Andrew Alderson: Bell tolls for open agenda

Daniel Bell. Photo / Brett Phibbs

Swimming New Zealand's euphemism that sent-home-swimmer Daniel had drunk "a couple of beers" at the Delhi Commonwealth Games should serve as a lesson about the difficulty of evading embarrassment.

When a controversial issue like this comes to the fore, too many people generally know the circumstances for it to be hushed up. Whispers start and - like it or not - gossip is one of mankind's favourite pastimes. People revel in schadenfreude. Deep Throats are everywhere.

Daniel Bell has only done what countless other New Zealand 20-year-olds have done before him. Writing about his alcohol-tainted adventures could be labelled hypocrisy for anyone who has endured experiences such as waking up beneath a shrub on a random street; or found a phantom 3am kebab shop receipt in a grease-stained pocket when stirring on a mate's couch.

But there is a difference - Bell is a public figure; a national representative; publicly funded. He is a victim of his success as a talented swimmer, the public's demand for such success and the government's willingness to chase votes by funding such pursuits.

In a sense, Bell is already accountable to the taxpayer via agencies like Sparc and the New Zealand Olympic Committee. He is arguably New Zealand's best swimming medal chance at the London Olympics.

But that does not mean Bell - nor any athlete - should be afforded protection if he has issues with discipline and/or alcohol.

His governing body surely has the responsibility of sorting him out as a person as well as encouraging him to chase medals. Surely one benefits the other.

Bell has been let down by the unconditional protection of Swimming New Zealand. To have a zero-alcohol tolerance policy established for the entire team in your honour, then to be the one to breach it in Delhi with limited consequences must be galling for more disciplined team-mates.

To make matters worse those team-mates are muzzled by a series of restrictive "thou shalt nots" in SNZ's code of conduct. That includes clauses such as "to not speak to any media in a negative way regarding Swimming NZ Inc."

In assembling the Daniel Bell story this week, it was clear some are prepared to break free of the 'iron fist' of SNZ's attempt to control media if the issues involved are those of justice, fairness and common sense. So they should.

Trying to run a sport with such rigid control - yet allowing team-mates to feel that preferences are being shown - is problematic.

More of this 'don't say anything negative' siege mentality may have been evident at the Commonwealth Games. When the Herald on Sunday asked head coach Mark Regan if any New Zealand swimmers were ill after a number of international swimmers suffered upset stomachs, the response was: "You tell me, it's the first I've heard of it."

Hours later, Natalie Wiegersma pulled out of her 400 metres individual medley final with a stomach bug. It must be acknowledged this was a Games where the swimming team had one of its better medal hauls. Some in the sport will feel this mute mindset is the way forward.

But swimming needs friends - it was in danger of losing Sparc funding if Delhi had not gone well - and friends are people who treat each other with openness and transparency.

Like a cat, SNZ loves being scratched under its chin with positive stories about its swimmers. But the claws come out when issues such as Bell crank into action.