'Petition' to AIDA: please sign!

[laminar]

Dear Deeperblue members,

As some of you may know, a 'petition' to AIDA is currently circulating on the internet.

This petition was not created to 'bypass' AIDA democratic channels. It was created because many athletes and AIDA members feel that they have been unable to help bring about changes through the standard democratic channels.

We hope that this petition will let AIDA know that:

1. Athletes want to compete under rules which promote safety, both in competitions and in training
2. Athletes want more OBJECTIVE rules
3. Athletes want an improvement in the democratic process (so that petitions like this will not be required)

This petition is your chance to let AIDA know that change is needed. On December 15, a letter will be sent to AIDA, inviting AIDA to consider the voices of freedivers from around the world.

If you want to see change within AIDA, you should discuss this petition (and its concepts) with your national AIDA representative and members.

We hope to see your name on the petition. Even if you do not support any of the four options we have listed on the petition, feel free to choose 'Option E' in support of general change, or make your own proposal, which will be included on the petition. Please let your freediving friends know about the petition!

To read the introduction: www.holdyourbreath.ca/bluepaper.html
To read the petition: www.holdyourbreath.ca/petition.htm
To read the signatures: www.holdyourbreath.ca/sign.html
To sign the petition, email to: bluepaper@holdyourbreath.ca

We started this Blue Paper initiative because we care about the safety of freedivers, and we want to develop our sport.

I hope you will join us in developing the sport we love.

Sincerely,

Peter Scott
Tyler Zetterstrom
Eric Fattah

 

[efattah]

On the athletes-aida yahoogroups list, AIDA board member Claude Chapuis wrote:

"On another side, if your petition is signed by 152 freedivers, I should have to reconize that your point of view would reflect a real majority "


Almost there! Only a few more signatures!

I think his statement only shows what we expected; with enough signatures, the voice of the people will be heard!


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

 

[Kirk Krack]

Peter, Eic and Tyler,

Interesting email and interesting petition. Not sure why you needed to make it a 'petition' instead of suggestions for consideration. A petition usually suggests that the normal democratic process isn't working, yet you haven't even tried this process before your petition?

Anyway, I'd like to make some observations on your suggestions. I find all the suggestions good and very well thought-out. Some of them are a big change in direction to the current AIDA philosophies which the Assembly members have been working in, but not unworkable. I personally believe that we've been working towards a gradual improvement of the rules with the rapid change of the competitions and competitors. Some of these at the time were very BIG changes such as the 20 sec ok/mask rule.

I'd like to provide some personal thoughts and input as follows:

Option A- I see this rule if implemented actually leading to increased LMC's, BO and possible injuries. An athlete who's completed a dive can suffer from different blood pressure changes, but the most serious would be the ones due to gravitational blood shifts. I think we'd see athletes trying to haul themselves out of the water after completing a difficult dive, only find them planting face first on the deck as gravity takes over their circulatory and muscular system. I disagree that removing an athlete from the water immediately is a good thing in many cases of hypoxia or barotraumas because of the above mentioned.

This rule would however force a very strict level of control on the athlete and in the case of Cyprus on the last day of the comp, almost impossible. I hazard to think that Martin, Herbert or any others could have safely exited the water within 20 seconds after a normal dive, let alone a 90m+ dive in 2m swells.

Option B- This would certainly test the mental coherence of the athlete upon surfacing. I think you would also quickly see athletes training these new signals to be nearly automatic responses. How would this address the athlete who can give the proper response but suffer a LMC or BO? I have seen many examples of athletes BO as they give the OK sign. How would this address personal safety issues? LMC judging would still be required right?

Option C- This would obviously require the majority of AIDA members to quit endorsing a no LMC policy. Currently judges are instructed to take into account inadvertent airway submergence and not voluntary or involuntary (LMC/BO) as a point of discussion. At one point I didn't have a problem with athletes performing with a LMC, but over the past many years working with the media, it's hard enough for them to comprehend any safety issues in our sport as being appropriate, let alone athletes suffering LMC issues :>) Personal opinion only.

Option D- Is very close to what is currently provided in the AIDA rules. Last year the colored cards were introduced to give an athlete an immediate verdict. Remember that previous years you had to find out by reading the official standings at the end of the day. My only comment is that there are many situations during constant ballast for example, where the judges don't have time to start giving explanations. In fact if this happened, athletes would start to question during the competition disturbing the other competitors because invariably they will argue for more 'detailed' explanations. If the athlete doesn't trust or believe the judge ask the coach, safety and then decide whether you want to protest it.

As a note, judges don't DQ athletes because they 'look funny', or 'stared off into space'. The athlete can do these for 20 sec as long as they look at the judges, give an OK and remove the mask WITHIN 20 seconds. These are things that help support the observations of LMC's that the judges may have seen. Most competitors forget that they weren't disqualified because of a 'blank stare', but it's usually what the friends hear after the protest isn't successful :>)

Option E- I like this option the most as it recognizes what AIDA has stood for in it's principles with it's active supporting members for many years already.

I would like to see the rules develop some stability for a couple years. We had radical shifts such as penalties for line violations which offered no end of protests in Cyprus because athletes either didn't read or didn't understand or weren't experienced in competition.

I would like to see more serious discussion of the CAFA Safety Protocols for Competitions / Records that were submitted to the Assembly members. I believe our most pressing issue is the firm adoption of standards and procedures for such things as safety scuba and freediving requirements. Ones that also allow different options to be utilized based on the diving environment and local requirements.

Good work on the petition and the thought the three of you put into it. I look forward to hearing others input on these suggestions.

Sincerely,

 

[efattah]

When we thought of the safety platform rule, we imagined every possible counter-argument. If you give the idea a chance, you will see that it is a beautiful solution.

The most common arguments against the platform have been:
1. Women with weak upper bodies cannot pull themselves out of the water
2. The sudden act of getting up against gravity could cause an LMC or BO
3. It would be impractical in big waves

We imagined the platform as sitting about 30cm below the surface of the water. Here is a picture:
http://www.fluidgoggles.com/platform.JPG
So, with the platform slightly below the surface, the arms are not even required to get onto the platform. The athlete turns onto his back and drifts over top of the platform, then simply uses his abdominal muscles to sit up. Thus, anyone with a weak upper body can easily get onto the platform, since the arms are not even required. Because the athlete is still in water up to his hips or belly button, the gravity effect is less. However, it is still conceivable that the gravity effect could induce an LMC/BO. However, that is, in part, the beauty of the solution. If the athlete suffers an LMC/BO as he sits up on the platform, then the athlete was pushing himself too close to his limit--the dive was not safe--and the athlete deserves to be disqualified. The current AIDA rules already limit the depth of the athlete by not allowing neck weights, wrist weights, goggles, lenses, etc., but all athletes are subject to the same rules. So, perhaps the act of getting onto the platform may also 'limit' the depth the athlete can reach (slightly), but it is fair because all athletes are subject to the same rules.

Big waves would cause the platform to be less practical. However, once again the platform forces safety. After all, if there are big enough waves to make using the platform difficult, then there shouldn't be any deep dives happening anyway (whether in training or in competition), because big waves make it harder to deal with blacked out athletes.

I had imagined the rule requiring the athlete to sit straight by the time limit (i.e. 20, 25, or 30 seconds), and then I imagined that the athlete would be required to remain sitting for another 15 or 30 seconds. During that time, it would be a fantastic opportunity to take photos of the athlete for sponsorship reasons. After all, it is the critical moment after the performance, and for the first time ever, the athlete's chest and head are clearly visible, to display sponsor logos and so on. Further, the act of sitting on the platform is so obvious to the public that they easily understand why the performance is accepted or not. So, I think this rule would be VERY popular with the media, because 1) it is obvious, 2) it allows excellent photo opportunities.

Referring again to the picture:
http://www.fluidgoggles.com/platform.JPG
The back comes up out of the water, so if the athlete did experience a blackout, the athlete could be leaned back on the platform, with his/her chest and shoulders out of the water, so artificial respiration could be performed easily.

So, in summary:
1. The platform, being below the surface of the water, does not require strength or great effort
2. The platform, being below the surface of the water, does not have a huge 'gravity' effect
3. The gravity effect of the platform is the same for all athletes, and if the small gravity caused by sitting on the platform results in a BO, then the athlete was pushing himself too far anyway, and it was not a safe dive -- unsafe dives should be discouraged
4. The platform offers a very obvious verification of the performance for the media and public
5. The platform offers a great photo opportunity for media/sponsors
6. The platform offers an OBJECTIVE solution which does not require expert judges
7. The back half of the platform, being out of the water, offers a safe method of resuscitating the athlete in case of BO
8. The platform discourages risky dives in big waves
9. The platform encourages conservative dives, so the athlete still has the energy to get onto the platform with a BO

If anyone has anymore questions about the platform rule, we would be happy to address them.

Concerning option D (judging proof), again, there seems to be misunderstandings. As I imagined it, the judge would not necessarily explain his judgement to the athlete at the moment of the performance, but the judge would be required to justify his decision later.

Remember, as it was written in the petition, these options (A,B,C,D) are GUIDELINES ONLY. We ENCOURAGE any improvements or modifications. If you see problems with one of the options, TRY TO SUGGEST SOLUTIONS.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

 

[tylerz]

Hello Kirk and all,

Thanks for the thoughts on the paper. I am not sure if you followed the threads that were discussing this topic on deeperblue for a month now, however, there were a few who were referring to this discussion surfacing in other forums as well for some period of time now. It is due to this, that some believed further discussion was not relevant, and others who thought there was plenty of consideration still required. It was this element that encouraged the idea of "the petition". I attempted to clarify some of the misinterpretations of "the petition" in a previous post on deeperblue at the following:
http://forums.deeperblue.net/showthread.php?postid=299914#post299914

The main idea I believe that can answer your statement "...why you needed to make it a 'petition'..." is organization. People were beginning to get "numb" to the suggestions and ideas being expressed regarding the issues concerning current rules and LMC. Therefore, receiving consideration was seemingly impossible for the scattered suggestions and what SEEMED like repetitive suggestions. So what harm can be done by organizing the thoughts of many and expressing that to a body who is interested in the community? The term "petition" is appropriate I believe but maybe people are caught in their assumptions that this reflects a forcefullness and struggle. Whereas I clarified in my post above what it can and does in this case actually reflect.

Regarding your take on "Option B":

"Option B- This would certainly test the mental coherence of the athlete upon surfacing. I think you would also quickly see athletes training these new signals to be nearly automatic responses. "

Our point is that you can not train for such signals as we suggested in the paper. You can train an "OK" signal because it does NOT REQUIRE mental coherence. This is because the brain is not responding to complex EXTERNAL stimuli in order to determine its action. Therefore with enough practice in forewarning the brain, you create a habitual subconscious process to give an "OK" every time you surface due to the OVERALL EXTERNAL change in stimuli. This change is recognized by the brain as being the same every time you perform, therefore there is NO conscious mental processing required.

What we have presented in the paper instead uses the nature of the brain when required to act based upon UNKNOWN EXTERNAL stimuli. We present that upon surfacing from any performance the diver is presented with UNKNOWN EXTERNAL stimuli. Therefore the brain is required to do the following:

1. remember that there is something it must respond to (this memory may be trained for and become automatic).
2. remember or solve where to focus to respond appropriately (this can be trained for and become automatic).
3. focus on the UNKNOWN EXTERNAL stimuli and mentally register what it is (this can not be trained for)
4. if registered correctly from step 3, respond with the appropriate action (this is dependent on 3, therefore can trained for but will only work automatically if successfully accomplishing #3.

* note: even though #3 is the only one that can not be trained for, the others still require accuracy which even when trained for will fail often.

So this concludes our reasoning that the brain does REQUIRE mental coherence to perform "Option B" and mental coherence implies non-automatic response.


"How would this address the athlete who can give the proper response but suffer a LMC or BO?"

It addresses it by supplying a time limit that they must respond accurately within. After having an LMC or BO even if it does not take more than a few seconds to recover PHYSICALLY, it does take quite some time to reorientate oneself and regain "mental coherence".

"How would this address personal safety issues?"

I think you are asking how would this apply to "real world" safety? If so, it demonstrates that a diver returning to the surface can respond to surface dangers/concerns with a "sound" mind. Meaning they can use their normal processing skills to make decisions as fast as they normally would to deal with the environment.

" LMC judging would still be required right?"

I do not believe so. Since this rule still includes disqualification if assistance is required, then anything where assistance is not required passes. Reason for this is to eliminate the subjectiveness of trying to determine it was LMC. But practically speaking everybody having LMC will fail due to not being able to demonstrate mental coherence within a reasonable time.

Now remember that our paper is based on the idea that "Real World" safety is the focus we are assuming the rules should be based upon. So saying the slightest LMC is an absolute NO when one can not accurately say it was an LMC is not a practical real-world example of safety. If they still respond reasonable and use their mental abilities, then it is considered to be safe in the real-world for that performance.

"...working with the media, it's hard enough for them to comprehend..."

Our paper is also suggesting that a fresh look at LMC and freediving is required. Namely that safety is best determined through the idea of "Mental Control" not "Physical Control". This would be an easy thing to explain to media, fans, etc., as to why an athlete is being disqualified. And you would be catching all noticeable LMC, therefore you are presenting the performance to the world, in exactly the same way as is done now, other than IF an LMC occurs you can explain more easily why it is not allowed.

And my last statement ... In my post on deeperblue as posted above, I express the approach to reading the petition that brings the best intended results. When you get the "OPTIONS" section, first read the part that explains the "How the Option X addresses the Guiding Principles". Do NOT read the Option Details first. If we decided based what was best based upon which of these we preferred. We would then see clearly the intention and we could all look for a practical solution that satisfies the preferred "Guiding Principles". That is where the REAL benefit is obtained in my opinion.

Cheers,
Tyler Zetterstrom

 

[Mr. Streeter]

PLATFORM

while we have not got to involved with the petition we have in the past used a platform along the lines as shown. While it is great on a picture it becomes somewhat un workable when the seas are not calm, which for us has been almost all the time. Our platform had Tanya sitting in exactly the same position as the diagram. WE used it in a lake and it was fine but not in the ocean.

Thanks

Paul

 

[laminar]

Hi Paul,

Nice to have the feedback of someone using a platform. But wasn't the version Tanya used in the lake above the water and thus more susceptible to wave motion? Could you attach a photo of it?

Please do not get stuck on the details of each option. With a little work, a stable platform (with negative ballast) could be devised for the purpose of a safety platform. Let's not forget Eric's point that if the waves are too big to use a platform in for reasons of stability and jostling, then it probably means that a blacked out freediver's airway could not be protected on the surface or on a platform in such conditions. Ignoring rough conditions is a safety hazard.

Pete
Vancouver, BC

 

[loopy]

About a month ago, a poll was posted asking what people thought about AIDA's current rules with regards to samba's, LMC and adjudication in freediving competitions. The results really speak for themselves - at the time of writing, over 200 people (out of around 240 who voted) agreed that the rules needed changing.

A couple of weeks ago, this petition was realsed, along similar lines. To date, only 29 people have been willing to sign their own name. Why?

I've seen a lot of talk, on various forums and lists about this topic, and even more now that this paper has been released. Everyone seems keen to offer their opinion on why a new system won't work, but very few are willing to offer something that they believe will. Its much easier to criticise the work of someone else than to come up with your own methods and ideas.

Why are people not signing the petition, in particular the other 170 who believe the systems needs changing? Is it fear that you'll be condemned for standing up for something you believe in? Is it just laziness or non-commitance? Is it because you believe that the petition won't have any effect, or that it's just going to be overturned by the hierarchy? Or is it because you don't agree with what's written - and if that is the case, then explain why!

It only takes 15 minutes of your time to write up a quick proposal as to what you personally believe should happen, and to include it into the petition. It only takes 15 minutes of your time to explain to AIDA exactly *why* you disagree with the current rules - whatever facet of that it might be. It only takes 15 minutes to stand up for something that you believe in, and to make a difference. But it's going to take years if we don't work together.

Kirk, you've said here (and repeated on other forums/lists) that you were surpirsed that Pete, Eric and Tyler went to the lengths of creating a petition, that they should have followed 'democratic process'. Wouldn't the fact that they did create a petition cause some concern, in that it shows a lack of faith in this? Maybe they were concerned that they wouldn't be taken seriously at a national level, maybe they were worried that they wouldn't be taken seriously at an AIDA level, or maybe they just wanted to demonstrate to AIDA that this isn't just the concerns of a couple of athletes from one country, but an international problem?

Kirk, you're arguably the best judge in the world, but even so, you have to agree that judging is very subjective. You've even said yourself that your style has modified over the years - does this mean that in the past you may have given a DQ to an athlete, whom you would give an OK to today? If so, is that a fair system?

In Australia, we're in a unique position of starting to implement a structured freediving commission - but the point remains: how do we train our judges? Most of these guys have never been in a competition before (not from lack of want, but from lack of organisation), and although many of them have experienced themselves, and witness in others, various LMCs, they don't have a diversified experience of being able to see different peoples reaction to a mmaximum breath hold. How do we teach them when a competitor is disqualified, in the not so obvious cases? Sure we can run them through hours of footage from previous competitions, but everyone is going to be different. How can we teach them to detect a disqualification when they have such little experience?

Paul - you've said you're not going to get involved with the petition. Why? Is it because you don't agree with it? Is it because you don't want to support something that might inevitably not succeed? Or is there something else? You say that you've used similar measures before (ie the platform) - why did you do this? Weren't you happy about the level of safety that the current rules offered? Did you see it as more important that Tanya successfully and safely completed the dive, rather than attempt to control any LMC?

Whehter you agree with what's written or not, the worst possible thing you can do is sit by and do nothing. If you agree that the AIDA rules at the moment are lacking, but don't agree with the options presented then come up with your own, and submit them! A combined submission will have a lot greater effect than a few dribs and drabs. But most importantly remember - by not having your say, you're losing all control over the future of your sport. If 100 people sign the petition for one option that you don't agree with, then AIDA is going to take it as what the majority wants. By not having your say, anything goes.

 

[efattah]

As one diver on the athletes_aida list said, he was afraid of 'opening his mouth' because he knows that the same people who listen to his 'complaints' will be the people who judge him in the future -- and he didn't want to jeopardize his future as a competitive diver.

So, there is part of the problem. Most people are afraid to come forward, in fear of being labelled a 'troublesome outcast' (much as I have been). They know that judging is subjective, and in the future, if the people who are judging them have a 'grudge' against them, they fear they will not be treated fairly.

Once again, objective judging would changing everything. People wouldn't be afraid to speak up.

Let's face it; since 2001 I have been one of the most vocal and outspoken people as far as the rules are concerned, and as a result I am not well liked! But, at least I always offer solutions, not just criticism.

During one particularly vocal argument on a freediving e-mail list, a prominent member of the AIDA assembly said to me over the list
"If you wish to keep spreading false truths that is up to you but all it will do is lessen any credibility that you have left. Which in many circles isn't much."

I think there is an old saying, 'if a man dies without any enemies, then he didn't accomplish much.'

I still think that safety standards for official competition dives should be identical to the safety standards for official training dives. It seems ludicrous to say that for some reason the diver going to 100m in training somehow needs less safety than the same diver going to 100m on the official day of the competition.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

 

[Mr. Streeter]

Pete,

The platform we used in the past sat on the surface of the water but it had a cut out with the chair about 12-18" under the surface, which meant that the diver would be in much the same as the picture in the petition. The reason we used it 6 years ago was thats just how we started, we did not know any better and was given it to use. It was great in the lakes but much different in open ocean. We used it in both situations, lake and sea, and Tanya was successful in all record attempts but we had a few close calls in rougher seas. Personally I think it would be the same even if slightly submerged.

And loopy,

With regard to safety divers and safety I personally do not consider AIDA rules when organising an event. I work on what we believe to be as completely safe as possible for Tanya and her safety divers and the fact that it is well within guidelines is great for us. We implement as much safety procedures as possible and are always looking for new ideas. WE have never worried about LMC, if she has one there is a safety team around her to make sure she is OK and if she has one then she gets disqualified. One of the best things we have tried is underwater comms for our safety divers. We used them this year and they were great and I believe that having the safety divers being able to communicate to each other and the surface to be a great benefit to safety. Imagine if Pascal could have talked to the surface when Audrey was in trouble??

I think part of the problem is that some people wanting to attempt world records look at providing the minimum possible within the rules instead of looking at what is really safe for all. Look at all the possible scenarios, all the ifs and maybes and implement a safety procedure with a back up, and for the safety divers also. Most divers think its never going to happen to them, we look at it as though its definately going to happen and then adjust and implement procedures as the training dives go on.

As for the question of LMC I believe that if a LMC occurs then the diver should be DQd.

 

[efattah]

Originally posted by Mr. Streeter

As for the question of LMC I believe that if a LMC occurs then the diver should be DQd.

If that is the case, then you should be pushing for a rule change like the rest of us, since the current rules allow LMC performances to be accepted as long as the LMC occurs in a submerged body part, or as long as the athlete is proficient at concealing the LMC.



Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

 

[Kirk Krack]

Loopy,

"Kirk, you've said here (and repeated on other forums/lists) that you were surpirsed that Pete, Eric and Tyler went to the lengths of creating a petition, that they should have followed 'democratic process'. Wouldn't the fact that they did create a petition cause some concern, in that it shows a lack of faith in this? Maybe they were concerned that they wouldn't be taken seriously at a national level, maybe they were worried that they wouldn't be taken seriously at an AIDA level, or maybe they just wanted to demonstrate to AIDA that this isn't just the concerns of a couple of athletes from one country, but an international problem?"

I would disagree with this statement, but if they think that, it's too bad. If the ideas had been presented before to the board or to the AIDA elists and we told them to 'take a hike' of course. I'd be the first on the petition. They have every available resource to put suggestions to the very top (me) and they have done so in the past. Where do you think the 20second AIDA rule comes from? Maybe their making a statement for other AIDA Nationals, but unfortunately their making CAFA look like it's undemocratic and doesn't work and in my own opinion, we have one of the strongest democratic systems with the AIDA Nationals. Look at our website under 'administration' and tell me you can't find almost everything we've ever discussed as a board and put it there for our members?

"Kirk, you're arguably the best judge in the world, but even so, you have to agree that judging is very subjective. You've even said yourself that your style has modified over the years - does this mean that in the past you may have given a DQ to an athlete, whom you would give an OK to today? If so, is that a fair system?"

I wouldn't say I'm the best judge in the world, Eric Fattah would be. He has numerous examples of where innocent athletes were DQ'd and guilty ones set free :>) My own little joke to Eric.

Yes, my judging has modified over the years, most of with the modifications and improvements in the rules. If I had to rejudge based on new rules, lots would be DQ'd, probably Eric included.

Yes, LMC is hard to judge because it is somewhat subjective, BUT I don't see any of the options presented in the petition completely without subjectiveness. Think as a judge when you read the options and think how you now have to define signals, appropriate signals, "straight in the chair", "airway out of the water", etc...

The biggest thing AIDA has done is to introduce a Judges In Learning Clinic that is 16 hrs in duration and covers the foundations of what a judge is required to know. From here they gain experience under other judges. Not a perfect system, I'd rather have a computer brainwave modulated oxymeter giving the green or red light :>) Certainly make my job easier and I wouldn't be on the firing line so much from the armchair quarterbacks :>)

"In Australia, we're in a unique position of starting to implement a structured freediving commission - but the point remains: how do we train our judges? Most of these guys have never been in a competition before (not from lack of want, but from lack of organisation), and although many of them have experienced themselves, and witness in others, various LMCs, they don't have a diversified experience of being able to see different peoples reaction to a mmaximum breath hold. How do we teach them when a competitor is disqualified, in the not so obvious cases? Sure we can run them through hours of footage from previous competitions, but everyone is going to be different. How can we teach them to detect a disqualification when they have such little experience?"

Ask Walter Styne how it's done. Walter not only set three Australian national records in constant ballast, constant ballast w/o fins and static apnea, along with attending the Pacific Cup in Kona as a competitor, but he also took an AIDA Judge In Learning course from me. During this clinic we spent almost 4 hrs watching LMC's, BO's, exhaustion, technical dq's, strong and weak performance. All real, all from competitions or records including Ibiza and many CAFA competitions. They watched 75+ surface recoveries and between a group of ten of them, had to judge and justify their decision, the review it again.

He's your first start at proper judging and from there he should start a national system for a Judge In Learning program based on the AIDA JIL program. We did this within CAFA for the first two years until we adopted the AIDA system. In fact our CAFA system was the AIDA system (I created the outline), but we loosened some of the prerequisites to promote the creation of judges. Now we use the AIDA system which I'm working on improving with the introduction of a Surface Recovery Video for juding LMC, BO, etc... It's only the start to helping develop the nesseccary skills. Maybe I should put it on hold till the Assembly votes in January :>)

"Whehter you agree with what's written or not, the worst possible thing you can do is sit by and do nothing. If you agree that the AIDA rules at the moment are lacking, but don't agree with the options presented then come up with your own, and submit them! A combined submission will have a lot greater effect than a few dribs and drabs. But most importantly remember - by not having your say, you're losing all control over the future of your sport. If 100 people sign the petition for one option that you don't agree with, then AIDA is going to take it as what the majority wants. By not having your say, anything goes."

I would personally only trust 100 signatures from people who have competed in an AIDA competition, even better, competed as least twice. This way they learn the rules the first time when they are penalized and DQ'd, then decide to read the rules and try again :>)

100 signatures from people who would like to compete, but the closest they get is this forum gives no credibility to the understanding of any precieved problem or any worthy recommendations in my opinion. I'm not trying to be a s--t h--d about this, but the best advice is knowledgable advice :>)

Sincerely,

Kirk Krack
Vancouver, Canada

 

[sammydive]

From a person who has never competed, but wants to someday, which means my opinion doesn’t count for much, I have to comment that the ideas in the petitions look very good an indeed an improvement over existing rules. But it also looks like the method of communicating these has offending some of the hard working people of the AIDA who have sacrificed to bring the sport to where it is. I’m not saying that this was the intent.

Maybe the writers of the petition could sit down with some of the AIDA people and without discrediting the importance of their views, ask them how they could bring this to the AIDA in a way they would feel less threaten and more likely to consider the proposals without feeling challenged; while retaining the ability of other freedivers to make their agreement or disagreement heard too.

It couldn’t hurt,
Sammy

 

[laminar]

Letter/ Petition sent to AIDA

Hi everybody,

We sent off the following letter to AIDA today. Thanks to all who took part in the petition and the discussion. Hopefully our ideas will be considered and there will be some progress soon at all levels.

Cheers,

Pete Scott
Vancouver, BC

*****************

Dear Members of the AIDA Assembly,

The petition to AIDA (Blue Paper) has brought forward some intersting ideas for alternatives and modifications to existing AIDA rules and safety standards. We present the petition, its signatures and comments for your consideration:

www.holdyourbreath.ca/petition.html

www.holdyourbreath.ca/sign.html

Thirty-four freedivers signed the petition from the following countries: Russia, Netherlands, Australia, Austria, United Kingdom, Colombia, New Zealand, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, United States, and Canada. These individuals are AIDA competitors, trainers, world record holders, and recreational freedivers.

We support AIDA and its future development around the world, improvements in rules and safety protocols, strengthening of national chapters and increased democratic transparency throughout the organization.

We hope that the Blue Paper petition will inspire new solutions to existing challenges and productive discussion within the AIDA Assembly.

Sincerely,

Peter Scott

Tyler Zetterstrom

Eric Fattah

British Columbia, Canada

bluepaper@holdyourbreath.ca