Changes to NYC Swim qualifying event policies

NormNorm Member
edited October 2012 in General Discussion
Quoting from this page on the NYC Swim website:
NYC Swim will no longer accept results and times from the following events for qualifying purposes:
- NYC Triathlon (for NYC Swim events after 1/1/2013)
- English Channel certified by Channel Swimming Association "CSA" (for NYC Swim events after 1/1/2013)
- Rose Pitnof Swim organized by Urban Swim (for NYC Swim events after 1/1/2011)
Anybody have any clue what this is about?

Comments

  • Wow, dropping the CSA as a certifying Association seems like big news to me. To the grapevine Batman!
  • KarenTKarenT Charter Member
    Intriguing. One of @KarenT's policies in life is to be wary about people who write about themselves in the third person. She finds it very disturbing. She also thinks it's a bit strange when people describe themselves as "amazing".

    Seems a bit harsh to take it out on all the CSA swimmers though if this is the reason.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    If there is a connection - and I don't know that there is, I'm just speculating - then I would simply say:

    Hopefully CSA swimmers agree that individuals should not claim "world record" swims when the governing/sanctioning organization for the swim doesn't recognize or validate the record. Especially when the individual happens to be a leader of another governing/sanctioning organization.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    I had the chance to speak with Morty at NYC Swim about this issue. Based on this conversation I can clarify for @Norm, @KarenT, and others who may be wondering:

    Swimmers who cross the English Channel with the CSA are not disqualified from participating in MIMS or Ederle. Nor are they discriminated against by the committee who selects the field for these swims. The only thing that will change for 2013 is that CSA swims are no longer considered "Event-Based Qualifying Swims," but rather, will be considered "Observer Qualifying Swims." For an explanation of the distinction between the two, please see here. While observer qualifying swims have certain requirements for maximum water temperature and duration, event-based qualifying swims are automatically accepted regardless of duration, water temp, etc.
  • Bad Craziness.

    I find excluding the Pitonof race a bit odd. When I did it in 2011, I saw no irregularities WRT rules - it was EC rules the whole way, so unless something very irregular happened this year (it didn't according to my sources), that's out.
    Of note is that last year the 2012 Pitonof race was announced as being on 18 August. Several weeks AFTER that announcement, the Ederle race was announced for the exact same day, despite it having been in October in previous incarnations. In effect you had NYC races over very, very similar courses on the same day.
    Is this the beginning of a turf war for "control" of OWS in the NYC area? Will CIBBOWS members soon wake up to find a horse's head in their bed with them?

    The CSA thing is just flat-out strange.

    -LBJ
    "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." - T.S. Eliot
  • KarenTKarenT Charter Member
    So only CSA channel swims done at under 16.1 degrees will count? Have I got that right? That would exclude a lot of swims.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited September 2012
    KarenT said:

    So only CSA channel swims done at under 16.1 degrees will count? Have I got that right? That would exclude a lot of swims.

    Yes. A swimmer who has done a CSA certified swim in water warmer than 16.1 may be accepted into MIMS based on their qualifications but they would be required to do a qualifying swim in 16.1 degrees or colder.
  • bobswimsbobswims Charter Member
    edited September 2012
    When politics enter into a sport everyone loses.
  • Bad Craziness.

    I find excluding the Pitonof race a bit odd. When I did it in 2011, I saw no irregularities WRT rules - it was EC rules the whole way, so unless something very irregular happened this year (it didn't according to my sources), that's out.
    Of note is that last year the 2012 Pitonof race was announced as being on 18 August. Several weeks AFTER that announcement, the Ederle race was announced for the exact same day, despite it having been in October in previous incarnations. In effect you had NYC races over very, very similar courses on the same day.
    Is this the beginning of a turf war for "control" of OWS in the NYC area? Will CIBBOWS members soon wake up to find a horse's head in their bed with them?

    The CSA thing is just flat-out strange.

    -LBJ

    In light of some information conveyed to me in private and that I promised not to share or discuss, I'd like to retract the above. My apologies for any issues this post may have caused.

    -LBJ
    "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." - T.S. Eliot
  • Will CSPF English Channel swims still count as "Event-Based Qualifying Swims"?

    I only ask because further up on the initial link there is a reference to "Non-competition results such as channel crossings must be certified by an independent organizing authority (i.e., English Channel Association) to be posted publicly."

    I've never heard of the English Channel Association as an organisation!
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    @ZoeSadler Yes.
  • (from my limited understanding, based on nothing more than reading the internet)

    doesn't the CSPF recognise CSA swims anyway making the point "moot" ???????????
    I tried to convince myself, but, orange flavour electrolyte, mixed with hot chocolate,
    tastes nothing like Terry's Chocolate Orange ....
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited September 2012
    @SuirThing CSPF includes CSA swims in their database, but the issue is how NYC Swim treats these swims for purposes of automatic qualification to MIMS and Ederle.

    Event-Based Qualifying Swims indicate a very high level of trust in the organization ratifying the swims.

    (Note: Except for my third post above, I am not speaking on behalf of NYC Swim here.)
  • One of the main reasons I swam the EC was so I could try & get into MIMS.
    Since I did swim with the CSA, its pretty annoying.
    Feels like my EC swim is not recognised. I wonder what other organisations feel the same.
    The other annoying thing is the only place the CSA qualification mentioned is in the FAQ.
    If it was not for this forum, I could easily miss it, then have no hope of getting in.
    Luckily my EC was in 15C water, & I have a good observers report. Plus many 6 & 8 hour observed swims in 12C water.
  • Holy moly what a can of worms has been opened by one butterfly swim followed by a self pronounced claim of a world record.
  • NormNorm Member
    edited October 2012
    Hate to say it, because I think it's bad for the sport, but Julie Bradshaw's actions are becoming a serious liability for the CSA.

    Check out the new website:
    http://nycbutterflyswim.com/
  • NiekNiek Heiloo, NetherlandsMember

    @firebah Holy moly what a can of worms has been opened by one butterfly swim followed by a self pronounced claim of a world record.

    #nycbutterflyswim.com This time was recorded by the finish judge when she touched the buoy and of course by the NYC official who went on the boat during Julie’s swim.

    If all the quotes are correct my question is:
    Why won't they believe the CSA observer but will believe their own NYC official.
    http://openwaterswimming.eu - Cold, wind, waves, sunburn, currents, jellyfish and flotsam! Hop in and join the fun!
  • firebahfirebah Member
    edited October 2012
    Niek, I think the problem stems from the fact that NYC does not recognize this swim as a world record. There has been previous discussion on this forum in regards to how a non freestyle marathon swim is certified to be legal the entire swim. Was the observer qualified on the butterfly rules to know if the swimmer maintained stroke the entire time? I think this is the crux of the dilemma.
    Bottom line if an event does not consider a swim a record does the swimmer have the right to publicly declare a world record especially when they have been told the swim is not recognized as a world record by that event.
    Also the #nycbutterflyswim.com quote is by the swimmer in question not NYC.
  • CraigMoz this does not take effect until 1/1/13 so if you are entering the 2013 MIMS your entry will be submitted before this takes place. If you are hoping to swim MIMS after 2013 with luck this whole thing may have sorted itself out and this may no longer be an issue. At least that is how I see things but maybe my eyes are crossed...
  • @firebah NYC Swim will no longer accept results and times from the following events for qualifying purposes: English Channel certified by Channel Swimming Association "CSA" (for NYC Swim events after 1/1/2013).
    So any NYC event in 2013.
    This adds hours to the application process. I also have a feeling CSA swimmers won't get in. It sucks all CSA swimmers are been penalised.
    I raised it with JB. She just ignored the question, with some dribble.
    This will now mean anyone wanting to do the tripple crown, should go with CS&PF.
  • I suppose I did interpret that incorrectly - darn! I was thinking it was acceptable since the selection process was done in November - wishful thinking for my swimming friends with CSA swims?
    Bottom line is CSA, and in particular Julie were warned of the consequences of her actions and she appears to simply not care. This is after all an organization that refuses to acknowledge EC swims done under CS&PF and has another board member who actually bought the rights to the title 'King of the Channel" when in fact he has not done the most swims. Sadly the integrity of this organization is at an all time low while the integrity of CS&PF under the leadership of Nick Adams is getting stronger. CS&PF has made some fantastic updates to their website and it now provides the swimmers so much documented information on their swims - jealous!
  • SuirThingSuirThing Member
    edited October 2012
    firebah said:

    has another board member who actually bought the rights to the title 'King of the Channel" when in fact he has not done the most swims

    ?????????????
    I tried to convince myself, but, orange flavour electrolyte, mixed with hot chocolate,
    tastes nothing like Terry's Chocolate Orange ....
  • Open Water swimmer Michael Read of Great Britain, King of the Channel®.
    The R with the circle after it means that particular brand or name is a Registered Trademark.
    Kevin Murphy has done the most successful crossing for the men's record but he did some under CS&PF hence the confusion when speaking of the King of the Channel.
  • Great news - Gracie Van Der Byl just set a record swimming from Catalina to the Mainland this morning in an unofficial time of 7:27!
    Thought I would toss in some happy news in this discussion...
  • Great news about Gracie's swim !
    That is seriously good news
    Long live the CS&PF too!
  • CraigMozCraigMoz Member
    edited October 2012
    http://nycswim.org/Event/Event.aspx?event_id=2302&from=faq#615

    "This change in designation stems from the public claims of a record by a CSA leader with regards to a stroke-based swim around Manhattan Island. This swim was organized and sanctioned by NYC Swim, which does not recognize stroke-based records. All requests to date by NYC Swim for cessation and retraction of this claim have been rebuffed. Since the party erroneously claiming the Manhattan Island record serves as a certifier for all CSA solos swims, NYC Swim will not honor Channel crossings supported by the CSA."

    Politics don't belong in swimming.

    No MIMS for me
  • Is it just me, or is the irony in this that NYCSwim now becomes the CSA-equivalent of North America? Intolerant and willing to punish innocent swimmers?

  • NiekNiek Heiloo, NetherlandsMember

    Politics don't belong in swimming.

    Sure, but claiming something without the consent of the other isn't right. MIMS is trying to protect their integrity.
    http://openwaterswimming.eu - Cold, wind, waves, sunburn, currents, jellyfish and flotsam! Hop in and join the fun!
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited October 2012
    Politics don't belong in swimming, but let's be clear about where the "politics" originated in this case.

    As @Niek says, NYC Swim wants to protect the integrity of their swim. What alternative courses of action would you suggest?

    All that has to happen here is the "CSA leader" says, "OK, I will stop making public claims about 'world record' butterfly swims around Manhattan" and -- poof! The whole problem goes away.

    Yet, she refuses to do so. Why?

    CSA swimmers deserve better than this.
  • ssthomasssthomas Charter Member
    edited October 2012
    I'm just wondering why NYCSwim cares so much what one person is claiming. Can't they just say "We don't sanction world record "stoke" swims around Manhattan since we think stroke records are impossible to measure and stupid to claim", and leave it at that? Can't they even say, "Julie Bradshaw is making claims we don't support/sanction"?

    Why do they have to punish CSA swimmers and use them as pawns in a political battle against one person? What's the harm in saying "we don't sanction it" and then simply ignoring her or banning her from all NYC swims in the future? I suppose I just don't see what the big deal is... I can claim I have a world record in blowing bubble rings underwater and no one will care.

    Is there really harm to the open water swimming community to have an outlier who wants to swim butterfly everywhere? I can think of greater transgressions with a greater impact on our community as a whole.

    Is she inappropriate and should she knock it off? Sure. But to use sanctions against an entire group of swimmers who have done nothing wrong... I just can't support that in any form.

    Maybe I'm missing something in the bigger picture, but I think battles like this can only hurt the individual swimmers and our swimming community.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited October 2012
    ssthomas said:

    I'm just wondering why NYCSwim cares so much what one person is claiming.

    I'm guessing they care more in this case because Julie Bradshaw is a public figure - by virtue of:

    1. Her position as leader of the world's oldest channel swimming organization.
    2. Her MBE rank - which her name seems to never appear without.
    3. Her well known coaching and public speaking business.
    4. The honorary doctorate she received from Loughborough University.
    5. Her political position on the Charnwood Borough Council.
    6. Her numerous other "world record" claims.

    Clearly, someone who gets a lengthy interview on the BBC, and who has her very own Wikipedia entry (not just Openwaterpedia!), and whose Facebook cover photo shows her kneeling before Prince Charles, is a public figure.
  • It's not just because, as a CS&PF swimmer, I'm not recognised by the CSA board, that I think this action is wrong.

    As @ssthomas says, NYCSwim should just ignore Julie Bradshaw if she continues to claim an unrecognised record. No swimmers will take her seriously, especially not being being a CSA board member which organisation refuses to recognise other Channel swimmers. Her swim couldn't then claimed as a record with IMSHOF, IMSHOF or any other reputable swimming organisation. It's really that simple. Integrity isn't gained, strengthened or reclaimed by this action. Ignore her and move on.

    What integrity has the CSA board (not most CSA swimmers) gained by ignoring CS&PF swimmers over the years , none except become the marathon swimming byword for intolerance for their insistence on some sacred record books? I don't see a line of people supporting her or them?

    But I've said before, our sport relies on validation and observation and rules. Anyone claiming a record without proof, and especially explicitly not having the support of a validating association, is just a crank regardless of previous swims.

    Is there any serious outbreak of support for Mad Fish Bradshaw that this addresses? I've not seen or heard of it.

    I wonder, if NYCSwim are so sure they are right, why was this and the previous change not published more widely? To all the people registered on NYCSwim.org for example? Why did @CraigMoz, a CSA swimmer already registered with NYCSwim have to figure it out himself? NYCSwim changed the rules AFTER he had already uploaded all his previous stuff.

    Bullying always gets my back up. It seems NYCSwim is trying to bully the CSA board into addressing this, bullying CSA swimmers to use as a wedge to convince CSA pilots they will lose bookings if this isn't addressed. Transparently Machiavellian.

    Ridicule is the most powerful weapon against something as ridiculous as Mad Fish Bradshaw claiming an unrecognised record, and her desperate online crank campaign. No-one is taking it seriously, we laugh at it.

    What have @CraigMoz or any other current CSA swimmer done to be penalised? Let's keep in mind that swimmers have been put in the firing line here.

    Hey @Evmo, isn't this healthy debate great? It's how things get sorted! :-D
  • NiekNiek Heiloo, NetherlandsMember
    A public figure that was awarded an MBE for ‘Services to Swimming and Charity' and uses her claims to her own advantage.
    Looks like a Nyad to me.
    Apparently the CSA won't denounce her. Then don't blame MIMS but blame CSA
    http://openwaterswimming.eu - Cold, wind, waves, sunburn, currents, jellyfish and flotsam! Hop in and join the fun!
  • The public figure argument is a strawman. The swimmers being punished aren't public figures. Also, there's a town in Ireland that according to Wikipedia for years, has an ongoing werewolf problem. And I don't put too much creedence in the MBE, since Freda Streeter hasn't been given one, and few people in swimming more deserve one.

    Even if I thought NYCSwim could only do this as an option, which I disagree obviously, they could have implemented it during the current registration process on swimmers who aren't public figures, without notification other than vague hints. The very least they could have been done is give at least one year notification but with a two year process to get a pilot and tide now, that should have the minimum time. The same result could be achieved, CSA swimmers could choose CS&PF for swims, but with time sufficient to allow the swimmers to make a choice. To shorten this time and deliberately thrust swimmers into it, is as I said above, obviously a ploy designed to escalate the issue toward their desired outcome.

    @Evmo, back at you:

    >All that has to happen here is the "CSA leader" says, "OK, I will stop making public claims about >'world record' butterfly swims around Manhattan" and -- poof! The whole problem goes away.

    Even easier, ignore the claims of Mad Fish. And/or point out the hypocrisy that her organisation is known for intolerance to others.
  • loneswimmerloneswimmer Admin
    edited October 2012
    Rather than edit my above posts, I'll do an addition and contradict myself, because there's a wrinkle here I hadn't considered. So I'll do a mea culpa that I was dumb not to realise it in the hope it clarifies some of the issues for other who may made the same mistake as I did.

    I'll still say that I still think the process of fixing this could be improved, and a one or two year process (Channel booking cycle) with more notice and louder fanfare would serve the swimmers caught in between better. Now that's out of the way...

    When you are an ordinary swimmer with a piece of paper saying you swam the English Channel, and you know you have done so, and been observed to so do, assertions to the contrary are either laughable or insulting, because you probably put a lot out there to get achieve your crossing. Which is where many CS&PF swimmers's problems with the CSA arise. (I choose to laugh).

    As an ordinary or applying swimmer you don't have to think about the organisation that is accepting your application. But the swim organisation you are applying to does have to think about its validity. For the sake of the event itself, it's important that all applications are valid.

    (For example when I hear about someone faking an English Channel qualifying swim it drives me nuts, because it throws all other swimmers in doubt. Like when someone steals something in your workplace, and you know it wasn't you, but you feel bad because you know you might be under unjustified suspicion because of the actions of someone else).

    So imagine you are a swim organisation and you are taking applications for a big swim. And imagine some of those applications come validated by an organisation and ALL signed by a single person whom you know full well has been making unsupported specific claims which involve your organisation.

    If that person has been making claims that you know to be untrue, how then can you trust their other assertions, claims or even their signature? For anything? Unfortunately, that person has by their own actions made themselves untrustworthy. And since they are in a singular position of validating every certificate they issue, by extension they degrade the reputation of their association. This problem is exaggerated when the person is a Public Figure who uses and trades on that very position to support those claims.

    If that person is in a position of trust, who signs off on that whole group of swimmers, then you have a problem. Especially if you have given that organisation due notice that what they are implicitly allowing is known to be untrue. So you can't unfortunately ignore the person as I said above, because you will regularly find their name as a creditable person, presented to you, when you know it to not be the case.

    The fact that the CSA top-level organisation has a history of intolerance towards other swimmers is not quite immaterial, as it loses them any claim of moral superiority.

    (Cue accusations of institutional capture of @loneswimmer).



  • ssthomasssthomas Charter Member
    @loneswimmer: I appreciate your last thoughtful entry. Seems like you're wrestling with this issue in some of the same ways I am. Just to counter your last point (which I hadn't considered and do think is a very valid concern): Someone high up in ANY organization is the one who may be signing the official piece of paper saying you completed a swim. I know my Catalina certificate, for example, is signed by someone I never met. When I returned home from England this summer, I had a very nice letter from Nick Adams congratulating me on my swim. These people neither observed nor participated in my swim in any way. Yet, they are trusting in their application process, their pilots, and their observers that the actual swim took place within the set guidelines. They sign a piece of paper, trusting that there are enough checks and balances in place to ensure the validity of a swim.

    To argue the validity of a swim just because the one person who signed a piece of paper is untrustworthy, but that has been vouched for by at least one boat captain and one observer is a bit of a stretch. Are you arguing that because Julie signed a piece of paper that the entire organization of the CSA is ratifying fraudulent swims? That goes right back to being a disservice to the actual swimmer, because now we're questioning if they even swam at all. And that's not fair.

    There is a certain amount of trust that goes into ANY certification process. I could pay off my observer and pilots and friends and have them say I swam all the way to France, when in fact I water skied. And it might get certified if no one notices something fishy. And I guess I'm ok with that, because I'd always know I cheated. (Likewise, it doesn't bother me when someone fakes their certification swim- I figure it'll come back to haunt them later on if they aren't prepared, and it's none of my business; I did mine.)

    I guess what I'm getting at is that we can't police every organization and every swim. We have to trust in observers to tell the truth. Some crazies are going to slip through, but does that take away from our individual accomplishments? To me, it doesn’t. I know I followed the rules, and I'd hope that everyone else would too, but the fact is that the world is full of cheaters and self-promoters and we can't stop them all. And sanctioning innocent bystanders who are following the rules doesn't help anyone.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited October 2012

    The public figure argument is a strawman.

    You're right that it's not the most relevant aspect of this debate. Much more relevant is the issue you raise in your subsequent post - having trust in the organizations that ratify swims.

    However, it's important to clarify for other reasons that Julie Bradshaw is clearly a Public Figure (the link is worth reading). She has willingly and repeatedly cast herself in the public light by virtue of her many "world record" claims, her public appearances and speeches, her constant invoking of her MBE status, and her leadership of the CSA. A discussion of her actions and their effects is absolutely in the public interest of the marathon swimming community.
  • ssthomasssthomas Charter Member
    Agreed- I totally view Julie as a public figure and think that discussions of her actions and their impact (and those of NYCSwim for that matter) are important to the growing marathon swimming community as we define what is we do and move forward. We're building the foundation for future marathon swimmers who are yet to come, and without valuable discussion and ideas and debate, we're limiting our potential as individuals and as a group. I've probably inserted myself into a politcal hail storm here- but some things are better off when they're discussed openly!
  • ssthomasssthomas Charter Member
    For the record, I have no stake in the outcome of this situation- I've done my NYCSwim (and it's a fantastic organization with well-run events) and I went with CS&PF for my channel swim. I am only feeling the urge to speak up on the behalf of swimmers who I don't want to see miss out on their dreams. I live in a world where I like to believe everyone shares in my pure joy of swimming and wants to make it better for our future generations. I used to believe there were limits to what I could achieve, and it's been a long, personal journey to overcome those barriers. I simply hate to see roadblocks put up that make achieving dreams even harder than they already are. This situation is clearly complicated, and I'm aware that I don't know all of the history and background. Likely, roadblocks are being thrown up from a few different places and with some luck, they'll be taken down again soon.
  • The best thing about this debate, is now aspirants are aware of the difference between CSA & CSPF.
    I had no clue when I signed up years ago. I just went with the best pilot available.

    To me if NYC swim had given some notice, on the CSA issue, then I would of kept better records. Making the qualification process slightly easier.
    As it stands I swam many swims in the 4-8hr bracket, in 10-14C water but I had no observer.
    So to meet NYC swim requirements for observed swims, I need my CSA full observers report. (which I have officially received 1 page out of 7) Plus another 1 or 2 observed swims. Which I have done obviously, but would have to make up the details.
    So for me, it is impossible to meet NYC swim requirements, while being totally honest.
  • There's a whole group of Channel swimmers who could and would vouch for @CraigMoz, but had he had sufficient notice,as I said above, then he would simply have known to document more of those swims at the time.
  • evmoevmo San FranciscoAdmin
    edited October 2012
    FYI, the MIMS FAQ has been updated again:

    http://www.nycswim.org/Event/Event.aspx?event_id=2302&from=faq#615



    Do you accept CSA solo English Channel swims to fulfill the MIMS experience requirement?

    In the past, recent solo English Channel swims with both CSA and CS&PF were considered Event-Based Qualifying Swims. Currently, CSA solo swims have lost this special designation and are not automatic qualifiers. They may still fulfill the qualification requirement under the Observer Qualifying Swims category if the water temperature is within our prescribed water temperature.

    This change in designation stems from the public claims of a record by a CSA leader with regards to a stroke-based swim around Manhattan Island. This swim was organized and sanctioned by NYC Swim, which does not recognize stroke-based records. All requests to date by NYC Swim for cessation and retraction of this claim have been rebuffed. Since the party erroneously claiming the Manhattan Island record serves as a certifier for all CSA solos swims, NYC Swim will not honor Channel crossings supported by the CSA.

    This situation is neither new nor unique. All ratifying bodies are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the records they sanction and certify.

    If you have a solo Channel crossing certified by the CSA, please still apply for entry in MIMS:
    • Please post a complete history of your open water swim resume (including your CSA organized Channel Swim) in the Swim History (Non-NYCSWIM Events) section of the NYC Swim website; this may positively influence your selection.
    • Please upload your 6-hour CSA qualification swim documentation to the Qualifying Swim Log section of the NYC Swim website.
    • Please upload your observer logs from your CSA swim to your CSA solo swim listing in the Qualifying Swim Log section of the NYC Swim website.
  • NiekNiek Heiloo, NetherlandsMember
    edited October 2012
    FYI, the MIMS FAQ has been updated again :)
    http://openwaterswimming.eu - Cold, wind, waves, sunburn, currents, jellyfish and flotsam! Hop in and join the fun!
  • CraigMozCraigMoz Member
    edited October 2012
    I have been contacted by NYC swim, in regard to MIMS.
    NYC swim has done everything possible, to help in the application process.
    They have explained their situation, and provided all the information I need to submit an application, in a very professional manner. Thank you to NYC Swim and all that have helped bring this topic to the public.
  • Anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that CSA has made some changes to their organization this past weekend?
  • loneswimmerloneswimmer Admin
    edited November 2012
    It has been rumoured, that certain people have not been nominated for the CSA committee for the coming year. I suspect, if you know of the rumour, you know of whom I speak.

    Edit: Rumours seem to be incorrect. Said person will remain on CSA committee.
  • Thanks, and that is why I asked. So hard to know what is fact or fiction that I figure this forum is the perfect place to find out what is and isn't.
  • CSA Structure

    President - Michael Read MBE

    Executive Board Members

    Chairman - Peter Van Vooren
    Vice Chairman - Clive Burbage
    Admin Secretary - Dr. Julie Bradshaw MBE

    Day to Day Management

    Admin Secretary - Dr. Julie Bradshaw MBE

    Board Members

    Directors: Montserrat Tresserras, Dr. Susan Ractliffe, Alison Read, Dr. Tamsin Lane, Enrique Flores, Steven Franks, Joan Metcalfe and Dr. Stanley Paris.

    Co-opted: Bill Pickering, Ray Cossum, Peter May and Andrea Gellan.

    Sub Committees and co-opted members as required. All members have direct access to the Administration Secretary who will pass any comments/concerns to any or all members of the Board, as appropriate.

    Emphasis added is mine.
Sign In or Register to comment.