Connect with Us:
Future of FINA Part 6: Accountability
Jul 1, 2011 - Craig Lord
In the final part of our series on the future of FINA as the international governing body considers constitutional change at an extraordinary Congress in Shanghai later this month, we consider proposals aimed at redefining roles and responsibilities at the helm the federation. Some of what is proposed is a response to concerns over the balance of power between those employed to run the shop and those who employ them and carry the power of position and vote.
One of the most critical moments in recent swimming history on the bureaucratic side of the pond was the 2009 Congress vote on suits and suit rules in Rome. In the face of overwhelming opposition, the then President of FINA, Mustapha Larfaoui (ALG), and the Executive Director Cornel Marculescu did not hide their support for non-textile suits that caused chaos and poured unfairness into the race pool. They simply did not accept the arguments against, points of view that would come to win the day.
After widespread discussions between federations, coaches and swimmers, with the USA taking a lead role, Congress brought an axe (168 votes to 7) down on race apparel that worked better for some than others, severed the thread of swimming history (one not fully restored and unlikely to be so for some years) and buoyed performances well beyond the natural capacity of athletes.
Swimming would be revived as a technique-based sport - and history was made: never before had the FINA executive been defeated on an important issue taken to the vote. The weight of feeling resonates yet and while rumours of more shiny suits float to the surface still and some press on with calls for a bodysuit comeback, albeit textile, with men covering their chests (not breasts) for no other reason than to enhance their performance while covering up the physiques that contribute to the aesthetic value of the sport of swimming, there will be no return to the inequitable era of 2008-09 and the deplorable trend of reducing the status of a world record to a ten-a-penny occasion.
Lessons were learned. Larfaoui's lack of clarity and leadership throughout the whole controversy was, put politely, woeful and lamentable. On his watch, the sport came under assault from the two biggest threats - doping (the far greater sin) and suits - to its status as a technique-based sport that prized above all natural ability combined with hard and smart work in pursuit of peak performance in a majestic and unforgiving element. On both issues, better times and good outcomes came about only after a battle of wills in which those running the sport often had to be persuaded to do the right thing as time ticked and victims piled up.
Setting the role of the paid politician (there is no other way of describing the package that goes with the FINA presidency) aside, Marculescu's part in events has been and will be far more significant in the run of swimming history and the way in which the sport is run in future, not least of all because - as the professional, paid head of the show, without vote - the Romanian polyglot has long rolled up his sleeves and got his hands dirty when so many about him have appeared to be in it for the trip and treats.
Regardless of whether you agree with Marculescu's take on issues affecting the sport (and I among those who have both agreed and disagreed with him), most know him as a man who makes things happen, at the macro and micro (a place where the risk of personal feelings getting in the way of logic and best professional practice is ever present) end of the spectrum of management.
On suits, Marculescu took on board what the wider world of swimming wanted but he also understood that there could be no return to the days when three men alone would consider the merits of a suit sent to them in a plastic bag before saying "fine by me" and then finding out that polyurethane had been sent by Pandora herself. A revolution ensued and today a whole world of checks and balances is in place, a suit-testing regime based on a foundation of science and under the control of experts in the field of materials, Prof Jan-Anders Manson at the helm.
The downside of it all includes the cost of it all, in time, energy and dollars, while among challenges that remain is one that mirrors a fundamental problem in the current anti-doping regime: universal application of rules and standards. Trust is a must but just as is the case with drug testing, in which some nations play a far greater role in enforcing anti-doping cultures and testing regimes, there are myriad meets around the world at which swimmers can qualify for FINA events in the absence of any suit checks.
Some suggest the answer is to go back to nylon and no checks but Marculescu was and is right on that score: the technology of today, let alone what is already of this world but yet to make it into mainstream consciousness, dictates that the time when a suit was just a suit and never an issue is well and truly over.
What unfolded on suits mirrors the way in which much FINA business has been conducted. Where and when "volunteer" politicians have failed to act or take decisions, Marculescu has stepped in and managed, often without question from those who have valued their privileges and positions more highly than their responsibility to stand up for the interests of athletes and swimming regardless of how uncomfortable that can make life from time to time.
Countless are the occasions on which the director has instigated changes and brought possible solutions to the top table for consideration by politicians who have too often then failed to raise objections and note alternatives as part of what ought to be a standard process of helping FINA to find the right way.
The suits fiasco was a case in point. Great that Congress came to the view and vote expressed in Rome on the eve of a farcical 43 world records in eight days that rubber-stamped the urgent need to resuscitate swimming - but where were all those voices in 2008 and more so in 2009 as chaos and confusion took hold, with some world records allowed to stand, some not, some suits in, then out, then in again in a matter of weeks (sometimes day) in the lead-up to FINA's biggest showcase, the world long-course championships?
At the time, I was among journalists who heard swimmers and coaches criticise that nebulous entity called "FINA", while being told by some at the very helm of the organisation that they were being constantly cut out of the loop of information, debate, discussion and decision-making. To those on the outside, it seemed that FINA was engaged in a battle of wills and some fairly poisonous politics in 2008 and 2009.
The good news is this: as the dust settlers, there is a chance to make a new start, starting with finding a constitutional model that takes account of accountability. The current constitution pays scant regard for the roles, responsibilities and relationships between the membership, Bureau, President and Director.
On the table in Shanghai will be proposals that define where power rests and leave no-one in any doubt that the President of FINA will be king, hands-on and therefore directly accountable. Take these proposals:
The position of president is not be alone among those about to be redefined, specific power to be vested in the Hon Secretary (a position that to many is an unnecessary throw-back to a bygone era) if proposals get the green light. For example:
- the FINA relations with the Continental Organisations
- the World Competition Calendar in coordination with the Continental Organisations
- the FINA Committees agendas
- finalizing the minutes from the meetings of Congress, Bureau and Executive.
A similar theme ensues when we consider the Honorary Treasurer:
FINA HQ and the roles and responsibilities of the Executive Director may also soon be more clearly defined for the first time in the constitution, the following proposals leaving no-one in doubt that executive status relates to the FINA office and not to FINA itself, with the primary purpose one of executing the decisions of others:
Some have interpreted the above as being part of measures to keep the director (whoever may be in that position) in check. There may be truth and reason in that but the more constructive way of looking at it is this: no more can politicians promoted through the system from domestic federations up to the top table shrug and hide behind such masks as "yes, well, Cornel decided that" and other such outs. It is high time that the FINA Constitution provided clarity at times when "FINA" is blamed for things going wrong.
One day, FINA may well be run by a board made up of politicians and professionals that better represents that various interests and levels of expertise in the sport of swimming (and there is a case for having different people run the show in the different sports under the FINA umbrella, so specific is the expertise required). Until then, the framework proposed is a step in the right direction on the question of who directs FINA and who is responsible, for better or for worse, when challenge pops its head above the surface.
One of the key challenges of the past 40 years has been the influence of money on the decision-making process and getting the balance right when it comes to seeing what is in the best interests of swimmers and swimming not only through dollar signs. FINA has often gone worked on the basis that more is more, quantity granted gold over silver for quality. But there are times when less is more, and all the more so when professional structures are simply not in place to support the growing level of activity that sometimes appears to take place for activity's sake.
The events of 2008 and 2009 are not directly related to the tragedy of 2010 - the death of Fran Crippen off the coast of the UAE - but the lessons learned in those three years are linked: the modus operandi, the very culture at the heart of FINA are crucial to good management. Many, including some who count themselves among critics of the international federation, were heartened by FINA's acceptance and publication of the Task Force report into the American swimmer's tragic passing in circumstances that might well have been - and should have been - avoided. That report represented a watershed. No heads rolled but that was not the point: due criticism was heard, heeded and made public (such practice has too often been stifled) - the essential foundation laid for a better future as a result.
If the vote in Shanghai takes FINA a step closer to defining itself and its systems of accountability, the theme is etched on a two-sided coin. The demands placed on athletes and coaches who engage in a daily pursuit of excellence often leaves little time and energy to pay too much attention to the politics that dictates the environment in which they work (for a phase of life for swimmers and often for a lifetime's profession for coaches). It is not surprising then to find on occasion that such folk are out of touch with the latest rule changes and other decisions taken by their own federations, continental and international organisations until it is too late to do anything other than protest before the international media come moments of big competition.
Come the moment when a cry of "FINA is to blame" is heard, however, responsibility stretches to all members, who have a duty to call to account those who govern in their name, including the heads of domestic federations, many of whom have proven to be woefully out of touch at times of crisis (and that includes highly paid executives of leading swimming nations). You would be hard-pressed to say of Cornel Marculescu is that he is poorly informed or out of touch, but you could most definitely say that of some heads of federations, including people who sit on committees of FINA. Knowledge is power and just as it is the responsibility of all swimmers and coaches to know the nuance, detail and demand of anti-doping rules and regimes, it is crucial for them to know what moulds their world.
We hope that our series has served as a mini starter-pack for deeper understanding of the structures, people and positions of power through which swimming's competitive environment is built before the stars of the show take to their blocks.
Previous articles in our series:
