So who cok'd up?

I haven't had a SPARC (NZ's Government Agency responsible for sport and recreation) rant for a while, but this article in the Sunday Star-Times has sufficiently wound me up to have another go.

The short version of the article is as follows:

1. NZ's top swimmers were expecting their PEG's (Perfomance Enhancement Grants) late last year - October 2006.
2. They get told at that time that the amount they'll receive is being based on results at the World Short Course Swimming Champs in April 2006
3. They had been led to believe that results at the Commonwealth Games earlier that year were being used as the criteria.

Ahhhh the good old shifting of goalposts retrospectively. Yep, that fits neatly into the professional management model that SPARC are so keen to foist on the sport and recreation sector in this country. Tell you what, let's apply this new technique to other areas where it might benefit.

I've mentioned the Commonwealth Games. Remember the furore over not reaching the medal target? (I've forgotten the exact number - 45 wasn't it?). Well, using the new SPARC-approved shift the goalposts in hindsight management technique, let's just retrospectively amend the target - make it 30 medals and hey presto, problem solved and target achieved. Now the NSO's don't have to worry about their funding for another couple of years.

I've tried to come up with suitable words to express how I feel but for once my lexicographic abilities fail me - so I'm left with my original choice: WHAT A BUNCH OF FUCKING WANKERS.

According to the article, Dean Kent has had his training grant cut by a quarter and Moss Burmester received $5000 less than expected.

Yet the CEO of Swimming NZ is quoted in the article as saying "the final result was a significantly enhanced final outcome for the athletes" while SPARC chips in with "agreement was reached in November that resulted in satisfactory outcomes for all swimmers".

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW HAVING YOUR TRAINING GRANT CUT BY A QUARTER, OR BY $5000, IS A "SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCED" OR "SATISFACTORY" OUTCOME???

But here's the thing that really winds me up - and something the journo at the SST seemingly missed - anybody remember the results from these events? While some of you might recall that Moss Burmester won gold at the Commonwealth Games in the 200m Butterfly, not many of you will remember he also finished 2nd in that event at the World Short Course Champs - beaten by a Chinese swimmer competing in his home pool. Our first medal at these championships for some years if I remember correctly (we also got a bronze in 2006 - Hannah McLean I think).

So, even allowing for the fact the goalposts have been shifted retrospectively, apparently finishing 2nd at a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP is worth $5000 less than finishing 1st at the Commonwealth Games, where the Americans, Chinese, Russians et al do not compete.

I repeat: WHAT A BUNCH OF FUCKING WANKERS.