John Atkinson is being promoted to High Performance “Dictator” right under our noses. And we’re letting it happen.
The 2015 Canadian Swimming Trials, taking place April 1st – 4th in Toronto, will serve as Canada’s selection meet for World Championships in the summer. The best swimmers in the country will race to earn spots on Canada’s national team. However, the country’s fastest swimmers may not be the ones granted the opportunity to represent Canada at World Championships. In fact, results at Trials might not even matter very much.
After examining the selection criteria (which you can download below), I came to a startling conclusion: if Swimming Canada High Performance Director John Atkinson fully exercises his power, he will have complete control to decide who will represent Canada at the World Championships. Allow me to prove it to you, beginning with swimmer selection.
SELECTION CRITERIA – 16th FINA World Championships – Kazan 2015
Priority 1
Just like last year, national champions won’t necessarily get the chance to represent Canada at the top international meet of the year. First and second place finishers at the 2015 Canadian Trials will also be required to meet challenging time standards invented by Swimming Canada to be added to the World Championship roster.
How fast are these times? Let’s use the results from last year’s Canadian Trials, supposing they had occurred this year instead, to see how many swimmers would achieve a Primary Selection Standard. Every swimmer in the country that meets at least one of these standards using the 2014 results is listed below.
| Men | Women |
| Ryan Cochrane – 400 & 1500 free | Brittany MacLean – 200, 400, 800 free |
| Sinead Russell – 100 & 200 back | |
| Brooklyn Snodgrass – 100 back | |
| Geneviève Cantin – 200 back | |
| Katerine Savard – 100 & 200 fly | |
| Audrey Lacroix – 200 fly | |
| Erika Seltenreich-Hodgson – 200 & 400 IM |
A grand total of 1 male and 7 females are selected under Priority 1. By reorganizing the table by event, we can see how many spots on the World Championship team remain vacant.
| Event | Men | Women |
| 50 freestyle | ||
| 100 freestyle | ||
| 200 freestyle | MacLean | |
| 400 freestyle | Cochrane | MacLean |
| 1500 / 800 freestyle | Cochrane | MacLean |
| 100 backstroke | Russell, Snodgrass | |
| 200 backstroke | Russell, Cantin | |
| 100 breaststroke | ||
| 200 breaststroke | ||
| 100 butterfly | Savard | |
| 200 butterfly | Savard, Lacroix | |
| 200 Individual Medley | Seltenreich-Hodgson | |
| 400 Individual Medley | Seltenreich-Hodgson |
So far, there are 15 individual events without a single Canadian entry.
Again, let me stress that the above time standards are a Swimming Canada invention. By FINA standards (the international governing body of competitive swimming), Canada is good enough to send at least one swimmer per event to World Championships, if not two. Swimming Canada has the budget to send 52 athletes – it’s stated right at the top of the selection criteria document.
Only 8 of 52 possible spots are filled. So why wouldn’t we send each national champion to represent the country at World Championships? In the past, it has been argued that we can’t compare our selection process to that of countries like the USA because it has advantages in financial resources. But how could this be an acceptable excuse when we have the budget to send 52 swimmers to World Championships, same as the USA?
Instead of rewarding the swimmers that have invested thousands of hours into the sport and made a countless number of sacrifices climbing the top of their event, Swimming Canada is opting to send a majority of them a clear message: “You have failed. Go home.”
Priority 2
This priority appears to be nearly as redundant as it is complex. It hinges on a “Secondary Selection Standard” chart that I’m not going to bother posting here because the times are only slightly slower than the primary ones. To be added to the World Championship team, swimmers must meet two of the Secondary Selection Standards in two different events at Trials.
Using last year’s results, nobody accomplishes this. Victoria Poon, Tabitha Baumann, Russell Wood, Tera Van Beilen, Kierra Smith, Evan White, Marni Oldershaw, Alec Page, Luke Reilly, and Emily Overholt all place top two and achieve a Secondary Selection Standard in one event, but not the required two events.
Not a single swimmer is added to the team under Priority 2.
Priority 3
Here’s where we get our first taste of pure subjectivity. “In the event that injury, illness, or unforeseen circumstances of a significant nature inhibit a Swimmer’s preparation for the Selection Trials…” they can submit a request to the Selection Committee to be added to the World Championship Team. The entire quoted phrase is indefinable and could easily be twisted based on varying interpretations, so it’s impossible to predict who might be added to the team under this “Discretionary Selection.”
However, there is another condition: to be eligible, the swimmer must be ranked top 8 in the world in their event in 2014, using a maximum of two swimmers per country per event. The only Canadians meeting this criteria are Ryan Cochrane, Brittany MacLean, Katerine Savard, Hilary Caldwell, and Kierra Smith. These are the only swimmers that could possibly be added to the World Championship team under Priority 3 at the upcoming 2015 Trials.
Let’s continue with our example. Cochrane, MacLean, and Savard have already qualified for the team. Caldwell cannot be added to Canada’s roster because there is a maximum of two spots per event, and the 200 backstroke is already full. Kierra Smith is therefore the only potential candidate, based on her 200 breaststroke that ranked 7th in the world last year. Let’s be generous and assume her preparation for Trials is inhibited in some way, she submits a request, and the Selection Committee likes her enough to add her to the team.
That brings the total team roster up to 9 out of a potential 52, with only a single remaining priority level.
Buckle your seatbelts – this is where it gets interesting.
Priority 4
At first glance, the final priority appears to only concern relays. But read it carefully, and pay special attention to the wording.
Reread that highlighted portion. First of all, notice that John Atkinson has the complete authority to add whoever he wants to the World Championship team, which is insane enough. Second, notice it’s not explicitly stated that the swimmers he adds to the team are relay-only swimmers. It states he “may add swimmers to the team” (pause) “…to enhance the relays.” Yes, the last sentence does read “FINA regulations regarding relay-only swimmers also apply,” but that’s a separate clause that applies to relay-only swimmers. We haven’t determined that the swimmers being added to the team are necessarily relay-only swimmers. They’re being added to the team “to enhance the relays,” which is a vague concept.
Here’s what I’m suggesting: Priority 4 is worded in such a way that if John Atkinson fully exercises his power, he could fill spots on the World Championship roster by handpicking swimmers he likes regardless of results at Trials. Priority 4 is worded in an ambiguous way for a reason: it’s giving John Atkinson room to select his own squad of swimmers to “enhance the relays”, but bring them to World Championships as fully qualified team members and enter them in individual events. Effectively, he would be bypassing the Primary and Secondary Selection Standards to fill the team however he wants.
Let’s continue with our example. Right now, there are no relays to enhance because we don’t even have enough swimmers on the team to actually form complete relays.
| Event | Men | Women |
| 50 freestyle | ||
| 100 freestyle | ________ | ________ |
| 200 freestyle | ________ | MacLean |
| 400 freestyle | Cochrane | MacLean |
| 1500 / 800 freestyle | Cochrane | MacLean |
| 100 backstroke | ________ | Russell, Snodgrass |
| 200 backstroke | Russell, Cantin | |
| 100 breaststroke | ________ | ________ |
| 200 breaststroke | Smith | |
| 100 butterfly | ________ | Savard |
| 200 butterfly | Savard, Lacroix | |
| 200 Individual Medley | Seltenreich-Hodgson | |
| 400 Individual Medley | Seltenreich-Hodgson |
The relay events that lack even a single swimmer are highlighted. Based on the way the selection criteria is worded, there is nothing to stop John Atkinson from bringing whoever he chooses to World Championships to swim those individual events, as long as they qualify in FINA’s eyes. By FINA rules, a nation is allowed to enter at least one swimmer per event, provided they have swum a FINA “B” standard after March 1st, 2014. Notice this exact stipulation is included in Priority 4.
Therefore, the swimmers John Atkinson adds to the team theoretically don’t even have to attend Canadian Trials, as long as they’ve achieved a FINA “B” cut within the past year at a FINA sanctioned meet. The “B” times are wildly slower than Swimming Canada’s Selection Standards, but they qualify for World Championships.
Check out how many Canadians have already swum a FINA “B” time in each relay event since March of 2014, meaning they’ve already met FINA’s qualification requirement and could be selected by John Atkinson when he’s designing the World Championship team. Note that these numbers will only get bigger over the next few months, through Trials.
| Event | # of Males | # of Females |
| 100 freestyle | 16 | 24 |
| 200 freestyle | 18 | 18 |
| 100 backstroke | 9 | 17 |
| 100 breaststroke | 7 | 11 |
| 100 butterfly | 3 | 13 |
Dear national team members: do you see your name in the highlighted chart above? If not, the only way you would have qualified for the World Championship Team using last year’s results is if John Atkinson picked you. I know you plan on swimming faster this year and I know you must stay hopeful – I respect that, because I’ve been there – but, some questions you might want to consider while approaching the 2015 Trials are: “Does John Atkinson like me? Am I too old?”
For those that don’t know, last year’s selection criteria included “Age Weighted Standards” that allowed slower, younger swimmers to qualify for national teams ahead of faster, older swimmers. It was this discriminatory criteria that prevented my qualifying for any national teams last summer, and ultimately led to my retirement from the sport that I love and grew up with. I wrote about it here. Afterwards, John Atkinson stated without any explanation that Age Weighted Standards would not be included in the 2015 selection criteria. This was a lie. The “Age Weighted Standards” have been embedded into Priority 4, and this time it’s worse because there aren’t even any time rankings to remove bias. John Atkinson is in complete control to pick whoever he wants.
Which do you think is more damaging to Canadian swimming culture: punishing national champions by not sending them to World Championships, or rewarding young swimmers by adding them to the national team when they haven’t earned it yet? Newsflash: meddling with selection criteria does nothing except damage the performance-reward incentive system that is basic to sport. Do you really think a man writing down numbers in an office is going to improve the quality of Canadian performances?
Let’s look back at our example chart one last time. If John Atkinson fully exercises his power, he could pick one swimmer from each of the highlighted events and enter them in World Championships as if they had qualified for the team under Priority 1. That’s 7 swimmers of his choosing, added to the team “to enhance the relays”, which they would be doing, because they’d be swimming relays in addition to their individual events. Then he could handpick an additional 12 swimmers to take to World Championships as relay competitors; FINA allows nations that enter 6 relays to bring 12 relay-only swimmers, as long as they have a FINA “B” time.
That would wrap up Canadian World Championship Team selection. There would be 28 spots filled out of a possible 52, and more than two-thirds of the team would have been chosen by John Atkinson irrespective of results at Trials.
You might be thinking, “this is ridiculous. This won’t happen.” But then let me ask you: why is Priority 4 worded the way it is? If the intention is to add the fastest swimmers to the team, as it should be, why is Priority 4 worded so ambiguously, and why does John Atkinson have sole discretion in selecting swimmers? I’m showing what could happen if John Atkinson fully exercises his power. Any time a person of authority has “sole discretion” on a matter, it ought to raise alarm bells. And by examining the rest of the selection criteria document, we can see how much power John Atkinson truly does have.
The coach selection criteria for World Championships is arguably more insane than anything I’ve addressed so far. It might as well read, “John Atkinson has the sole discretion to select every coach he likes, based on which ones suck up to him.” No wonder Canadian coaches are afraid to speak up against this lunacy; if they’re on John Atkinson’s bad side, they don’t have a hope of being selected as a coach for World Championships. I could write an entire article on this alone – the criteria should be clear and objective, and coaches should earn selection based on the swimmers they’ve qualified for the team.
We’ve seen how John Atkinson can choose swimmers and coaches to add to the team, but his power doesn’t end there. Even if a swimmer races fast enough at Trials to be selected for the World Championship Team under Priority 1 or 2, they aren’t safe, because John Atkinson can easily remove swimmers from the team if he wishes. Here are three ways he can do it.
1. By refusing to enter them in their event:
Buried in the “General Information” of the selection document is this little gem. Even if a swimmer is selected to the team, they may not get a chance to swim their event at World Championships if that’s what John Atkinson decides with the help of his appointed sidekick. (Of course John Atkinson is going to appoint a coach that will do whatever he says, and the coach won’t challenge him because they’d jeopardize their chances of getting appointed in the future).
2. By deciding they’re too sick, injured, or not fit:
Allow me to summarize: John Atkinson and his appointed sidekick have the authority to decide that a selected swimmer isn’t “competitive ready,” based on whatever factors they choose. They can then force a qualified athlete to undergo a “test,” even when they’re already onsite at World Championships. The “test” could be as impossible as John Atkinson decides, and if the athlete fails, they can be kicked off the team.
3. By digging up dirt on them:
If a swimmer has EVER in their lives done something that is “inconsistent” with Swimming Canada’s Team Rules Regulations and Code of Conduct, they can be removed from the World Championship team. This includes things like: failing to attend a team function, entering a hotel room belonging to an athlete of the opposite gender, and “any action or conduct that is detrimental to the reputation or image of Swimming Canada.” I wouldn’t stand a chance.
If John Atkinson needed a reason to kick a swimmer off the World Championship Team, he could find one, and he could do it using one of the above strategies. He could theoretically remove any athlete that qualifies for the team under Priority 1 or 2, and, with sole discretion, fill the team with whoever he chooses. By putting all the pieces together, we come to one final conclusion:
It is within John Atkinson’s power to subjectively decide with complete discretion which Canadian swimmers and coaches will attend the 2015 FINA World Championships.
How has this been allowed to happen? Who is John Atkinson, and why are we letting him take control of Canadian swimming? Why are coaches and alumni, who have been involved in the sport all of their lives and seen a rich history of success in Canadian swimming, stepping aside for a British man with little credentials and a big ego? Something tells me Hockey Canada wouldn’t invite a random Russian to handpick Canada’s Olympic hockey team.
John Atkinson’s competence has already been called into question: last year he insisted multiple times (evidence here and here) that swimmers should only shave and taper twice a year, at Trials and summer competitions, but then suddenly decided that shaving and tapering in December fit Swimming Canada’s philosophy. When I criticized him for completely backpedalling in a tweet, he deleted his entire Twitter account! Would a confident, capable leader fold like a cheap patio chair after receiving a single justified criticism?
This is not an issue of whether or not you think John Atkinson will be benevolent when designing the World Championship Team, nor is it an issue of whether or not Canada needs to “set higher standards” (as if the secret to fast swimming is writing faster times down on paper). This is an issue of athlete rights. The fact that John Atkinson has so much power, regardless of whether or not he will use it, is a violation of those rights. It’s unacceptable.
Attorney Pia Ek, who specializes in sports law, asserts that clear selection criteria for high-level competitions are part of athletes’ legal protection. “When the governing body successfully drafts clear selection criteria, they eliminate multiple interpretations and potential disputes. Good selection criteria are public, transparent, clear and unambiguous.”
Perhaps nobody is speaking up because we’re accustomed to corruption; after all, it has plagued the Canadian swimming world for decades. Bruce Kidd, a former Olympian and current professor at the University of Toronto, wrote an article back in 1983 titled “Athletes have rights too,” in which he gave examples of cases where athletes were “denied their basic civil liberties due to the unchecked power of authoritarian coaches and sports officials.” One of the cases involved well-known Canadian swimmers George Nagy and Jay Tapp, who were “treated like prisoners” when they were sent home from the 1978 World Championships.
“Put money and power in the hands of a few and eventually abuse will happen.” That’s true in sport the same way it’s true in politics. That’s why democracies divide power and institute checks and balances – to prevent the abuse of power by individuals in government. Without effective restriction by a constitution, laws, or recognized opposition, an elected leader becomes a dictator.
Swimming Canada does have such restrictions in place to prevent the abuse of power – even concerning national team selection policy – but apparently they’re not upheld in any capacity. Swimming Canada’s official selection policy mandates that “The selection processes and standards used must be determined and applied objectively, transparently and in a timely manner, to the benefit of all selection candidates.” The selection policy also includes the following limitation:
In case you can’t read the screenshot taken directly off Swimming Canada’s website, here’s what it says: “Selection standards may not be developed that purposefully eliminate a ‘qualified’ individual (swimmer, coach, manager, support staff ) from selection or that advance an ‘unqualified’ individual in selection.”
What could be a clearer breach of this limitation than a single man handpicking athletes and coaches for the national team? Explain to me how leaving national champions at home and bringing slower swimmers to international competitions is not purposefully eliminating a “qualified” individual and advancing an “unqualified” individual in selection? It happened last year and it’s going to happen again this year unless something is done. Hello, Swimming Canada board members? Is anyone there? Does anyone care?
But of course: Swimming Canada’s board members are the ones responsible for granting John Atkinson such enormous power. A footnote at the bottom of the selection criteria states:
Not only did the Selection Committee create these criteria – they approved them too! The committee members are listed under Swimming Canada’s Governance Structure. At the time of this article’s posting, they were listed as:
Selection Committee
Chair: Chris Bowie – Olympic freestyler, 1992
Bill Humby (CSCTA) – Current Head Swim Coach of the University of Alberta
Stephanie Horner (Athlete Rep) – Two-time Olympic Swimmer, 2008 & 2012
Dean Boles – Current Swim Ontario Provincial Mentor Coach
Cynthia Pincott – Former national level swimmer
SNC: John Atkinson, High Performance Director
SNC: Brian Edey, Senior Manager, HP Programs – Former national level swimmer
In John Atkinson’s Q&A, he explained that “Swimming Canada’s High Performance department prepares [selection] policies, which are then reviewed by the selection committee before publication.” That would implicate the following people as well:
High Performance Committee
Chair: Leslie Cliff – Olympic silver medallist in 400 I.M., 1972
Jim Shaw – Olympic Backstroker, 1968
Kerry Mummery – Dean of the Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation at the University of Alberta
Wade Flemons – NCAA Champion in 1981 and fellow Stanford backstroke alumnus
Peter Szmidt – Former 400 freestyle world record holder, 1984 Canadian Olympian
SNC CEO ex-officio: Ahmed El-Awadi – Former Executive Director of Water Polo Canada
SNC: John Atkinson
Though I struggle to believe that all of the above people had a hand in drafting this year’s selection criteria, I have to assume they did.
Dear Selection and High Performance Committee members: consider this my formal request for an amendment to the 2015 selection criteria. I have already emailed this article to each of you in a hope that one of you, with your vast experience in sport, will see the injustice and take a stand on behalf of all Canadians. Allowing a single man to determine the fate of swimmers rather than leaving it to the natural process is a violation of athlete rights. John Atkinson must be stripped of his discretionary power in national team selection, and the criteria must be changed so that it reads clear and fair. We should all perceive Swimming Canada to be an organization that acts in the best interest of swimmers who are putting their lives into training and competition, rather than one that acts in the best interest of men in offices rubbing their bellies. Don’t forget the commitment you’ve made to swimmers:
“Swimming/Natation Canada (SNC) is committed to providing opportunities for every individual in the sport of swimming to reach his or her potential in fitness and excellence. In keeping with the spirit of this statement, SNC is committed to providing a sport and work environment that prohibits discriminatory practices.”
– Swimming Canada Harassment Policy and Procedure
Dear Canadian swimmers, coaches, parents, and associates: Trials are fast approaching, and the selection criteria will not change unless YOU, the person reading this, takes action. If you believe in athlete rights, the value of sport, or even democracy, at the very least please share this article. If you know a Swimming Canada board member personally, please contact them and ask them why they’ve handed so much power to a man who has the arrogance to act like he is above the natural process of sport. Or, best of all, speak up. I can’t be the only voice of opposition. Former world record holder Annamay Pierse and former SNC President Brian Johnson have both publicly supported my blog posts using their full names – it is time that others joined the conversation.
My goal is to warn the entire Canadian swimming community of the implications of this year’s selection criteria, while there is still time to make changes. If nothing is done before April 1st, it will be too late.
The fate of Canadian swimming is in your hands.
Excellent blog/article.
Once again you have clearly stated the problems with the selection criteria/ Swim Canada.
Will I leave my real name? While I would love to, because I still have a swimmer in the sport agreeing with this publicly would forever ban my swimmer from ever competing for Canada. So sorry. No way.
I have read and re-read the selection criteria.
What you stated here simply reinforces the conclusion I had already reached. That being if your swimmer isn’t one of John Atkinson’s chosen, they don’t stand a chance. The present selection criteria, as you have so eloquently pointed out, has so many loop holes, why don’t we just dispense with the whole farce of Trials and just let John pick his lap dogs and favourites and save us all the frustration of the whole fabricated selection process.
You should send your blog to the major newspapers and networks. Surely there is some reporter out there who would take this on? If enough people hear about this and start asking questions, maybe some change will happen.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that John Atkinson is the reason we have EBOLA!
LikeLike
Hi Matt,
Sorry that you never made a national team. You, like many other people before you invested thousands of hours in the pool only to learn that in the end you just weren’t good enough to represent this country on a national stage.
Meanwhile, you, unlike the rest proceeded to bitch and whine online continuously as if to righteously redeem yourself for failing in your own eyes and to try to convince others that it was not you who was in the wrong but the program. Hey, don’t hate the player hate the game am I right?
See, you write posts like this with little to no actual background information and a hard manipulation of what is really going on here so here are a few clarifications for your readers and hopefully you’ll learn something too.
1. John Atkinson’s reputation and credentials extend far beyond that of question, especially by someone who has never been within the inner circle and seen what happens at higher level competitions.
2. The selection criteria is put in place to allow Canada to be competitive on a higher level. For Swimming Canada to place their primary standard to be that for someone to be a semi-finalist at world’s is not that aggressive and if that means that we do not send many people for that standard then that simply speaks to the level at which Canadian swimming is sitting. The secondary and further criteria then simply allows people who have been within striking distance of that and maybe someday will be to get a chance to experience the meet and make their mistakes at an early age.
This entire new process is converting swimming as we knew it in 2013 where it was comparative based on results into a simple time standard which you need to work towards and make… Much like the entirety of swimming; a ladder of time standards from regionals all the way up to senior nationals/CIS championships. Now we’re simply putting ourselves up against the top in the world in order to be considered for one of Canadian swimming’s highest accomplishments.
Personally, I like this way much better. I think the best example of the effectiveness of this method is the Men’s 200m butterfly. 2012 Olympic Trials we sent David Sharpe to London after going a 1:58.81 in the final – an exciting race right down to the finish. But how does that time compare to the current criteria, even for World’s? Well he’s about two seconds off the selection 1 criteria and likely wouldn’t be selected by the following ones either.
Well to see that a former Olympian couldn’t even make the current standards is upsetting but then consider that at the Olympic games Sharpe ended up going a 1:59.87 in prelims where he then placed 31st/37 swimmers and didn’t come close to a semi final. The first selection time of 1:56.91 would be 16th at the Olympic games meaning you can compete for a spot in the semi-final and actually do something close to performing at an international level.
Yes, its sad to see that Swimming Canada isn’t going to send some people in events even though they are the best in Canada. But, if you’re a 24 year old male and this is one of your last meets where you would not be close to making even a semi final, why is Swimming Canada going to spend the money and effort to bring you along.
LikeLike
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Firstly, matts been on many national teams, and he has seen what happens at high level competitions…. Not only representing Canada, but also representing Stanford at the ncaas, which could be argued to be the fastest meet in the world.
Don’t argue for the sake of arguing, Matt obviously isn’t implying that swimming Canada should remain stagnant on the international stage, he wouldn’t be writing these things if he wasn’t concerned for the well-being of Canadian swimming and its athletes. Not to mention he has an educated head on his shoulders with a degree from Stanford, I think that is reason alone for many people to shut their mouths and allow his opinions and RESEARCH to
Swirl around in your head before you open your trap and take shots at his career.
LikeLike
In reply to your “clarifications”
1. John Atkinson has little history of success in his position, he absolutely deserves to be questioned after his noted failure with British Swimming at the 2012 London Olympics and cutting their medal count in half from 2008. It was after the performance review for Britain’s Olympic performance that he showed interest in leaving British swimming, coincidence? Of course not. He has years of experience, and some small success in the early 2000’s, sure, but is vastly unproven in the modern era of swimming. He has nowhere near enough success on his resume to make him invulnerable from questioning by anybody.
2. The idea for the primary standard, selecting those that will be most competitive at major competitions 1st, has been in place since LaFontaine. There is little controversy in the swimming community that this standard is meaningful and necessary, but as pointed out in this article, that would have selected only eight athletes. It’s the other 3 standards that are idiotic. National team selection is not the place to be denying our best athletes chances to compete with the rest of the world, regardless of age or whatever other factors Atkinson and his staff think seem to justify sending a half-assed team to represent our great country on the world stage.
And in reply to your statement “why is Swimming Canada going to spend the money and effort to bring you along”:
“The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”
– Pierre de Coubertin (primarily responsible for the revival of the Olympic Games in 1894)
If you take pride in Canada, and Canadian Swimming, you will support Mr. Swanston and all of those who question the illogical decisions made by John Atkinson. At the very least we can ask for better explanations and accountability in his decisions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^ignorant
LikeLike
Ignorant of? Seems very well reasoned to me.
Get this criteria overhauled, don’t renew Atkinson’s employment past 2016.
Let’s get someone that respects the hard work our veteran athletes put in, and doesn’t shut national champions from our national team.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^ Canadian Coach, for the win. Anonymous, I can see the reason behind your anonymity. Your comments are either made out of ignorance or an intent to deceive.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here, or if you even have one at all. Mr. Sharpe qualified under the rules. He did not perform well, admittedly. You seem to think that sending him was somehow a shame. Presumably, by sending FEWER athletes to get big meet experience, Canada will become a world power, or improve as a program? By artifically tightening the time standards, somehow, everyone will get faster and eventually Canada will have a full team? Sending fewer (but the best) athletes is an illusionary practice. It doesn’t make your program better, it at best makes you look good to people who can’t be bothered to do the research Your assertion that by having a clear goal time will in of itself make people faster is laughable. Time standards are a reflection of what has already happened, not the other way around. The World Records are there for all to see. Golly, I guess too few Canadians want to reach them. Otherwise surely, like a time standard, you could work your way up.
At this level there is less slack. These are some of the best in the world stretching themselves to the limit of their abilities. This isn’t a “If I could only improve my turns and kick more than twice, I’d knock 3 seconds off my 200 time” situation. This ain’t CIS anymore.
As for your defence of Mr. Atkinson: If you are going to use a lazy and idiotic argument, make sure it isn’t one as instantly discredible and worthless as Appeal to Authority.
Swim Canada has much bigger issues than trying to limit who goes to big meets and telling talented (but not world class) hard working athletes when they should shave and pointlessly gutting CIS. They are happy to abuse the grassroots in order to maybe squeeze a tiny drop of performance out of a number of athletes you can count on one hand, then nod their heads at their own brilliance. The hard work, such as securing more funding, more 50m pools and grassroots support is likely beyond their talent and abilites. Easier to do silly exercies while exuding self-importance.
Mr. Swanston, you write with fire and talent about an organization that would do anything before any real soul-searching or self-audit, and one that faces little to no external oversight. Keep it up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, I didn’t realize Anonymous was following my swimming career.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi John atkinson.
You don’t have to reply to an article about yourself as ‘anonymous’
1. We all know sucking up to you gets a person on the team.
2. So do I fake an injury for trials?
LikeLike
It’s been a while since I left the sport, but it’s sad to see this going this way. It used to mean something when you turned around, saw your time on the board and new where you stood. The sad part is that no coach (i.e, anyone with sufficient clout to to rattle some cages) can speak up about this without harming their career (and not that swimmers don’t have clout, it’s just different if Randy Bennett protests it than a swimmer on the fringe of making it). If it goes unchecked long enough, you will drive away coaching talent and motivation (and swimming talent and motivation). Thanks for writing this.
LikeLike
This is such a dumb article. You may be eloquent but you end up ripping apart a system for no good reason. I was so mad reading this article because the things you say MAKE NO SENSE.
Ie. If one breaks a rule, they may not be allowed back. Of course. No sh*t. Every athlete signs a contract with that stipulation.
Additionally, a younger, more developmental swimmer is always a better choice for a selection unless the older faster swimmer is actually going to place, make an impact or make money for swim Canada (by placing). By building up our younger generation, we will have a much better team in the long run. You have just been caught in the wrong phase at the wrong time.
About the two rules where john has say, he can’t just put random ass people on the team or He will be fired: imagine this… his job is on the line based on how the team performs. Also. Canada has to send a relay team in 2015 to qualify for the olympics. If you werent so ignorant, you would know that.
Quit trying to stir sh*t up & persuade the uninformed.
LikeLike
Chill john ^
LikeLike
As a Canadian university athlete, I’m choosing to skip this year’s trials. As I get towards the end of my degree, I simply can’t afford to travel and attend a meet right before final exams…
So they’ve continually made it a difficult time to attend trials, and now have basically turned CIS champs into a staging competition to prepare for trials. A complete absence of critical thinking.
LikeLike
F*** you Johnny A.
LikeLike
How old are you Anonymous? Grow Up!
LikeLike
Great article. Thank you for being bold and standing up for what is right. I value all of your criticisms except of priority 4. I do think that priority 4 is applied only to relay swimmers as it is under a relay heading and I don’t see the “pause” that you mentioned.
Despite my minor disagreement with your one point, I agree with your stance regarding Mr. Atkinson.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” ~John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902)
LikeLike
What Matt is saying about Priority 4 is.
Why isn’t it simply worded:
Priority 4 – Relay Only Swimmers
The fastest available swimmers in relay events qualify.
He is asking why is someone choosing swimmers to enhance relays. Surely if you qualify under Priority 1 as a Canadian Team Member you want the fastest people in Canada available to join you in a relay.
So why is some Non-Canadian choosing swimmers to enhance relays?????
MY GOD…..THE FASTEST GO!!!!!!
I’m 100% sure Wade Flemons, Graham Smith, Alex Bauman, Victor Davis or Peter Schmidt representing Canada internationally would not want a swimmer on his relay, who is young and may one day be elite, chosen ahead of the fastest in the country regardless of age or any other discriminatory reason.
No country sends athletes who are inferior at the time of selection in hopes that maybe one day they’ll measure up!!!
This is the lowest point in this countries swimming history!!!!
Great alumni of Canadian swimming HELLPPPP!!!!
LikeLike
Thank you
Fantastic Blog
Good luck
…………………………….
http://www.apkfrog.com
!~!_+
LikeLike
i just wanted to say thank you for posting this. hopefully this causes the change so that TRIALS are a real TRIALS and so that first person to the wall or first 2 go. That is sport. Not the bullsh*t that you have pointed out in snc criteria. Thanks swans, also to the people who disagree with what he has said…..PLEASE learn to read properly and try again because he points out the TRUTH, nothing above is a lie and its all true. Also please stop breathing my precious air. bbrappppp
LikeLike
Great article Matthew – well reasoned and well cited. I understand your frustration with the system and certainly agree that the subjective power to select members of our national team should not be held by one individual.
With that in mind, I would suggest that there still needs to be an element of subjectivity in the selection process – perhaps wielded by a selection committee (e.g. cross section of club and CIS coaches). An interesting case study would be what happened to Kurtis MacGillvary at the 2004 Olympic Trials. My recollection is that during that quadrennial Swimming Canada set the FINA A standard as the cut-off line for participation on the Olympic Team. Kurtis (who had moved to Australia to prepare for the Trials) easily swam the FINA A time earlier in the year at Aussie Trials but narrowly missed the standard at Canadian Trials. His time was good enough to be ranked 13th in the world that year, and yet we did not ultimately end up taking him to the Olympics. In that instance, I think very few in SNC would have complained about a subjective criteria which would have added him to the team. You can read a bit more about it here if you are interested: http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/resource_centre/pdf/Summary/0_SDRCC%2004-0020-summary.pdf
Prof. Ratushny (the arbitrator in the MacGillvary appeal) was a professor of mine at U of O Common Law. He’s a passionate advocate and likely the most knowledgeable sports lawyer in the country. If you are looking for someone to work through these concerns with (or even to just debate the point with you), I’m sure he would be interested. I will flip him this article – let me know if you would like an introduction.
LikeLike
Sorry for my English i’m french
The result of canada is not really good at the high level, Swimming Canada need to move forward. Swimming Canada need to change. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Albert Einstein
I think the criterias are really good. Why swimming Canada will spend thousand dollars to bring swimmers just for Holiday. We talk about high level swimming and not age group championships guys.
Then, bet in the next generation is pretty smart that bring old swimmer who never improve since few years.
In 2000, the french federation did exactly the same change 14 years after we can see the benefit of this change (olympic games 2000: 0 medals, 2012: 7 medals: 4 gold medals, 2 silver, 1 bronze)
I think for this part swimming Canada do a really good job.
LikeLike
I have been a coach in Canada for over 30 years. This is another situation we will correct once we realize it is wrong. The coaches produce the swimmers no matter who is in charge of SNC. SNC staff can be a positive contribution with simple tangible goals or can be downer with convoluted, complicated rules/guidelines and selection processes. We shall see how John A does, but so far in my opinion too much of a desk and stats guy and not enough of a hands on coach.
Why does the selection criteria need to be so complex? What happened to best go? When Pierre came back and took over as SNC Head Coach he changed it from the convoluted to simple and swimming in Canada had a resurgence. It was not luck why swimming in Canada had a resurgence!! Swimmers could train, dream and race to make teams. Coaches were motivated and believed they could put kids on teams without some stupid convoluted criteria. Pierre took away the subjectivity and back room dealings.
Matt may not be right with all points but has been through the system as a high performance swimmer and is willing to ask questions and bring issues to the table. Make no mistake there is talk and many unhappy coaches on the pool decks. There are far to many people who will talk on pool decks but will not put pen to paper, or voice concerns in a public setting.
Did the CSCTA approve the current selection criteria? The coaches (CSCTA) in Canada should have a huge amount of input on the technical side of swimming. We are the experts, we work in the field every day. Does the CSCTA, Centre Coaches, and a selection of club coaches get to evaluate John A and the SNC staff to see if they are helping move swimming forward in a collaborative way? Has the SNC board done a evaluation of John A and SNC staff?
Has the SNC selection committee and SNC board talked to CSCTA, Centre coaches and a select group of club coaches to see if the selection process is working? The SNC board and other Provincial Boards are very hands off and do NOT have the pulse of the swimming community. Current professionals, past swimmers do not make informed Board members unless they are hands on in the field. None of which I see.
How has John A improved SNC since his arrival? What are the stats? Pan Pac, Commonwealth, Open Water, Jr/Youth results….. Any change from the past 40 years?
LikeLike
At what point did we start thinking high performance was making teams?
What part of ‘Own the Podium’ do people not understand. The funding for elite swimming or sport for that matter comes from performance. Without the Cochranes, Macleans, Caldwells, Savards no one would be funded to the level they are now in Canadian swimming.
So you can complain all you want but unless you or anyone else can figure out a way to get the funding out to support anything less than world class, this article is moot.
Do you think the men’s rowing 8’s would field a team that is less than world class? Do you think alpine canada would invest in skiers that don’t have a calculated chance to win?
It’s not about making teams. Participation is not performance. Winning (which the funding is based on) is unapologetically cruel. It is not personal and that is where the problem lies with this argument.
Lastly John Atkinson is the High Performance director tasked to raise the level of high performance swimming in Canada. Full stop.
I get the frustration from a participation stand point but not in the high performance stand point.
You make the NHL so you can play at that level and compete to win…not just play.
LikeLike
So are you saying we shouldn’t send people to international competitions unless they’re going to win? How is anybody going to win without experience racing at the International level? Neither Cochrane nor McLean won world’s the first time they went and neither would get to where they are now without that first experience where they came last. If we only send people who are going to win then soon we won’t be sending anybody because nobody got the chance to even compete internationally.
LikeLike
Athletes and their families sacrifice all with a sense of trust that there is a reasonable structure in place in the pursuit of their goals. They also agree that the best should represent. There is pride in that. Remove the lobbying and politics. Even our electoral process rises above this.
LikeLike
Many countries field teams based on FINA B standards. FINA also has allowances for nations to field teams without making the standards. The IOC also has considerations for healthy sport participation by allowing all nations to field teams.
This is not how Canadian funded sport works. If you take the pomp and gloss from your article Matt, that is essentially what you are asking for. You are asking a sport funding entity that is using tax payer dollars to fund participation as opposed to high performance.
Ask yourself if that makes sense. Take all emotion and personal interest out of your numerous posts and rants and ask yourself this:
If I had to invest responsibly and accountably, would I invest in myself? Based on my age and performances, do I have calculated chance to win at the world level?
Now what do you think John or Chuck Weilgas or Jaco or Denis Savards or Yzerman or anyone else having to make those high performance decisions do?
Do you think those people are personally trying to eliminate people from their sport or so think they are trying to do the best job they are hired to do?
I would bet you know the answer.
LikeLike
Your second comment I’m completely unable to follow so I have no reply to.
Your first comment I’m not sure what your point is but……..
“Do you think the men’s rowing 8’s would field a team that is less than world class? ”
Swimming Canada under JA sent a group of swimmers to Commonwealth Games last summer. Some were without a doubt less than world class.
I know for a fact we had swimmers who represented Canada internationally last summer who apologised to the athletes they displaced that were faster.
Is this who we want on the blocks at World Championships?
An athlete who is apologetically representing swimming in Canada.
Is this a good experience for this athlete?
Why did they apologise?
Because they know right down to their marrow that they were promoted unjustly to an international level…..AND THEY ARE NOT READY because they haven’t gone through the full process, as we know it, of natural selection….the fastest have earned it.
So the best are held back and have a negative experience and the one promoted unjustly are less than confident and have a negative experience and that is good for Canadian Swimming?
THIS IS CRAZY!!!!
“Lastly John Atkinson is the High Performance director tasked to raise the level of high performance swimming in Canada. Full stop.”
AND….Adolf Hitler was tasked to raise the level of the German standard of living. Full stop.
Any governing body who is honest, moral, and transparent with positive intention welcome questions and debate and have all the time to field legitimate criticism.
LikeLike
John A = Hitler?
Thanks for reiterating the idiocy of this discussion.
Wow. Glad you are passionate, Passionate Coach.
LikeLike
As I read the replies here I am amazed that not 1 person has commented on what I see as the most important fact Matt has brought to light.
John Atkinson and all emotions negative or positive aside, Swim Canada’s current governing body and ALL who are part of the Selection Criteria process are breaking Swim Canada laws.
Matt highlights right off of the Swim Canada website….
Limitations
“Selection standards may not be developed that purposefully eliminate a ‘qualified’ individual (swimmer, coach, manager, support staff ) from selection or that advance an ‘unqualified’ individual in selection.”
The above was completely disregarded last year in selecting teams. This cannot be argued and is not personal opinion. It’s fact.
Standards have been developed that purposefully eliminated a ‘qualified’ individual (the faster swimmer) from selection and that advance an ‘unqualified’ individual (slower swimmer) in selection.
Please understand that Swimming Canada is currently violating Selection Criteria law.
This is a governing body that needs to be questioned for their own sake.
LikeLike
Matt,
Congrats on another well written, finely researched article.
Your courage,passion and determination are admirable, some of the traits which made you such an exceptional athlete.
Keep up the good work, your words have ignited controversy and debate, the genesis of change.
Alison
LikeLike
This is sounding like it could be a repeat of the 2002 selection disaster. Our team wore shirts at nationals in support of the swimmers: “it’s about high performance, remember?”. The details are summarized here: http://crdsc-sdrcc.ca/resource_centre/pdf/Summary/528_ADR%2002-0008/0009/0010-summary.pdf
LikeLike
Matt, I’m sorry that your own career never reached the level that you wanted, but that is no reason to take it out on Swimming Canada. If you had swam faster last year in Victoria you would have made the team. Stop blaming others. Canadian swimmers will adapt, and will eventually swim up to the level of the criteria set out for selection, mirroring what happened at the younger level when the AGC qualifying changed to three events a few years ago.
The old guard of Canadian coaches (Randy, Kevin, Steve, the Johnson brothers, etc.) have operated for years without any checks and balances, and what has that gotten us as a nation? One world class sprinter who is now retired and one world class distance athlete, plus a few breaststrokers who are up and down with very little consistency (time will tell what becomes of Brittany). As a nation, we would be crazy to continue down the same path doing the same things we’ve been doing for the last 20 years and expecting better results.
John and his staff are looking towards the future, not the past (which is all you seem to know or care about). Why spend the money to send a David Sharpe or Zach Chetrat to an international competition so they can have one last kick at the can, a fun vacation and a slow morning swim? It’s far more useful to invest that money in a young swimmer who may be a tad slower, but could benefit from the experience and potentially be a National team athlete for years to come. The same can be said about the coaches. Why continue to send the same coaches to these meets over and over again when Swimming Canada knows exactly what they can and can’t do? Give Tom Rushton in Montreal, or Matt Bell in Ajax a chance to show what they are capable of in that environment. There are an entire generation of young coaches who have started to shine through in recent years but are not getting their opportunities because Randy and his buddies own the monopoly.
Swimming Canada is looking at the future, and if they have to take one step backwards so that they can turn around and take two or three steps forward then so be it. Who are you to attack John like this? If you want to make a team then get off your computer and back into the pool and SWIM FAST. If not, keep your whiny opinion to yourself and watch carefully as the teenagers and 20/21 year olds swim faster than you ever did.
LikeLike
“The old guard of Canadian coaches (Randy, Kevin, Steve, the Johnson brothers, etc.) have operated for years without any checks and balances, and what has that gotten us as a nation?”
Please reread the article.
You are saying that no checks and balances for a governing body produces poor or substandard results.
Then I get confused with your opinion as you say that the current situation is positive yet as Matthew’s breakdown shows its just another situation of no checks and balances.
You are agreeing with Matthew as this article exposes John Atkinson as being able to operate with no checks and balances.
I do agree with you in setting clear guidelines for selection will – “Give Tom Rushton in Montreal, or Matt Bell in Ajax a chance to show what they are capable of in that environment.”
But again with the current situation that’s not going to happen so again I’m confused with your point of supporting the existing criteria.
I feel that sport can’t solely be about results or the incredible, magical/process journey becomes a means to an end. And that’s what I feel is happening. They are trying to manipulate to find the magical key to overcoming natural process.
Its not gonna happen!
Sport has to be about inclusion and participation with a full dedication and commitment to performing at ones best no matter the level. Swim Canada’s website is plastered with this ideal.
Sending a full team to the Olympics/Worlds and having them come home and share their experience of competing with the best in the world may create more swimmers in the country eager to do the same. The more swimmers the greater talent pool.
I can’t think of a young swimmer in Canada who was rising up through the rankings and needed to be promoted unjustly to some how improve them or Canadian Swimming.
Getting better and eventually winning is their right of passage and gives the experience and confidence to take on a greater challenge….competing internationally.
Great athletes come along and when they do coaches and directors take credit for “producing” them.
The athlete and coach work together at their highest potential with the full intention of being the best they can be. A governing body can support in many ways other than arrogantly giving instructions…taper two times a year…(then 6 months later)…..taper 3 times a year.
If a 10 year old Michael Phelps walks on a coaches deck is the coach suddenly a genius?? Or do they learn and work together, swimmer and coach.
Who ever was to coach Michael Phelps would have been seen as a great coach. It would be impossible to mess him up. You can argue results could be better or worse if….but that would just be guessing as it can never be proven.
Manipulating selection is predicting the future and if you can do that play the stock market.
But keep your hands off of the sporting process you can only get in its way!
If setting higher standards created better results as these coaches and directors are saying why is Randy Bennet not holding Ryan Cochrane to a world record standard and why is he not producing many many world beaters??
Just set the standards to beyond world record and all your athletes will be world record holders.
If Randy had real hands on experience, like actually training as an athlete and putting it all on the line himself, he would understand his coach printing faster times does not translate to improvement.
I really honestly feel we don’t need so called “know it all experts” who are trying to look like geniuses and contradicting themselves and hiding behind ideas like…we are working with the next group of elite coaches and Ken Mckinon’s “up to date and modern work out techniques”. Hey Ken tell us all and we’ll all improve as a nation together.
We can recognise it now or latter but we’ll fully know how crazy this criteria is eventually.
Sooner would be less hurtful and frustrating.
LikeLike
The real issue is Swimming Canada’s inability to recruit the best ‘athletes’ to the sport. The provincial governing bodies also hold considerable responsibility (I suspect they are confused about direction as well so I actually give them some slack). In a small northern country with few decent facilities for our athletes to train and a hockey culture (albeit diminishing) to boot, we need to figure out how to inspire those with high potential to choose swimming. I suspect that they ‘moving target’ benchmarks currently held are not inspirational to those exceptional athletes (and their families) who are considering where to deploy their talents.
Swimming Canada’s primary role is to ‘sell’ the sport in order to capture said athletes. I think there also needs to be an honest discussion about the role of the club team and training mates in the development of such athletes. Without this structure our young talent will look elsewhere for direction. Any parent of a child or teen can verify this.
Raise the profile of Canadian swimming. Make it an option for athletes. Nurture athletes in an objectively based reward system (fairness – so Canadian). Remove politics and lobbying (ass-kissing). Touch the wall you go!
Thanks Matthew for opening this debate.
LikeLike
Matt Bell?
LikeLike
If you really think these things and are going to call out these swimmers than at least have the guts to put your own name. You’re a joke.
LikeLike
I am left to wonder if people are actually reading Matt’s article. Based on the misinformation in some of these comments, I believe the answer is no. The whole premise of his article is, that the way the selection criteria is written, John Atkinson has the power to hand pick the swimmers and coaches for the World Championship team, and this should not be allowed to happen.
Matt obviously feels passionately about the future of Canadian swimming, and attacking his swimming record is neither helpful or relevant to the discussion.
LikeLike
How did Matt Bell workout, glad he didn’t assault our national teams
LikeLike
….he did swim faster….
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fear of speaking out among swimmers and coaches is palpable. However, everyone now knows that when John Atkinson makes his selections, all eyes will be on him.
And for that Matthew, we thank you.
LikeLike
Ahhhh you all give me so much pleasure. Keep writing! Keep commenting! Everyone’s opinion matters on the internet!!
I love you all
LikeLike