I agree that the video shows no such sign of an OK signal and that under the current AIDA rules this specifically concludes a failure of the performance. I think there were a handful of people who responded harshly under the assumption that the OK was given, due to misinformation. This is their mistake and hopefully, if they did not give any constructive feedback but instead only backlashed, they will have the decency to appologize.
More importantly, is that there was numerous posts through these discussions here and on AIDA Athletes list, that went far beyond the discussion of the OK being given or not. So I think it is unfair to not recognize the value of these discussions and the REAL points that were made and are still valid. Most of the lengthy posts attempt to address concerns with Stephane's record, that are still valid without the OK sign. The reality of whether he gave the OK sign, I would say, was the least important part of these discussions.
I think it is not appropriate to state that somebody, who released "news" that is incorrect or not complete, is automatically wrong for doing such. It appears that there have been decisions made in the past by representives of AIDA that have gone against general opinion/understanding without any release of information to explain or educate regarding the circumstances. People would then learn from this and lower their expectations of where information can/will be received from. AIDA is in a position to not present the public with ALL information, so they have to understand that they WILL be scrutinized and forced to be accountable, just in case they are not. So, gathering information from other resources and presenting it, is still valid, if not only to ensure information is exposed freely by AIDA and any tier organization. I do not think, with the few recent questionable situations, that it is wrong for people to be concerned and question the approach of a governing body!?
Under wrong assumptions and misinformation, discussion can still procede confidently, thoroughly, fairly, and constructively. That does not mean it will always be constructive for one entity (ie. AIDA) but it has the potential to be constructive for everybody. Off the top of my head I feel the following were all constructive concepts brought out through these discussions:
1. Can the current rule be overruled as a precedent and apply it to the record that brought this to the foreground in such a demanding way?
2. Is AIDA responsible to the public in exposing ALL workings and approaches to the community interests?
3. Can AIDA recognize the seemingly hypocritic nature of certain rules. Objective but subjective.
4. Should AIDA be able to enforce such rigid rules while the general process of ratifying a record is so loose and unstable.
5. What is the reality of how AIDA's current philosophy towards the rules, is the only means of achieving a truly recognized international sport.
6. What mechanism is in place in AIDA, to recognize and resolve inconsistencies in their own regulations/rules/approaches/organization?
7. Is AIDA willing to recognize that they are not professional politicians (is anybody?) therefore holding rigidly to certain political stances, while the community cries for something else would not be wise?
8. Would the community refuse to participate in non-AIDA events and if not, what stops another organization from replacing AIDA? This question would seem to imply AIDA should be on the edge of change at all times, ready for communal change, to discourage the need for such circumstances.
9. Is it possible for the current AIDA organization to support a lack of input and change to professional experience in the community? If there are x number of professional freedivers out there, how many actually get to influence the approach of AIDA?
Now, if that came out of this discussion, how can somebody focus on bashing one person (namely Eric Fattah) for introducing the questionable circumstances that preceded the push to explore these concepts? If he further did not add constructive concepts, and instead insisted on encouraging others to mindlessly pull down the walls, then of course I will be the first to say he is out of line. But to imply he is the enemy of AIDA and wants to bring it down, is a FALSE statement. Is it so hard to recognize that when a person really wants change they will try to find ways of encouraging that change? If we all took the same approach then we might all chose the method that fails. We can not beforehand know what approach will be the one to succeed. So his is "harsh" maybe. Others are diplomatic. Others are silent. But it is ignorance and lack of personal consideration, that would imply he is destructive. Are those, who would suggest this, SO CONFIDENT that the current approaches are pure and infallible? If not, then recognize that some people want to keep that in the community's mind, to ensure that as we all calm down from this incident or that, we don't just "let it go", forgotten on the ocean waves. It is too easy to call the "upstart" evil (reference: history; see historical military governments' first approach to quelling a rebellion). Please think beyond this.
Beyond that, this discussion had many in the community thinking, expressing, and wanting to make a difference. Please recognize this was all for a reason. Prepare for change.
Sincerely,
Tyler Zetterstrom
