Editorial

The media has long had cause to complain about FINA’s poor record keeping, the history of the sport, results, statistics and eating kept by others not the federation down the years. The gap in factual book-keeping and respect to and of the thread of history in swimming is all the more obvious at times of major competition and when the international federation decides to start a new record book. In the past two seasons, that has witnessed the arrival of world junior standards after many years of such things having been recorded as world best times. With no foundation of its own on which to base the junior records, FINA opted for standard times that it could rely on – last time out.

In Baku at the European Junior Championships, new lines were written in global youth standards. Guest author and coach Clive Rushton was among those who went to look for context in the lists of FINA’s records count. What he found was a disappointment of information, some standards many months old still registered as pending; some standards registered as world marks when there is no such thing for the event in question; and a rule book in need of re-writing.

Clive Rushton: What is going on at FINA (Rhetorical!)

Anton Chupov broke the World Junior Record (WJR) with his 1:00.65 100 breast in Baku, beating his 1:00.84 from Nanjing in August last year, so I felt driven to the woolly website that is fina.org (The redundant splash page says “CLIQUE TO ENTER”, or are my glasses distorting things?)

Scrolling down the WJR listings I found some interesting anomalies and misrepresentations and some very thought-provoking inclusions. Firstly, many junior swims are highlighted as “World Best Time” whereas we all know these performances are ‘merely’ the fastest junior times from the WJ Championships preceding the advent of WJRs and, therefore, should be listed as WJChR.

There are many, many historically faster times from previous decades which Swimvortex ably illustrated when the WJR categories were announced. There is nothing in the FINA Rules which nullifies any ‘junior’ age performance prior to the introduction of official WJRs so, of course, those historical performances should be the World Best Time for juniors.

Maybe FINA is showing a lack of confidence in its historical results’ database. Secondly, there is only one 25m WJR listed – Shion Sakaguchi’s very fast 0:26.76 50m butterfly from March of this year in Tokyo and that is “pending”.

The word’s meaning here is ‘awaiting decision or settlement’. FINA Rules (SW 12.17) say, “On receipt of the official application, and upon satisfaction that the information contained in the application, including a negative doping control test certificate, is accurate, the Honorary Secretary of FINA shall declare the new World Record or World Junior Record, see that such information is published, …” etc.

So unless there was a problem with the official application, or Sakaguchi’s doping test did not return negative, the declaration should have been straightforward.

However, March is relatively recent so we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one. If FINA can take two years to respond to a WADA request for information then I guess a few months is no big deal. Thirdly, the 25m WJRs only came into effect January 1 of this year so a list of [very fast] times are listed as ‘standards’.

FINA in focus: Julio Maglione, top right, is the latest in a line of federation presidents going back to George Hearn in 1908 – and Maglione appears to be more interested in holding on to office than keeping a good record

Sakaguchi’s time is under (way under!) the published standard of 0:27.90. SW 12.21 says new event standards will be listed as “Target Times” but the official listing is (again) headed “World Best Times”. However, SW 12.21 also says, “if a swimmer achieves a time that is better than the Target Time, it shall be considered a World Record or World Junior Record, as long as all requirements in SW 12 are met.”

SW 12 ONLY applies to lead-off swims in single sex relays so no individual swims are covered by that “Target Time”/”World Best Time” categorization. When I used the word woolly in my second paragraph I wasn’t being overly-critical. Yes, I’m nit-picking but the whole rule book needs throwing away and a completely fresh start made; blank sheet of paper, green-field site, all that sort of thing – it is riddled with ambiguous and misleading statements, definitions, and descriptions.

Precision of language is important, nay vital, where the accurate history of our sport is concerned.

Fourthly, and this is by far the more interesting observation which alerted my “conspiracy” antenna, especially after the aforementioned recent announcement of Kylie Palmer’s “long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” negative test. Katie Ledecky’s 400m and 1500m swims from the 2014 Pan Pacs in Australia are listed as “pending”.

The swims were done on August 23 and 24, respectively so they are now 10 months old but have not been ratified. They were also ‘Open’ (a.k.a. real) WRs but they are described as “pending” in that list also. Was there a problem with the WJR or the WR submission? Refer back to SW 12.17: did USA/AUS complete the form correctly?

• Oh, I forgot, the WR application form doesn’t apply to WRs does it?

Katie Ledecky, the outstanding swimmer of 2014 [By Peter Bick]

Ledecky’s 800 free LC record of June 22 2014 has been ratified and it’s the responsibility of the Honorary Secretary of FINA (SW 12.17) to declare WRs and ensure their publication. What has he been doing in the meantime? Busy doing other non-Ledecky things it would appear: Daniel Guyurta’s 200m SC breaststroke (August 31, 2014) has been ratified.

Chad Le Clos’s 100 LC butterfly (December 4) has been ratified. Florent Manaudou’s 50m SC freestyle from December 6 last year has been ratified, as has his 50m backstroke from the following day. Markus Deibler’s 100 SC IM (December 14) has been ratified, as has the Russian men’s SC 4 x 50 FR.

On the women’s side, Sarah Sjőstrőm, Mireia Belmonte, Etiene Medeiros, Katinka Hosszu, and Alia Atkinson (“joint holder”), as well as the Netherlands’, Danish and USA relays from last December have all had records ratified but Ledecky’s haven’t.

Do FINA have a vendetta against Katie Ledecky or her camp? Do they simply not care about timeliness and conscientious processing, reporting, and record keeping, or are there more sinister underpinnings to these delays?

They ignored Ledecky for World Swimmer of the Year when it was blindingly obvious to the 99.9999% of the swimming community who are not a ‘joined at the hip’ part of ‘The FINA Family’ that she should have been awarded the title by acclamation, but the inclusion of other swimmers in the months and months old “pending’ list would suggest the issues may not be restricted to just Katie Ledecky.

The Australia’s women’s 4x100FR from July 24, 2014 (Commonwealth Games) is listed as “pending” – that’s eleven months ago, even longer in the distant past than Ledecky’s swims.

World record Pioneer Adam Peaty in London by
Gian Mattia D’Alberto / lapresse

Adam Peaty’s stunning 100m breast record from April 17 this year is “pending” but we’ll forgive them the two month delay. Peaty’s 50m record, however, is a different matter; that was done on August 22, 2014 so again, FINA is 10 months in arrears.

Peaty was also involved in Britain’s “pending” WR for the 4x100m mixed medley set at the European Championships August 19 last year. FINA’s official list shows Peaty doing backstroke and Christopher Walker-Hebborn stealing Peaty’s breaststroke spot – don’t they like the guy?

The ratified short course records mentioned earlier were all swims done during the 2014 World Cup circuit so they are processed under Rule SW 12.18: “All records made during the Olympic Games, World Championships, World Junior Swimming Championships and World Cups shall be automatically approved.” These records were from official FINA events which are deemed to be totally above board in their operation.

However, however, however ….. what do we find? Brazil’s men’s 4 x 50 medley relay from Doha (December 4) is also “pending”. Why? What’s the hold up? It was done during the World Championships. It’s an automatic approval. Readers who are still awake and paying attention will remember that Joao Gomes Junior, who swam breaststroke in the heats of all three medley relays in Doha, tested positive for a masking agent which was present in his caffeine supplement.

According to the FINA Doping Panel (DP) report Gomes did not mention the caffeine supplement in his test declaration. The Pharmacy supplying the contaminated caffeine supplement admitted their manufacturing processes were responsible for the contamination and Gomes’ evidence to the DP that he did not deliberately take an illegal substance, nor was he trying to enhance his performance, was described as “credible and persuasive.”

The DP deemed him to be the victim even though he didn’t declare the supplement and the supplement contained an illegal substance but we all know that is irrelevant. Rules are rules. Or are they? The Doping Panel report states:

“According to FINA DC 10.8 all competitive results obtained from the date of the sample through the commencement of any provisional suspension, or ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise be disqualified.”

So Gomes was found guilty and suspended and his relay swim in the morning of December 4 should have been DQ’d. That means the relay should have been DQ’d right?

Let’s try FINA DC 11.1: “Where any anti-doping rule has been violated by a member of a relay team or a duet or team in synchronised swimming or synchronised diving, the duet or team shall be Disqualified from the Event.” So, yes, Brazil should have been gone and their three medley relay golds should have been melted down, but their final swim is listed as a “pending” WR.

Here’s the loophole: FINA DC 10.8 gives the DP discretion to NOT automatically disqualify the results in an Event … for reasons of fairness.”

“After serious deliberation” (that’s reassuring!) they decided that the suspension decision, “could not impact the team result of Brazil [in the medley relay].”

So DC 10.8 means DC 11.1 is a complete waste of ink on paper and pixels on graphical displays. It is meaningless. In the interests of “fairness” DC 11.1 should be removed. Gomes swam the heats of both the men’s and mixed 4×50 MRs on Dec. 4 (the day of the positive test) and, three days later, the heats of the 4x100MR.

Gomes was replaced by Felipe Franca Silva and Brazil won all three finals. Franca Silva is already in possession of an asterisk for a positive test. In the men only relays Franca Silva was also joined in the final by Cesar Cielo*. The heats and the final of the 4x50MR also contained Nicholas dos Santos*. Asterisks are common in Brazil.

The Asterisk That Swimming Must Tow

The word derives from the Greek meaning “little star” – I can think of a new definition. I wonder how long it will take for a country to put up a totally asterisk’d relay? Someone should put up a D**msday Date Counter.

Why would Katie Ledecky, Adam Peaty, and the British and Australian relays (no asterisks to be found anywhere) be categorized as “pending”, up to eleven months after laying down their performances, in exactly the same way as a Brazilian relay comprising two swimmers already sporting asterisks and which qualified to swim the “world-record” performance using a swimmer who tested positive on the very day of the qualification?

What is going on at FINA?

Maybe my opening question wasn’t rhetorical after all. Summing up: a relay swim, which should not be recognized, is listed as a “pending” world record. Other individual swims, of which we have no untoward reports, are also listed as “pending” almost a full year after they were achieved. I am not seeing shadows here, I’m seeing reflections. I expect we shall all subsequently see and hear smoke and mirrors.

* – the asterisk being used by SwimVortex when a swimmer has tested positive in their career