Molchanova 101 CWT World record removed from books

[Jorg]

AIDA International has just released a statement where they penalize bill stromberg for his role during the 90 meter free immersion and 101 meter constant weight world records of natalia molchanova. As a results those two records will be deleted from the books.

Molchanova’s 101 Constant Weight WR Removed From The Books | Shark Freediving

 

[MP4/4]

How was the procedure of verifying WR(surface protocol, antidoping test etc.) breached so that these Natalia's WRs are deleted? Mere Bill's position of being in conflict of interests(in the case he didn't misuse it and from the statement it's not clear how he did) doesn't seem quite enough...

 

[Aber]

I tend to agree with MP4/4. There is, however, an obvious violation of commons sense rules in this case, as AIDA points out. Molchanova's team should have had a more unbiased judge. But to remove the world records is a serious penalty. Can AIDA back their ruling up with pointing to a violation of specific AIDA rules? If not, I think they are too hard on the athlete in this case.

 

[Lil Dragonfly]

So wait...why are they taking it away? I'm confused.

 

[demasoni]

"At the time being there was already too much ‘noise’ about these record, and I’m glad that AIDA took the right decision in this one."

What noise? And why exactly were the records removed? Huh? Because Bill wore too many hats or was something fishy going on?

 

[Kars]

From the AIDA international website:

"Executive Board Completes Review of 2009 “Rulers of the Deep” Competition; Actions Announced

2010-05-06 By: AIDA Executive Board

Circumstances surrounding the “Rulers of the Deep” competition in Sharm el-Sheikh in September 2009, at which Natalia Molchanova performed dives exceeding then current women’s records in Constant Weight and Free Immersion, raised substantive issues regarding the validity of that event's world record status. Accordingly, the AIDA Executive Board requested a group of senior judges to review the circumstances of that competition. After reviewing a significant amount of information (including emails from the senior judge describing judges and organization), this group presented a report to the AIDA Executive Board, who reviewed the report (along with additional information from the event organizer). In the judges’ report, a number of issues with the September 2009 Sharm competition were raised, but one issue overshadowed the others: the sole A or B level judge for the competition—the judge required to be in the water and judging in order for the competition to have WR status and for performances to be valid world records—was the paid coach of the athlete attempting those records. This extraordinary conflict of interest cast into doubt the validity of the two performances (CWT 101 and FIM 90), and the Executive Board voted without opposition to take certain actions in connection with that competition. Most significantly, the presiding judge has been temporarily suspended from judging, and from acting as a judge instructor. In addition, performances at this competition have been invalidated for purposes of AIDA world record status. Fairness and integrity are the primary principles of sports competition, and AIDA, as a governing sports body, must ensure that its sanctioned events and records reflect these principles. The actions by the Executive Board with respect to the 2009 Rulers of the Deep competition in Sharm el-Sheikh have been taken to protect the fairness and integrity of AIDA and its athletes. "

http://www.aida-international.org/a...wsObject&NewsObjectID=214&CountryID=4&actID=3

At this point we do not know much.

But from this release I do see some irregularities, such as:

"Accordingly, the AIDA Executive Board requested a group of senior judges to review the circumstances of that competition."​

Why? Does AIDA not have a proper disciplinary commission that does the research and find out the facts, presenting them with advice to the board who would after hearing the people involved than make a decision? Than wait for protest, and than, with certainty and confidence publish the final decision.

Though some things may have gone wrong, I think it would be very important that the board, being a leading example, do their utmost best to follow a proper, fair and transparent procedure.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Does AIDA not have a proper disciplinary commission that does the research and find out the facts, presenting them with advice to the board who would after hearing the people involved than make a decision?

That might have a lot to do with it. The AIDA Disciplinary Committee hasn't been properly active since the fall of Stromberg. It probably got caught up in a wake of the chaos that it has yet to swim out of.

Right now I can't figure out if this is petty I-hate-Bill-Stromberg action from some small-testicled hardliners with a feeble grudge, or if something was serious wrong with the said event along with the later actions of Stromberg as both a judge and president, providing the said hardliners with a case.

What is clear is that this is all aimed on the individual Bill Stromberg. On one hand I hope the hardliners have a case, meaning they are the right replacements, but on the other hand I don't.

 

[efattah]

I recall in 2001 some sort of AIDA rule was enacted to ensure that no coach could judge his/her athlete. I don't remember the specifics.

 

[BennyB]

Chapter 10 (relating to Guide for Judge Selection for World Record Attempts) in the AIDA International Judges Internal Operations and Procedures document states:

10.1 The judge may not be any of the following:​

•​

​

​

​

Same nationality or club as the athlete.​

•​

​

​

​

Coach, manager or trainer of the athlete.​

•​

​

​

​

Family member or girlfriend/boyfriend of the athlete.​

•​

​

​

​

There must not be any conflict of interest i.e. no close friends or adversaries, no business partners, no sponsors and no media.

The rule does not specify whether it is inclusive of records in competition.​

 

[Aber]

If what Fattah and BennyB refers to is correct, I can't see how AIDA could have ruled otherwise in this case.

 

[monkeyhatfork]

I could be wrong cause my memory is a bit fuzzy on it and can no longer find the article but didn't he just judge the kona contest with a competition training clinic before hand as well as aida course how is that any different, as far as I'm concerned Molchanova has the deepest dive I could care less weather it's approved by aida or not.

 

[DivingDane]

there is very little if any doubt that Natalia is capable of the dive, but the problem is there is simply no other option, and unfortunatly she has paid the price for the mistake.

its a matter of keeping the RECORD fair to all, who knows if having a less familiar person as the judge would have changed the outcome of the dive, having somebody who you are comfortable with makes a HUGE difference o the dive.

the Judges rules were breached and as such the attempt is void and thats the issue. not the dive or any cheating as such.

you have to remember the others who are effected. Sara campbell lost her record to this dive. whis to dsay if her coach was judging her making her more comfortable she could have easily pulled through her VERY close 100m dive (blackout at surface) this small change may have allowed her to make surface protocol cleanly.

and what of the future athlete that will attempt this record they would also need to be allowed to have THEIR coach judge them!

must protect the performance of all athletes those that have the records, those attempting to break the records and those in the future and that is the issue with this competition.

Bill surely would have known full well that he should not be judging his student... a student from what i understand is paying for the coaching... of course there is a conflict of interest.

look at any other sport, Soccer, martial arts, ballet,ICE skating it doesnt matter NONE of these sports allow athletes to be judges or umpired by there coaches friends etc. its just not right.

i agree it is a shame hat NAtalia lost these records and no doubt she has the potential to improve on them but we cant turn a blind eye just because "wow it was a REALLY good dive and they are such nice people" rules are rules and they need to be maintained for ALL.

if this is OK then there is no stopping anybody from being judged for a record by a training buddy or coach.... not exactly reliable.

DD

 

[seacow]

The event was annonced as a "normal" competition with 3 judges(e-level) + Bill in the water in the background.

 

[monkeyhatfork]

I doubt Sara Campbell would want her record back do to a technicality, knowing someone else has gone deeper.

 

[rxcnc2]

This has the taste of a revenge, and it makes a big mess.

While it may or may have not been right to sanction Bill for the conflict of interest, I don't quite understand whether there was any evidence of irregularities in Natalia's dives.

All the calls for transparency that we have heard and that have been promised should be answered by making public who were the judges in the panel and their report.

Conflict of interest: I am not sure that being a paid coach is the only parameter. We are a small community and it might be impossible to find judges that have no relationship at all to any athlete being it friendship, romance, or other non-monetary favors.

 

[DivingDane]

True she would not want it back! Buts it's the fact it was lost under questionable circumstances that is important. Nobody doubts natalia's ability but you can't approve a record that is set under questionable circumstances. So yes she probably would have made these dives regardless, but wrcant run an organisation on assumptions. All records and competitionsfor that matter must have the same rules. As in any sport if the rules aren't met then regardless of the athlete the attempt is void. If a person accidentaly touches you during surface protocall then the dice is void, regardlesss of if you were clean or not.

Many sports are like this is rules are breached during an attempt for example a land speed record then the attempt is void regardless of the outcome. And that is what has to happen in this case as well. It's a shame but it's the only option. There plenty of judges around the world that have no relationship with divers I can think of at least 10 off the top of my head which could happily judge a record attempt with no connection to the athlete.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[MP4/4]

First of all keep in mind that this was a competition and not just individual WR attempt. The AIDA decision would be OK if it was the latter case, but it was a competition and therefore some problems arise.

What if Sarah Campbell was there at the competition and did even deeper dive? would her performance be approved as a WR? Undoubtably it would, and Natalia's dive in the same circumstances isn't - that's also not fair. Does that mean that at the same competitions with WR status some athletes CAN'T do WR no matter what if the judge happens to be someone they're somehow related to and that can incur some doubts in the validity? Does that mean that you have to think twice on which competitions you'll go because at some you're handicapped in comparison to other athletes?
Does that mean that there'll have to be backup judges so that they can judge dives in the case that main judges exclude themselves? How strong relation between judge and contestant should be so that "conflict of interests" is pertinent?


Records depend only on performace validation protocol and should be deleted only in case of proven irregularities regarding the performance itself.

 

[trux]

Personally I find the punishment hard too, but on the other hand the main role of the rules is giving all athletes equal conditions. Normally, an athlete can set a new WR either in an individual attempt, or during a competition with WR status. Organizing individual attempts is quite expensive, and competitions with WR status are relatively rare. That's why it also happens we see performances higher than the current WR, but do not receive that status.

And in this very case, there are many doubts whether the prerequisites, announcements, and all required conditions during the competition fulfilled the very strict standards of a WR ranking competition. Natalia's performances are amazing regardless, but it would be unjust towards other athletes who were less privileged, and not in such a good relation with the leadership, hence they had it much harder and/or much more expensive to fulfill the conditions for eventually attempting a record.

Natalia's performances are not disqualified, and they will most likely remain national records anyway. Additionally I am sure Natalia will beat them soon again. It is a very sad case, personally I am very sad for the outcome, but on the other hand I understand the stand of the commission and the executive board.

 

[efattah]

The new world record defaults to Natalia Molchanova with -97m CWT that she did at the World Championships at Dean's Blue Hole in late 2009.

 

[DivingDane]

Mp4/4 YES! to most of the things you are proposing. they do have to be taken into account both in our sport and in MANY others.

its the responosibily of both the organiser AND the athlete to protect there performance. National records and ranking dives do not fall under the same requirements as world records (all be it i think this rule should stand for all dives) so yes in most countries (it is up to the AIDA national what rules it has for national attempts) you can still claim national records under the circumstances that occured in Sharm, but not a world record.

WE MUST HAVE NEUTRAL and UNBIASED judges for record attempts, particularly WR's because theycarry so much weight inn the community. this is the responsibility of all parties Organiser, Judge and athlete.

DD

even in a fledgling country like australia judges remove them selves from judging if there trainingpartnetr etc is competing and another judge takes up the position.

and yes it still would be correct if Sarah Campbell was there and did a deeper dive there is no conflict of interest. a competition must insure that Judgeds are as neutral as possible for ALL athletes.