Sink or Swim

What does it take to win swimming gold?

There's no doubt that representing your country at the biggest sporting competition on the planet is a rare honour. Winning an Olympic medal is the achievement of a lifetime. These two-and-a-bit weeks in London is the time when every member of the team should achieve their dreams.

Somehow, our swimming team failed to make those dreams a reality. Post-race media included speechless disappointment, tears and embarrassment.

Already, Swimming Australia has announced a review into the Australian swimmers' performances in London last week. The review will be conducted as a result of our relatively disappointing results in the pool, not the "performances" out of the pool. Frankly, I think that the two are inextricably linked, and to investigate one without the other is to do half a job and sabotage whatever recommendations are made.

The public face of the Inquiry will be retired swimming champion Susie O'Neill who was the expert commentator on Foxtel's Olympic swimming coverage. Ms O'Neill made headlines late last week when she publicly questioned the work ethic of the Australian swimmers, and suggested that they would have been more successful if they'd worked harder. That ballsy comment may have risked her relationships with some influential people within Australia's swimming community. I think she's going to test those relationships further over the next weeks and months.

The question of work ethic leads us to the question of payment, particularly in light of last night's 7:30, which focused on changes to how we - humble tax-payer/spectators - pay our Olympic swimmers. I'd never considered it before. The basic change is from a salary or allowance, to a system of payment based on merit, where merit equals medals. Swimmers who failed to make a final at the Olympics receive no payment; a gold medal is worth $35,000. The change to the merit-based rewards system was apparently made with little consultation with the swimmers themselves.

Medal winner Brenton Rickard talked about worrying about the paycheque and other extraneous crap (my word, not his) during the lead-up to the Olympics, and how that could be a distraction during the time when they need absolute focus. There was an atmosphere filled with friction, distrust and frustration around the swimming team, and a proven inequality in the way our Paralympic swimmers are treated. Non-swimmers can sympathise. Who hasn't had unwelcome concerns about their private lives crush into their work time and distract them, or tried to block out the office politics while existing in the midst of someone else's battles?

Numerous studies have found that money does not motivate performance, but if our athletes would benefit from a different pay structure, why not treat them as we treat our tertiary students? A HECS-style debt for elite athletes might allow our governments to offer more assistance to more athletes, across a range of sports.

But is distraction an excuse for a team performance that is below expectations?

That's the key word: expectation.

What did we expect from our Olympic swimmers? What should we expect from our Olympic swimmers? And what should our Olympic swimmers expect from the government? What should they expect from themselves and each other?

Former Vice President of the IOC, Australian Kevan Gosper, thinks Australia has fallen behind our traditional competitors in terms of public funding for athletes. That doesn't necessarily mean athlete's "wages"; it could also mean school programmes, sports science, facilities, coaches and support crew. The Sydney Morning Herald reported

Kevan Gosper said on Monday that Australian athletes had been hampered by a lack of public funds and government focus and said more money needed to be spent on top-level coaches and elite athletes.

"We've been down on the sort of financial support that we were accustomed to when compared with the financial support that's coming through from other countries, particularly here in Europe," he told ABC radio from London.

"The fact is you do need more money in international sports and preparing if you're going to compete with the world."

It's Swimming Australia that has commissioned the Inquiry, but as the organisation that directs swimming in Australia, it should not be excluded from the scope. It's been noted today that the Board of Swimming Australia is an all male board. More importantly, there are no current of former internationally ranked swimmers on the board: it's entirely made up of directors, sports administrators, and marketers.

Swimming Australia has a three-point strategic plan for 2011-2016, and I'd encourage the Inquiry to look at both the structure of the organisation, and at the Strategy document. While "Performance" is one of the three pillars of the strategy, the first interim measure - London Gold - was not met.

Meanwhile, there were those tears, there were those near-silent emotion-filled post-race moments. There was the still-contentious inclusion of bad boy swimmers Nick D'Arcy and Kendrick Monk, and Stephanie Rice's shoulder surgery. There are plenty of people who are happy to label this Olympic Swimming Team as lazy brats with huge egos and a sense of entitlement. That's both harsh and inaccurate.

Emotional responses have been all the rage, and not restricted to Aussies: American sprinter Tyson Gay was in tears after finishing 4th in his race, and an American gymnast was sour and spiteful after winning Silver. Bridget Foster Hylton's tantrum after her heat on the track is reminiscent of a toddler hurling himself on the supermarket floor and screaming when he doesn't get his lolly.

What kind of human support is available for these athletes? James Magnusson did not live up to anyone's expectations, including his own, but who was around to support him? Who knows what was going on inside the head of a young man, a world champion, at his first Olympics? Does the swimming team have a specialist sports psychologist with them? What kind of media training is provided? Is our selection process correct? In the wake of this swimming meet, are our swimmers receiving appropriate emotional counselling?

As for those expectations, I think we all want the same thing, all expect the same thing: we simply want our athletes to do their best; their Personal Best, when it matters most. Our athletes need much more than being trained to swim fast. The fact that so many of our swimmers failed to swim PBs at the London games suggests that we've got the swimming right, but we failed to prepare our people for the Olympic Games.

Swimming with Guns

We've bred an entire generation of confused people, and the next generation is on the way. It's not because we allow gay health posters in bus shelters or because we legalised same sex civil partnerships or because of some progressive watermelon agenda to turn us all into lovely little communists. Its not even because of the Carbon Tax.

It's because we are totally inconsistent.

"Bad boy" swimmers Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk are being punished by the AOC for posting on Facebook and Twitter a silly picture of themselves holding an armload of firearms. Oooh-Aahh, they've (possibly) brought themselves and their sport into disrepute, so they won't be permitted to use social media while at the London Olympics, and they won't be allowed to attend the Closing Ceremony. As punishment goes, barely more than a stern talking-to.

In other words, some uptight sports administrator thought the photo might be a bit controversial, so jumped up and down. It turns out that Australians aren't offended - or even interested - in these young blokes or their photos, but now that the noise has been made, token punishment must follow.

So did D'Arcy and Monk do something silly or not? I don't think Swimming Australia or the AOC can make up their minds. Having said that, the two sports organisations are the punch lines of the jokes, while the athletes have public sympathy on their side. International media is reporting this "scandal" with an appropriate degree of incredulity.

I particularly enjoyed the jokes about the Australian Shooting Team being suspended after posing for photos in a swimming pool, holding goggles and flippers.

Contrast this with the photo of Queensland Minister for Computers & Creative Bits and Pieces Ros Bates holding onto some kind of military mega-gun that looks like it could take out your house. Nary a whisper from her employer or her boss, Premier Campbell Newman.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is also the subject of controversial photos with a gun. While visiting our troops in Afghanistan, he allegedly asked to have a closer look at some of the weapons, a request probably not met with joy by the army brass. Still, the photos are there. The media didn't pay a lot of attention at the time, and later, it was overshadowed by the other media event of Mr Abbott's visit: Shit Happens.

Photos of our last four decades of Prime Ministers handling firearms are virtually impossible to find.

Many people go through their entire lives without touching or firing a gun. The swimmers were holding firearms that were legal; Ms Bates and Mr Abbott were holding a weapon not available outside the military. If you're a young adult watching the news, what message do you get? Is it:

A. Don't touch guns in America
B. It's okay if you're a politician but not if you're an athlete
C. You can handle guns if you're with some soldiers
D. Swimming Australia and the AOC are a bunch of uptight sooky lalas
E. Do whatever you like, but don't post the photos on Facebook

Why are Swimming Australia and the AOC over-reacting? Is the problem with their athletes handling guns, or posting the proof on social media? It's all about perception, and protecting reputation of Swimming Australia and their naughtiest athletes.

By the way, the answer to the question above is D.

Stupid is not Illegal

Australian Swimmers Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk went to a shooting range, fired a few crackers (under supervision), had their photo taken with guns, posted it on Facebook, got in trouble, removed the photo and flew home into a media shitstorm and a cloud over their Olympic selection.

Is there any chance that someone has over-reacted?

Maybe. Swimming Australia has a social media policy. They encourage athletes to be involved in social media, subject to their policies. That sounds fair enough, but begs the question: on what grounds has Swimming Australia reacted regarding the now-infamous photo of two swimmers with a handful of guns. What exactly happened?

The Swimming Australia Statement fails to explain anything other than that the photo or photos were judged by someone to be inappropriate.

Swimming Australia became aware of inappropriate photos posted on athletes' Facebook pages and Twitter accounts this morning, and instantly contacted the athletes involved to ask for them to be removed under Swimming Australia’s Social Media Guidelines.

The athletes have subsequently removed the photos.

Swimming Australia in no way condones these photos, and does not condone the posting of inappropriate content on Facebook, Twitter or any social media platform.

This is a timely reminder for athletes to more be responsible to themselves, the public with whom they engage through social media, and the reputation of the sport.

The athletes involved are currently returning from a training camp and competition in the US, and will be spoken to further upon their return.

Swimming Australia's Social Media Policy is every bit as vague as their legal team would want it to be. It's impossible to detail every way in which the spirit of the policy could be breached, so the policy is not specific. It also leaves it open to interpretation. The following is the policy guideline regarding posting photos to the internet: 

Swimming Australia also treats all photographs, video and audio ‘material’ posted onto social media as public comment and accessible to the public. Any material that may be considered negative, derogatory or inappropriate towards Persons bound by these Guidelines should not be posted. 

So, the photo of Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk fondling an armload of firearms is considered "inappropriate" by someone is a position of authority within Swimming Australia...would it be different if instead of swimmers, the athletes in the photo had been shooters? 

What the swimmers did - posing for photographs while holding firearms - is perfectly legal in the USA. It's not illegal to buy these real-life Rambo-props in California. Equally, it's not illegal to be photographed handling those weapons. It's not even illegal to post the photo on Facebook or Twitter. So they haven't broken any laws.

It must be the association of swimming or swimmers with guns and violence.  It's not a great look, but is it worth this level of hand-wringing? They were being yobbo-tourists. Had they been in Germany, they might've taken a few laps of the Nurburgring, and had photos taken with crash helmets. 

Our Aussie Chef de Mission Nick Green commented "you can't be serious", but whether that is directed at the photo or the outrage is unknown. He did, however, explain that the by posting the photos, the swimmers may have brought themselves and the team into disrepute.

That would be redundant. These two swimmers have already blotted their copybooks. I doubt that this would be an issue if Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk weren't better known for bad behaviour out of the pool than great performances in the water. D'Arcy king-hit another swimmer, putting him in hospital, and Monk stacked his skateboard, then made a police report that he'd been in a hit-n-run. 

It's a fact that of the hundreds of athletes representing Australia in London this year, D'Arcy and Monk will be watched more closely and punished more severely if they do something dumb. We're seeing evidence of that already. They should bear it in mind before doing anything that could be considered even marginally risky. 

I wish that was the end of it; it's not.

Kenrick and D'Arcy may have to front the AOC to explain why they should keep their places in the Olympic team. I'm not a fan of either of these swimmers, purely due to their previous acts of stupidity, but enough is enough. In this case, there was no malice, no violence, no-one was hurt and no intent to deceive: just a couple of immature guys and a trigger-happy authority calling the shots.

Note: The photo in question was removed from Facebook when instructed by Swimming Australia officials, but the Internet is forever. A quick Google search will yield multiple copies of the image.