Not So Intelligent

By David

I’ve long been a fan of the scholarship of Jonty Skinner. His works on a wide range of swimming subjects have provided insight and wisdom to a generation of coaches. However, his most recent article published in the American Swim Coaches Association Newsletter Volume 2009-01 falls well short of his own high standards.

Before addressing the shortcoming in Jonty Skinner’s work, I find it quite extraordinary that the American Swim Coaches Association continue to publish article after article critical of modern swim suits. There are some things in this sport that are worthy of universal condemnation; for example, smoking bongs, popping steroids, fighting outside bars. Swimsuits are not in that category. There are valid arguments for and against full body suits. An organization that promotes itself as representing all of its members has a duty to address both sides of this sort of debate, not just the views of its executive. In this duty, the American Swim Coaches Association has failed its membership. Their discussion on this subject has been biased, one sided and unenlightened.

But back to Jonty Skinner’s article. Here is a list of what I mean.

“Technological progress – shouldn’t come at the price we appear to have paid.”

And what price is that? Skinner does not tell us. Perhaps he expects us to nod like robots and shrink in fear at the dangers of these body suits. I call it Bush logic. George W. Bush did this all the time: weapons of mass destruction, world terrorism – none of it supported, most of it not even true, just the threat, just the fear. Skinner has learned the Bush logic well.

“These changes have left us all on a slippery slope.”

That sounds bad even if we don’t know what the slippery slope means. And the ultimate Bushism; all this is seriously dangerous when FINA are “not dealing with it very well.” My God we face these dangers and we’re unprotected – call in the Marines; invade Switzerland. Now, I’m no great fan of FINA but the truth is FINA are doing quite a good job of sorting out what swim suits are fair. But that’s not news the conservative wing of swimming want to hear.

And then there is this gem:

“Having said that we’ve just gone through two summers where performances have been radically altered by the suits.”

Again, no evidence is provided to support that outrageous claim. Just because different suits were introduced and swimmers broke records does not prove the suits were the sole cause. And Jonty Skinner should know that. Two events occurring at the same time are not sufficient to establish that one caused the other. What else coincided with swimmers setting these new records? Were swimmers paid more? Did more swimmers have swimming as their sole occupation? Did they have access to better training, nutrition, medical backup and administration support? The answer to all those is yes, yes and yes. Does Jonty Skinner consider any of that? No, it’s just the suits.

But then the ultimate dishonesty – the perfect Bushism:

“Why accept something as genuine when you can tear it down by speculating about the possibility of drugs? You don’t even have to provide evidence; rumors do the job. My own feeling is that it’s not a suggestion I care to make.”

Here, in the middle of an article so full of speculation and rumour, Skinner feels the need to publish a denial just in case anyone picks the deception. In this context “It’s not a suggestion I care to make” is in the same league as, “I don’t want to be rude, but.” Because the sin is denied does not mean it has not occurred. Jonty Skinner may not feel like making a myriad of negative rumours and suggestions. That has not stopped him from doing it.

Although Skinner is South African by birth, he concludes his article with a classic piece of Americana – the French are cheats:

“The suits reduced the function of endurance in the equation. The French sprinters could now finish races with sustained velocity using in some cases inferior techniques.”

So there you have it: the French are unfit and don’t swim as well as Americans. In fact, their fitness and technique are bloody awful. But because of the new suits, those cunning Froggies can now beat us, something they would never be able to do unless they were up to no good. This sort of talk is dishonest and un-American. Clearly the new suits need to be changed if those hideous and inferior French swimmers are using them to unfairly beat clean cut, honest Americans. Jonty Skinner, you should be ashamed.

And in the final paragraph we hear that “the suit is impacting performance on a metabolic and biomechanical level.” Now most readers will know that if your goal is to impress the not-so-bright, use long words. As a final insult to our intelligence Skinner has resorted to that ploy. Certainly metabolic and biomechanical will do. Skinner’s case would have been better served had he spent more time explaining just how the new suits altered a swimmer’s metabolic or biomechanical anything. Certainly that would have been more constructive than depreciating the performance of good French swimmers.

We are unimpressed.

Strange Buggers

By David

Thanks to swimming, I’ve met some strange buggers. There may be a few poor souls who do not appreciate the full measure of being a "strange bugger". I feel for your burden. Clearly “no child left behind” has failed to provide you with an important life skill. Not being able to determine who in this world is a strange bugger could cost you dearly one day. Let me take a minute to explain something you should already know.

Where I come from, a “strange bugger” is a gentle derogatory term used to describe someone who’s a bit odd; an individual with few social skills; someone you’d avoid having lunch with between preliminaries and finals. There are a few swim coaches I know who are strange buggers. One of them was a New Zealand Special Olympics National Coach. He always seemed angry about something. He was one of those unfortunate souls who got far too nervous for his own athletes, developing a predilection towards beating himself on the bum with a rolled up meet programme while his swimmers were competing. Two hundred pounds lighter, on a horse in the Melbourne Cup, his behaviour would be entirely appropriate. But as a coach at a swim meet, it comfortable qualified him as a strange bugger.

One of the guys Swimming New Zealand had as their CEO was a strange bugger. He was a short fellow who displayed all the unfortunate characteristics commonly attributed to those physically challenged in the height department. I had a couple of run-ins with him. Most memorable was the occasion he threatened to have Toni Jeffs and I banned for bringing the sport into disrepute when Toni accepted sponsorship from Brian le Gross, the owner of Wellington’s Liks strip club. Brian now owns New Zealand’s largest strip club, The White House, in Auckland. Their VIP lounge features dark blue Oval Office carpet, a US Presidential Seal and is called Monica’s.

Swimming New Zealand took an extremely dim view of the Liks’ sponsorship. Their strange bugger called me and recited a list well worn clichés: “family sport” and “disrepute” featured prominently. I was summoned to a meeting with Swimming New Zealand’s Board the following morning. Things were looking pretty black until I explained to the meeting that the idea of approaching Brian for financial help came from an advertisement promoting Liks that I’d seen on the back page of Swimming New Zealand’s monthly magazine. The strange bugger had accepted Brian’s money before Toni. She just got more. The charge of disrepute was dropped.

One of Swimming New Zealand’s long time National Coaches was a strange bugger. He ripped into Jane in a Sydney hotel once; told her she was not good enough to be swimming in World Cup events and should go home. A week later at a World Cup meet in Berlin she broke the 15 year age group national record for 100IM. Two years later, he had to present her with the medal for winning the NZ Open women’s 100 Breaststroke title. The same guy may actually qualify for the superlative, “bloody strange bugger”. Toni told me he asked her and several other national team members to sit in a circle and hold on to a broom handle he held in the centre. They should then close their eyes and think about their race because, he said, “Out of touching comes strength.” Now that’s a bloody strange bugger, if you ask me.

The current New Zealand National Coach is a strange bugger as well. In a country too small for such a rule she imposed a FINA 900 point cut off standard for swimmers wanting to qualify for this year’s World Championships. The qualifying time had to be swum in the final of the New Zealand Swimming Championships being held this past weekend. Melissa Ingram just missed the 900 point time in her event. Now, I must tell you, I sat through all last year’s World Cup meets in Europe and watched Melissa Ingram take on and beat most of the world’s best swimmers. She made me proud to be a New Zealander. There she was, no manager, no coach, no massage therapist in tow, on her own, taking on the world and winning. In everything she did, she upheld the best traditions of Snell, Loader, Walker, Halberg, Quax and Dixon. She’d be one of the first I’d have on my team. Apparently New Zealand is so overwhelmed with talent just now they’re leaving her at home. Let’s wait until Rome. We may have another National Coach candidate for title of “bloody strange bugger”.

Strange buggers are not the sole property of New Zealand. The US has its share. The former President of Florida Gold Coast Swimming sent me a letter complaining about my behaviour – I think I called a spade a bloody shovel. At the same time he was apparently misbehaving with an underaged girl and emailing pornographic pictures of young boys to his mates. He’s a real bad strange bugger. The thing I never understood about all that was one of my swimmers told me about the girl a few months after I arrived in Florida. How on earth did the people who elected this strange bugger President not know about it? I guess those closest to the problem often miss the obvious.

Next week I was thinking of writing a piece on another group of swimming people; those who qualify for the superlative, “bloody dag”. This is a very different group from strange buggers. I hate to have to explain what a dag actually is, and it is surely a reflection of what strange places Australian and New Zealand are that only the very best and most respected of people qualify for that honorific.

The Cautionary Case of Nick D'Arcy

... or why we were not surprised.

By Jane

Last week, Australian swimmer Nick D'Arcy received a fourteen-month suspended sentence for his March 2008 assault on former Australian breaststroke star Simon Cowley. If you're into swimming, you know about this. The assault took place hours--not days--after D'Arcy won the 200m butterfly at the Australian Olympic Trials, supposedly securing his place on the country's Olympic team. The injuries inflicted when the mean end of D'Arcy's elbow connected with Cowley disfigured Cowley enough to require metal plates be implanted in his face. D'Arcy was accordingly thrown off the Australian swim team. Almost exactly a year after the assault, he has qualified to swim in the Rome World Championships and has been handed his official punishment.

It was a horrifying incident and it sullied the name of swimming, a sport generally regarded as being relatively violence-free. In all the discussion about the fight, however, something very troubling was barely touched upon, and it's something only a member of the swimming community could really vocalise. It was the fact that many of us were not at all surprised.

Of course we were surprised. No one imagines that a newly-crowned national champion and Olympian would allow himself to do something the likes of what D'Arcy did. Living in the United States at the time (a country not nearly as obsessed with swimming as Australia), I didn't find out about the fight until I went to Sydney at the beginning of April. Sitting in a Sydney bar and listening to the story, about a kilometre from the scene of the fight, I couldn't believe swimming had descended to the level of rugby league and British football. We're nice kids. We don't do things like destroy each other's faces.

But hindsight is really interesting, and now, a year on, I am not surprised. In fact, it's amazing that it took until 2008 for someone to do something like this.

When I began swimming well, I was about fifteen and it was 1999. I am two and a half years older than Nick D'Arcy and I never knew him, but I knew the two generations of male swimmers who came before him. They were not saints, but their culture was different.

You had your smart-arses and your idiots, and we all liked a drink, but I remember there being a lack of serious machismo in those people. When I say serious, I mean that they did not take themselves as seriously as they might have. Fantastic athletes like James Hickman of Great Britain and Bill Kirby from Australia were polite and personable, and certainly never displayed any tendancy towards violence. A few years later, I'd find some of their successors, across many countries, to be very different. Suddenly, a selection of the Aussie guys no longer smiled at you: they leered at you with curled lips and suggestive expressions. They weren't the types of people you'd want to be around when they'd been drinking, and you'd never let yourself be alone with them, alcohol or not. You had your notable exceptions from the previous generation, such as the disgraced Scott Miller, but the culture was not one in which anyone felt uncomfortable.

Sometime in between the year 2000 and March 31, 2008, a culture grew in swimming where some of these guys really believed that they were all that. I speak from experience and opinion alone, but some of them believed their own hype to the extent that they thought they should have anything and anyone they wanted. The eventual result of a culture like this is usually an incident like that between D'Arcy and Cowley. However, it's only a 'wake-up call' if the community realises what really happened.

Again, I'm not saying that the 1999 generation were angels, but they were different. Some will blame this on money: get good enough nowadays, and swimming can now make you very rich. I don't necessarily believe that this is the crux of the problem; however, I do believe that those people in charge of swimming federations worldwide should be very mindful of the culture building in their midst. There is a marked difference between having 21 year olds misbehave, spend all night after a competition at bars, puke in a gutter and even mouth off at a teammate, and letting a culture manifest where menacing arrogance is acceptable. When I think about what I saw become acceptable swimming culture, I'm not surprised that Nick D'Arcy did what he did.

It isn't that far fetched that swimming could be let to turn into rugby league or European football, where every second week wouldn't be complete without a competitor being hauled before a judge for smacking someone around. I know a lot of swimmers who do embody the characteristics of those people who were great in the 90s. My father coaches some of them in Florida. In other parts of the world, however, there's a dangerous culture brewing. Let D'Arcy's case be a warning, and stifle a culture that could turn swimming into something none of us want it to be.

D = Square Root of (X2 – X1)2 + (Y2 – Y1)2

By David

Last week, an American swim coaching magazine spent several pages discussing distance. In case you’re not familiar with the concept of distance, I’ve used the mathematical formula as the title to this article. I happen to be a strong supporter of distance: not the formula, but distance training. No one who has been an Arthur Lydiard disciple for as long as I have could be anything else.

Our team has just completed their ten week aerobic conditioning build up in preparation for the 2009 summer season. The table below shows the distances several swimmers covered each week and their total for the period.

Skuba’s 880 kilometers is a long way to swim. It’s not the best I’ve seen. Both Toni Jeffs and Jane Copland got through 1000 kilometers in the ten weeks. Jane did it on several occasions [Editor's note: I think it was only twice :)]. However, 880 kilometers is certainly world class distance conditioning. The lost 50 kilometers in week five, when Skuba was ill with a flu type bug that went around the team, cost him the chance of a build up in excess of 900 kilometers. This build up was Skuba’s first attempt at a full tens and was a very good effort. It will yield beneficial physiological changes that will result in faster swim times; but more of that later.

Just as impressive was the build up by 12-year-old Jamie. An average of 66 kilometers a week for ten weeks at 12 is the best I’ve seen from a swimmer of her age. An average of 58 kilometers by the other twelve year old, Catalina, is the second best I’ve seen. Whoever said young swimmers couldn’t swim these distances never saw these two girls. Part way through the build up Jamie’s Dad was officiating at a local swim meet. One of the officials from another club asked him how far his daughter swam each week. Jamie’s Dad said, “About 70 kilometers.” The official said that was clearly a mistake. No 12 year old could swim that sort of distance. Our incredulous friend probably does not read Swimwatch, but if he does, she sure as hell can.

On the final Saturday of each season’s build up I set the team a 600 meter time trial as a test of their aerobic conditioning. Obviously, after all that long distance training swimmers are in no shape to race fast. They should however be aerobically fit enough to swim 600 meters at a good pace with even 100 meter splits. I look for two things in this trial session. Has the overall time improved from the same swim last season and are the splits for each 100 even? The table below shows the total and split times for the last three 600 trials swum by three of the swimmers.

It may be of interest to see the result of a 600 meter breaststroke trial that I thought was pretty impressive. Jane swam it at the end of a 1000 kilometer build up and about twelve weeks before she won her first New Zealand national championship and broke her first New Zealand open record.

When it comes to distance conditioning, obviously I agree with Councilman and Lydiard. For those who may have doubts consider these factors:

1. In Jane’s 600 meter breaststroke trial she swam 2.38 for the first 200 meters and 2.39 for the last 200 meters. That’s a pretty good sign of sound, deep seated aerobic fitness.
2. A 12 year old female whose best race times before this build up were, 100 meters 1.12, 200 meters 2.35 and 400 meters 5.08 swam these distances during this 600 trial in 1.09, 2.25 and 4.57. That’s another pretty good sign of improved aerobic fitness.
3. Skuba swam his first trial a year ago after having three years away from the sport. Two more build ups and this trial was 3% faster. That too is a pretty good sign of improved aerobic fitness. Faster race times will certainly result.

As you can see, although the swims are aerobic they are not exactly slow. Lydiard is often credited with being the father of the “long slow distance method” of training. He was not. Just try and swim 600 meters in 6.30 or 600 meters breaststroke in 8.00 minutes after completing 1000km in ten weeks. These times are not slow. And yet, to well-conditioned swimmers, they are still aerobic efforts. To their anaerobically over-trained peers, swims such as these would be impossible aerobically and maybe anaerobically as well. In this principle lies the reason our runners can’t get anywhere near the African athletes. It’s called aerobic conditioning. You get it by long, fast aerobic effort over many, many miles. Hold on to that idea, it might make you a champion one day.

Bloomers and Black Stockings

By David

On December 19, 2008 Swimwatch published a story called “Much Ado About Neoprene”. The article discussed the implications of a meeting FINA was scheduled to have with 16 swimwear manufacturers. The purpose of the meeting was to recommend amendments to the “FINA Requirements for Swimwear Approval”. Amendments, FINA thought, were needed to control the technology being applied to swimsuit manufacture. The recommendations would then be considered by the FINA Bureau at its March meeting in Dubai. That Bureau certainly does themselves well in the exotic locations department.

Arguably the suit that started it all, the Speedo LZR Racer

The meeting with the 16 manufacturers has been held. The recommendations have been published. Here is what the delegates in Dubai will consider.

• Swimsuits shall not cover the cover the neck nor extend past the shoulder or ankles.
• The material shall have a maximum thickness of 1mm; it will follow the body shape and shall not create air trapping effects.
• The swimsuit shall not have a buoyancy effect of more than 1 Newton.
• Any system of external stimulation is prohibited.
• Swimsuits must not be modified for individual swimmers.
• Swimmers can only wear one suit at a time.
• FINA will establish a swimsuit control/testing program.

I have no idea whether these controls ensure swimsuits are fair and honest. They seem sensible, but then I don’t even know what one Newton means. There is a certain irony in the rule demanding suits do not cover a swimmer’s arms. It was not so long ago that the same organisation insisted girls cover those extremities. In the not-so-distant-past, this organisation would have had swimmers wearing men's shorts like this for the 100 butterfly, and women's bloomers along these lines for the 200 IM. This does not cheat former swimmers out of their achievements; it is simply the natural progression of the sport and its technology.

The recommendations conclude with a statement from FINA President, Mustapha Larfaoui that says, “While we need to remain open to evolution, the most important factors must be the athlete’s preparation and physical condition on achieving their performances.”

Larfaoui does not explain himself very well. Preparation and physical condition are just as much evolution as new swimsuits. However, if he means what I think he means, then he is quite right. Preparation and physical condition should be foremost in determining the quality of a swimming performance. If the seven recommendations coming out of Switzerland help ensure that is the case, then we can be well pleased. What I don’t understand is why the clearly stated efforts of some companies to push the technology envelope come in for such suspicion. Pushing technology is not necessarily cheating – it’s not even maybe cheating.

Take Rocket Science Sport for example. Their CEO is a guy called Marcin Sochacki. He’s quite open about his goals. Here’s what he says, “Our Company has pushed the edge of technology and perhaps designed a suit that is ahead of its time. The swimsuit complies with all the proposed regulations including buoyancy and thickness except for the length of the sleeve. I do not see this as a set back but proof that our company walks on the razor’s edge in pursuit of technology and innovation. We have a sleeveless version that we look forward to seeing on swimmers in Rome.”

I like that attitude. It’s the way progress is made. Equipment manufacturers do the same thing all the time. Anti-turbulence lane lines, the new Omega starting blocks, improved pool water flow characteristics, deeper pools – there are a million things that give 2009 swimmers a technological edge over their 1960 mates. Thanks to people like Marcin Sochacki, we make progress and that’s a good thing. A favourite hobby of mine is pouring over the US Swimming rule book searching for a rule that might give a clue on how to steal an advantage – not an illegitimate advantage, just an advantage. Upward fly kicks in a breaststroke kick, fly kicks after a turn, delayed breaststroke kicks, track starts and a dozen other innovations are all the result of someone being ahead of their time. So if Rocket Science Sport is trying to do the same thing for swimsuits that I’m trying to do in the pool, then all power to them. That’s not cheating; that’s just “the pursuit of technology and innovation.” It is change that should be welcomed and embraced.

Some dinosaurs, Craig Lord for example, see perils in just about every innovation. He even called the new swim suits “steroid swim suits”. He appears to go to some lengths to exclude Speedo and Arena from that label. I’ve never quite understood why. Why are the suits made by those companies any different? Did they take him to the Ritz for lunch or something? Fortunately Lord’s respect, and hopefully traffic, is declining faster than the New York Stock Exchange. I too hope Rocket Science has swimmers in Rome wearing their suits. I hope I have swimmers in London wearing them. That would certainly be better than some who wish is to see us all in bloomers and black stockings again.

Bad Karma

By David

The best sporting news of the week – no wait – the best sporting news of 2009 was announced last week on the New Zealand website, Stuff. Here is what it said.

Shares in iconic Kiwi whiteware manufacturer Fisher & Paykel have been smashed to record low levels – losing as much as 40 percent in value.

You must be as delighted as I am to hear that news. Isn’t it fantastic? The whole house of cards is about to come crashing down on Chief Executive, John Bongard, and the gang of recreants that run his company. The details of it all make even better reading. Bongard has had to accept a 7.5% cut in his $1.14 million dollar pay. For some reason, his cohorts are losing only 5%. The good news just goes on and on. Debt has increased by $122 million since March 2008 to $512 million and is expected to reach $570 million by the end of March 2009. Shares closed at a record of only $1 last Friday. In the 10 months to January, sales were down 13.1 percent in New Zealand, 8.5 per cent in Australia, 12.9 percent in the US and 10 percent in Europe.

In the best traditions of sport Bongard described the conditions faced by his team as “unprecedented and difficult”. And it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving subject. If there is such a thing as bad karma, Fisher & Paykel have got it in heaps and they deserve it all and probably more.

For those of you who have been climbing Mount Everest without oxygen or sailing alone around the world and have not heard of the circumstances that have brought such joy to the rest of the sporting world, let me explain. It all began in 2003 when New Zealander’s Russell Coutts and Brad Butterworth elected to sail for the America’s Cup challenger Alinghi against the cup holder, Team New Zealand. Led by Fisher & Paykel, Team New Zealand’s supporters branded their crusade the “Loyal” campaign. Silver fern flags featuring the word “Loyal” proudly flew from polished steel flag poles outside Fisher & Paykel’s corporate headquarters. New Zealand musician Dave Dobbin rolled out his old hit, “Loyal”. The country was obsessed. The flags were mass produced. The song, despite being released in 1988, became a huge hit once more.

But there was a dark side to all this hysteria. Letters threatening physical harm were sent to Coutts and Butterworth. New Zealanders, led by Fisher & Paykel, began to act in a manner that was alarming and dark. My country became a place I barely recognized. This had nothing to do with sport. This was not the way Lydiard or Hillary or Meads or Walker or even Coutts and Butterworth played the game. This was about power and money and fear: it was shameful.

But not nearly as shameful as Fisher & Paykel’s next trick; there they were leading a tsunami of national sporting hysteria in New Zealand and at the same time it was announced in Sydney that they had negotiated a million dollar deal to sponsor swimming in Australia. There was nothing wrong with the Australian deal. It was probably very good business and certainly got their brand well known in that country. What was not right was the beating they were giving two New Zealand yachtsmen for selling their services to the Swiss America’s Cup campaign at the same time as they were selling the Fisher & Paykel brand to foreigners and supporting Australian swimmers instead of New Zealnders. That was hypocritical beyond belief. For some reason though, they avoided the harsh publicity they deserved. I’ve never bought a Fisher & Paykel appliance since then and I never will, but I guess they’re not too worried about that.

Trick two, however, was even more scandalous. The company began a programme of shifting its manufacturing out of New Zealand to low cost labor markets in Mexico and Thailand. Again, there was nothing inherently wrong with that decision that does not happen in business and manufacteuring across the world, and neither this blog nor this post is primarily concerned with debating capitalism. However, when they so prominently took the America’s Cup moral high ground, when they played such an active role in forcing two proud and talented New Zealand athletes to hire ex-SAS body guards, when they preached the importance of national loyalty in business and sport – to abandon their country after all that pious posturing was despicable.

What goes around comes around. Coutts and Butterworth have prospered and Fisher & Paykel is on the bones of its bum. In a way, Fisher & Paykel may have been right all along. Honour and integrity are important in sport and business. Only in this case, it was New Zealand’s two sailors who displayed those qualities. Karma – it’s perfect.

Michael Phelps' Drug Scandal - USA Swimming Does Well

By David

Very few readers will have missed the news that USA Swimming have suspended Michael Phelps for three months and stopped his pay for the same length of time. Well done, you guys in Colorado; I'll admit I never thought you’d do it. I thought Phelps was untouchable: such a super star in your swimming universe that you’d mutter a few “bad boy, Michael”s and look the other way.

My skepticism was probably justified. Do you remember that shortly before the US Olympic Trials, USA Swimming’s Executive Director, Chuck Wielgus, said parents could happily get their children involved in swimming, knowing that in this sport there was none of the nasty drug misbehaving that went on in other sports. I can’t find the exact quote now but I think it included a reference to swimmers never getting involved in late night clubbing. It was always a dumb thing to say. Since Wielgus said it, Jessica Hardy has been caught with something performance enhancing in her system, Australian swimmer Nick D’Arcy has beaten up one of his mates outside an Australian nightclub and Michael Phelps’ Omega clad arm has been photographed clasping a bong.

I thought USA Swimming would continue with their rose colored glasses view of the sport; but they haven’t. Suspending Phelps and stopping his pay is an appropriate penalty. What Phelps did was dumb beyond belief. Given his status it was also a hugely bad example to young competitors in the sport. None of that means he should be punished more that anyone else. USA Swimming did the fair and proper thing.

Phelps’ apologies are beginning to wear a little thin. Several years ago – I think Phelps was seventeen – he was caught on a DUI charge. He quickly confessed and apologized. I was impressed. He was drinking underage and he was drunk in charge of a motor car, but he owned up, he took responsibility; it was time to move on. And now the bong. Sure, since the photograph he has followed the path that worked so well last time. He has apologized and publicly accepted USA Swimming’s reprimand. But at what point does the repetition of this behavior tell us Phelps is fast but he’s bad too? He must know that at the grass roots of swimming we are getting tired of explaining to thirty mini squad members why their hero is sucking on the end of a fancy looking glass tube. We’re making all sorts of excuses just now; citing words like mistakes and pressure. But keep doing it, Michael, and eventually we’re just going to say, it’s because you’re a bad bugger.

In that regard, USA Swimming’s decision has helped. Our message can now be, “Phelps did wrong and he’s been punished. That’s what happens if you do wrong.” I feel a lot better about that than the mistake and pressure routine.

Which is more that you can say for the clap-trap coming out of FINA’s posh office in Lucerne, Switzerland. They really gave it all the crocodile tears treatment; poor Michael he’s done so much for swimming, everyone makes mistakes, we want to see him swim really well at the World Championships later this year. Of course they began their piece with a “while we do not condone this sort of behavior” type message. The rest of it wasn’t even a slap with a wet bus ticket. You’d have thought Phelps had just won Mr. America. The guy was photographed at a party bubbling on a bong; FINA, that’s not a good thing. Are you sure there is not the sweet scent of something coming from your offices? Whoever came up with that public response should be fired for three months and made to swim across Lake Lucerne every day for no pay. Wake up, sober up take a look at what USA Swimming did and treat this sport with some respect.

So well done USA Swimming. Do much better next time FINA. And Phelps, for God’s sake, cut it out. Otherwise people are going to think you’ve been smoking too much of that stuff for far too long.