I am acutely aware that I have been banging-on about the selection of the New Zealand Commonwealth Games swim team. This will probably be misunderstood as a criticism of the swimmers involved. Not at all. My irritation is with administrators, who do not keep their word; who lie when it suits them.

But it is important to stress that none of this complaint involves the para swimmers. That team has merit and has been properly selected. Sophie Pascoe especially is a bloody miracle. No, this is not about the para team.

Some readers may recall the complaint I lodged about Lauren Boyle’s 1500 meter world record swim. Swimming New Zealand officials were very quick to paint this as an effort by me and others to attack the validity of Boyle’s swim. But that was never the truth. The complaint was only that Swimming New Zealand signed a form that said the Kilbirnie Pool complied with all FINA minimum standards, when it most certainly did not. Swimming New Zealand could have told the truth about the depth of the pool. The record would still have been ratified by FINA. Lauren Boyle received no benefit from the shallow pool. But no, Swimming New Zealand had to tell a lie. And follow that with a lie about our complaint.

And now we have this Commonwealth Games selection fiasco. The standard for Games selection was set at 6^th place individual and 3^rd place relay. Swimming New Zealand published a whole series of escape clauses in the selection rules booklet. They are not stupid when it comes to preparing “get-out-of-jail” clauses. Every possible excuse is covered. Things like, if you are really slow but we think you might be faster one day we can put you in or if you hurt yourself parachuting in Queenstown we can take that into account. Essentially the escape clauses turn the selection document into a justification for Swimming New Zealand being able to pick anyone they like. Twenty-five meters with water wings and, if the selectors like the water wings, you’re off to Brisbane. But really all that fluff should not be allowed to disguise the fact that 6^th place individual and 3^rd place relay were the standard.

I doubt that Swimming New Zealand ever intended to keep to that standard. It was just published as window dressing. It was a Saudi style con intended to convince funding authorities and sponsors that the sport was prepared to set and live by the highest world standards. But Swimming New Zealand knew full well that if anyone suggested that their shop window qualification standards were a lie, they had more than enough escape clauses to justify the deception. Their excuses were prepared and were quietly published well ahead of time.

To give you some idea of how unjust and unfair the Swimming New Zealand selection policy is the table below shows the World and Commonwealth rankings for all the selected swimmers.

So what can one take out of those figures?

Well, first of all, how on God’s good earth did we get into a position where it is acceptable to pick athletes who are 233 and 203 and 184 and 168 in the world to represent New Zealand in a world class event? Steve Johns is optimistic about that. I’d love to hear a fact-based explanation of why. Along with performance, the ethical standards of those who run Swimming New Zealand has been dragged into the gutter.

Second, we have clearly come a long way as a country from 1960 when the press and many others involved in sport went crazy when New Zealand selected Peter Snell to run in the Rome Olympic Games. That was terrible, they said. Standards were being sabotaged. Sport was in the decline. Snell in 1960 was ranked twenty-fifth in the world. That’s effectively the same as Ashby and higher that everyone else on this swim team. And yet in 2017 the press and Swimming New Zealand trumpet the selection as a sporting victory.

Third, Swimming New Zealand’s use of suspect relay rules to pad team numbers is grossly unfair on other, more deserving swimmers. For example Emma Robinson is currently ranked 44^th in the world and 8^th in the Commonwealth. She misses out in favour of swimmers ranked between 100 and 150 places worse than her in the world. I hope Steve Johns is pleased with himself because that is just not right. It’s those sort of decisions that end promising careers; decisions from administrators who have no idea of the meaning of fair play and who pad team numbers possibly only to pad their next job application.

Fourth, the selection of the swimming team is most unfair on the selected swimmers. Academic opinion universally warns about the dangers of promoting anyone in any activity beyond their level of competence. And if you are a swimmer ranked over 80 in the world, the Commonwealth Games are beyond your level of competence. The result almost always is pain caused by expectations set too high; of being exposed too soon to the world’s best competitors. Swimming New Zealand should know that. In recent years a dozen swimmers have been selected in similar circumstances to this team and have retired shortly after returning home.

And fifth, the selection policy of Swimming New Zealand is unfair on other sports who do behave properly. Instead of picking unqualified relay teams, if Swimming New Zealand had handed back the ten places they could not legitimately use, those ten positions would have been available for other sports to pick far more qualified competitors. The selfish decision of Swimming New Zealand to send these relay teams could well cost qualified athletes from other sports the chance to compete at the Commonwealth Games. The lowest ranked competitor in triathlon is ranked 45 in the world. Track and field is still being decided but the lowest so far is 29^th. The examples are endless. We know that what is good for New Zealand swimming did not figure in selecting this swimming team. Clearly what’s good for New Zealand sport in general did not either.