General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Channel Swimming Association

Duncan Heenan · 2003-09-14T15:10:57+00:00

I have had my membership of the Channel Swimming Association terminated after 19 years, and I thought you might be interested to know the background. The CSA decided in 2001 to start certifying wet-suit swims. I have heard several versions of how this started life, but it is my belief that it was mostly Eddie Ette (who was a CSA director) wanting to use a wet suit to do a London-Paris triathlon which started it off. The rest followed on to the delight of the pilots who saw this as a way of expanding their market with the free marketing of the CSA. Several CSA members heard of this in April 2001 (me included) and made representations to the committee to complain that : a) this was against the spirit of LD swimming generally, b) against all the history, rules and traditions of the CSA and c) had never been put to the CSA members for approval. The only answer we got was that it had already been decided, and there was no committee meeting before October 2001 at which a formal letter of complaint could be considered. As a result, having failed to get any kind of sensible answer 'informally' from the CSA, Kevin Murphy (King of the Channel) and I put a motion to the CSA AGM in November 2001 asking for all assisted swims to be discontinued and those already done not to be recognised. Before the meeting, Duncan Taylor, the CSA's paid Secretary, shook my hand and asked for a 'fair debate', to which I agreed. Duncan Taylor, (who is also a swim Pilot - though never a swimmer), in trying to explain away the 7 wet-suit swims the CSA had registered & run that year as 'experiments', also put in a separate motion asking for a separate category of assisted swim to be introduced. The debate was vigorous and the voting a bit confused. Only Mike Read and Duncan Taylor spoke for assisted swims, and Ulrich Haevecker (a CSA vice-president from Germany), Kevin and I spoke strongly against. Mike Read tried to use his position as Chairman to get the vote his way. In the event Kevin & my motion failed due mostly to drafting technicalities, but so also did Duncan Taylor's. The result was that in General Meeting the CSA had voted against assisted swims. Though Duncan Taylor described the vote as 'close', in fact there were only 3 votes from non-director members of the CSA in favour of assisted swims - the meeting was generally not well attended as usual, and there was no postal or proxy voting. In other words, the ordinary members threw out 'assisted' swim quite definitely. During the AGM debate Duncan Taylor said that if the CSA did not do assisted swims the Channel Crossing Association would. When asked to explain about this previously unknown body, he clammed up and said no more on the subject. Subsequently it was discovered by me (not volunteered by Taylor) that in fact Duncan and Alison Taylor had registered a new company - Channel Crossing Association Ltd., - two days before the AGM at which this was debated! (In practice this means he must have started the process many weeks before - about the time he received notice of our AGM motions). I felt this displayed bad faith and duplicity and when I faced the CSA board with this, by letter and subsequently in a meeting, they claimed that he had not told them either, not even the Chairman. But they nevertheless chose to subsequently endorse his action, carried out behind everyone's back, as being in the best interest of the CSA! The CSA have since issued public statements saying that the CCA is separate from the CSA - even though they advertise on each others websites and Duncan and Alison Taylor run both from the same address (they own personally all the shares in CCA), and the paperwork is almost indistinguishable. The CCA exists to organise assisted swims of the sort the CSA voted not to endorse, and is owned personally by Duncan & Alison Taylor. During 2002, many-times Channel swimmer Peter Jurgynski (USA) had his Vice Presidency of the CSA terminated, and his membership cancelled. It was said this was because he swam with Mike Oram as pilot. However he had also made protests in the past at the way Duncan Taylor has behaved and the general slide of standards in the CSA, and so was a target from the moment he opened his mouth. He had also endorsed the motion of no confidence in Duncan Taylor (see below). Kevin, Ulrich and I subsequently complained about Duncan Taylor's underhand behaviour which we believe was unethical towards the CSA's members, but the CSA brushed our complaints aside and stalwartly maintain that Duncan Taylor has done nothing wrong. Since then a campaign of character assassination has been mounted against the protestors, which has contained untruths and irrelevancies way 'over the top'. As a result the mess remained, and a motion of No Confidence in Duncan Taylor was submitted to the CSA's Board for debate at the November 2002 AGM, to bring the facts before the members (who had still never been informed of Duncan Taylor's setting up of the CCA). Instead of trying to do something about the underlying problem, the CSA board waited until the AGM, and then ruled the motion out of order on very spurious technical grounds. However, during the debate on other motions the matter was mentioned, to the fury of the Board. Norman Trusty (Vice-Chairman) even ended up screaming 'bloody liar!' at me, when in fact it was him who had no grasp of the truth. At the end of the meeting I spoke with the Chairman, Mike Read, and said as far as I was concerned, the issue was now closed, as now the members who attended the AGM, though a minority, were at least aware of the facts (so far as I was aware myself ). He said he was pleased and looked forward to peace in the future and we shook hands on it. Now I have had my membership terminated, without any form of consultation. Draw you own conclusions. I believe, as well as the personal antipathy involved, I have been removed in order to leave the field clear of vocal opposition for the CSA to re-introduce (probably by stealth as they did in 2001), wet-suit and other assisted swims. I can not work out why the CSA directors are so dominated by Duncan Taylor; they seem to let him do what he likes. Perhaps they can't face the task of replacing him, so they have to side with him, which makes him even more confident and cocky. I can see that a number of them are besotted with the vicarious pleasure of being associated with an achievement they will never manage themselves (swimming the Channel). But this does not explain it all. I also can not see why the other pilots are prepared to entrust their business to him indirectly. There have clearly been problems within the Board too as, within the last year, 3 directors have resigned (Joe Smith, Richard Buttner and Eddie Ette) over the way the CSA is being run. However this only gives the remainder the opportunity to fill their places with compliant candidates who will toe the line. The swimmers are the losers in all this. The achievement of The Channel is being eroded in the public imagination by the influx of wet-suit swimmers, the proliferation of certifying bodies, and the ever upward movement of the price of pilotage and registration. Confusion reigns with newcomers. The swimmers pays their money and takes their choice ; but mostly they pays their money! Whether CSA members will bother to come to future AGMs to see what happens next remains to be seen, but they are such a sham now that there is little point. Unless that is, the members have the bottle to vote to remove Duncan Taylor and start afresh again. In this scenario, there is even a chance of reconciling the warring parties of the CSA and the CS&PF, which would surely be best for the sport and for the swimmers. I can't do it now as I'm not a member. My letter to the CSA's Board is below. ---------------------------- The Board, Channel Swimming Association Limited Bolden's Wood, Fiddling Lane, Stowting, Nr. Ashford, Kent. TN25 6AP 28th January 2003 Ladies and Gentlemen, I have received the Secretary's letter of 27th January 2003 today, telling me that my membership renewal has been refused. On telephoning the Chairman to ask why, I was told that the Board voted unanimously that I had caused too much work and conflict over the past year. Though I do not expect you will alter your decision, I can not let this pass without, once again, putting the record straight. Whatever work may have arisen for the Board over the last year or more arose initially from the actions of Duncan Taylor, and the Board's own failure to control him. Initially this was the introduction of wet-suit swims in the 2001 season, without consultation of the members. This was compounded later by his setting up of the CCA without consultation or even notification of the Board, and his keeping this quiet at the 2001 AGM when it was very pertinent to the debate, thereby misleading the meeting. Conflict arose mostly from Norman Trusty's letter to me of 20th November 2001. This contained inaccuracies fed to him by Duncan Taylor, and which he seems to have swallowed whole, not realising he was being manipulated (and apparently still is). When I refuted his allegations Duncan Taylor took on the debate, with his usual pedantry and bluster, and achieved nothing except eventually having to admit he was wrong. I maintain that this 'conflict' was initiated and fuelled by Duncan Taylor and his tactic of trying to discredit me, and others, by winding you all up with lies and speculation. That you allowed him to do this says little for your independence of thought, and makes the CSA's Chairmanship also look either very weak, or mendacious. For my part, I have said nothing which was not true, and have done what I said I would throughout. I have kept the debate within the bounds of the CSA, thereby avoiding any damage to the CSA. I have broken neither the CSA's constitution nor the general law, which is more than can be said for the Board. At the end of the 2002 AGM I spoke to Mike Read, saying that I wanted now to leave these issues in the past, and help the CSA for the future in whatever way I could. I confirmed this with my email of 18th November 2002. He shook my hand and seemed to accept that in the spirit in which it was said. Clearly I was wrong. Your action in terminating my membership now is akin to shooting the prisoners after the war is over. In me you have had someone who has contributed to the CSA in a number of ways over 19 years, which you find it convenient to forget now. I wanted to continue to do this, and would have been able to bring abilities and resources to the CSA which it needs. You prefer to have these outside and unused. Or perhaps you are planning developments you know I would oppose, and decided to allow only those in to membership who keep quiet and do as they are told? I have to conclude that the take-over of the CSA by Duncan Taylor is now complete. Whether or not you can see it for yourselves, you are dancing to his tune. Gerry Forsberg and Ray & Audrey Scott would turn in their graves if they could see the way a free association of swimmers, doing it honestly for the challenge alone, has become a booking agency for the pilots, interested only in money. I can only hope that this experience will show some of you where you are going wrong, so that you will eventually see that Duncan Taylor is not the right person to run the CSA. I hope this, because, despite all I have said, I still want to see the CSA survive and flourish to help people swim the Channel. However, for that to happen some changes need to take place, before it is too late. If, when those changes happen, you feel you would like me as a member once more, and perhaps the help I can bring, I would be happy to hear from you. Yours faithfully, Duncan Heenan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- From: Duncan Heenan To: Michael Read Cc: Duncan Taylor Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:03 PM Subject: CSA AGM Dear Mike, Just a quick note, mostly to confirm what I said to you after the CSA AGM. My main concern at the AGM was that, unlike the previous AGM, the members should have full information on the matters which we have debated in private over the last year, so they could make their own minds up in the proper forum of the AGM. This we did, so far as I am aware, and though I regret the way the votes went, I have to accept the results as being the expressed will of the majority. That is the price the minority have to pay for democracy. That being so, unless someone else raises anything or there are more revelations, I intend to let it all drop. I hope the others involved can do so too. I know there have been some few harsh words over the last year, mostly on irrelevant side issues, but I hope they too can be allowed to fade in to the past and we can concentrate on those things on which we all agree, and which bring more harmony, and further the cause of Channel Swimming. In that spirit, when I spoke to Nat Mason in early October, and was told he was moving to the USA and intended (at that time) to resign from the CSA's board, I offered to take on the role of treasurer, and he said he would pass the offer on to the next Board meeting. Though I now understand Nat intends to carry on for a time, the offer was genuine and still stands. If you find yourselves in need, either as a stop-gap or in a longer term role I hope you will get in touch. Or if Nat finds doing the job from America a problem, and wants to appoint a deputy more locally, I'm willing to help out too. When we next meet, let's talk about something else. Best wishes, Duncan Heenan ------------------------------------------- P.S. Late news! There's even more bad news from the CSA since I wrote the above . I've heard Kevin Murphy (King of the Channel) has now resigned from the CSA Vice-Presidency because Mike Read and the CSA Board, tried to ban him from appearing on a BBC TV comedy sketch on the grounds that Alison Streeter (Queen of the Channel) and Mike Oram ( a non CSA Channel Pilot) had also been asked to appear. Read wrote to Kevin saying it wasn't compatible with his Vice-Presidency of the CSA. It wasn't a Channel swim and Kevin wasn't representing the CSA. He's not paid by the CSA and he's a professional broadcaster, yet they were trying to use his CSA Vice Presidency to blackmail him. Kevin told them that what he did outside the CSA was nothing to do with them and resigned from the Vice Presidency. I've advised him to be careful because Mike Read is desperate to win back the King of the Channel Trophy and it would make it a lot easier for him if he, and the CSA Board, took away Kevin's life membership You may well ask 'What the hell's going on at the Channel Swimming Association?'. A number of people are asking the same question. Regards Duncan Heenan (France - England 1988. 14h 58m)

Started by Duncan Heenan · 14 September 2003 · Last activity 14 September 2003 · 8 posts · 905 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postChannel Swimming AssociationDuncan Heenan · 14 Sep 2003 02 / This pagePosts 1–8Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #8Duncan Heenan · 14 Sep 2003

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 14 September 2003
Last activity: 14 September 2003
Original author: Duncan Heenan
Posts: 8
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 905
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Duncan Heenan
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:10 UTC #1

I have had my membership of the Channel Swimming Association terminated after 19 years, and I
thought you might be interested to know the background.
The CSA decided in 2001 to start certifying wet-suit swims. I have heard several versions of how
this started life, but it is my belief that it was mostly Eddie Ette (who was a CSA director)
wanting to use a wet suit to do a London-Paris triathlon which started it off. The rest followed on
to the delight of the pilots who saw this as a way of expanding their market with the free marketing
of the CSA. Several CSA members heard of this in April 2001 (me included) and made representations
to the committee to complain that :
a) this was against the spirit of LD swimming generally,
b) against all the history, rules and traditions of the CSA and
c) had never been put to the CSA members for approval.
The only answer we got was that it had already been decided, and there was no committee meeting
before October 2001 at which a formal letter of complaint could be considered. As a result, having
failed to get any kind of sensible answer 'informally' from the CSA, Kevin Murphy (King of the
Channel) and I put a motion to the CSA AGM in November 2001 asking for all assisted swims to be
discontinued and those already done not to be recognised. Before the meeting, Duncan Taylor, the
CSA's paid Secretary, shook my hand and asked for a 'fair debate', to which I agreed. Duncan Taylor,
(who is also a swim Pilot - though never a swimmer), in trying to explain away the 7 wet-suit swims
the CSA had registered & run that year as 'experiments', also put in a separate motion asking for a
separate category of assisted swim to be introduced. The debate was vigorous and the voting a bit
confused. Only Mike Read and Duncan Taylor spoke for assisted swims, and Ulrich Haevecker (a CSA
vice-president from Germany), Kevin and I spoke strongly against. Mike Read tried to use his
position as Chairman to get the vote his way. In the event Kevin & my motion failed due mostly to
drafting technicalities, but so also did Duncan Taylor's. The result was that in General Meeting the
CSA had voted against assisted swims. Though Duncan Taylor described the vote as 'close', in fact
there were only 3 votes from non-director members of the CSA in favour of assisted swims - the
meeting was generally not well attended as usual, and there was no postal or proxy voting. In other
words, the ordinary members threw out 'assisted' swim quite definitely.
During the AGM debate Duncan Taylor said that if the CSA did not do assisted swims the Channel
Crossing Association would. When asked to explain about this previously unknown body, he clammed up
and said no more on the subject. Subsequently it was discovered by me (not volunteered by Taylor)
that in fact Duncan and Alison Taylor had registered a new company - Channel Crossing Association
Ltd., - two days before the AGM at which this was debated! (In practice this means he must have
started the process many weeks before - about the time he received notice of our AGM motions). I
felt this displayed bad faith and duplicity and when I faced the CSA board with this, by letter and
subsequently in a meeting, they claimed that he had not told them either, not even the Chairman. But
they nevertheless chose to subsequently endorse his action, carried out behind everyone's back, as
being in the best interest of the CSA! The CSA have since issued public statements saying that the
CCA is separate from the CSA - even though they advertise on each others websites and Duncan and
Alison Taylor run both from the same address (they own personally all the shares in CCA), and the
paperwork is almost indistinguishable. The CCA exists to organise assisted swims of the sort the CSA
voted not to endorse, and is owned personally by Duncan & Alison Taylor.
During 2002, many-times Channel swimmer Peter Jurgynski (USA) had his Vice Presidency of the CSA
terminated, and his membership cancelled. It was said this was because he swam with Mike Oram as
pilot. However he had also made protests in the past at the way Duncan Taylor has behaved and the
general slide of standards in the CSA, and so was a target from the moment he opened his mouth. He
had also endorsed the motion of no confidence in Duncan Taylor (see below).
Kevin, Ulrich and I subsequently complained about Duncan Taylor's underhand behaviour which we
believe was unethical towards the CSA's members, but the CSA brushed our complaints aside and
stalwartly maintain that Duncan Taylor has done nothing wrong. Since then a campaign of character
assassination has been mounted against the protestors, which has contained untruths and
irrelevancies way 'over the top'. As a result the mess remained, and a motion of No Confidence in
Duncan Taylor was submitted to the CSA's Board for debate at the November 2002 AGM, to bring the
facts before the members (who had still never been informed of Duncan Taylor's setting up of the
CCA). Instead of trying to do something about the underlying problem, the CSA board waited until the
AGM, and then ruled the motion out of order on very spurious technical grounds. However, during
the debate on other motions the matter was mentioned, to the fury of the Board. Norman Trusty
(Vice-Chairman) even ended up screaming 'bloody liar!' at me, when in fact it was him who had no
grasp of the truth. At the end of the meeting I spoke with the Chairman, Mike Read, and said as
far as I was concerned, the issue was now closed, as now the members who attended the AGM,
though a minority, were at least aware of the facts (so far as I was aware myself ). He said he
was pleased and looked forward to peace in the future and we shook hands on
it. Now I have had my membership terminated, without any form of consultation. Draw you own
conclusions.
I believe, as well as the personal antipathy involved, I have been removed in order to leave the
field clear of vocal opposition for the CSA to re-introduce (probably by stealth as they did in
2001), wet-suit and other assisted swims.
I can not work out why the CSA directors are so dominated by Duncan Taylor; they seem to let him do
what he likes. Perhaps they can't face the task of replacing him, so they have to side with him,
which makes him even more confident and cocky. I can see that a number of them are besotted with the
vicarious pleasure of being associated with an achievement they will never manage themselves
(swimming the Channel). But this does not explain it all. I also can not see why the other pilots
are prepared to entrust their business to him indirectly. There have clearly been problems within
the Board too as, within the last year, 3 directors have resigned (Joe Smith, Richard Buttner and
Eddie Ette) over the way the CSA is being run. However this only gives the remainder the opportunity
to fill their places with compliant candidates who will toe the line.
The swimmers are the losers in all this. The achievement of The Channel is being eroded in the
public imagination by the influx of wet-suit swimmers, the proliferation of certifying bodies, and
the ever upward movement of the price of pilotage and registration. Confusion reigns with newcomers.
The swimmers pays their money and takes their choice ; but mostly they pays their money! Whether CSA
members will bother to come to future AGMs to see what happens next remains to be seen, but they are
such a sham now that there is little point. Unless that is, the members have the bottle to vote to
remove Duncan Taylor and start afresh again. In this scenario, there is even a chance of reconciling
the warring parties of the CSA and the CS&PF, which would surely be best for the sport and for the
swimmers. I can't do it now as I'm not a member.
My letter to the CSA's Board is below.
----------------------------
The Board,
Channel Swimming Association Limited
Bolden's Wood,
Fiddling Lane,
Stowting,
Nr. Ashford,
Kent. TN25 6AP
28th January 2003
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have received the Secretary's letter of 27th January 2003 today, telling me that my membership
renewal has been refused. On telephoning the Chairman to ask why, I was told that the Board voted
unanimously that I had caused too much work and conflict over the past year. Though I do not
expect you will alter your decision, I can not let this pass without, once again, putting the
record straight.
Whatever work may have arisen for the Board over the last year or more arose initially from the
actions of Duncan Taylor, and the Board's own failure to control him. Initially this was the
introduction of wet-suit swims in the 2001 season, without consultation of the members. This was
compounded later by his setting up of the CCA without consultation or even notification of the
Board, and his keeping this quiet at the 2001 AGM when it was very pertinent to the debate, thereby
misleading the meeting. Conflict arose mostly from Norman Trusty's letter to me of 20th November
2001. This contained inaccuracies fed to him by Duncan Taylor, and which he seems to have swallowed
whole, not realising he was being manipulated (and apparently still is). When I refuted his
allegations Duncan Taylor took on the debate, with his usual pedantry and bluster, and achieved
nothing except eventually having to admit he was wrong. I maintain that this 'conflict' was
initiated and fuelled by Duncan Taylor and his tactic of trying to discredit me, and others, by
winding you all up with lies and speculation. That you allowed him to do this says little for your
independence of thought, and makes the CSA's Chairmanship also look either very weak, or
mendacious. For my part, I have said nothing which was not true, and have done what I said I would
throughout. I have kept the debate within the bounds of the CSA, thereby avoiding any damage to the
CSA. I have broken neither the CSA's constitution nor the general law, which is more than can be
said for the Board.
At the end of the 2002 AGM I spoke to Mike Read, saying that I wanted now to leave these issues in
the past, and help the CSA for the future in whatever way I could. I confirmed this with my email of
18th November 2002. He shook my hand and seemed to accept that in the spirit in which it was said.
Clearly I was wrong. Your action in terminating my membership now is akin to shooting the prisoners
after the war is over. In me you have had someone who has contributed to the CSA in a number of ways
over 19 years, which you find it convenient to forget now. I wanted to continue to do this, and
would have been able to bring abilities and resources to the CSA which it needs. You prefer to have
these outside and unused. Or perhaps you are planning developments you know I would oppose, and
decided to allow only those in to membership who keep quiet and do as they are told?
I have to conclude that the take-over of the CSA by Duncan Taylor is now complete. Whether or not
you can see it for yourselves, you are dancing to his tune. Gerry Forsberg and Ray & Audrey Scott
would turn in their graves if they could see the way a free association of swimmers, doing it
honestly for the challenge alone, has become a booking agency for the pilots, interested only in
money. I can only hope that this experience will show some of you where you are going wrong, so that
you will eventually see that Duncan Taylor is not the right person to run the CSA. I hope this,
because, despite all I have said, I still want to see the CSA survive and flourish to help people
swim the Channel. However, for that to happen some changes need to take place, before it is too
late. If, when those changes happen, you feel you would like me as a member once more, and perhaps
the help I can bring, I would be happy to hear from you.
Yours faithfully,
Duncan Heenan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
From: Duncan Heenan
To: Michael Read
Cc: Duncan Taylor
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:03 PM
Subject: CSA AGM
Dear Mike,
Just a quick note, mostly to confirm what I said to you after the CSA AGM.
My main concern at the AGM was that, unlike the previous AGM, the members should have full
information on the matters which we have debated in private over the last year, so they could make
their own minds up in the proper forum of the AGM. This we did, so far as I am aware, and though I
regret the way the votes went, I have to accept the results as being the expressed will of the
majority. That is the price the minority have to pay for democracy.
That being so, unless someone else raises anything or there are more revelations, I intend to let it
all drop. I hope the others involved can do so too. I know there have been some few harsh words over
the last year, mostly on irrelevant side issues, but I hope they too can be allowed to fade in to
the past and we can concentrate on those things on which we all agree, and which bring more harmony,
and further the cause of Channel Swimming.
In that spirit, when I spoke to Nat Mason in early October, and was told he was moving to the USA
and intended (at that time) to resign from the CSA's board, I offered to take on the role of
treasurer, and he said he would pass the offer on to the next Board meeting. Though I now understand
Nat intends to carry on for a time, the offer was genuine and still stands. If you find yourselves
in need, either as a stop-gap or in a longer term role I hope you will get in touch. Or if Nat finds
doing the job from America a problem, and wants to appoint a deputy more locally, I'm willing to
help out too.
When we next meet, let's talk about something else.
Best wishes,
Duncan Heenan
-------------------------------------------
P.S. Late news!
There's even more bad news from the CSA since I wrote the above .
I've heard Kevin Murphy (King of the Channel) has now resigned from the CSA Vice-Presidency because
Mike Read and the CSA Board, tried to ban him from appearing on a BBC TV comedy sketch on the
grounds that Alison Streeter (Queen of the Channel) and Mike Oram ( a non CSA Channel Pilot) had
also been asked to appear. Read wrote to Kevin saying it wasn't compatible with his Vice-Presidency
of the CSA.
It wasn't a Channel swim and Kevin wasn't representing the CSA. He's not paid by the CSA and he's a
professional broadcaster, yet they were trying to use his CSA Vice Presidency to blackmail him.
Kevin told them that what he did outside the CSA was nothing to do with them and resigned from the
Vice Presidency.
I've advised him to be careful because Mike Read is desperate to win back the King of the Channel
Trophy and it would make it a lot easier for him if he, and the CSA Board, took away Kevin's life
membership
You may well ask 'What the hell's going on at the Channel Swimming Association?'. A number of people
are asking the same question.
Regards
Duncan Heenan
(France - England 1988. 14h 58m)

Report
Larry Weisentha
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:11 UTC #2

Unbelievable.
Truly.
What a sorry little scandal.
This is killing the goose which laid the golden eggs.
There is no swim, and few athletic achievements anywhere in the world which so fires the imagination
as "swimming the English Channel." The chances of me ever doing it are close to zero, but still it
fires the imagination. Before I die, I'm pretty sure that I'll do the Hawaii Ironman. I may do the
Boston Marathon. But, given an athletic wish, the one thing I'd choose to do before I die is to swim
the Channel. More than setting an age group world record. Or anything else I can think of.
The mystique is just so great.
And they are going to certify ... WET SUIT "SWIMS"
So that people can make more money by piloting these absolute farces?
The term "English Channel Swim" will lose its mystique. It will be cheapened/bebased.
I can't believe the lunacy behind this idea. Destroying the the greatest and most mystical
achievements in all of sport for the selfish, personal gain of the so-called keepers of the flame.
It is distressing/disturbing beyond my ability to explain.
Madness.
Larry Weisenthal Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Report
Donal Fagan
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:12 UTC #3

(Larry Weisenthal) said:
And they are going to certify ... WET SUIT "SWIMS"
Maybe for a few dollars more, you can draft behind a pack.
Donal Fagan AIA Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com (Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)

Report
Brian D
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:12 UTC #4

(Larry Weisenthal) said:
Unbelievable.
Truly.
What a sorry little scandal.
This is killing the goose which laid the golden eggs.
There is no swim, and few athletic achievements anywhere in the world which so fires the
imagination as "swimming the English Channel." The chances of me ever doing it are close to zero,
but still it fires the imagination. Before I die, I'm pretty sure that I'll do the Hawaii Ironman.
I may do the Boston Marathon. But, given an athletic wish, the one thing I'd choose to do before I
die is to swim the Channel. More than setting an age group world record. Or anything else I can
think of.
The mystique is just so great.
And they are going to certify ... WET SUIT "SWIMS"
So that people can make more money by piloting these absolute farces?
The term "English Channel Swim" will lose its mystique. It will be cheapened/bebased.
I can't believe the lunacy behind this idea. Destroying the the greatest and most mystical
achievements in all of sport for the selfish, personal gain of the so-called keepers of the flame.
It is distressing/disturbing beyond my ability to explain.
Madness.

I totally agree. (I will never swim the channel but I know some who could)
Let wet suits be used, but not as an /official/ swim, but as a crossing, or part of a triathlon
(London to Paris sounds a good idea but run/swim/bike is in the wrong order for the usual
triathlon), then it's a reasonable idea.
The Channel is a very busy waterway and needs good navigation but we shouldn't let the /achievment/
of a swim in its cool water be debased by monopolistic profiteering of its pilots.
--
Brian D

Report
Chris
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:32 UTC #5

It's like Mount Everest these days, where a Sherpa sets up fixed ropes and then carries all your
stuff up the mountain for you, with your oxygen tank the only load you have to carry. But in the
case of Everest, there is a distinction in the records for those who climb without oxygen, who climb
solo, etc. As long as the wetsuit swims are footnoted as such, I guess it doesn't matter.

Report
Dave Coleman
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:49 UTC #6

I agree... one of my teammates just swam the channel (In under 10 hours!) 2 weeks ago. He is now, as
Samuel L Jackson would say, a Bad Ass MotherF**cker. But it just wouldn't be the same for him to
have worn a wetsuit. Probably because 30 miles or so isn't actually that ridiculous of a distance to
swim. 30 miles in 60 degree water, on the other hand is not something I think I can do. Kind of like
everest without an oxygen bottle.

Report
Chris
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:50 UTC #7

[email hidden] (Dave Coleman) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
I agree... one of my teammates just swam the channel (In under 10 hours!) 2 weeks ago. He is now,
as Samuel L Jackson would say, a Bad Ass MotherF**cker. But it just wouldn't be the same for him
to have worn a wetsuit. Probably because 30 miles or so isn't actually that ridiculous of a
distance to swim. 30 miles in 60 degree water, on the other hand is not something I think I can
do. Kind of like everest without an oxygen bottle.
Do the swimmers get water or food or rests along the way?
I wonder how that guy did it who first swam it in the late 19th century. Did he just swim it and
show up on the other side? Did he have a support boat? Imagine being 15 miles from either shore and
developing a thirst!

Report
Duncan Heenan
Archived post

14 September 2003, 15:51 UTC #8

Captain Webb (the first successful channel swimmer) had 2 support boats. A proper support boat is
essential to navigation as well as safety. The swimmer could never navigate themselves across and
would end up disorientated and lost. All attempts at the swim without a boat in attendance have
ended in failure or death.
"Chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (Dave Coleman) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I agree... one of my teammates just swam the channel (In under 10 hours!) 2 weeks ago. He is
now, as Samuel L Jackson would say, a Bad Ass MotherF**cker. But it just wouldn't be the same
for him to have worn a wetsuit. Probably because 30 miles or so isn't actually that ridiculous
of a distance to swim. 30 miles in 60 degree water, on the other hand is not something I think I
can do. Kind of like everest without an oxygen bottle.
Do the swimmers get water or food or rests along the way?
I wonder how that guy did it who first swam it in the late 19th century. Did he just swim it and
show up on the other side? Did he have a support boat? Imagine being 15 miles from either shore
and developing a thirst!

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread