Swimming Canada recently published an article titled “Q&A with High Performance Director John Atkinson.” Some of the questions and answers made specific reference to elements from my recent articles, which got me excited. To continue the discussion, I decided to draft my own response to Swimming Canada’s article, section by section. Here it is.
I appreciate this segment clarifying John Atkinson’s title; I was under the impression it was actually “High-Performance-at-the-Expense-of-Everyone-Else-and-Consequently-at-the-Expense-of-High-Performance Director”.
I’m still waiting for evidence showing that resting and shaving for earlier meets “can compromise training and in turn results at Trials and in the summer.” Are there any sources to cite or is this just supposed to be assumed factual?
As I pointed out in my last article, and I will articulate again, many world-class swimmers repeatedly race fast over the duration of the short course season and then still throw down big performances at major international competitions in the summer. Again, during the 2013/2014 season Chad le Clos broke the short course 200 fly world record in Eindhoven on August 7th, broke it again in Singapore on November 5th three months later, and then managed to equal Ian Thorpe’s record seven medals in a single Commonwealth Games the following summer. Clearly his training wasn’t compromised too much while swimming fast for the duration of the World Cup circuit. Check out his impressive winning streak below:
Did Chad hold a single taper in 2013 from mid-July (to prepare to become World Champion in Barcelona before this circuit even began) through November? If not, something tells me he’s resting and shaving more than twice a year. If he is tapering for that entire stretch, it would seem heavy training during that time period is overrated.
Yes, I agree that Canadians should adopt a philosophy of preparing to be world-class, but what inspired the idea that world-class swimmers only rest and shave twice a year? Why shouldn’t Canadians model their seasons off Chad if they’re preparing to be world-class?
Canadian swimmers competing at the 2014 SC World Championships in December shouldn’t be resting or shaving according to John’s two tapers per year rule (at Trials and in the summer). So why is Canada even sending a team? John talks about Swimming Canada’s limited budget below – it seems like a big waste of money to fly swimmers to Doha if they’re not even allowed to prepare to race fast. Surely this money could be better allocated elsewhere. We could use a domestic focus meet around that time now that Canada Cup no longer exists.
The above paragraphs completely contradict Swimming Canada’s philosophy from last season. Did slower swimmers meeting age weighted criteria have “an increased likelihood of progressing beyond heats at major international competitions”? I find it fascinating that age weighted standards aren’t included in the selection criteria for next summer’s meets – why is that? Why aren’t the policies staying consistent? I’d love to hear the reasoning for this – last year, the inclusion of age weighted standards for Commonwealth Games and Pan Pacific Championships selection seemed to be an important component of Swimming Canada’s philosophy. If Swimming Canada isn’t confident enough in its own policies to keep them consistent, why should swimmers have any confidence in Swimming Canada?
I’d also love for somebody to explain to me what this sentence actually means: “By setting higher standards, athletes can maximize the number of swims they are shaved and tapered for at appropriate competitions.” Swimming Canada has been using jargon like “we have to set higher standards” for years, probably decades, and it doesn’t seem to help anybody. What does it even mean? I think most top Canadian swimmers are doing everything in their power to swim as fast as possible while fully aware of their world ranking. When you tell a national team member to “set higher standards” what are you actually telling them? That they suck?
“What we have been doing over the past few years has not made us systematically better.” Really? Selection for the Olympic Games in 2004 required meeting challenging time standards set by Swimming Canada that prevented every event winner at Trials from qualifying for the Games. It was a failed strategy; Canada got no swimming medals in 2004. Selection for every major international competition over the next eight years essentially used simple winner-goes criteria. In 2008, Canada got one swimming medal, and in 2012 it got three. In my eyes, that’s a gradual improvement.
John didn’t seem to offer any concrete reason for why we can’t use a “first to the wall” system for selection in Canada, even though it seemed to be working for us over the past two quadrennials. Why should a lack of financial resources, population base, and volume of registered competitive swimmers have any bearing on fairness, one of the most fundamental values in sport? The problem I see with “strategic investment in High Performance swimming” by “exploring other avenues” is that it compromises basic performance-reward incentives, and by extension, damages the swimming culture in Canada.
It’s great that Swimming Canada is using “On Track” times to identify swimmers to invest in. I placed 2nd at World Junior Championships back in 2008 – I had potential! Based on the High Performance criteria in the first paragraph, I would have been identified!
I’m just wondering how exactly Swimming Canada plans to invest in identified “On Track” swimmers to assist with continual improvement. Will identified swimmers be supported all the way into their elite career, or discarded once they’re too old?
First of all, I’ve meticulously examined the data for male medallists in London, and I concede that the average age was 24.5 rather than 25 (see “Notes” below for a full explanation and breakdown). I’m including the 10km open water event in my calculation. If you remove that event and the associated ages, the median age of male medallists in London does become 24. So I can’t help but wonder: how did Mr. Atkinson arrive at a median age of 24? Did he round down from 24.5 (I’m not a math expert, but I don’t think that’s a correct operation) or exclude the 10km open water from his calculation? I surely hope he didn’t exclude the 10km event – after all, Richard Weinberger earned one of Canada’s three swimming medals in that race. Surely his performance was valuable to Swimming Canada.
Secondly, how many swimmers demonstrate a “steady rate of improvement” over their entire careers? It seems unfair to apply that standard to all Canadians when not even our top swimmers continually improve; it’s a near impossible standard. I’m not trying to take anything away from Ryan Cochrane, but his mile didn’t get any faster over the four years between Beijing and London. He didn’t meet “continual improvement” requirements, and he’s our best swimmer – so why should everyone be held to that unrealistic standard?
Lastly, if I’m understanding the logic correctly, I’ll go ahead and propose that every swimmer in Canada who is a) over the age of 21 and b) lacking a World Championship medal quits swimming immediately. According to John Atkinson, you have not met Swimming Canada’s standard for High Performance and are not a worthy investment.
Comment and follow me on social media below!
Notes:
| Male Medallists at the 2012 London Olympic Games | Gold | Silver | Bronze |
| 50 free | Florent Manaudou, 21 | Cullen Jones, 28 | César Cielo, 25 |
| 100 free | Nathan Adrian, 23 | James Magnussen, 21 | Brent Hayden, 28 |
| 200 free | Yannick Agnel, 20 | Sun Yang, 20, Park Tae-hwan, 22 | Tie for silver |
| 400 free | Sun Yang, 20 | Park Tae-hwan, 22 | Peter Vanderkaay, 28 |
| 1500 free | Sun Yang, 20 | Ryan Cochrane, 23 | Oussama Mellouli, 28 |
| 100 back | Matt Grevers, 27 | Nick Thoman, 26 | Ryosuke Irie, 22 |
| 200 back | Tyler Clary, 23 | Ryosuke Irie, 22 | Ryan Lochte, 27 |
| 100 breast | Cameron van der Burgh, 24 | Christian Sprenger, 26 | Brendan Hansen, 30 |
| 200 breast | Dániel Gyurta, 23 | Michael Jamieson, 23 | Ryo Tateishi, 23 |
| 100 fly | Michael Phelps, 27 | Chad le Clos, 20, Yevgeny Korotyshkin, 29 | Tie for silver |
| 200 fly | Chad le Clos, 20 | Michael Phelps, 27 | Takeshi Matsuda, 28 |
| 200 I.M. | Michael Phelps, 27 | Ryan Lochte, 27 | László Cseh, 26 |
| 400 I.M. | Ryan Lochte, 27 | Thiago Pereira, 26 | Kosuke Hagino, 17 |
| 10 km Open Water | Oussama Mellouli, 28 | Thomas Lurz, 32 | Richard Weinberger, 22 |
17, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 21, 21, 22, 22, 22, 22, 22, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26, 26, 26, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 28, 28, 28, 28, 28, 28, 29, 30, 32
There are 42 data points, meaning the median falls between the 21st and 22nd oldest medallists. Those ages are 24 and 25, which, when averaged, become 24.5. I invite you to please double check my data.
The reason I mistakenly arrived at 25 in my last calculation is because I subtracted two years off the current age of the London medallists (based on their ages on Wikipedia) at the end of August 2014, when I wrote my first article. Since the Olympics actually happened a month earlier than that in 2012, there were some August birthdays that slightly changed the values – for example, Ryan Lochte turned 28 during the 2012 Olympics, so I changed his age to 27 for this round of calculation. This was my mistake, and it did effect the outcome slightly.
You could argue that a 24.5 year old is actually 24, but you could also argue that 24.5 rounds up to 25. It doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t change my argument.
He’s done it again: Matt is saying what is on everyone’s mind. Specifically, when he suggests that “I’m understanding the logic correctly, I’ll go ahead and propose that every swimmer in Canada who is a) over the age of 21 and b) lacking a World Championship medal quits swimming immediately. According to John Atkinson, you have not met Swimming Canada’s standard for High Performance and are not a worthy investment.”
Thank you for saying this. Thank you for pointing out the narrow-sightedness elitism that these policies have embraced. I am increasingly outraged at Swimming Canada. JA admits Canada is limited by population and by resources, and yet implements policy that both culls the swimming population, and costs NOT A DIME MORE to support (see: whether team is chosen based on first-to-the-wall or Priority 1-89.)
I fear damage to the Canadian swimming institution is already done.
LikeLike
Matthew, thank you for having the courage not to back down. SNC is clearly in damage control, which led to them releasing that Q & A . All they have done is shot themselves in the foot.
LikeLike
Good article Matthew! Keep asking the questions & make SNC staff accountable. I wonder if there is evaluation of SNC staff & jobs they do? I am sure SNC can feel the heat. Once again we have a petson in place who thinks he is smarter than the coaches in the field. Who has John A produced as an Olympic or World Champ medalist? Has he gotten support of Canadian Swim Coaches & Teachers Association for implementation of his selection criteria? Does he have the support of the coaches in the field? Are the swimmers supporting his vision? I guess we just need to be” tougher & make the tough choices to be better”.
LikeLike
I’m disappointed in John Atkinson’s clarification of what “high performance” means. Clearly he hasn’t learned from the USA’s top swimmers to put the emphasis on the first word.
LikeLike
While it is evident that John Atkinson is not the most articulate man when it comes to defining his policies, and equally evident that several of these policies are inherently flawed – for example, two sets of standards for swimmers of different ages to attend the same competition – it is difficult to argue with the assertion that Canada must begin to set higher standards if we wish to perform (win medals) at future Olympic Games. Yes, Canada won 3 medals in London, 1 in Beijing, and 0 in Athens, but how many did we win in Sydney, Atlanta, Barcelona, or Seoul? This isn’t to say that high standards alone are the solution, but what’s the point of sending a 55.1 100M backstroker to the Olympics when it’s clear that even if he goes 53.9 at the Games he won’t have any chance of making a final? The reality is that while we won 3 medals in London (all great swims) we managed to do this while making significantly fewer finals than in previous Games. And though some might consider this good, it’s actually bad. Quite simply, you need to be in the final in order to win the medals. And once you are in the final there is a relatively high probability that you will in fact win one of those medals. While it is possible to win 3 medals at an Olympic Games with as little as 3 finals swims, statistically speaking, over an extended period of time – say 20 years – the probability is dramatically reduced, and should revert to the norm. Anyway, the more finalists we can produce the better the odds are of winning medals. And to that end, the higher the standards we set here at home, the higher the odds that we will have swimmers capable of making finals at the Olympic Games. A “first-to-the-wall” selection criteria is not in itself “fair.” How is it fair that someone who is 40th or 50th in the world has access to the same resources as those athletes ranked in the top 8 in the world, or better yet, top 3 in the world? The answer to all this is to set high standards, and achieve them.
LikeLike
Increasing the number of swimmers making finals and/or winning medals at the major international meets (Olympics/World Championships) is a worthy and reasonable goal for Canadian swimming. What is troublesome here is twofold: The inherently flawed policies put in place in pursuit of said goal and the inherently flawed communication process put in place to pursue the inherently flawed goal. There has been a lack of transparency, seemingly little consultation amongst the swim coaches (particularly the accomplished ones), and a palpable disdain for the swimmers. I am not sure if this is an example of extreme arrogance or an example of true self-awareness in that Swimming Canada knew it would be a tough sell.
My concern is not only for high performance swimming – there is a powerful trickle down effect to the grass roots. Much headway has been made in recent years in the promotion of swimming as a reasonable choice for young Canadian athletes. Prime time television coverage and the expanded recognition factor beyond Michael Phelps to our
own Canadian role models – like Ryan Cochrane – has allowed many a young swimmer to dream big. There was momentum.
I fear that damage has already been done to the morale of the entire community. Swimming needs a strong grass roots – committed parent volunteers, supportive teammates, and an enthusiastic fan base are all necessary as we ‘lift up’ our most talented performers. We need to recruit the most promising athletes in significant numbers early on to ensure future success. The infrastructure needs to be in place and fully supported. There are lots of other options out there (hockey, soccer, tennis, baseball….) for families.
There is plenty of literature available on change management. Given the business and educational acumen of numerous known Canadian ex-swimmers (many who remain involved in the sport in some capacity), surely Swimming Canada can do better than this.
This is an important dialogue. I believe the conversation is exists here within the boundaries of true commitment and love for the sport by all parties. Respectful, honest, and vigorous debate creates better solutions.
LikeLike
Another well researched article Matthew.
Keep them accountable and in the hot seat.
Bravo!
A.
LikeLike
Allison’s comment about “…keeping them accountable” is on track – but perhaps not targeted. “Them” should start with the SNC Board. Are the members of the board in touch enough with their/our community to even know that there appears to be very little support for the selection policies their staff are promoting? Do they have any idea of the damage already done to Canadian Swimming in terms of lost opportunity and pending retirements? Perhaps someone should add all of their emails to the notification list for this blog?
LikeLike
If a swimmer reaches the wall first and makes the FINA ‘A’ standard, then why should they not be given the opportunity to compete? There is more to it than just winning medals. It is extremely discouraging for swimmers if they know they wont be able to medal but are able to make the FINA ‘A’ standard. They’ll be watching the Olympics and thinking to themselves, “if only I was from another country I would have competed at these Games, because I have met the standard set by FINA.” Surely Swimming Canada wants to encourage swimming and grow the sport, not the opposite.
If all Canada wants to do is win medals (which is an important part of the sport), then why not simply send the 3 swimmers who will be able to medal and save large amounts of money? It is one option, the option that Swimming Canada seems to be choosing, but personally I don’t think it’s the best option. Let the athletes compete, let them fulfill their goals, let them reach their dreams of competing at the Olympics, let them simply swim!
LikeLike
In sport the natural process has been athletes gather to perform at a designated time and those who perform at the highest level at that given time are recognised as “the best”.
This has been the process since the beginning of recorded sports history.
Any time one person or a small group come into power who claim to know better than the natural process they must be able to fully back up this new process.
If it is their truth they will know it balls to bones and can talk, argue or debate it fully with an endless amount of research and proof to back it up.
If they can not than it is a guess. Might be better but might not.
If there is not full openness to discussing their new better process then they appear to be afraid of being exposed as incorrect. Not much of a truth!
ja and company are now fully exposed as really not being able to talk, argue or debate it fully with even a substantial amount of research and proof to back it up.
ja is now defending his point at any cost to save himself from looking wrong.
This is human to defend even when one can see that one may be wrong.
This does not look like a system one wants to have in place training 22 hours a week for years upon years in hopes that this guy’s (ja) guess is better than the proven natural process since the beginning of sport on Earth.
“Identifying on track athletes” was attempted for years and never proven.
Communist Russia based all sport on that philosophy for years and years and it was never proven to be better than the natural process (even with all the chemicals).
Wow can ja really start dictating the best process for every athlete by passing the wealth of experienced coaches who work with these swimmers. All swimmers must…………….REALL??
There is an endless amount of roads to performing your best. If there was one road it would have been discovered a long long time ago.
The man in charge is now NOT looking at supporting or improving swimming in Canada he is defending a position for his own survival.
Remove him immediately.
Swim Canada is an entity that exists to listen, cooperate and support not bring the answer to an already hardworking extremely experienced group of dedicated coaches and athletes.
LikeLike
Oh wow I have so much to say about all of these articles. I think the most important one is the notion of not tapering blows my mind. Without a taper in 2009 at a meet that he would now consider useless, and it wouldn’t even be short course, I would never have broken my 200 breaststroke World Record. But I guess that’s not something he is looking for? I’m pretty sure I also swam pretty darn fast that summer, on my 3rd taper of the year.
LikeLike
Well done, Matthew. Swim Canada seems to think that there is only one way (theirs) to do anything that will lead to “success”. Canadian swimming was among the best in the late 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s and has steadily gone downhill since adopting such a policy. We don’t all have unlimited resources to spend on our developing athletes but in the past, swimmers who started their careers in small programs outside the major centres were developing into world class athletes as they moved on to university and beyond.
We need to encourage our young swimmers to stay in the sport and improve the numbers we have who are going on towards actual “senior” level swimming.
Not only is there more than one way to go towards success at that international level, we have to get more swimmers who stay in the water for a longer career.
The international level is not the only level. Swimming is a life long sport (look at the numbers involved in masters!) If we increase the numbers at the bottom, we will have a much greater chance of finding those few who will be competitive at the very top. And that includes all age groupers- which does not stop at age 12-13. We need to increase those numbers who stay in the water for a longer period of time.
I think the word arrogance might be used to describe the attitude.
LikeLike
It’s tough to be in Mr Atkinson’s position. We chose him he got the opportunity to turn our country into a strong program that honors it’s potential. He will not be successful if we nit pick and tear his words to pieces. We need to give the plan a chance. It is possible that his proposed solutions may turn our Senior swimming program around despite its perceived shortcomings. I know you where burned by his Iintiative and I feel for you, and you said your piece, and it is good feedback.
LikeLike
Well …….you were so wrong it’s unbelievable. I hope you ha e the guts to go and congratulate John and his team. Write an article saying how they got it right.
LikeLike