers other than those who swam for West Auckland Aquatics?

To test this we selected, at random, seven events 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. It is reasonable to expect that “flat” strokes (breaststroke and butterfly) will be more affected by swimming into a current. This is confirmed by the data where the variation between the “into current” and “with current” lengths in these strokes is an average of 0.84 seconds per length.
3. Rotating strokes (backstroke and freestyle) show a significant but lower variation of 0.67 seconds per length.
4. 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.       

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.
2. We do not expect or ask that the 2014 SC National Championships be shifted as a result of this ruling.
3. We do ask that the Wellington City Council and Swimming Wellington undertake the remedial work required for the pool to meet FINA rules.
4. We also ask that if the remedial work is not undertaken then, as a result of this protest, the 2015 Championships will be shifted to a complying facility.

The protest fee of $50 will be paid to Swimming Auckland during the Auckland Winter Championships.

David Wright

Coach – West Auckland Aquatics

26 July 2014

Reference: Analysis of recent swim performances at the 2013 FINA World Championship: Initial confirmation of the rumoured ‘current’

Joel M. Stager, Andrew Cornett, Chris Brammer, Counsilman Center, Dept. Kinesiology, Indiana University, School of Health Promotion and Human Performance, Eastern Michigan University

By David

I was reminded of this traditional Spanish saying when I read an article by Nik Simon in this morning’s New Zealand Herald. The Spanish phrase means, “Advice I sell and for myself have none.” It is intended as a reproach for the person who has advice for everyone except for themselves. Also, some people would do well by heeding the excellent advice they so generously extend to others. Swimming New Zealand employ a Spanish High Performance Director (even the title is a bit of a joke these days), Luis Villanueva, who would do well to heed this guidance from his homeland.

Nik Simon’s article begins with the headline “Commonwealth Games: Improve or pay price, warns swim boss.” As if that wasn’t bad enough, the article goes on to describe Villanueva’s position as follows.

There was no beating around the bush from Luis Villanueva as he reflected on the campaign in Glasgow; New Zealand’s swimmers had not been good enough.

Out of the 16-strong squad picked for these Commonwealth Games, only Lauren Boyle and Sophie Pascoe finished among the medals. Just once since Brisbane in 1982 had New Zealand’s men failed to pick up a single piece of silverware.

Villanueva may carry a harmless persona, but the high-performance director warned his swimmers to improve their performance or pay the price. There will be one last chance to impress at the Pan Pacific Swimming Championships next month, before the Spaniard carries out a comprehensive two-year review.

“The team hasn’t performed as well as I expected,” said Villanueva. “It’s not about the medals, it’s about seeing progression. It’s not the point to make the team at the trials, then not improve the performance over the next 15 weeks. Some of the guys have seized their opportunity here, but the ones that haven’t need to step up in three weeks time.

What a contrast; what a turnaround from the lavish praise we heard from Villanueva prior to the Games. For example – when the swim team was announced.

Swimming New Zealand High Performance Director, Luis Villanueva said the swimmers who have earned selection have produced a standard to be competitive in Glasgow.

“We look to develop swimmers who can compete at the highest levels on the world stage,” Villanueva said. “The team is built around the nucleus of swimmers who went to the world championships last year and with further hard work in the next 14 weeks I believe they all have the capability of being contenders for medals in Glasgow.

The link is to a Google cache of the press release, as the Swimming New Zealand website appears to be going through a re-design and all of its old URLs are currently broken.

In the days before the swimming began Villanueva told Radio Sport.

“The three of them (Lauren, Glen, Matt) can be really high on every event they swim. I expect them to perform better than they did in trials. If they do this I’m pretty sure they will be in medals in some events. I’m pretty sure they are going to swim well here.”

And it was all a pipe dream.

With the exception of Lauren Boyle and Corey Main every swimmer on the Glasgow team and every relay team failed to swim a personal best time. When that happens blaming the swimmers is sad, cowardly, pathetic and wrong. When that happens, the bureaucrats and coaches guiding the team have screwed up – screwed up big time. One or two bad swims may well be the athletes fault. But when a whole team fails to fire, in my view, that failure is the responsibility of those in charge. And at the new 2014 Swimming New Zealand that’s Miskimmin, Renford, Layton, Lyles and you Luis Villanueva.

How dare they try and shift the blame for the Glasgow disaster on to the swimmers. Have the guys who run Swimming New Zealand no shame? Don’t they understand that our country gave them all the money they needed, gave them our best young talent, gave them pools, gyms, medical staff and state of the art video analysis equipment. And still they failed. No one will ever convince me that with the same resources and the same attention New Zealand club coaches from Invercargill to Whangarei could not have done better than Miskimmin’s Antares Place Mazda set.

The shame of it is SNZ appear incapable of admitting fault. At least if they manned up and acknowledged their shortcomings, their failure and their inability to prepare an international swim team they could leave the sport and the country with their integrity intact. As it is they will eventually depart as failures – failures with dishonour.

We included the bold text about how the swimmers were not to blame in Glasgow before we even saw Villanueva’s comments, blaming them. That was a really, really low – as low as anything I have seen from that lot. They have been told for years that they are breeding young people who won’t hack it, then when they don’t hack it in the exact manner Swimwatch and others stated, they blame the swimmers in the press. I don’t get how these guys get away with it.

Some readers may have missed this opinion piece on the Stuff website. It seems that the mainstream media are beginning to accept the Swimwatch position. This is a summarized version of what was said.

OPINION: Nearly nine million dollars spent in four years and two medals to show for it. That’s the meagre return on investment for Swimming New Zealand following a lean Commonwealth Games display that would have been disastrous if not for Lauren Boyle.

New Zealand’s four-medal haul in the pool harked back to similar low returns from the 1998 and 2002 Games. This country hasn’t won an Olympic swimming medal since Danyon Loader won two gold at Atlanta 1996, and only the most optimistic fan would predict that drought will be broken in Rio.

Swimming is one of 13 ‘targeted sports’ for High Performance Sport New Zealand, the organisation entrusted with distributing taxpayer-backed funding. Targeted sports are those identified as having ”the best opportunity for success at Olympic Games, and World Championships”. From 2011 through to the end of this year, HPSNZ have given swimming $8,651,674 – including $2,020,544 this year.

Yet Boyle’s 400m gold and 800m silver in Glasgow are the only concrete returns on money spent on Swimming NZ. Swimming has in recent years undergone a whole-of-sport review and the organisation has battled through multiple coaching changes and dysfunctional governance. But until Boyle can be joined at elite level by more of the squad, a harsh spotlight will remain focused on a sport failing to make a splash on the world stage.

Dysfunctional governance – well that’s still in place. And the chance of swimmers joining Boyle will only happen if the sport’s regional administrators can extract the sport from this centralisation mess and provide it with a strong, diversified federal region and club based structure.