Column Week 9:

From this week, Apnea.nl will have its own news section. To start with a bang, I have introduced you to the strange article of Gianfranco Ciavarella. Although AIDA only plays a minor role in the article, it can be said with certainly that the article is used as an frontal attack at this young association. The timing of the article and the activities of the CMAS question however if safety is the real motivation behind this act.

AIDA International is growing fast. The national associations are developing at an increasing speed and each year the association is becoming more professional. The goal of this professionalizing isn't nothing less as to represent the sport in its fullest and perhaps to become an IOC member in the near future. It is quite clearly that with this development AIDA is a threat to the already dwindling power of the CMAS within the IOC.

Just at the moment that AIDA increases in popularity, the CMAS chooses for the response with the Cube. This is not happening without problems. The first world championship of the cube was planned last year in Tunisia. Just at the last moment the event was canceled due 'weather problems'.

The cube is a wild adventure at 20 meters of depth where the atlete have to swim in an square. Most of the readers will know that under 10 meters, the risk for ascent black-out increases significantly, and it is doubtful how this is related with the questions of the CMAS about safety with AIDA.

Although Gianfranco Ciavarella seems to describe that severe accidents under the AIDA system is something waiting to happen, it is a fact that in the last 10 years of its existence no diver has died. And that is quite remarkable since over 2000 breath-hold divers follow the AIDA rules around the word, making freediving seemingly safer than SCUBA diving.

The response of the CMAS is a beautiful demonstration of duality. Several imaginary problems are presented why the AIDA disciplines are unmanageable; nevertheless, the author fails to explain why those problems don't arise with the cube, and what the solutions of the CMAS are.

Nothing is as relative as safety. Every sport, how safe it seems, does know its accidents. For an objective opinion about safety, unbiased research is needed, accompanied by accident registration and the development of riscfactor for comparison. That the CMAS doesn't dare to perform such an research and chooses to defends itself with vague evidence is disturbing and unprofessional for any organization.

The motivation of the CMAS stays a guess, but it becomes more evident that it probably isn't about safety or manageability.

Rik Rösken