Comment.

The last weekend of October 2010 came to a close with important words for the swimming world from Chuck Wielgus, CEO of USA Swimming: never again must there be a repeat of events in the UAE that led to the death of marathon swimmer Fran Crippen; and it will take several months of investigations before conclusions can be drawn as to how it happened and how FINA, meet hosts and domestic federations make sure that aquatic sports events unfold in the safest possible environment, the welfare of athletes paramount.

To get to the right answer through a maze of angles will require far more than simply looking at what happened in Fujairah on that fateful day, Saturday October 23, when surface heat, swimmers from many countries in the race with Fran Crippen believe in heart and mind - according to many post-race statements - contributed to the first death of an athlete in FINA competition. 

There is a need to look deeper. The decision-making process, who decides what, when and how, must come under scrutiny, as must a culture that includes examples of unacceptable points of view held by people in positions of power and influence.

Steering clear for now of what we know so far about warnings that went unheeded before the Fujairah race and the tragic events of October 23, swimming history over the past few decades is swamped with examples of missed storm warnings that were then followed by a failure to grasp the nettle and rip it out, roots and all, the sting removed once and for all.

Take this example personal to me and a few others at the hour but pertinent to many yesterday, today but hopefully not tomorrow:

A year ago, I served as the press commission member at the Berlin round of the World Cup for FINA, and filed articles for the federation's website and a report on conditions. FINA covered the costs of a couple of nights in the hotel, as it does for all press commission members and other commission and committee members asked to fulfill a task for the international federation (the money generated from sponsors such as arena, for world cups, and others, FINA being a non-profit organisation). My task was hardly taxing, courtesy of my training to file live reports and the excellent conditions that the media is always treated to at the Berlin event and most other DSV-PPS Cosmos-run meets down the years. 

Some background: I accepted a place on the press commission in 2009 at the invitation of members of the FINA Congress. Five leading figures approached me before the vote to ask for my "help" to ensure that the worldwide media has the best-possible working conditions at FINA events and that FINA establishes a standardised "media offer" that does not vary from meet to meet, as has often been the case, depending on the level of local expertise, whim, budget and other factors. 

Wearing that commission badge last year in Berlin was a new experience for me. I was invited, for example, to the official dinner at which DSV (German federation) president Christa Thiel delivered a fine speech about the good that came out of German reunification as we sat in a restaurant just along the road from Checkpoint Charlie 20 years after East Germany's regime had had no choice but to say "you're free to come and go".

The table at which I sat included dignitories from the city of Berlin, one of the most popular of poolside officials in European swimming, a leading light from FINA's all-important technical swimming committee and a member of the FINA staff. An amusing comment was made (not by me) about shiny suits and their imminent passing. That prompted a comment by the FINA staff member in support of suits. I asked him what level of research FINA had carried out into the effects of the wide variety of non-textile bodysuits they had passed for use and whether the international federation was able to say with assurance: 'passed fit for use by 12-year-olds and masters of 80 with a spot of blood-pressure trouble alike'. 

It was not FINA's responsibility, he said, if swimmers chose to wear certain suits. A most debatable point, I was about to say, when the staff man chipped in with what he thought was a killer line that would end the argument: and anyway, even if they did enhance performance, so what, after all wasn't it thrilling to watch Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich battling to the finish line even if you knew they were doped? My answer was an irritated and instant: no. (I hasten to add here, that while Ullrich failed a doping test, Armstrong never did and continues to protest his innocence in the face of accusations).

The FINA official and the FINA technical official, both appalled, joined their voices to that firm 'no'. The German dignitories sat for a moment in stunned silence. They had lived through the cold war, the GDR, the suspicions, the confirmations, the court cases into State Plan 14:25, the revelations that thousands and thousands of teenage athletes had been abused with steroids, many of those still paying the price in their own poor health or because they see how their disabled children live with the consequences daily 20 and 30 years and more after they had been victims of acts that in 1999 and 2000 would add criminal records to the world records the abusers helped to write into FINA's books for 20 years.

Here, as those dignatories spotted instantly, was a member of the FINA staff employed in a capacity designed to help sell world aquatics and its image, but who thought doped sport entertaining. Wrong message. It is forbidden under FINA rule to take doping. End of story. Or so it should be.

The FINA Constitution (C5.2) cites among the international federation's objectives:

• to provide drug-free sport

(Pertinent to events in open water, that constitution also cites as an objective "to adopt necessary uniform rules and regulations to hold competitions (in all five FINA disciplines)"

C12 of the Constitution also states that sanctions may be imposed:

• "for bringing the sport into disrepute" - C12.1.3 

Culture in place: we do not do this, we do not condone it, we do not find it amusing, entertaining or in any way, shape or form acceptable. 

I have no idea whether someone had a word in the ear of that staff man (they surely should have done) nor whether his views are shared by others currently at FINA HQ or officials holding office (I sincerely hope not). What I can tell you is that it was not the first time I had heard people in positions of responsibility and influence utter words that they ought never to have uttered, at the very least because those words fly in the face of FINA rules intended to protect the interests, health and welfare of athletes for whom FINA serves as guardian.

Roll forward a little to January, 2010, when FINA held its first press commission meeting. It failed to invite a number of its members to that meeting. I learned about the meeting several weeks after it had taken place. Much had been decided. It was explained to me that FINA had wanted to save costs, given that commission members were dotted all around the world (I live a $250 flight from Lausanne, just for the record). I wrote a report in response to the minutes, providing advice on various points of FINA's intended media offer and strategy. So far, I have no idea if what I wrote has had or will have any influence whatsoever. Perhaps I will find out when the press commission meets for the first time in full session in Dubai in December on the occasion of the world s/c championships, our presence there for the meeting on FINA's budget.

The Berlin 2010 round of the world cup has just ended. For the first time in many years I did not attend. With respect to those who raced and worked hard, it seemed second-fiddle to spending a weekend with family contemplating the life of Fran Crippen and the grace of our own lives. Besides, I was not obliged to attend, FINA HQ having decided to spend more money flying in a colleague to serve as press commission member rather than spending less by asking me to help out. I have no idea why that decision was taken, just as I have no idea why neither the FINA press office nor the executive director, uncharacteristically, offered any response when asked for official comment on this appropriate journalistic exercise and reporting of events. Ignoring things does not make them go away, as officials in positions of responsibility out in Fujairah on October 23 will perhaps be able to confirm at some stage.

Any decision about who should be sent to report back with a media eye on events at a world cup event (as part of a process now common at the IOC, FINA and many other governing bodies for sport around the world) is irrelevant to the majority and the roles they play in the sport - and I include myself in that thought - and not even a drop in the ocean when compared to the magnitude of the devastating maelstrom that blew through the UAE. However, the way that decisions are taken in FINA and how those play out is far from irrelevant to the investigations now underway into the death of Fran Crippen.

While any thumbs up or down from FINA HQ matters not a jot to me and is, to be frank, mildly amusing, positions, favours, trips and so on matter very much indeed to some in the "FINA family". For it is their only ticket to travel, their only pass to the show. The talk in the sport is that you either do things that keep you in favour or you stay home, you will not find yourself on the road, in the airport lounge, at the pleasant hotel, at the dinner table, in the VIP lounge at the venue - and so on and so forth. Many manage to be there on merit but to do so have to play the game to a certain extent, one leading light tells me. In other words: no waves, no word of descent.

Others are steeped in playing roles that many believe do FINA no favours, it seems. A delegate sent by FINA to one major international this summer, organisers tell me, spent just about all his time and energy complaining that he had to travel one leg of his journey in economy. Diddums. He also spent 99% of his time in the VIP lounge glass in one hand, nuts and raisins in the other, so to speak. His travel arrangements had gone awry partly because he wished to travel via somewhere he intended to stop off at for a holiday, a purely personal stopover. Not good enough.

What was that delegate's purpose at the meet? Did it contribute to FINA knowledge, did it help make FINA a better organisation? Did the trip simply come the man's way because he was owed one? Or was the whole thing money poorly spent at a time when FINA is so short of cash that it cannot fly a handful of press commission members into Lausanne for a meeting at which the entire media blueprint for the international federation is discussed? Such questions run far, wide and deep through FINA - and they demand answers.

Never before have apparently petty but actually most important aspects of alleged FINA culture been as pertinent as they are now at this particularly tragic moment in swimming history.

Committees and commissions were designed to flood FINA with expert advice, but there is a widely held view that they also serve as back-scratching exercises. There are many positive aspects to the way in which sports organisations run their affairs. But any thumbs up, thumbs down culture that may prevail ought to be cut out like cancer.

When this official in the UAE referred to members of the FINA Technical Open Water Committee as "yes men", he was adding his voice to the very, very many others who say the same, including members of the very committee itself. But the questions are: "yes" men to whom or what and why?

There can be little doubt that the position in world swimming of some officials, in terms of the trips they go on, the hotels they stay in, the dinners they enjoy, the events at which they serve hangs on the 'yes' or 'no' of a relatively small number of people in federations from FINA to its domestic members. And even within that model, there is a game to play: I spotted a sign at one major international this summer that read VVIP. I wondered whether it was a mistake by the man hired to paint the posts, but no: apparently there are even levels of importance among the important these days.

How does all of that link to Fran Crippen? Simply put: when swimmers and coaches say "no way" but hosts and others either say "don't make a fuss" or nod but do nothing at all to address the concerns of people who do actually know best, it is vital to ask why that happens. 

• Are the positions of and relationships between blazers, be they organisers, FINA reps, hosts or those hired by hosts, considered more important than the welfare of athletes and the standard of events that carry such grand titles as "world cup"? 
• Are things overlooked, blind eyes turned because contracts are signed, monies agreed, defensive positions taken in the face of criticism of a kind that may mean "on this occasion the show cannot go on until we make changes"?

Bad enough if the issue is the size of a logo, or someone feeling short-changed, or the walk to the changing room too long, or the way doping tests are organised, or timing of events to suit one broadcaster but no-one else. Completely unacceptable if there is the remotest chance of loss of life, as many believed to be the case in Fujairah, this one example among many, and this a confirmation that Fran Crippen was not the only swimmer in danger on the day.

One way or another, the tragic passing of Fran Crippen must now sound the death knell to any short-change of morality and truth of the kind summed up in the words of Franz Kafka in The Watchman, words that have far, far, far too often applied to decision-making process inherent in FINA culture on a number of fronts down the years, one which has left the likes of the German criminal Dr Lothar Kipke among those honoured by FINA for his services to the sport (abusing young kids as he went, and years on FINA ignores his presence hoping in vain that no-one will notice, let sleeping dogs lie, etc.,):

• I ran past the first watchman. Then I was horrified, ran back again and said to the watchman: “I ran through here while you were looking the other way.” The watchman gazed ahead of him and said nothing. “I suppose I really oughtn’t to have done it,” I said. The watchman still said nothing. “Does your silence indicate permission to pass?"

As one official who attended the pre-race technical meeting in Fujairah put it: "At the technical meeting, among questions raised were safety, water temperature, shading for swimmers. Those concerns were all but swept under the carpet by officials and we were left not knowing where we stood."

Those who run meets and control meets have got away with unacceptable "silence" for far too long when the chips are down, their lack of grit and ability to react (let alone act) explained, some believe, by the interests of "money is in ... show must go on"... so get on with it come what may if you want to remain part of the show. 

There are many lessons for officialdom to learn from events in the UAE. But what the death of Fran Crippen should teach swimmers and coaches is that when they say "no", regardless of what is then done about it or not, they have the ultimate power in their hands - and sometimes they need to enforce it: no means no - so hold hands, recognise that there is strength in numbers, and particularly so when you are the stars of the show - and don't line up, don't take the plunge, don't let the show go on if the conditions are not as you would have them.

Athletes should never, of course, need to do that - as long as FINA lives up to its role as guardian of aquatic sports, honours its constitution and applies the rules agreed by Congress.