FINA – the international governing body for aquatic sports – has denied an application that would make Siphiwe Baleka the first-ever Olympic swimmer from Guinea-Bissau in a dispute over the Olympic qualifying deadline.
Baleka was set to become the first swimming Olympian from the small African nation of Guinea-Bissau, and would also be the oldest Olympic swimmer in history at age 50. Baleka was born and raised in the United States, but has dual citizenship to Guinea-Bissau. Reports earlier this month noted that Baleka had qualified for the Olympics under FINA’s universality rules.
But FINA, the world’s governing body for swimming, has denied Baleka’s application for a universality place, ruling that he hadn’t qualified during the official Olympic qualifying period.
Qualifying Period: Universality vs A/B Cuts
The dispute ultimately comes down to differences in two methods of Olympic qualification. Most athletes earn Olympic bids the traditional way – hitting FINA “A” or “B” cuts. The qualifying period for those swims runs through June 27, 2021.
Universality is an alternate method of Olympic qualifying, designed to allow smaller nations with less-developed swimming programs to build out the sport through representation at the Olympics. A nation that has no swimmers hit an “A” or “B” cut can send one man and one woman to the Olympics – their top swimmer in world ranks – if they apply for universality places.
FINA stipulates that nations must apply for universality places by June 20, 2021. But the rules don’t specifically mention a qualifying time-frame.
Baleka’s Case
Baleka had originally based his universality application (submitted on June 17) on a time he swam at the 2019 International Masters Championships in Egypt. But FINA informed Baleka that the 2019 Egypt meet had not been a FINA-approved Olympic qualifying event. Baleka scrambled to find a new FINA-approved Olympic qualifying meet in which to compete before the June 27 deadline, eventually competing in the Egypt Swimming National Championships on June 26.
FINA’s position is that universality qualifying has a different qualifying period than A/B cut qualifying, implied by the June 20 submission deadline. Baleka’s camp maintains that FINA rules don’t specifically list different qualifying periods for universality and A/B cut swimmers, and that his June 26 swim should still qualify him because his application was submitted on-time and his swim (though after the submission deadline) still came before the qualifying period ended.
We reached out to FINA and received this explanation:
“FINA notes Mr. Siphiwe Baleka’s concern with regards to his Universality time achieved on June 26, 2021 at the Egypt Swimming National Championships. In this case, FINA is strictly applying the Qualification Rules for the Universality Places which specify that only the performances of swimmers achieved on or before June 20, 2021 are valid for consideration. This official cut-off date is communicated to the National Federations/National Olympic Committees well in advance of this applicable deadline and FINA must apply the Qualification Procedure with no exception.
“As Mr. Baleka’s time was achieved after the cut-off date, and noting that this time was not an A or B time, his result is not eligible for consideration under the Qualification Rules.”
In response to our requests for further clarification, FINA said that universality places are considered a “pathway” to the Olympics for unqualified athletes, not a qualification method. Under that definition, universality places do not adhere to the June 27 qualification deadline, but instead to the separate timeline for the universality pathway with applications due June 20.
In a press release from Claytown Productions, Baleka compared his swim to several other A/B cut qualifiers who swam and qualified in the June 20-27 window:
“I’m shocked! It wasn’t easy, but I satisfied every FINA requirement before the deadlines. It seems unfair that swimmers like Youssef Ramadan, Francesca Fangio, Srihari Nataraj, Sajan Prakash and others can qualify after June 20th, but for some reason I cannot.”
Claytown Productions also notes that the June 20 deadline for universality selections was not communicated to Baleka by FINA prior to June 27.
Good. Universality is not meant for failed swimmers from developed nations to buy their way into the Olympics. I would also say that if the Universality place is being used by a 50 year old then they are taking the piss.
the problem fina has here, is there is precedence to overlooking a time swum AFTER the deadline for an athlete when Michele Smith from Ireland did a time in I believe the 400 free AFTER the qualifying deadline, yet she was still allowed to swim. Then you also have the problem for FINA/IOC regarding the fake “trials”for Atlanta by Hungary when their national swimming governing body never even HELD a trials meet, instead making up a fake one, with fake times never done by the swimmers who then went to Atlanta. this is horrific inconsistency.
Mexico is another example, where they allowed the country to falsify entry times and when caught said “no it’s fine.”
It’s a tough week for FINA, because there are several stories where they are following the rules, and we should be applauding their desire to do so. But, this instance does seem like an odd place for them to make their stand. This could have been very much a ‘goodwill’ story, and easy to rubber-stamp and nobody would have ever questioned it. Now, instead, it’s turned into a headache for a new administration that’s trying to prepare for the Olympics and to make what appears to be dramatic policy shifts within the org.
Is FINA trying to build awareness and appreciation of swimming in lesser-developed countries, or not? This is a technicality. Let him swim.
He is a 50 year old truck driver in the US looking for a way to the olympics without being fast enough. I think his participation would give very little new found awareness of swimming to any lesser-developed country.
This just reeks of failed teenage dreams.
“Back in 82 I could throw a pig-skin a quarter mile!”
I repeat my previous comments – his attempts to regain his unattained Olympic dreams in this far fetched manner is against the ethos of the Olympics. American Ivy-league Division 1 athletes should not be able to dig up vague citizenships from developing nations using DNA tests to exploit the universality rule as way to get around not being fast enough.
His response to comments from the last SwimSwam article on him was that Guinea-Bissau came to HIM to ask him to do this for the sake of sport and not him trying to find a loophole. Read the Sports Illustrated article: “I’m thinking,” says Baleka, “that if I became a citizen, I would probably be the best swimmer in… Read more »
It’s not often that I agree with FINA… but bravo.
wonder if he’ll try again next olympics… looks like the only problem was with the deadline, so if he just competes at all in a FINA approved meet before the deadline next time, he should be in?
Yeah, I mean…I think it would be easier for FINA to just take the positive publicity and let him swim. But it’s clear he didn’t understand the rules. They publish a list of FINA-approved meets online. He should have known and done so earlier.
If he’s doing what he claims he’s doing, working to develop the sport in GB, he should be surpassed by a new generation of GB swimmers by Paris and no longer have a spot available. He’ll be a 25-high or 26-low by then at best, and in 3 years, the country should be able to train someone to do better than that.
So, I guess we’ll see how much of that “building the sport in GB”… Read more »
“FINA stipulates that nations must apply for universality places by June 20, 2021. But the rules don’t specifically mention a qualifying time-frame.”….
and
“FINA rules say that Universality applications are due June 20 and that approval will be announced on July 1. This suggests that Mr. Baleka, like all other swimmers in the world, has until June 27th to qualify. FINA rules did not state that Mr. Baleka’s qualification period was limited to June 20th, only that his application was due at that time. Enforcing an arbitrary change to the published rules would be unfair and violate the spirit of the Olympic Charter.”
and
FINA rules also state that countries “with no men or women with an “A”… Read more »
I’d argue that it’s understood that the June 20 deadline meant you had to submit a complete application by the deadline. You can’t submit something and leave part of it blank or forget to meet one of the most important requirements and expect to submit it after the deadline. There is a deadline for a reason. The guy went to Yale? It looks like he didn’t read the application until it was too late.
Yeah, I don’t think “the country nominated me but I wasn’t eligible” is as good of an excuse as he seems to think it is.
I think you are drastically underestimating how long it takes to build a program like that and just how fast a high 25 to low 26 would be in that scenario. It’s not like there is a huge population of swimmers to choose from – population, pool access, history of sport, percent of the population that know how to swim, etc. are all working against it. Probably most of the swimmers who will be part of the program do not even know how to swim today…The closest comparison we have would be Eric Moussambani. After his performance in 2000 he was able to lower his time to 27 in the 50 free by 2004, but that was with a considerable… Read more »
56.9
The swimmers he mentioned qualified with legitimate FINA “A” times, not under universality. As noted, those deadlines for qualification are different. Take the L and leave those other swimmers out of it.
As noted where? FINA hasn’t published different deadlines. Read between the lines. That’s why FINA stated, “This official cut-off date is communicated to the National Federations/National Olympic Committees well in advance of this applicable deadline and FINA must apply the Qualification Procedure with no exception.” If they had actually published such a rule, they wouldn’t have to “communicate” it ….. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. They are making this up as they go.