• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

How does one detect a LMC - how does one "hide" it.

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
tylerz

tylerz

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2002
733
114
133
Re: controlled dives

Originally posted by cebaztian
When saying that alot of people get furious, and bitch and keep on repeating old arguments I am refering to the discussion as it has been OVER THE YEARS not only in this thread.
I can only comment on the threads that we have been part of, which I do not see this element occuring from others or myself. Therefore, I am implying it is not relevant to these threads and is a dangerous distraction.

I have no problem seeing the injustice and the malpractice of the sambarule (specially looking back) but I try to see a possibility for it to survive (because I dont want to see more LMC and BO than necessary in media).
If there is a better solution I am all ears.
The misassumption here is that others are not just as interested to avoid LMC and BO and that by them suggesting the sambarule has flaws they are supporting a practice that will promote LMC and BO. Attempts have been repeatedly expressed to acknowledge that interest is as keen or more so to avoid LMC and BO, so I am sorry for adding it myself, but maybe through this directness it is an added element of clarity for you and others.

It has definately been expressed that considerate alternatives are in the works and almost completed for sharing, but that does not change the fact that we can continue exploring and expressing weakness in current methods to ensure we address those in future proposals/considerations. I am sure people enjoy the idea that weaknesses will be discovered and therefore these discussions bring those into a public awareness.

But still you guys have not questioned any of the following;
You continue with a list of 6 points...

Your concern has been implied that we are not addressing important and relevant things. I am not sure, but I feel like none of us felt the focus of this discussion, for what we are exploring, relates to those listed items. Would love to hear whether I am out to lunch on this.

If I were to summarize what you are implying the discussion is about through those 5 points it would be:
"Compare and contrast freediving organization's competition regulations and whether these regulations are making for a bigger and better community."

If I were to simmarize what I thought the rest of the posters thought we were discussing it would be:
"What is the nature and experience of LMC in competition and recreation and what elements of a dive can be used to determine a safe performance."

Something like that. Maybe I am way off here. But from the majority of posts I thought that was the focus.


6) Someone was irritaded beeing DQ on something "not even a camera can see"
That is why we took time in producing considerate ALTERNATIVES before sharing the ideas, so they would not come out such as that. I do not think anybody agreed or supported that expression of irritation. However you may say nobody, disapproved either. But I hope it is understandable that if those producing detailed responses with care and consideration leave the element of that suggestion in the quote out, then that reflects not much support for it.

Cheers,

Tyler
 
cebaztian

cebaztian

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2003
827
177
133
alternatives

I want to finish this discussion, Tyler.

It has gone too much META if you know what I mean (you seem to be some professor in logical philosophy;-). We are discussing the discussion.

I am aware of that most discussions fail when one is not discussing the same thing. And I admit I have changed focus.

First I wanted to say that there is hope for the present LMC rule if we improved competence on both sides (judge and athlete) (the first post of this thread).

Then I wanted you to understand that I want freediving as a sport to grow and I want everyone to join (I hate seeing some Italians, FREE, and for instance Fattah not being part of growing community) because fact is AIDA is growing and is basicly the only worldwide system where we can compete and compare results with each other.

So what I wanted to say (after changing focus in the discussion) is:
1) Stop complaining about the LMC rule if you do nothing to improve it or come with a new solution that a majority will join (FREE obviously doesn’t gather the majority).
We are already aware of the LMC rule not being perfect.

My suggestion is to wait for your petition and hope it is a good one that will “gather the forces”. Because I want us to unite.

Sebastian
/Sweden
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adrian
derelictp

derelictp

Freediver
Oct 16, 2001
397
63
118
54
Re: alternatives

So what I wanted to say (after changing focus in the discussion) is:
1) Stop complaining about the LMC rule if you do nothing to improve it or come with a new solution that a majority will join (FREE obviously doesn’t gather the majority).
We are already aware of the LMC rule not being perfect.

Complaining????

Who is complaining??? ....complaining to who??

I thought that the discussions on DB was about discussion and opinions:confused:

Sorry if you think that I complained, that was not the meaning.:eek:
 
K

Kirk Krack

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2001
59
28
108
53
Hey Everyone,

Just a couple things:

Firstly, we teach a routine in surfacing or recovery breathing to insure that continued 'recovery breathing' isn't interrupted by a cloudy mind and a body with a slight LMC which could then lead to a B/O. If it's programmed, it'll be second nature and you may avoid a worse situation. By-product for the competitor is they may become slightly more hypoxic at the surface, yet still maintain recovery breathing and show no sign of LMC.

Second, judges don't disqualify you for 'staring off into space' although in the past it may have been done. Since the inception of the 20 second rule (origianally a CAFA rule at 15 seconds), it's the athletes perrogative to do absolutely nothing at all, except maintain their airway above the water, look at the judges, give an OK and remove the mask/goggles WITHIN 20 seconds. This rule is to allow a time to recover at the surface.

In the old days you used to surface and the judges were screaming at you to remove your mask, give an OK, etc... which hurried athletes and could actually have caused slight LMC because they weren't recovered from a dive yet. Now you can stare blankly if you want with no pressure and NO PROMPTING from the judges as long as you do the prerequisites within 20 seconds. Don't forget that the athletes are also required to maintain their airway above the surface for a total of 30-60 seconds as the judge sees appropriate.

Lastly, Silvia Da Pon's performance. I protested the performance and was able to see the tape in Ibiza. She was starring blankly and her head was shaking/wobbly, an LMC in my opinion. The Italians left for more reasons than Silvia and some were politically motivated I believe. It was a true loss, but I'm sure we'll see them back soon.

The biggest problem with LMC is the new or young competitor who doesn't understand the level at which they're judged. As Herbert mentioned previous, they tend to be the ones who protest and a lot of it's because they don't understand the technical points in the rules. It's one thing to train for a performance, it's another to train the competition.

Sincerely,

Kirk Krack
Vancouver, Canada
 
tylerz

tylerz

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2002
733
114
133
The biggest problem with LMC is the new or young competitor who doesn't understand the level at which they're judged. As Herbert mentioned previous, they tend to be the ones who protest

Here is an interesting point. In a rather new sport to the world, wouldn't the majority of competitors be new or young competitors? I believe so. Therefore is it not just natural statistics that suggests it would be them as the majority who protest disqualifications?

and a lot of it's because they don't understand the technical points in the rules. It's one thing to train for a performance, it's another to train the competition.

So if it was not just statistics, then we would do a comparison of national competitions as opposed to advanced competitions such as Cyprus 2003 and maybe some internationals (sometimes many beginners in these as well), where the turnout of experienced competitors is a higher percentage.

I was under the impression that at Cyprus it was not mainly the beginners. Young divers? I don't know, who are the non-young divers in freediving? ;)

It was also suggested that the number of disqualifications that were overturned were very high in respect to the number of protests. Is this true? If it is then this seems to go against the claim of the divers not understanding the technical points of the rules.

It would be nice if we could see some show of actual results, protests, overturned, experience, young?, national or international competition. Either way there seems to be plenty of interest from the EXPERIENCED to change how these judgements are being made.

Tyler
 
K

Kirk Krack

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2001
59
28
108
53
Tyler,

During the Cyprus competition, the majority of protests and disqualifications were with competitors who were relatively new to competitions and didn't understand the rules. Look at the results of the comp, how many high level or experienced competitors were DQ'd and protested? I spent an hour in the hallway waiting to represent a competitor in a protest and had the opportunity to talk to many who were protesting. It was obvious to what the major portion of the protests were about and it was clear to me that many were due to lack of knowledge about the rules.

Cyprus had a lot of top level competitors in attendance, but also look at how many competitors came from different countries. 25 from the UK, 17 France, 16 from Sweden, etc... It was an open competition and unlike the previous international competitions, didn't neccessarily reflect the most experienced or best from a particular country. In no way am I trying to disparage the comp or the countries mentioned. It was great, I'm simply saying that there were a lot of 'first timers' to competition and this will of course effect the amount of protests and disqualifications.

To give a quick insight. For the men's constant ballast rankings with 101 men performing, 28 DQ's broken down as follows: 7 LMC, 13 BO and 8 technical DQ's. There were also 23 athletes with penalties for double line grabs, etc, where in previous years most would have been DQ'd. I don't have results of who protested, etc, but I can only recount my own experience in the hallway :>)

I don't know how many protests were turned over in favour of the athlete. If so, then I'd say it's a system that is working, goes in the favour of the athlete. Of course there are going to be those who don't agree. It's not perfect, but it's also why EVERY YEAR, the rules are proposed, discussed, voted and implemented. Refinements year after year.

Sincerely,
 
tylerz

tylerz

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2002
733
114
133
Thanks for sharing your clarifications of the experiences at the Cyprus competition. I think that puts a more realistic light on some accounts from Cyprus.

...

The idea that the current system is working towards the "favour of the athlete" is only beneficial when the only options are to perform judgements under a subjective environment. If this were the case then, yes then the system is working based on the lack of option to have an objective decision.

Here is where the works and attempts of many are trying to express there may be objective solutions instead. If this is the case then the system is not in favour of the athlete because they are forced to have to put something on the line to TRY to get a "proper judgement", which is stressful and unnecessary. By "proper judgement" I mean if they knew they performed properly and they end up overturning the judgement.

Tyler
 
K

Kirk Krack

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2001
59
28
108
53
Tyler,

I don't see any of the options that wouldn't allow varying amounts of subjectiveness into it.

Option A- Sitting up straght
Now you'll end up judging whether the athlete made 'straight' in time, what 'striaght' should look like, 'did they slump, was that a LMC?', etc...

Option B- Signals?
The option with the different signals: Just because they reporduced a signal within time doesn't mean much mental coherence. Watch a drunk walking the dotted line. Just because he actually 'walks' the dotted line doesn't mean anything when he's nearly losing his balance doing it? You'll end of with degrees of 'good' signal return, quality of the signal returned, etc.. Or in my opinion you should because gaurenteed, athletes will train the signals and in their haze, they'll snap you the one you want to see whether it was EXACTLY they way you wanted to see it, or will you allow a certian amount accuracy within the signal?

Option C- Airway
I've been caught on this one. WHEN to grab the airway? What an airway in danger looks like? Or do we actually allow a semi-breathing diver at the surface submerge his airway and risk respiroatory problems associated with water in the lungs?

In the end there is no REAL objective measure in my mind. All I can see by making these radical shifts is more years of increased protests, misunderstandings, training competitors and judges and all the hard work that comes with starting over with something that in my mind, isn't completely objective.

The first thing I began to think of as a judge when I read the options is "what does straight mean?", "what quality of multiple signal?" etc..

Again, it's a great paper to get people thinking. I favour just improving the current system unless the AIDA members decide to do away with the LMC issue and don't care if airways submerge so we can determine with accuracy, the 'airway was in danger' and therefore was DQ'd.

Lastly, as I've stated before, I personnaly won't sign the petition, even though I would have choosen one of the options and then added a lot of comments, simply because I have to agree to the following:

"recognizing that many freedivers have felt unable to effect change as individuals through the regular channels of AIDA's democratic organization and its national chapters".

I don't feel that way because I see all the tools in place for people to get their voice heard.

CAFA AGM's (National AIDA AGM's)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
to name a few...

We actually have more tools in place than a lot of international sport federations. Some people just don't bother to use them and that's thier problem.

Don't forget, AIDA is the ONLY international sport federation out there that currently sanctions the numerous disciplines out there
that most of us call freediving (I don't call swimming around a 'cube' freediving :>). All others are private companies where a few people can decide how the sport should look based on their own agenda. The recently has proven itself unreliable and the cause of a fatality.

Sincerely,

Kirk Krack
Vancouver, Canada
 
tylerz

tylerz

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2002
733
114
133
With regards to Option B:

It is our suggestion that the return signal would not be subjective. It is exactly your point above that supports this. A drunk person is not going to accurately respond to the signals especially not in a timely fashion. It is the collection of mental processes and timeliness that the athlete will perform under, which will outwit the "drunken master". In our belief these would be consistent results.

It has often been questioned, "What if there is a possible situation that fools this approach?" Well that is no different than the current system of judging other than it is far less likely of an event. Which is extremely desirable! Being the whole purpose of looking for the solutions. I think many would agree that the current system might be fairly strong for beginner athletes, but experienced athletes have a much higher chance of fooling it. This is not a desirable situation! It will get worse with time, since we would expect there to be far more athletes who are experienced. In our system, experience will not help one to fool the system, it will only help one to perform more accurately.

Once again I can give an example of some of your key points being addressed.

Example:

After surfacing the athlete has 10 seconds to face one of the "testers"(those requesting the signal from the athlete) and initiate the first appropriate response for the signal. 5 seconds after surfacing, the "tester" holds up the sign for "diver waves for help". The athlete must perform this action for 5 seconds. The athlete has 3 seconds to begin performing the action.

As far as your statements about how straight or clear the signal is:

It is largely irrelevant whether the signal is perfectly straight or accurate to the intended signal. You are still mainly thinking in terms of physical control. We are not focusing on physical control. That is where a large amount of the subjectiveness drops away. The signals will be simple and obvious yet it is the fact that the athelete must change their response at moments through the test that clearly demonstrate the mental coherence. We can have a large factor of inaccuracy in signals being passed, to reflect almost all of the subjective physical issues that occur in diving. It would require 80% (guesstimate) less accuracy than current rules. Meanwhile if they lose mental coherency at some point they will not recover this coherency in time to adjust to the changing tests and therefore will not complete the tests in proper sequence or in time. This is based on deeper aspects of the workings of the mind than being drunk.

However, I think I must express that where we have used the term "objective", in my opinion there is maybe only a handful of objective things in the universe. Therefore, the use of the word by myself refers to "a level of subjectivenes far removed from another relative level of subjectiveness". So yes I would agree that everything we do in freediving will always be subjective. However, that does not change the fact that we can come up with a solution that decreases dispute by 98%, which would be my reference of objective.

This is not necessarily the viewpoints of Eric and Pete.

------------------

Regarding your reasons to not sign the petition:

I believe you have misread this statement and the intention of the petition.

This statement does express:
- there exists AIDA channels to express individual points of views.
- these are the standards for providing input to AIDA towards future change.
- freediver individuals have attempted to communicate concerns to AIDA through these channels and others.
- many freediver individuals do not believe the full weight, support, and importance of their thoughts were conveyed/considered/understood.
- many freediver individuals do not believe their attempts have been responded to thoroughly or in a timely fashion with relation to the importance of the concern.
- ***!!!! and most importantly do you agree that each of the previous expressions are true in their own right.

This statement does NOT express:
- many freediver individuals HAVE NOT been responded to thoroughly or in a timely fashion with relation to the importance of the concern.
- many freediver individual's thoughts, WERE NOT conveyed/considered/understood for their full weight, support, and importance.
- that freediver individuals DID NOT have AIDA channels to voice their concerns.
- that AIDA is incorrect or inadequate in its attempt/approach to provide channels of communication for athlete input.

Let me reword the statement without change to meaning.
"We ask for you to sign your recognition that there exists some freedivers that believe they personally have not be able to bring about change through current AIDA channels." The meaning is identical. Of course any two sentences can be said to not have the same meaning, so it come down to accuracy, intention, and interpretation. Through logistics and intention the meanings are the same. Your interpretation could be a million things.

So given that it SHOULD be clear what the meaning is now, is that still a statement that you can base your whole denial of the petition upon?

Some of this might sound surprising, but that is only due to the assumptions present in the air surrounding this paper.

Tyler
 
E

efattah

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2001
3,294
489
173
Originally posted by Kirk Krack
I personnaly won't sign the petition, even though I would have choosen one of the options and then added a lot of comments, simply because I have to agree to the following:

"recognizing that many freedivers have felt unable to effect change as individuals through the regular channels of AIDA's democratic organization and its national chapters".

I don't feel that way because I see all the tools in place for people to get their voice heard.

CAFA AGM's (National AIDA AGM's)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
to name a few...

Note the difference in terminology: Kirk writes that he thinks that there are tools in place for 'people to get their voice heard.'

Well, in my opinion, getting one's voice heard is not enough. When change is needed, it is not enough to say, 'Well sir, we've heard your ideas, but sorry, they don't fit our current plans.'

The statement which one agrees to when one signs the petition has nothing to do with being 'heard', it has to do with effecting changes:

"recognizing that many freedivers have felt unable to effect CHANGE as individuals through the regular channels of AIDA's democratic organization and its national chapters".

After my dives in summer of 2001, I spent great effort and wrote many e-mails to ALL FOUR of the above lists (apneadiver, chat_aida, freedivecanada, and liste_aida). Anyone can view those discussions in the archives, although I'm not sure apneadiver has kept public archives.

In particular, after my own experiences of diving to 80m+, I felt that when diving over 80m there was a high risk of a deep water blackout. So, I felt that no divers should go over 80m without a very effective safety system in place. At the very least, I asked that the governing organizations make a public statement OFFICIALLY DISCOURAGING dives over 80m without extreme safety measures (and in my mind, using a lanyard without scuba divers is not nearly enough).

Further, I pushed for another change; I wanted to see the same safety standards on official training days, as compared to the official competition dives. After, people go even deeper in training than they do in the competition!

What was the result of all this? Nothing. My messages to Liste_AIDA were censored (and never reached the list), since the list is moderated. My messages to the other three lists were largely ignored. Some people argued. Fred Buyle, the vice-president of AIDA at the time, said that I obviously had 'personal physiological problems' which caused issues to me and to me alone when I dove over 80m, and so he recommend that I alone stop diving so deep, but he claimed that others were not subject to the same 'problems' which I had experienced.

So, for those interested in standard democratic channels, that is a great example. Even now, more than 2 years later, there has been no official statement discouraging 80m+ dives without extra safety; there is no equivalence in safety protocols for training and competition dives; athletes are still allowed to dive to >80m (or even 100m) with only a lanyard and no other safety system during the official training days.

One might argue that my concerns were 'heard', and then rejected. In the end I guess it doesn't really matter if one is 'heard', in the end what matters is that people do something about it.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada
 
K

Kirk Krack

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2001
59
28
108
53
Eric,

At the time you wrote your emails, Liste_AIDA is for announcments from AIDA International only. It's a distribution list not a chat forum, so you weren't censored, it just wasn't accepted by yahoogroups because that's not what it's intended for.

Fred was expressing his personal opinion. That didn't nesseccarily reflect the opinion of the AIDA Board or the AIDA Assembly members, simply one persons opinion. Don't take one persons critique as the offical word of the association/federation. If we did we'd never get anywhere because no one could speak up. You say you can't speak up, with your statement, members of the board couldn't express personal opinions without it beign misconstrued <spelling:>)

Just because you believe there should be an official statement regarding 80m+ dives doens't mean the majority of the AIDA Assembly or membership felt that way. Therefore AIDA can't simply issue an official statement because of one persons opinions. If the Assembly or lists had started to discuss your point AND it was agreed that a statement should be put out, then yes, democracy in action and the statement would have been read. Maybe you were heard and rejected? Doesn't mean things don't work. We don't always get what we want and just because we don't, doesn't mean it's broken.

Sincerely,
 
K

Kirk Krack

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2001
59
28
108
53
I'll sign off this discussion now because it's almost arguing for the sake of argument and my plate is full presenting variations of the Blue Paper and other ideas to the Board and Assembly.

Good luck to everyone and have a festive holiday season to all.

Sincerely,
 
DeeperBlue.com - The Worlds Largest Community Dedicated To Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing

ABOUT US

ISSN 1469-865X | Copyright © 1996 - 2022 deeperblue.net limited.

DeeperBlue.com is the World's Largest Community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving, Spearfishing and Diving Travel.

We've been dedicated to bringing you the freshest news, features and discussions from around the underwater world since 1996.

ADVERT