An Open Letter to FINA

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

  • Clive Rushton

    I’ve had it reported to me that this ‘controversy’ has been “pretty hard for Lauren”.

    It’s really important that she understands that EVERYONE is trying to support her great effort and appreciates just what a frustrating set of circumstances this must present her with.

    EVERY comment that has mentioned Lauren personally has emphasized that she is the “real deal” but, unfortunately, she has been a victim of the long-term neglect of both swimmer safety and performer excellence in the situation regarding WRAC.

    Lauren: we admire you, we respect you, we look at you as a shining beacon for the future of NZ success. You ARE the real deal. And, you are getting faster, faster (Lauren will remember that conversation).

  • David

    I could not agree with Clive’s comment more. Of course Lauren and her swim deserve and will get unstinted admiration from us all. She is a victim of SNZ neglect. Just as the little girl from Raumati who lost her teeth in the WRAC is a victim. Both swimmers deserve better from SNZ and Swimming Wellington and they did not get it. Our concern is 100% to see that does not happen again. SNZ fix your pool. And Lauren and the Raumati swimmer we admire you both. That’s why we do all this stuff.