The situation in Italy

[donmoore]

but to 'protect' their athletes "even from themselves"

Al,
Thanks for the effort you have put into this. I know you have little to gain and some to lose. CMAS could learn a real lesson on electing people capable of presenting their views to others without insulting them and turning them into enemies. You would be a good candidate. If they really are a democratic organization maybe they will do better in their next elections.

While your discussing with CMAS leaders and athletes would you ask them about the apparent inconsistency of limiting the depth of their apnea divers, but allowing their spearos unlimited depth? Maybe something has changed that I don’t know about, we could use some more international competitive spearos on the board, but from what I have heard, the best spearos do some incredible depths, way beyond 15 meters in the World Spearfishing Championships.

I have heard that some of the nations’ spearos ability to dive deep to get to virgin areas is one reason the U.S.A. has not done well in the World Spearfishing Championships. This is also a reason many spearos have become more interested in learning from the AIDA and FREE cb athletes. They need deep diving skills to compete internationally.

If CMAS exclusion reason really is to "'protect' their athletes "even from themselves"” and not to eliminate other freediving organizations then why are they not apply their concern of depth to spearfishing too?

Also, since freedivers have proven many scientist wrong over the years and scientist seem to change their minds and theories, if jb is showed in time to be no safer than cb when measured with actual statistics of injury, etc., are they going to change the rules to allow athletes to compete in other organization’s meet that offer cb?
Thanks again,
don

 

[rcerdena]

I agree with Don, Al's explanation was well done and very polite.

Now, about the spearos and the depth limits: It is true that there are some spearos like March, who dives deep (-40 mts) even in the championships. This is an advantage when the sea is rough and the fishing cant be done close to the shore, for the ''shallow'' water fishes.
However, this is easy to avoid, cause the regional/national federations that set the rules/area of the championship can limit this by just setting an area that it is not deep....but then the ''problem'' is that there are a lot of spearos that fish even better....and faster between -10 / -20mts, so sometimes is good to have a deep area, where some divers are going to spend a lot of time and maybe not fishing lots....or maybe those deep divers make a good catch there and that makes the difference. Thats about the championships and the game around them.

Roberto

 

[sebastien murat]

I've often heard people say that the 'cube' was unsafe, but as yet I have'nt found anyone who could tell me why, except that it was a CMAS freediving alternative. Maybe its in an earlier thread, please excuse me if that's the case

So, I thought about it and here's the reason and its brief and simple:

We all know that the risk of a BO increases when ascending, and in that respect the final phase of the cube is not different to any other form of deep-diving, but here is where things differ with deep-diving: the cube requires you to swim...to swim continuously in order to cover as much ground as possible (if I'm not mistaken). This is foolhardy as research as clearly demonstrated that exercise, especially if it occurs at the outset and, moreover, incessantly, will delay the physiological break-point (i.e., the urge to breathe). Indeed, it will delay the PBP to the extent that is very little hypoxic reserve margin. In that respect it is not better than deep-diving in reducing blackouts. Nevertheless, it could be modified to reduce the risk with some very simple changes.

Seb

 

[shoutatthesky]

Someone in this thread said it best when they said "constant weight IS freediving". This JB things sounds like the height of stupidity not to mention completely boring.
I can understand all these different organisations trying to make the sport safer but danger will always exist in this activity. I don't believe danger can be eliminated completely - if it was how exciting would the sport be then?
Is getting into the olympics really a priority for this sport? Are we trying to raise ourselves to the level of pole vaulting (now there's an exciting sport!)

CMAS, AIDA, and whoever else out there should allow any athlete from any other organisation to participate in their comps without penalty. We all want freediving to grow into a more widely recognized sport with the respect of the wider world community. To achieve that we need to work together and get away from the 'no man can dive below 50m' way of thinking of times past.

 

[DeepThought]

I've often heard people say that the 'cube' was unsafe, but as yet I have'nt found anyone who could tell me why, except that it was a CMAS freediving alternative. Maybe its in an earlier thread, please excuse me if that's the case

People on this forum have reported that many cube events ended with relatively high, double-figure percent of BO's/LMC's and that cases of blood spitting weren't reduced at all or even increased compared to conventional CB competitions (maximum dynamic at depth+contractions).
Whether this was validated I don't remember.
Considering it was a new discipline one could expect to see more BO's till athletes learn how to appraise their abilities better, anyone knows these statistics on cube events nowdays?

 

[spaghetti]

No one here has said yet that Jump Blue has NEVER been considered safer for divers (for sure not any safer than dynamics or statics), but it was considered to be safer for rescue/assistance personnel.
When CMAS invented the sport, the question was: now that we've reached 100 meters CW and 140 meters in Variable, WHO will go at that depth to rescue the athlete if shit happens down there? That's the reason (right or wrong) why CMAS rejected CW and Variable, and tried to develop JB. That's it.

 

[sebastien murat]

The notion of scuba safety is an old dinosaur which some keep wanting to revive for one reason or another. Either way as a safety measure it considerably complicates things. I can't believe we're still talking about it. I think the situation in Italy is short-sighted and geocentric......the world has obviously moved on my friends, in more ways than one, and seemingly with out you.

S

 

[spaghetti]

I think the situation in Italy is short-sighted and geocentric......the world has obviously moved on my friends, in more ways than one, and seemingly with out you.

S

You're right: apnea is next to die in this country because no one of the federation chairmans wants to take responsibility to make things do any progress. It's all about banning CW and statics, vetos to international comps, suspension of competitons as happened last year, six months DQ's for a samba, changin rules continuously over and over again. This way we're frustrating the passion of athletes.
It's sad, because we still have great freedivers: our country has at least five males over 190 in DYF, three women over 65meters in CW (but CW is "forbidden"), great schools and the best instructors (Pelizzari and Genoni just to call two names). But despite all this, our athletes are forbidden to compete. But they're longing to: they all want to be back in the sport just like the rest of the world.
It's not easy tho.

 

[Billextreme]

FIPSAS are in some way working against there athletes - instead of listen to what they have to say and then act there after - they don't listen at all.

Last year we had 13 Italian TOP athletes competing in AIDA Competitions:
Paolo VIGANO, Mike MARIC, Homar LEUCI, Matteo GARALDI, Manuela ACCO, Giacomo DE MOLA, Linda PAGANELLI, Mattia MALARA, Chiara OBINO, Andrea RICHICHI, Andrea ZUZZARI, Angela AMBROSI and Federico MANA.

BUT of some reason the first five on that list was not banned from FIPSAS.
(nice with a federation that treat there athletes equal)

:head


AND then CMAS said: "Now when WE have reached 100 meters in CW" ....what we?? What is the deepest anyone has done in a CMAS competition in CW - have CMAS ever had any official competitions in CW? The only one reached 100m is AIDA - and tho CMAS/FIPSAS don't recognize anything done in the AIDA Federation, this is a 100% contradict statement.

Italian freedivers are in the top - but there federation is... not.

Let's hope there will be a change next weekend in the CMAS General Assembly !!!!!!!!

/B

 

[Jorg]

But they're longing to: they all want to be back in the sport just like the rest of the world.
It's not easy tho.

So what's holding them back to compete at an AIDA event? A ban from FIPSAS, so what?

 

[spaghetti]

So what's holding them back to compete at an AIDA event? A ban from FIPSAS, so what?

Yes, fundamentally that's it. But this is just the top of the iceberg: messy situation but it's such a loooong story to tell.
(And BTW some guys recently did something with Aida but were not banned )

 

[Kars]

What are the disadvantages of being banned by FIPSAS?

Kars

 

[spaghetti]

The disadvantage is that you're ass-kicked out of the official federation recognized by the Olympic Commitee.
...
Now, this is a very old thread that's been refreshed yesterday by Sebastien Murat, who was starting an interesting point:

I've often heard people say that the 'cube' was unsafe (...) It is not better than deep-diving in reducing blackouts. Nevertheless, it could be modified to reduce the risk with some very simple changes.
Seb

I'd start from this point, listening to Seb's idea on reducing risk, which is much more constructive than discussing how dumb these italians have been so far .

 

[DeepThought]

No one here has said yet that Jump Blue has NEVER been considered safer for divers (for sure not any safer than dynamics or statics), but it was considered to be safer for rescue/assistance personnel.
When CMAS invented the sport, the question was: now that we've reached 100 meters CW and 140 meters in Variable, WHO will go at that depth to rescue the athlete if shit happens down there? That's the reason (right or wrong) why CMAS rejected CW and Variable, and tried to develop JB. That's it.

Yes, now I recall that reason too, cause CMAS doesn't dive below 30m. rofl
I think I remember Professor Mapeliari (spelling) on this or similar thread telling us how dangerous CB is cause of all the lungs-queezes and brain lesions, that was the reasoning I was reffering to in which JB was claimed to be safer.

 

[spaghetti]

............................. .....

 

[Kars]

Well I hope freedivers in Italy and elsewhere find the courage en energy to change their organisational enviroment to their liking. Hopefully see you all arround on the World Championship in Slovenia and Egypt. Where can I find the WC Egypt info btw? Is there already a website up?

Greetings,

Kars.

 

[sebastien murat]

Hi,

In Italy, France, and Spain, for example, research is being undertaken, but the stuff isn't being published except in obscure, often internal journals. Part of the problem is an inability to publish in English, at least to international standards. This is unfortunate, but that's the reality.... that's life. The corollary of this is that many of the latin researchers cannot read research articles in english. For example, the issue of exercise (e.g., swimming) delaying the break-point has been known since the 60s, but I'm not sure that the Italians, as an example, were even aware of it, due to language difficulties. However, this is still no excuse for making an attempt to gather and any and all information before embarking on a path that dictates unconditional terms to all. Indeed, it took me less than a minute to see a flaw with the 'cube'...not because I'm clever, but simply because I was aware of the conflict that exists between exercise and dive responses, by being able to access the english language journals.

A solution to the cube would be to carry-out a static phase to break-point before initiating any swiming. This would reduce the risk of BOs, dare I say significantly, but not fully eradicate them. Of course, you've got to ensure you set up conditions conducive to potentiating the dive response first, but some divers may have a poor dive response (genetics, inexperience, etc) which would make such a strategy not quite so fruitful. Nevertheless, some minimization of risks is still better than none. Perhaps, points could be allocated for time in the static phase. Obviously, I'm simplifying the situation, its actually a little more involved, physiologically, than I've protrayed it.

Of course I'm not suggesting that CW dives should be eradicated since that is unrealistic and from a personal perspective unappealing, all I'm pointing-out is that more thought should be placed in the consequences of one's actions in attempting to lay down the law. Clearly, it would seem that an ill-devised CMAS plan is now back-firing, but AIDA should also be a little bit more self-reflective and les scritical since I can also see some clear shortcomings in the way they do dynamics! Swimming from the outset in dynamics, for example, is also ill-advised. Indeed my research is demonstrating that it is possible to swim further, all but with greater muscular fatigue, by undertaking a static phase first.


Seb
Here's looking at you from sunny Mallorca