AUSTRALIAN SWIMMERS’ TOUR

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 870, 14 January 1930, Page 8

AUSTRALIAN SWIMMERS’ TOUR

I*HE arrangements between the executive bodies controlling 1 swimming in New Zealand and Australia concerning the tour of Griffiths and Ryan were no! as satisfactory as they could and should have been. This is the conclusion that must be reached after reviewing the unfortunate dispute that has clouded the visit to the Dominion of two young Australians under engagement to the New Zealand Swimming Council. Today, after completing the major portion of their itinerary, they are able to conclude the programme of sport and holiday-making arranged for them only at the risk of suspension on their return. Not long after Griffiths and Ryan opened their tour in Auckland, where the latter, to the evident surprise of the Australian parent body, was beaten by Bridson, rumour informed Sydney that her representatives were finding the itinerary more than reasonably strenuous. An agitation fostered by the Manly Club, to which Ryan belongs, culminated in Sydney newspapers using the term “scandalous treatment.” Strong reference was made to Ryan being pitted against Bridson so soon after his voyage. As far as this was concerned the responsibility did not lie with Auckland, for Ryan actually asked for one of the races in which he was defeated by the Aucklander. The causes for complaint, if any, arose subsequently. It is extraordinary that, toward the close of a tour that was the subject of much planning and publicity on both sides of the Tasman, the Australian Swimming Union should see fit to raise objections as to the nature of the itinerary. Admittedly it embraced a full and, perhaps, strenuous programme, but presumably it was submitted by the New Zealand Council to the Australian Union for approval. If this were not the case, then the Australian body is unquestionably at fault, for the onus was on it to take care of its own. If, on the other hand, it failed in that clear duty, there is scarcely reasonable justification for an eleventh hour objection to the swimmers’ movements and a peremptory demand for their return in time to take part in the New South Wales State championships. If the New Zealand Council bore the expense of bringing Griffiths and Ryan to this country it was justified in doing its utmost to make the best use of their tour. Personal complaints from the swimmers were not forthcoming and the contretemps at Ashburton appears to have been purely of a personal character. Griffiths and Ryan, in fact, seem chiefly concerned at the prospect of losing their Mount Cook holiday arranged by the New Zealand Council. The situation as a whole has been unsatisfactory and there is a lesson to be learned from the fact that the circumstances parallel those in which Misses Ena Stockley and Kathleen Miller visited Australia two years ago and were faced with extra and unexpected meetings. If the relations between the New Zealand and Australian controlling bodies are to continue smoothly there must be better reciprocal understanding when tours are planned.