Britain's coaching association has backed the condemnation from Aquatics GB of Ben Proud's decision to switch camps to the doping-friendly Games.

As the arguments for (minority) and against (by far the majority stance in the swim community in Britain and far beyond, even among those who at pains to express their discomfort with criticising Proud's switch to the 'enemy camp'), the British Swimming Coaches Association (BSCA) today noted:

“In relation to the current debate the BSCA supports the stance of Aquatics GB and we too stand behind the principles of a clean sport, clean swimming & clean coaches.”

That stand and sensitivity is hardly surprising in the context of swimming in Britain, a nation where swimmers, particularly but not exclusively women, and coaches were written up and dismissed as failures because they fell shy of the efforts of East German swimmers competing on the strength of steroids.

Our main image highlights the impact of allowing doped swims to continue to count as the official record of the sport with no explanation attached: imagine the altered images and lives some of those names might have had if their actual clean-sport finishing places were recognised:

Unsurprising, then, to find one of those athletes, and the daughter of one of those coaches, Sharron Davies, long-time campaigner for justice for the women impacted by the GDR era, expressing her disappointment in Proud and advocating for sport free of the kind of chemistry that robbed East German athletes of their long-term physical and mental health and robbed those they thrashed of their rightful rewards as clean athletes.

Here's a piece with Sharron from 2022 in which she talks about the long-term impact of the doping era on her father, other coaches and parents:

East German doping: ‘My father was heartbroken back then and the drug injustice still tortures him at 85’

In 1990, a little more than a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the former East German swimmers Christiane Knacke and Renate Vogel travelled to Switzerlan

The TimesCraig Lord

There is no better example in sport than the impact of the biggest pharmaceutical experiment on athletes to highlight why anti-doping and doping-friendly events do not represent the same trade and should never meet, as expressed under World Aquatics By-law 10:

New Bylaw 10: All Enhanced Games Sign-Ups Banned From World Aquatics

Global swimming regulator first to act as Magnussen, Govorov, Gkolomeev, Hawke have access cut off: “This new Bylaw clearly affirms World Aquatics’ position: people, organisations and competitions that promote or enable doping have no place in aquatics.” + Analysis of EG statement

State Of Swimming +Craig Lord

Davies and the many others who faced the GDR in the 1970s and 1980s would surely know better than Proud why any organisation that supports the use of pharmaceutical solutions banned in the tested sports domain should be kept away from a sport largely occupied by under-age athletes. Even if they would not be eligible for the EGs, those athletes are often inspired by the champions they look up to.

Culture counts. Meanwhile, a short extract from this editorial I posted yesterday.

Within that, I mentioned Maggie Kelly, Ann Osgerby, Davies and Michelle Ford, the latter two of those champion swimmers among the relative few who faced the might of the GDR but still managed to make it through to medals and recognition on the biggest occasion in their sport. Read on...

Many, many more did not. 

They all watched the burglar enter, fill their boots and bags with stolen goods and make off with the loot while the police not only stood by but halted the traffic for the getaway car like swimming's version of Clouseau in the Pink Panther without the laughs. To add insult to injury, the crime was covered up by the very guardians of the sport at an IOC-accredited laboratory, no less. Much more on all of that in the books Sharron and Michelle wrote with my help:

Unfair Play | Swift Press

A TIMES AND DAILY TELEGRAPH BOOK OF THE YEAR SHORTLISTED FOR THE SPORTS BOOK AWARDS 2024 Sharron Davies is no stranger to battling the routine sexism of the sporting world. She missed out on Olympic Gold because of doping among East German athletes in the 1980s; now, biological males are being allowed to compete directly […]

Swift PressAuthor profile page

Turning the Tide

Against the backdrop of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, the 1980 Moscow Olympics was always going to be political. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser wanted Australia’s Olympic athletes to boycott the Games, in line with the USA, but many of the athletes had a different view. Athletes were the victims

Fair Play PublishingMichelle Ford and Craig Lord

There were no winners, the medallists and those locked out all victims of a rogue state and appalling, wilfully blind governance that put athletes anywhere but first as long as the Blazer Express kept rolling.

Athletes are not the only victims. We should also recall the constant struggle of the many coaches, sports scientists, psychologists, parents and others who support and work with athletes on a daily basis. Many have seen injustice deny them celebration and recognition they were robbed of.

Indeed, some were actually written up in official federation reviews of competition campaigns, as well as media reports, as 'failures' because they hadn't kept up with the pace of poison. And some of those passed away having never seen a blazer champion their cause, the art of going along to get along far more appealing in the long and happy lives of those who 'serve' without truly serving anyone but themselves.

The editorial in full:

Where The Double-Edged Sword Of Disappointment Cuts Deep

‘Disappointed, gutted, a kick in the teeth’ - all of that, for sure - but how the Gods of Morality must have laughed and cried themselves off their High Ground when contemplating the ‘extremely disappointed’ emanating from the the extremely disappointing in the pool of blazer hypocrisy

State Of Swimming +Craig Lord

Meanwhile, members of the swimming community continue to express how sad they feel at Proud's decision, this from Karen Pickering, former International, world s/c champion and long since a BBC radio commentator, particularly poignant:

When I heard yesterday that Ben Proud had signed up for the Enhanced Games, my first feeling was sadness. I’ve followed Ben’s journey from his early days as a junior swimmer, emotionally invested as… | Karen Pickering MBE OLY | 14 comments

When I heard yesterday that Ben Proud had signed up for the Enhanced Games, my first feeling was sadness. I’ve followed Ben’s journey from his early days as a junior swimmer, emotionally invested as he rose through the ranks to become one of the world’s top sprinters. He’s delivered again and again on the global stage, and I’ve always loved watching him race. During commentary, we often spoke about how he never got the recognition he deserved — yet he always seemed content with that. Ben has always struck me as a deep thinker: quiet, methodical, but fiercely competitive once he hit the water. That’s why this news is such a shock. The lure of a million-dollar carrot is powerful, especially when the traditional path in swimming dries up. Unlike football or rugby, swimming has no club system to fall back on. There’s no second-tier circuit where athletes can keep competing and earning. Often, once the medals stop, so does the funding — and with that, their career. So yes, I understand the appeal of the Enhanced Games. But it’s also deeply disappointing. World Aquatics may now be scrambling to respond, but it was their own actions — or inaction — that helped create this vacuum. Under their previous name, FINA, they made it nearly impossible for swimmers to compete outside sanctioned events. The International Swimming League (ISL), launched six years ago, was a financial lifeline for many — not just the stars, but those grinding away with little or no income. Yet FINA resisted it, simply because it wasn’t their product. The same thing happened more than a decade ago with the Singapore Swim Stars — a promising event snuffed out after just one edition due to a lack of support from FINA. Now comes the Enhanced Games, with financial muscle and a confrontational stance. They offer money, media attention — and performance-enhancing drugs under medical supervision. That’s a seductive mix for athletes nearing or at the end of their careers, and one that challenges everything our sport has stood for. Ben says he’ll be monitored, that he won’t do anything to harm himself, that it will be safe. But what about the young swimmers watching him? Those who look up to him but don’t have access to doctors or resources to ensure what they’re taking is “safe”? His decision isn’t just personal. It’s public. And it’s irresponsible. And yes, I know there are drug cheats in so-called “clean” sport — I’ve raced them. I know the bitterness of losing to someone who broke the rules. I’m angry that World Aquatics will ban athletes from future events for joining the Enhanced Games, while known dopers return from suspension and are welcomed back. That hypocrisy is glaring. But that doesn’t make this okay. We can’t excuse our actions by pointing to the failures of others. If we all lived by the standards of the worst, society would fall apart. We have to live by our own moral code. We have to draw our own lines. I feel like Ben just erased his. Aquatics GB | 14 comments on LinkedIn

LinkedInKaren Pickering MBE OLY