So Who Is A Danger To New Zealand Swimmers?

By David

About two years ago I was coaching in the United States. We held four or five swim meets each year in our team’s 50 meter pool. You are probably aware of the huge importance of liability insurance in the United States. Any accident can be reason enough for a suit worth many millions. The significance of insurance was highlighted by the decision of USA Swimming to provide cover for all swimmers, coaches and clubs in the country. Maintaining our club’s insurance cover was critical. Whenever we held a swim meet it was essential that our facilities and operation complied with all FINA and USA Swimming standards. Any failure would result in the immediate suspension of our insurance and the suspension of the Club.

About six months ago Swimming New Zealand introduced “David’s Rule”. This rule says that only coaches who are members of Swimming New Zealand can be on the pool deck at Swimming New Zealand meets. They said the rule was necessary to protect swimmers; to ensure their safety. I actually agree with that view. The problem is that the new rule, read in association with Swimming New Zealand’s Code of Conduct, prevents me coaching West Auckland Aquatic swimmers at national meets. The Code of Conduct says no one who publically criticizes Swimming New Zealand can be a member. With the best will in the world it would be difficult to deny that I criticize the organization. This article alone would be enough to have me condemned to a public trial and summary deportation. You see the problem? I can’t continue to write for Swimwatch and be a member of Swimming New Zealand. Without being a member of Swimming New Zealand I’m not a safe person to attend their swim meets.

About a month ago Swimming New Zealand distributed a proposed change to their rules. If the change is approved every swim meet in New Zealand will require Swimming New Zealand’s authorization. A meet that does not receive Pelorus House approval will not have its results validated. Swimming New Zealand said the reason for the change was to ensure all swim meets were run in accordance with acceptable standards. Swimmer safety would improve, they said, when all meets received the Swimming New Zealand stamp of approval. I thought the proposal was simply a ploy to strip more cash out of the regions. Very soon there will be a charge on all regions wanting their meets approved by the Wellington office. Swimming New Zealand denied that accusation, of course. Their concern, they said, was always the safety of New Zealand’s swimmers.

About a week ago Swimming Auckland took delivery of eight “state of art” starting blocks. Their most obvious feature is a raised vertical back-plate foot rest that provides swimmers with additional traction. They say the new blocks can improve a swimmers start by as much as 0.3 of a second. The improvement however comes at a pretty hefty price. I’m not sure of how much the all up cost to Auckland will be, but I’m guessing there will very little change out of $80,000. Fortunately we have administrators in Auckland who believe it is their responsibility and duty to provide swimmers with the best facilities possible – irrespective of the cost.

And so we have a series of facts. Proper facilities and operational procedures are critical in the United States to maintaining insurance cover and avoiding suspension. Swimming New Zealand is so concerned about the safety of New Zealand’s swimmers that they won’t let me coach my West Auckland Aquatic Team at their swim meets. Swimming New Zealand is so concerned about safety that they are demanding all meets in New Zealand are pre-licensed by the national body. And Auckland Region has just spent a huge sum on giving swimmers the best possible chance to perform well in the West Wave competition pool.

Do these four facts have anything in common? Well, the answer is a surprising, yes. And on Monday this coming week I will be highlighting the connection by asking the Manager of the Auckland Team to file a protest on my behalf contesting Swimming New Zealand’s right to hold the Age Group Championships in the Kilbirnie Pool. Actually I don’t care that the Age Group Championships are being held in Kilbirnie. The meet could be held in a muddy pool just outside of Te Puke and it wouldn’t worry me. The reason for my protest is to prevent the World Championship Trials scheduled for later in the year being held in the Wellington Pool.

You see the problem is, the Kilbirnie Pool does not comply with FINA facility rules. FINA requires pools to be 1.35 meters deep from the wall where starting blocks are being used. Kilbirnie is only 1.25 meters deep at this point. The pool is too shallow. Asking the nation’s best swimmers to start in a shallow pool is dangerous and grossly unfair. Some of these guys are over two meters tall. Asking them to dive into a shallow pool is impossibly irresponsible. Every swimmer I have coached has a tale to tell about scraping backs, knees or feet on the bottom of the Kilbirnie Pool. Good swimmers have a “normal” dive and another one they use in the Wellington Pool.

And so we have an organization called Swimming New Zealand who won’t let me onto the pool deck to coach my swimmers because of the danger I represent to all the nation’s swimmers but are intent on holding the Age Group Nationals and World Championship Trials in a facility that fails to comply with the sport’s minimum standards and poses a real risk of serious injury.  We have an organization called Swimming New Zealand who is currently claiming to be the sole arbiters of what constitutes a safe swim meet but are intent on holding the Age Group Nationals and World Championship Trials in a facility that fails to comply with the sport’s minimum standards and poses a real risk of serious injury. In the United States, Swimming New Zealand would lose its insurance cover and would be suspended instantly for holding the swim meet planned for next week in Wellington. While the Auckland Region has spend $80,000 giving New Zealand’s swimmers the best possible chance of success, Swimming New Zealand is intent on holding the Age Group Nationals and World Championship Trials in a facility that fails to comply with the sport’s minimum standards and poses a real risk of serious injury. That is the common link between these four factors. The real danger here is not me or the New Zealand swimming Regions. The real danger is Swimming New Zealand. And on Monday we will protest their irresponsibility to ensure that a real safety issue is properly resolved.

  • James T

    Oooh. Now that is a can of worms.

    The Wellington pool has always been known to be shallow, but I must admit I didn’t realise it was THAT shallow, and certainly didn’t realise that it didn’t comply with FINA regulations. Of course the way they get around that is by putting in a clause in the meet poster that the pool doesn’t comply with FINA regulations. But I am presuming that such a clause has not been published. So I think David, that if you put in a protest, they are stuffed.

    But the real question is: What the hell is SNZ doing holding national meets in a non-complying pool? And, for years, no less! And no-one seems to have noticed? And right under their noses in Wellington, LITERALLY! Now that is a real slap to the Technical Committee. In fact, a slap to the SNZ Board. In fact, a slap to Mike Byrne (the resident clown) who is supposed to be in charge of Operations.

    And yes, the irony is a classic. SNZ, the purveyors of everything that is good and right and true, and now, SAFE.

  • Northern Swimmer

    Folklore has it that WRAC was approved as a pool capable of hosting national championships and qualifying meets around 2003 when someone from SNZ head office rang the pool to ask what the depth was at the end where people dive in and was told, in all honesty, that it was 5metres. Of course that is the end where the platform divers dive in, not the swimmers who are racing!

    1.35m is little different to 1.25m, especially if the new blocks are to be used in such a pool. I have seen swimmers who use these blocks to their full potential dive below 2m on entry. Though of course not in New Zealand.

    Which raises an interesting question: how many pools in New Zealand, which are used for competitions, satisfy FINA’s standards?

    West Wave 25m and 50m
    Bay Wave (Mt Maunganui) 25m

    QEII used to for 25m and 50m

    Dunedin’s Moana?
    Millennium Institute?
    Invercargill?

    I am going to discount Wellington and Hamilton.

    All of this leads me to two propositions for Swimwatch’s faithful:

    – Could Wellington host this meet across the pool in the middle where it is 2m deep, and 25m wide?

    – Should the money ($15 million?) being spent on a new pool at the Millennium Institute be spent on a pool in some other location – Christchurch?

  • Ouch.

    As someone who bruised her feet badly on the bottom of the University of Washington’s pool the first race she swam there after dolphin kicks in breaststroke starts were legalised, shallow pools do *not* sound appealing. The worst I ever saw was Reno, Nevada’s – I’m not sure how shallow that was, but they had high blocks and we were warned about starts before the meet started. Apparently they were infamous. Note that these weren’t FINA meets, of course.

    The rules are written for very good reasons.

    Could meets in Wellington not be started from the diving well end? They must be able to do that since 50m races start from up there.

    That’s crazy about the phone call to the WRAC. You can see why that was an honest answer; if the pool’s set up the way it was when I trained there (a million years ago), there are permanent blocks across the 2m deep section in the middle. Can’t believe (can believe) SNZ didn’t do a little more work to find out what the deal was there. Like, you know, driving over and having a look.

  • Sensible Swimming

    Northern Swimmer – I like both suggestions as solutions. Wellington across the pool would be less desirable than reallocating funding from MISH to Canterbury, but possible.

    Whatever happens we need a genuine world class pool for competition – 3 meters deep, fast design and a national body who is committed to ensuring that our athletes get to use the best facilities when qualifying for international programmes.

    I think we are more likely to get a 3 meter deep 10 lane pool with a fast design than a national body doing the right thing!

  • Chris

    I’m actually quite shocked. How could we have missed something so fundamental, for so long? But more importantly, how could SNZ have ignored this for so long? I would be astounded if SNZ didn’t already know that this was an issue (as eluded to by Northern Swimmer). They have members on their technical committee who are senior FINA referees. Isn’t John West and Jo Davidson FINA referees? Ron Clarke is on the SNZ Board. He’s a FINA referee, for goodness sake. These are the same people that would disqualify a one-armed swimmer because they didn’t make a simultaneous two-handed touch. http://www.swimwatch.net/2012/01 or who get anal about turn flags being a couple of inches out of line.

    And yet, they don’t seem to worry when our swimmers have said for years, that the Kilbirnie pool is a bloody awful pool, its slow because of the variable depths, you come out with graze marks on your forehead and nose if you don’t get your dive right, there are no proper warm-down facilities, or God forbid, you get Lane 0 that has the disabled ramp attached to it.

    If we can’t trust our national swimming organisation to apply the FINA rules which clearly in this specific example are intended to keep our swimmers safe, what can they be trusted with? Sorry, we already know the answer. This debacle is merely added to the long list of things SNZ cannot be trusted with.

    David, here is the SNZ gameplan as it relates to your protest:

    Plan A – they will ignore it.
    Plan B – they will try to disqualify your protest on some spurious technical ground.
    Plan C – they will grandstand by threatening to close the meet, or announcing that all swimmers have to dive off the sides of the pool instead of the blocks, and it is all David Wright’s fault.

    However, it plays out, the only people who are to blame are Ross Butler, Mike Byrne et al who are charged with the responsibility of administering the sport in accordance with the Constitution. This requires them to adhere to FINA rules. Every principle of corporate governance and management also requires that they exercise due care in ensuring participants in the sport are kept safe.

    It is they, and they alone who are responsible for their failures, and not David Wright.

  • Chris

    So David

    How did your protest go? Given that I’m watching NAGS live streaming and there’s no announcement beforehand about the need to do shallow dives (like they do everywhere else in the world if the pool is too shallow and doesn’t comply with FINA rules) then I am presuming that either Plan A or Plan B of my gameplan above has transpired?

    Is it any wonder that we are viewed as a swimming backwater by the rest of the world!

  • Northern Swimmer

    In reply to Sensible Swimming’s recommendation of a 1st class competition pool for our swimmers, I could not agree more. I would however have to question the financial logic behind such a decision.

    Building world-class pools is a very expensive process:
    London’s pool cost $520 million (269 million GBP)
    Shanghai’s $390 million (2 billion yuan)
    Beijng’s water cube $145 million (75 million GBP – quoted costs vary widely)

    and as West Wave has shown use, they are outdated very quickly.

    Even if we could get a top quality competition pool for $25-30 million, would this be the best use of the money? Or would this money be better spent upgrading and converting the pools around the country so that there was greater access to lane space for swimmers? There are already 50m pools in Whangarei, Mt Wellington, Rotorua, Timaru, New Plymouth, Jellie Park which I am sure could be converted into covered, heated 8 lane, deep water pools for a couple ($2-$5) of million each, providing a greater resource for swimmers and the wider community.

    The further problem that I have with funding a high-spec race pool is the on-going running costs. At most such a pool would be used in multiple-day competition mode six times a year – a summer and winter open championships, an age group championships, potentially an international competition, and perhaps a couple of waterpolo tournaments. The rest of the time it would likely sit under-utilised as a training venue, lane-swimming pool.
    I would estimate that running such a complex would cost in the vicinity of $250-$500, 000 p.a. (I may be wildly off the mark). Such costs invariably have to be met by the ratepayers, or other financial backers. As the constant named partners, philanthropic supporters and sponsors at the (presently named) AUT Millennium Institute merry-go-round shows, it is not a cheap venture to be involved in, and clearly previous backers have been dissatisfied with the return on their investments.

    I do realise that this means New Zealand’s (top) swimmers do not get an elite level pool in which to compete and qualify in. But is this really a necessity? It is only for the Olympics that swimmers must achieve a FINA A level standard to be able to compete. For other competitions – Commonwealth Games, World Championships, Pan Pacific Games – the national federation sets the standard. SNZ could continue to hold national championships in sub-optimal pools, but adjust qualifying criteria accordingly.
    For Olympic qualifying there could be a qualifying period with swimmers able to qualify in any pool in any region which suited them. This would expose a greater number of swimmers to international competition, as well as avoid the expense of building, running and maintaining a first class pool. This is the model used by Athletics NZ, which given their international success, must have significant merit.