Jan Cameron: Through The Looking Glass

By David

I was in two minds whether to write this piece. Cameron has gone. She is yesterday’s news. In just a few days her career will be wrapping Friday’s fish and chip orders. Besides, how much time should you spend looking back? Isn’t the way ahead more important? Then I read a report on Cameron’s departure in today’s New Zealand Herald. Journalist, David Leggat, is clearly a Cameron sycophant. Perhaps he is hunting for a job with Cameron’s Sky Sport husband. However, good journalism does demand a higher standard of independence than he has shown here. There are four specific items of Leggat worship I would like to address. A balanced look at the Cameron years requires that his adulation does not pass as the truth. Here is Quote One.

“Look, in life you only really have to look in the mirror,” Cameron said yesterday. “That’s your judge of how you’ve done and what you’ve done. If you do that and you’re happy that’s all you have to be. I look in the mirror and can be pleased with what I’ve done.”

My principal complaint with Cameron is her coaching philosophy. She favours a central control method of delivering elite sport. I favour a diversified free enterprise method of delivery. Cameron’s coaching philosophy suits her personality. For years swimming in New Zealand revolved around Jan Cameron. It was all about her. The sport was paralyzed unless Cameron gave her approval. Swimwatch and the Ineson Report recorded hundreds of examples of swimmers in fear of Cameron’s wrath. Ineson labelled it accurately and for eternity as a “climate of fear”.
Leggat is right. Cameron would say, “Look, in life you only really have to look in the mirror,” The problem is, that’s all she did. Every decision was made in terms of its effect on her legacy, her power, her image. For a decade it was all really about Jan Cameron. Swimming in New Zealand became the coach’s journey. Swimmers were accessories to the main event taking place in Cameron’s mirror.

However on one topic she rolled up her sleeves, labelling the Ineson report as “rubbish”. “Poorly written, poorly done, rubbish,” she said. Elements within the 32-page report released in June were “speculation, opinion and unsubstantiated stuff put there as facts.”

A few months ago I wrote a Swimwatch story that said Ineson would be incapable of writing an honest report. He was too involved with the Wellington circle of sporting power to be truthful about the condition of elite swimming. I was wrong. I have already apologized to Ineson in Swimwatch and do so again now. I can see why he is an Olympic Gold medallist. He does have courage. He reported on Swimming New Zealand honestly and without favour. He did our country proud in Montreal, Canada and again when he tabled this Ineson Report. For Cameron to turn around and dismiss Ineson’s work as “rubbish” is rich beyond belief. Of course it is typical of the dismissive attitude she takes to anyone who crosses her path. Yet another of my county’s best athletes has just earned the Cameron label of “rubbish.”

I do love the bit where Cameron accuses the Ineson Report of being “poorly written”; this from the woman who sent us the following gem from the New Delhi Commonwealth Games. “I believe that this was a successful campaign with further learning’s which can and will help us even more going forward:” I imagine few of you will have read a worse hatchet job of the English language. Who in this world ever told Jan Cameron that the verb learning could be used as a noun? In comparison Ineson’s report is positively Shakespearian.

“One point which clearly hurts is that Cameron is adamant the sport is in far better shape at top level than it was when she began. If it were not, then you might accept a need for change more easily.”

We are forever hearing this tale. But is it true? We know that Cameron and Byrne are masters of spin, so I thought I’d test the assertion. Let’s see if Leggat is a real journalist who tests the information he is given or has he simply parroted back Cameron spin. So here is what I did. I took each current World and New Zealand swimming record and calculated how much the New Zealand records were behind. I then calculated that as a percentage. I found that the current New Zealand men’s records are 4.5% behind the World records. The women’s records are 4.9% behind. Eleven years ago New Zealand’s records were 4.6% and 4.9% behind. Effectively there has been no change. Cameron tells us the sport is in “far better shape” and it is just not true. Byrne says we are in danger of going back twenty years. He must mean back to the time when Loader, Moss and Kingsman were winning Olympic medals, when Simcic was breaking world records and Kent, Bray, Langrell, Jeffs and others were winning world short course equivalent championship medals.

I was surprised at how far we are behind the world. Cameron has had plenty time and consumed huge taxpayer resources and we are still over 4% behind the world. Given that the American Swim Coaches Association believes 3% per annum is a good rate of improvement – we are about 16 months of improvement behind the world’s best. Unfortunately the Olympic Games start in 11 months. That’s called being up Cameron’s creek without a paddle.

Cameron’s passion is firmly intact. It’s just a suspicion, but it’s unlikely swimming has seen the last of her. The sport cannot afford to turn its back on people with her skill, energy and knowledge. “Now a door is closing, I’m sure [others will] open,” she added.

Jan Cameron – you have used our time, you have exploited the talent of our best athletes, you have spent our money – and you have failed to deliver. Your nepotism and rough shod management has caused embarrassment and hurt. We are done with you and those who supported your Millennium folly. We are moving on to a future that, I hope, does not include you. Leave swimming alone and I promise Swimwatch will never mention your name again.

  • Swimming Lawyer

    David… You are a lonely self obsessed biggot, whp picks on Jan Cameron’s poor english, when your english is no better.

    Perhaps the both of you should go back to the bullshit schools you went to and learn the proper form of english. I would like to quote you:

    \Yet another of my county’s best athletes has just earned the Cameron label of “rubbish.”\

    I belive you spelt ‘Country’ wrong. You should be ashamed to call yourself a New Zealander.

    I can’t wait to see the day when someone takes you down for defamation, or are you too dumb to read the updated privacy laws of New Zealand.

    I put you, swimming new zealand and all of the coalition in the same boat that must sink! The lot of you are ruining the sport!

  • I’m the one who should be ashamed to call myself a New Zealander: I’m meant to read through posts for typos before they’re published, but I didn’t this morning. Such is the life of shameful Kiwis.

    I’ll send in my passport immediately. First Class mail from the UK should have it arrive back in Wellington in a week or so.

    “Perhaps the both of you should go back to the bullshit schools you went to and learn the proper form of english.”

    I do love a comment that rips apart others’ English whilst being full of errors of its own though. It makes my irony glands get all tingly.

  • David

    Swimming Lawyer – Your email has made my lonely night.

    Thank you for the education advice. I thought of some more:

    1. Biggot only has one g.
    2. “Whp” is spelt who.
    3. “english” has a capital E.
    4. “belive” should be believe.
    5. “new zealand” needs a capital N and Z.
    6. “are you too dumb to read the updated privacy laws of New Zealand.” is a question and therefore requires a question mark, not a full stop.

    Sorry I got country wrong.

    David

  • Tom

    I think criticizing anyone for their spelling is rather a pointless sport. I once worked as a subeditor (proof-reader) and goodness knows I still make my fair share of mistakes. At the end of the day, we all end up reading what we want to, not what we actually wrote (which is why you should never proof-read your own work).

    So, while you were busy criticising David for spelling ‘country’ wrong, you wrote ‘english’ a number of times. Obviously, being a proper noun, this word deserves a capital. But like I said, it’s a pointless sport and surely not worth denouncing your citizenship over (I’m pretty confident I’ll have made a few mistakes in this post).

    As for the deformation claim, well I’m no lawyer, so I can’t call you on that either way. I may not always agree with David (as in criticizing Jan for her grammar), but I think we enjoy a reasonably strident interpretation of free speech in this country. He has his voice, as do you and I. And here we all are, exercising it.

  • Chris

    Gosh you have been busy David (and Jane, swatting off the English police).

    I should relay an interesting conversation yesterday with my North Shore friends talking about the big news – Jan’s resignation (Coulter’s resignation hardly registered in comparison). They were almost nostalgic talking about the tragedy of Jan’s experience, knowledge etc being lost to the sport, how she built up the club from virtually nothing, the drive and passion etc. etc.

    So I said, “Hang on a minute. So would you rather Cameron still be there?”

    “Hell no”, they said, “She should have gone ages ago. I’ve lost count the number of swimmers she destroyed who gave up because she said they wouldn’t ‘make’ it. The place is a graveyard full of swimmers and coaches she’s buried over the years.”

    I think this is possibly what many are grappling with. Do you have Cameron continue in a position that is virtually untenable on the grounds of nostalgia, or do you bite the bullet, say she is no longer “fit for purpose” and move on?

    One of the biggest challenges in leadership is knowing when it is time to go. More so in sport, given that the gauge for success or failure (i.e. the weekly rugby match) is far more frequent than an election. In Premiership football in Europe/UK coaches/managers move around like musical chairs and yet the punters hardly bat an eyelid because “that’s sport”.

    We need to be prepared to measure Jan’s legacy by the same yardstick that she ruthlessly applied to swimmers and coaches over the years, and just say, “you didn’t produce what you said you would, sorry but that’s sport”.

  • ek

    Making a typo means you should be ashamed to be a New Zealander? This doesn’t sound like the logic of a very talented lawyer to me!

  • Tom

    I think it’s worth pointing out that whatever Swimming Lawyer’s opinion of David (which apparently isn’t that favourable), it wasn’t David who created the catalyst that led to the resignations of Coulter and Cameron. David didn’t instigate the Ineson Report, he didn’t write the Ineson Report, and he didn’t (as far as I’m aware) even speak to Inseson. That was Sparc, Mr Ineson and the swimmers and stakeholders of the sport. Also, it wasn’t David who wrote and sent the letter calling for the board to resign. That was the leaders of over half the regions in New Zealand.

    So, while David and Swimwatch might make an obvious and easy target (I’m not denying he doesn’t have a significant platform), perhaps Swimming Lawyer (and those who agree with him) might be better off directing their rage at Sparc, Ineson, the swimmers and stakeholders of the sport, and over half the regions in New Zealand? I would argue it was they who led to last week’s resignations.

  • Thank you Tom. It sure is an interesting time in SNZ just now. I just hope structures can be put in place quickly enough to fill the void Jan will leave. I hope they are a free enterprise version. Swimming is an international sport – not the national health service.

  • Ausie… this isn’t even coherent anymore.

    Saying someone’s old or has no friends really isn’t the way to win an argument either. Not doing your case any favours here…

  • Legally Swimming

    Ausie

    Now you are just becoming annoying. Your understanding of what has been going on at the High Performance Centre and also within SNZ is nearly as in-depth as your grasp of the English language. At least write comments that are worth reading or at least helpful.
    You are entitled to your opinion (that’s one of the joys of living in a democratic country) but when you make statements please ensure you actually know what you are talking about, rather then looking like an idiot.

    If you believe that swimming in New Zealand was in such good standings before the Ineson report then you probably also believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. You have NZ’s top swimmer at the time saying that things needed to change, swimmers too scared to speak out, coaches having power trips because of who their mummy is, and that’s only naming a few of the problems but hey the sport of swimming in New Zealand is in fine shape. Of course there were all those medals NZ won on the water at the World Champs in Slovenia last week, but unfortunately they weren’t swimming ones.

    Swimming lawyer; how are David and the coalition ruining swimming in New Zealand? They are the ones actually trying to sort the sport out. The ones who actually care enough to put their names on paper and do something about the mess that is currently swimming. Would you rather swimming turn out like Surf Lifesaving?

    I don’t know what the two of you would prefer, but I’d quite like to see our
    swimmers back on the podium where they belong.

  • Northern Swimmer

    Rather than be drawn into a bun-fight over the Mother Tongue I had started to recount the emotive history of a talented friend’s swimming career cut short in the latter half of last decade. However, despite the anonymity of the Internet, and no longer being actively involved with High Performance at SNZ, I am still wary of a defamation suit from Mrs Cameron, a threat that she has used against NSS swimmers in the past.

    Mrs Cameron said in the Swimnews article that she had received “about 200 emails of support and texts and stuff like that, from people all around the country and all the world actually” and when “asked if she felt she had the backing of the majority of New Zealand’s elite swimmers, Cameron said: ‘That would be the case if you take the last few days in and see what’s happened here. Yes, it appears so, which is great. I’ve had great communication from swimmers that have been in the programme over the 20 years I’ve been here and that’s extremely pleasurable for me’.”
    http://www.swimnews.com/News/view/8890

    Yet in the Ineson Report when 35 current and former HP swimmers were interviewed, as part of a total of 86 people spoken to, only 8 people, total, said that there was not a “poor culture at [her] HP Centre” which was “a significant barrier to success at London”.

    Ausie and Swimming Lawyer, despite truth being a complete defence against defamation proceedings, please take my reluctance to elaborate as evidence that, even at a distance, the ‘culture of fear’ still pervades.

    Vale Mrs Cameron

  • Hurf Durf

    I agree with Chris’ comments. While it is beyond time for Jan to have departed, she did do some good. Largely this good came from her role as a poolside coach. I would suggest David, that you look the percentage differences at 2000 and then compare them with 2008 post Beijing.

    Talking with Jan in 2005 her coaching goals revolved around medals in 2008. She put forward a valiant effort to achieve this goal, however ultimately she failed. Her retirement from poolside coaching at that time – to allow the next wave of coaches to step forward (her own words) – was admirable.

    However accepting the new role in Swimming New Zealand allowed her to attempt to achieve her goals vicariously through the actions of others. As a poolside coach Jan could be harshly divisive – her methods of “recruiting” new swimmers caused consternation and a lack of trust amongst our community. These personality traits coupled with further emotional attachment via the inclusion of her own son in the system and its processes have resulted in the mess we have before us now.

    Responsibility for this mess lies with Jan’s direct employer: the board os Swimming New Zealand.

  • James T

    This is all getting rather of the subject of the day I think. I read Swimwatch because I value the insights it offers. I do not always agree with all that is said but then I do not always agree with what I read in the national newspaper either. Whether I read SW or not is my choice and I am pleased that David has this rather challenging hobby which has engaged so many of us. I happen to think that David’s use of the written word is skillful, informative and entertaining. Others will disagree and they will either criticise or switch off.

    David and Jan Cameron have at least this in common – they both polarise opinion. They are either loved or hated with it seems little middle ground. Like David promised I too will not comment on Jan Cameron after this post as in my opinion it is important that we all look forward rather than back (except to learn from the past.)

    I know many who have worked with Jan. I know enough of her to know that she placed her full energy and passion into what she did for swimming. In that regard I think she was without peer and is worthy of deep respect. Jan embarked on a project which was her vision of the way in which swimming should be delivered and she had the skills of persuasion to bring major players on board with that vision. There is no doubt that she was successful in that and the existence of the pool at Millennium is in large part a result of her vision and persuasive power. I happen to agree with David that her vision of delivery of High performance swimming was misplaced and ultimately not effective. I may be inclined to a less strident and emotive description of Jan’s failings than David has used but I also understand the passion which David feels.

    I have read Chris’ post above and have heard very similar sentiments expressed frequently. The casualty rate in the Jan Cameron world has been high. If you are Dick Tonks (NZ Rowing) and treat people like that and you deliver Olympic and World Championship success then you get away with it. If you are Jan Cameron and you promise ten medals in London at the SNZ AGM in 2008 and lose the dressing room along the way then you do not survive. That is sport, It is a tough business. It is about winning and losing and the margins between hero and zero are very small – ask our athletes, they understand that. So does Jan Cameron after all she was a part of a relay team in Tokyo that was the first of the losers. She knows there is a big difference between first and second place. She has learned to reconcile and live with that, but she will never be known as an Olympic Gold medallist. That is sport and probably explains much of her driving fire and personal ambition.

    As we say goodbye to Jan I think we should get a real perspective. Jan Cameron failed to deliver on her promise. She takes the cop for that and that is fair. Lets not misunderstand though, she was failed in that process by those around her and they are equally if not more responsible for the failure to deliver. In the hope of securing better funding SNZ bought into and maintained a spin campaign that promised long and delivered short. The Ineson report was the natural result of that type of campaign. Big money was committed on that vision and the results have not followed. When that happens the banker is quite entitled to call up the mortgage and in effect that is what SPARC has done through Ineson.

    SNZ has been quite prepared to throw Jan under a bus and that is despicable. The real blame for allowing Jan to fail rests with others. If she had been better advised, managed and mentored she could have succeeded. If SNZ’s governance and management had of been better then we may have had a very different outcome. She has not delivered on her promise but it would be wrong for her to carry the blame alone. If SNZ does not change then nothing will have been learned and we will be facing the same black hole of oblivion in another four years time.

    The decisions made today for the future are vital. We have a chance to see the sport set in a new direction with good and capable people and decision making, or we can carry on with the same old same old. I do question who would want to work for the same organisation that failed Jan so badly unless SNZ changes markedly. To step into this now without wholesale change at the top would have to be one of the biggest corporate and sporting hospital passes in world sport. That change must follow Jan’s departure and quickly. If it does not then her departure will have been in vain.

    This is truly a once in a generation opportunity. Lets seize it.

  • Rhi Jeffrey

    Normally I’d take the time to write out a long, evil response to Swimming Lawyer and Ausie, but seeing as they aren’t even really worth more than 5 minutes of my time, go light yourselves on fire and do the rest of the world a favor. Typical bully bullsh*t not even criticizing something relevant that David is posting about, just his “english” and the fact that he is “sad and guess old man”. So lame.

  • Chris

    Hear, hear James

  • Northern Swimmer

    Well said JT

  • Tom

    Thank you James T, a wonderfully reasoned, eloquent and informative post. This is why people follow Swimwatch and its community of commenters.

  • My Name is Ringo

    News today that Alex Bauman is the new NZ High Performance Sport manager. Olympic champion swimmer, proven coaching and administration record.

  • Northern Swimmer
  • Ex NSS Parent

    Great that we have a world class swimmer appointed as Chief Exec of ALL high performance sport. I cannot believe that SPARC did not take into account the state of NZ swimming when making this appointment.

    This must be the best news for our sport for months.