I was reading the Sao Paulo Declaration at
http://www.wamo.info
and the FINA response also linked to on that site.
What exactly is the justification for FINA GR 4, which prohibits participation by individuals and/or organizations in non-FINA-affliated organizations or events? The rule seems unreasonably broad in not limiting in any way what organizations one can not be affiliated with!
On the idealistic side, I find it somewhat offensive to have my rights of association so limited by a body like FINA. On the pragmatic side, FINA seems to have stacked the cards so much in its favor that it is hard to imagine fighting it.
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
Let me clear up what appears to be a misconception on your part. FINA did NOT force me to send out a communication to USMS. I did it as a service to USMS members, passing along an advisory that was given to me.
I guess one can interpret the word 'force' in various ways. As you said in your advisory once FINA delivered the advisory to USMS you had a responsibility to your members to pass it on. I believe that USMS acted entirely properly under the circumstances.
I do not believe that FINA should have the powers it has given itself in GR 4 and that it was improper for them to send out the advisory they did under the circumstances and that it was improper for them to put their affiliated members in the position that they did by sending out the advisory they did. In light of these views I disagree with Craig's evaluation that "FINA Rocks!"
Originally posted by Rob Copeland
Let me clear up what appears to be a misconception on your part. FINA did NOT force me to send out a communication to USMS. I did it as a service to USMS members, passing along an advisory that was given to me.
I guess one can interpret the word 'force' in various ways. As you said in your advisory once FINA delivered the advisory to USMS you had a responsibility to your members to pass it on. I believe that USMS acted entirely properly under the circumstances.
I do not believe that FINA should have the powers it has given itself in GR 4 and that it was improper for them to send out the advisory they did under the circumstances and that it was improper for them to put their affiliated members in the position that they did by sending out the advisory they did. In light of these views I disagree with Craig's evaluation that "FINA Rocks!"
