Guest editorial by John Leonard, ASCA Executive Director
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, August 26. IT would be the height of irony, if, during the FINA Presidency of the one of the great defenders of democratic process and transparency in governance, FINA suddenly took a veering step to the right and placed the overwhelming majority of power in the hands of three people, two of whom can combine to outvote our FINA President.
Allow me to explain. FINA, under President Julio Maglione, has called a Special FINA Congress for the year 2011 to discuss changes to the Constitution of FINA, which most observers would agree, are much needed. Good idea.
In all other FINA Congresses, a call goes out substantially in advance of the Congress, asking each member swimming federation (such as United States Aquatic Sports) for its input of ideas, etc., that should be considered at the Congress. This supremely democratic process ensures that no matter how "unusual" the idea, it gets its day in the sun and the Congress can vote on it.
Typically the document handed out at the Congress includes a note that indicates if the Bureau supports or opposes the particular item. A stupendous 95 percent of the ideas that come from outside the Bureau are opposed. Surprise, surprise. BUT they still get to see the light of day at the Congress.
And democracy can indeed rule as happened last summer in Rome, when the USA put new swimsuit rules on the table, the Bureau opposed it, and both the FINA Executive Director AND the President spoke AGAINST the USA proposal and it still passed the Congress and the era of the plastic bag suits was dead, at least for a period of time. Democracy ruled and a very bad idea (the plastic bag suits) was soundly defeated, 186-6.
Now suddenly, the FINA three-person executive has decided that only Members of the Bureau may propose changes to be considered at the upcoming Congress. No continental associations, and no federations. In point of fact, the document that has come out that shows the proposed changes, shows ONLY proposed changes that were recommended by the FINA Executive…not even those changes sought by Bureau Members, have been included for consideration.
Which means, in point of fact, that three men are running the organization in the lead up to the next Constitutional Congress. And, we know that at least the President is in support of many ideas that DID NOT get advanced. So we have two men, the Executive Director of FINA and the Honorable Secretary, Mr. Paolo Barelli of Italy, running FINA in the leadup to arguably the most important Congress in the history of the Organization.
No democracy, no proposals from members. Just proposals that are acceptable to two men. (out of three.)
We have a President who ran for office on the promise of, and his personal history of support for, democracy and transparency in governance. And he's being outvoted on his own executive committee to turn this process back into an entirely un-democratic organization.
What amazing Irony.
Will the Federations of the World stand still for it? Do they accept being merely witnesses at their own de-masculinization?
We live in interesting times.
For more on this issue, read Swimming World Magazine's August 2010 Voice For The Sport.
Search For More News About: FINA
Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
August 27, 2010 Crap. Submitted by: HC_HLA
August 28, 2010 Is ASCA a democracy? I don't ink so. Was FINA ever a democracy? No, it never was. Your couching FINA as a "red-white-and-blue" democracy doesn't wash with a sophisticated reader and in the end your argument is nothing short of bait and switch.
If FINA was a democracy then every swimmer that was entitled to swim at a FINA event would have the right to vote on FINA business. Instead, it was people like you, and those hooked up by way of "office politics," who get to mold FINA policy.
Your invoking of a "Jeffersonian democracy," which FINA never had in the first place, was nothing more than ad hoc political rhetoric to stir emotions. Even your "plastic bag suits" used twice in the article was carefully worded to degrade those that supported them.
I welcome this change and because it was swim politicans like you who got to vote versus the swimmers at large.
I welcome these changes within FINA and look forward to the reemergence of tech-suits and a more robust sport as a result.
Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 28, 2010 Hi Groovydoo,
Back banging on about your plastic suits I see!
Saying that the article" was carefully worded to degrade those that supported them" is a bit rich coming from you as you are a past master at trying to degrade those who oppose your views! Submitted by: scotswim
August 28, 2010 That is not a counter argument but rather an insult and in my opinion it is pretty anemic at best. I never degrade those that oppose my views and I challenge you to document where I have. Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 28, 2010 Hi Groovydoo,
Thanks for your response. It is you who inserted the word degrade into the debate, the term "Plastic bag suits" used by John is not degrading to those swimmers that used the "tech suits" as you like to term them. He is referring to the suits not the swimmers that used them. Your reading of the term is coloured by your own prejudice in favour of the suits.
To answer your challenge I offer up a statement from earlier debates where YOU state that a return to "briefs and jammers once again become the object of ridicule and derision". In my opinion "carefully worded to degrade those that support them" again to quote your comment from above. However, I'm honest enough to ask myself that maybe my reading of your term is coloured by my own prejudice in favour of maintaining the ban on the tech suits! Well after due consideration I have to say I think your use of the terms "derision and ridicule" are far worse than "plastic bag suits" and could also be termed "insulting".
I rest my case. Thanks for responding. Submitted by: scotswim
August 28, 2010 So Groovydoo, what your saying is that John Leonard's push for democracy or a more democratic process is nothing more than a con? What's his motivation, the advancement ASCA? Furthermore, is there anything wrong with a more democratic process?
Last time I checked, the land of democracy I live in, I can't vote in DC for the things I hold crucial to the success of the US. We vote for people to make those decisions and vote on those things. We have to assume they will tell the truth and do what is best for the people of this nation. At this point it is the removal of tech suits. Swimming now is testing the limits of a human being physically, mentally and emotionally without the use of polyurethane. Once we have gotten to the end of our limits as human beings, only than should we consider looking to the use of other means to swim faster.
As a coach and former swimmer I can not stand the sight of these suits. Try coaching and explaining to a swimmer they got beat by an inferior swimmer because that swimmer muscled their way through the water in an $800 suit. Particularly if they can't afford it. It is a total comp out and takes away from the art swimming and technical refinement. We price people out and take away from the true nature of the sport. Submitted by: HC_HLA
August 28, 2010 To your first point, yes, I am saying that and I stand by it for it will be probably be John Leonard's vote that would taken away and that is probably why he is so cross with the FINA president. Ultimately, I am very fine with that; you obviously are not and that is the way it rolls.
There is nothing wrong with a democracy and I enjoy the concept very much - so did Thomas Jefferson. However, as you mentioned, FINA never was a democracy but rather a republic. Apparently, FINA wants neither a republic nor a democracy and seemingly prefers to become a business much like the NCAA has. It will not sadden me that John Leonard will probably not be invited.
So, yeah, a democracy would look pretty good to me right now if FINA were a democracy but it never was. If it was, how do you think the age groupers would have voted on tech suits, the breaststroke turn, and the 15-meter rule?
Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 28, 2010 Scotswim, I degraded the decision to return, not my readers. Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 28, 2010 Apparently Groovydoo will support any process or form of governance as long as the tech suits return. Submitted by: ShortChange
August 29, 2010 Not talking about the breast turn rule or the 15m rule. The suit rule. The rule that effectively changed the sport from what it was about (work and dedication to technical refinement) to what it became (pure power and endurance)...
The one that effects people differently, the one not everybody had access to at first. The one that after every elite swimmer had, not everyone got the same number of suits to wear a new one for each race. The one that breaks at a meet, wears out after 12 races costing you another $300-$800 depending on how much polyurethane.
You want to go fast, work for it. Don't rely on a piece of fabric (or rubber) to take you where you know you couldn't go on your own. I don't understand how people don't care that they actually can't go that fast. It effects time standards, making it harder for those who can't afford it to qualify. It scares and prices families out, knowing they have to shell out hundreds of dollars per suit for a kid to be successful if they want to commit to swimming.
Like you state on your personal description on your blog 'doo, swim open water. You can wear the suit there, its at least a matter of safety in OW. Leave it out of the chlorinated waters... Submitted by: HC_HLA
August 29, 2010 HC_HLA, I won't argue suits since we will never convince each other. I got into the sport when Ian Thorpe was wearing tech-suits and they are a completely natural progression for me as they are for the many age-groupers that think they are cool.
If you have not noticed, A FINA "mutiny" is now being suggested by Eddie Reese; an ASCA board member, and John Leonard is quasi-endorsing it; that is if what Craig Lord wrote is true.
John Leonard has a monopoly of swim coach training via USA Swimming. I think his "Kung Fu" levels of coaching, such as you are a "level-5 coach" if one of your swimmers makes it to US Nationals is ridiculous and segregates potentially great coaches from ever being acknowledged as great coaches due to that monopoly.
I also think he has a dog in this fight that has nothing to do with "democracy" but rather he is the guy that loses the vote and consequently, like all politicians, is using fear and special words we hold close like "democracy" as leverage to make sure he does not lose it.
If the "mutiny" nonsense is true, I bet FINA won't take to kindly to John Leonard in the ensuing weeks and he better start backpedaling. Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 29, 2010 I have noticed, I don't see Leonard vs FINA ending well... Coach Reese has far too much going for him to bat an eye about this. He is still an active coach and being in the college circuit, he is not 'all in' on this one like Leonard may be.
..The way of the Samurai has irritated me since I started coaching and was aware of ASCA. I was not qualified for some jobs because I was not ASCA level 2 or 3 certified. Despite my masters in Sports Administration and coaching background, I was in the category of "need not apply"..
I hope these suggestions wrong. I hope there is nothing underneath the surface and I hope that this is truly about changing things to be 'for the swimmers & coaches, by the swimmers & coaches'. Would be nice to read and hear about such a scandal and naysayers eating a little crow. Submitted by: HC_HLA
August 29, 2010 The primary concern for me is that national federations are being essentially sidelined from the process. Federations that swimmers and coaches alike are part of and that we rely on to represent us. Whatever our misgivings might be with any particular country's federation is really secondary right now. Paolo Barelli essentially wants to anoint himself an emperor of the sport and rule as an autocrat. He's the close sidekick of one Mr. Berlusconi so this shouldn't come as a shock. Marculescu is naive and out of touch as per usual.
Submitted by: ShortChange
August 29, 2010 Short Change: Yes, I agree, FINA wants to become the "Vatican" or "emperor" to use your words but at this point I think that would be an improvement over what we have now. Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 30, 2010 I have to agree with Groovy's statement about the ASCA levels of certification. While there's really no good way to measure a coach's success outside of measuring their swimmers' performances, the idea that achieving Level 5 certification makes you one of the most elite coaches in the world is absurd. What about an age-group coach that consistently churns out AAA and AAAA swimmers, in particular if those swimmers come from a disadvantaged area? Are they to be denied the highest level of ASCA certification simply because their swimmers move on to a new coach at age 11 or 12?
If FINA becomes a "3 men in a room" operation, only time will tell if it's good for the sport. If they had approved the suits simply from the "sport must progress" standpoint, they would ahve made a grave mistake. This is swimming, a combination of coordination, core strength, power and endurance that should not be subject to a piece of equipment equalizing any of those performance factors. Leave the wetsuits to the OW swimmers and triathletes. Swimming is your body moving through water as fast as you can, the suit is there to maintain public decency in doing so. It should not be an aid.
Q: How do you spot an ASCA-5 coach at a coaching convention?
A: You don't - they'll spot you to brag about their level 5 credentials. Submitted by: fl_coach
August 30, 2010 Apparently every republic in history; (besides ours), has turned the keys over to an emperor. From Rome to Greece. (Perhaps the USA has turned over the keys to the political donor?)
As for ASCA, I would like to see people like the fl_coach and HC_HLA, people more credible than me become more vocal about this ASCA monopoly with USA Swimming. I would post anything you wrote on my blog. Submitted by: groovydoo
August 30, 2010 Groov - I don't think I am any more credible than you. It's just an observation about ASCA. USA-Swimming certainly has that "good-ole boy" feel doesn't it? You pat our back, we pat yours. How about the absolutely meaningless background checks that are essentially a cash cow for the organization that performs them? All the information they search for is available via public records. How about the requirements that a new club have an ASCA 3 coach? And the increased emphasis on ASCA certification? You have to pay money to ASCA to achieve those levels. And there's no doubt that Speedo was trying to influence the future of the sport suit-wise. The golden rule right? Those with the gold make the rules.
Swimming is going right down the tubes from an organizational perspective. The ten year initiative to raise money through USA-S registration fee has done nothing for ordinary clubs and swimmers, except make it even less accessible as a sport than it already was. They have the abuse fiasco with no leadership willing to accept responsibility. They are trying to increase the professional swim money available and the only way to do it is to take money away from the 200K swimmers that provide the base upon which this organization relies.
The SI article coming out about Cullen Jones is nice, but it doesn't really dig into the heart of minorities in swimming - it's a financial issue! If I have to hear about how it's a cultural issue again I'm going to puke. The sport is not accessbile to minorities because it costs too much. We will never fully develop swimming to its maximum potential in the USA until that issue is confronted head-on and steps are taken to increase minority enrollment in swimming.
USA Swimming needs to increase swimming opportunities across the board. Especially meets, and not boring sit in the sun for 4 hours meets. Lower the entry fees. Increase funding for programs like Outreach. Decrease the power the LSC's have over meet restrictions. Show some leadership darn-it and get the sport moving. Submitted by: fl_coach
September 2, 2010 There is no democracy whatsoever in any of the governance of swimming
Submitted by: purple haze
September 2, 2010 Swimming is heading into the dark ages for a while. Submitted by: Groovydoo
September 5, 2010 The day we all get out from under FINA will be a great day for the sport. Submitted by: bluemoon
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Courtesy of: Swimming World
ADVERTISEMENT
Special Offer!
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
