From left to right: Dr. Mohamed Diop, FINA Bureau Member and General Secretary of the African Swimming Federation (CANA) drmohameddiop@yahoo.fr; Mr. Sérgio Mane, President of the Guinea Bissau Olympic Committee (GBOC) COMITEOLIMPICOGB@gmail.com; and Duarte Ioia, President of the Guinea Bissau Swimming Federation (GBSF) duarte.ioia54@gmail.com
On, July 26, 2021, The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled against me in favor of FINA in the case of 2021/A/8134 SIPHIWE BALEKA v. FINA. As a result, I was not allowed to compete at the Olympics in Tokyo in the Men’s 50 Meter Freestyle on July 30, 2021.
On November 22, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) explained its decision in my case against FINA. Here is the part that is relevant to the Guinea-Bissau Swimming Federation (GBSF):
In section II. FATUAL BACKGROUND the decision-making states,
"15. On July 12, 2021, GB NF informed FINA that its email address had been hacked, that it was aware that a correspondence had been addressed to FINA and that it was not responsible for any operation carried out between June 21 and July 8, 2021.
16. On July 14, 2021, FINA asked GB NF to confirm that all communications sent to FINA from the relevant email address between June 21 and July 8 would be considered null and void.
17. On July 16, 2021, GB NF confirmed that any documents sent to FINA between June 21 and July 8, 2021 through the relevant email address would be considered null and void. "
Then, in section VIII. MERIT the court's decisions declare,
"81. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the sole arbitrator considers that the second request was, in any case, null and void in the light of the correspondence exchanged between GB NF and FINA between July 12 and 16, 2021. GB NF unequivocally confirmed that any correspondence received by GB NF's FINA between June 21 and July 8, 2021 was considered null and void.
82. In addition, the Single Referee considers that the Second Application was, in any case, invalid, because it was submitted by GB NF, and not by GB NOC, while the Qualification Systems establish that "CONs must submit their Universality Places applications to FINA for approval. "
Therefore, here is the proof that, among other things, the Guinea Bissau Swimming Federation itself interfered against me, it’s own swimmer, in the CAS case. In my opinion, this amounts to malfeasance and perjury by the GB Swim Federation and the Olympic Committee.
I now feel that I and the people of Guinea Bissau have been denied justice. I feel compelled to tell my story. The world will never know the truth of why I was not allowed to compete, much less what happened afterwards, unless I myself tell it and there is further investigation. Though I have been told that I am not allowed to speak about the case, I am going to do so anyway because, as a representative of the people of Guinea Bissau, I am expected to show courage in the face of injustice.
My story is a bit complicated and long and will reveal incompetence at best, and corruption at worst, by both FINA and my own Guinea Bissau Olympic Committee (GBOC) and Guinea Bissau Swimming Federation (GBSF). In plain language, as best as I understand it, FINA, for reasons I could only speculate until CAS explained its decision, did not want me to compete for my ancestral homeland and adopted country of Guinea Bissau at the Olympics in Tokyo. Dr. Mohamed Diop, a FINA Bureau Member and General Secretary of the African Swimming Federation, together with Sergio Mane, President of the Guinea Bissau Olympic Committee (GBOC), Duarte Ioia, President of the Guinea Bissau Swimming Federation (GBSF) and Aniceto Jose Bernardo, Secretary General of the GBSF, threw me under the proverbial “bus” for reasons that, again, I can only speculate. As my friend and National Co-chair for the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (NCOBRA) put it,
“You were a 50 year-old repatriate who wanted to compete for his country. With your success, 1'000's and 10,000's of 17, 18, and 19 year olds would have wanted to do the same . The top African descendant athletes in the world no longer be competing for the United States, France, Germany, Brazil, etc, Competing for their ancestral homelands”
However, there is plenty of evidence to support this. FINA was caught lying and retroactively adding information to their website in order to cover their tracks to support their case, and members of the GBSF committed perjury by submitting false statements to FINA’s legal counsel which were then submitted by FINA to the CAS and used against me in the case of 2021/A/8134 SIPHIWE BALEKA v. FINA.
In the interest of FULL DISCLOSURE and TRUTH, I want to give my FULL TESTIMONY as to what happened. Before I begin, however, I would like to state that not only am I Guinea Bissau’s first swimmer of international note, I was born and raised in the United States where I had an illustrious swimming career. In addition to my Guinea Bissau passport, I hold a United States passport as well. At fifty years of age, this also made me the un-elected senior spokesperson in Tokyo for Afrodescendant or “black” swimmers, particularly in the United States of America. In a very short time, I had done as much or more as anyone to promote the Olympic movement and the sport of swimming in Guinea Bissau and to bridge the gap between Afrodescendants in America and their swimming counterparts in Africa. Truly, I was becoming a father of Pan African swimming and giving birth to a new era in the swimming world. The decision in the case of 2021/A/8134 SIPHIWE BALEKA v. FINA, is an attempt to kill the progress of this movement.
WHAT HAPPENED
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has ruled against me in the case of CAS 2021/A/8134 Siphiwe Baleka v. FINA. I myself had to initiate the case because Sérgio Mane, President of the GBOC refused to do so and fight for the rights of its own athlete.
The merits of my case are simple. The Guinea Bissau Swim Federation (GBSF) and the Guinea Bissau Olympic Committee (GBOC) submitted a Universality Place application on my behalf on June 17, 2021, three days ahead of the application deadline. I also competed in a FINA-approved qualification event in Egypt on June 26, 2021, one day before the end of the June 27, 2021 qualification period. In this way, I met FINA’s “Universality Place” eligibility requirements that would allow Guinea Bissau to send me, as its highest ranked male swimmer with 567 FINA points, to compete in the Olympics in Tokyo. I was destined to become Guinea Bissau’s first swimmer and the oldest swimmer in Olympic history.
FINA, however, rejected my application, initially claiming that, while the qualification deadline for individual swimmers was indeed June 27, the qualification period for me as a Universality Place applicant, was June 20, 2021. However, this is contrary to FINA’s own published rules and the alleged June 20 deadline was never published or communicated to the GBSF or GBOC until June 27th. As I will explain, it seemed to me that FINA was violating its own rules, violating the very purpose of the Universality Place system it created, and violating the Olympic Charter itself. I felt that I and Guinea Bissau were being unfairly treated and discriminated against. FINA’s behavior was contrary to the mutual understanding and fair play it is obligated, under the Olympic Charter, to act under.
When my appeals to FINA, headed by its new Executive Director Brent Nowicki, went unanswered - another act of discrimination (does it treat all swim federations this way or just Guinea Bissau’s?) and violation of the Olympic spirit of mutual understanding and fair play - I was left with no choice but to seek justice through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), whose former Managing Counsel was the same Brent Nowicki. . . . I argued my case on the merits according to FINA’s own rules. But now, the CAS, too, has failed me.
THE TIMELINE
On June 17, three days before the application deadline, the Guinea Bissau Swim Federation (GBSF) jointly with the GBOC submitted my Universality Place application to compete in the men’s 50 Meter Freestyle. This was in accordance with FINA’s rules that allowed Guinea Bissau to send its highest ranked male swimmer according to the FINA points system. With 587 points earned during the qualification period at the 1st International Masters Swimming Championships held in Egypt (October 2019), I was the highest and only ranked swimmer in Guinea Bissau. Or so I thought.
On June 19, FINA rejected the joint GBSF/GBOC application on my behalf. I was surprised to learn that my FINA score was not accepted since the competition was not a FINA-approved “Olympic qualifying event”.
Who knew that the 1st International Masters Swimming Championships, an international swimming championship sanctioned by FINA, was not a FINA approved Olympic qualification event?
This was an honest mistake made by all parties that a competent national swimming federation and Olympic committee would not make.
Siphiwe Baleka with Mr. Dionisio Pereira, State Secretary for Youth and Sport, Guinea Bissau January 2020.
Certainly I was not told this by either Doreen Tiborcz, Masters Committee Chairman at FINA; Dr. Mohamed Diop, FINA Bureau Member from Senegal and General Secretary of the African Swimming Federation (CANA); or Mel Goldstein, Vice Chairman, FINA Masters Technical Committee. This was back in January and February of 2020, when I first began emailing these FINA officials about the possibility of competing for Guinea Bissau in the Olympics immediately after being invited to do so by the then Guinea Bissau Minister of Sport, Mr. Dionisio Pereira. I made repeated inquiries, stating “After talking to GB's Minister of Sport, Dionisio Pereira, he agreed that it would be a great thing if Guinea Bissau gave me citizenship (because of my Balanta ancestry) and I competed in this summer's Olympics for Guinea Bissau. I am writing to you to find out if there's anything preventing me from doing this according to IOC rules. Can you investigate this for me please? I believe I would be the first African American to compete for an African nation at the Olympics.”
It is revealing to me that in CAS’ Arbital Award explanation, they summarise FINA’s position as
“If the athlete had exercised a minimum degree of care He would have been able to determine that The 1st International Masters Swimming Championships in Cairo, Egypt Was not a FINA approved Olympic qualifying event. . . . “
It is also revealing that none of the FINA officials I emailed said anything about a one-year residency requirement. Neither did the Guinea Bissau Minister of Sport, the President of the Guinea Bissau Olympic Committee nor the President of the Guinea Bissau Swimming Federation. Not one of these officials said anything about having to live in Guinea Bissau for one year….. Yet, here was FINA saying that the burden of such knowledge and details about FINA’s qualification was on me, the athlete, and not my swimming federation or Olympic committee…..
According to published FINA rules, the qualification period for individual swimmers was June 27. That does not require any interpretation. So of course, I believed, on June 19, like all other swimmers around the world, that I still had an opportunity to qualify if I could find a FINA approved qualifying competition. That same day, I emailed Namhee Cho with FINA’s Sports Department, who had informed us of FINA’s rejection, and asked if there was any competition that I could attend that would allow me to qualify. Namhee Cho never responded.
Thus, with nothing but a common sense understanding that FINA declared June 27th as the end of the qualifying period and my own Olympic spirit to overcome all obstacles, I sought a FINA approved Olympic qualifying event and found one in Mission Viejo, California (Swim Meet of Champions - SMOC) and another in Egypt (Egypt Swimming National Championships -ESNC) on June 26th, one day before the deadline.
I emailed the event organizers in both locations. To my surprise, the SMOC hosts in Mission Viejo adamantly refused to accept any late entry, a routine practice of meet organizers in the United States. My father, who helped the Illinois Swimming LSC develop the practice of using computers to run meets back in the 1980s, regularly accepted late entries. Also to my surprise, the Egyptian Swim Federation (ESF) said yes, I could enter their meet even at this late date. They instructed me to have the GBSF send an email with my entry information.
Here’s where my problem and the problem for many Guinea Bissau athletes begins because of the conduct of the sports federations. The GBSF had been inactive since 2006. According to the testimony given by Duarte Ioia on October 26, 2021 and recorded in ATA No. 02 / 2021 Board Meeting minutes of GBSF,
“in May of 2002, elections were held and Duarte Ioia was elected Vice-President of the Guinea Bissau Swim Federation (GBSF) . The President elect, whose name was not recorded in the meeting minutes, died a year later and Duarte Ioia became President. After this, “the federation stagnated until it expired.”
It was only reactivated in March of 2021 specifically for the purpose of sending me to the Olympics, though no Constitution or by-laws has ever been presented upon request of FINA.
On March 26, GBOC President Sergio Mane emailed me, stating, “Thank you for your message and take this opportunity to inform that I have supported the Guinea-Bissau Swimming Federation for the holding of the elections whose dossier was sent to the African Confederation and the International Federation. The Guinea-Bissau Federation has already received a positive response from both entities. At the moment the Olympic Committee is trying to pay all the arrears from the Guinea-Bissau Swimming Federation.”
Duarte Ioia, an elder who has no swimming background or internet or email skills, was inexplicably made President of the newly activated GBSF. A young man named Aniceto José Bernardo, who has no swimming background, was made General Secretary of the GBSF. Neither men speak English or French - the two official languages of FINA - and do not know me, so there was a serious communication barrier between me and them, them and FINA, and them the ESF.
Because of this lack of skills and the language barrier along with the urgency of getting me entered into the Egypt Swimming National Championships, Sérgio Mane, President of the GBOC, gave me permission to use the GBSF email on behalf of GBSF President, Duarte Ioia, to expedite matters.
On June 21st, GBSF General Secretary Aniceto José Bernardo sent both the federation email address and password to Mario Ceesay, the President of the GBSF Fiscal Council. This was because Mr. Ceesay has served as my translator and Business Affairs Manager in Guinea Bissau and was the man largely responsible for re-activating the GBSF on my behalf.
As a result of emails I was authorized to send on behalf of the GBSF and its President, Mr. Duarte Ioia, I successfully entered and competed on June 26th at the Egypt Swimming National Championships. Before departing for Egypt, Mario Ceesay, the GBSF Fiscal President and myself met with Mr. Mane in his office at the GBOC Headquarters where the GBOC President Mane promised to reimburse all my training and travel expenses since I was now a citizen of Guinea Bissau representing the country in preparation for the Olympics. Thus, with this promise and my own money, I purchased a plane ticket, booked a hotel, and made my way to Cairo to compete, for the first time, as a member of the GBSF.
On June 26, I swam the 50 meter freestyle in 25.25 seconds. That same night, ahead of the June 27 qualification deadline for individual swimmers, my Universality Place application of June 17th was amended and re-submitted with my new FINA score of 567.
The first email, sent from my organizational balantasociety@gmail.com account.
The second email, sent one minute later, from the GBSF email account.
WhatsApp exchange from 6/27/2021 between GBOC President Sergio Mane and Siphiwe Baleka, confirming to Sergio that I used the GBSF email he authorized me to use to send the amended Universality Place application to FINA and cc’d to the GBOC.
TRANSLATION OF THE WHATSAPP MESSAGE ABOVE
[12:09 AM, 6/27/2021] Siphiwe: Greetings Sergio. Balanto explained the difficult situation to me tonight. I have sent FINA a suitable email with my application from the GB Swimming Federation email address. When you can, forward the email from the Olympic Committee email address. We had to endure and overcome a lot to get me to Tokyo, including rain and car problems. 💪🏿🏊🏿🇬🇼🙏🏿🏅
[11:01 AM, 6/27/2021] Sergio Mane: The Olympic Committee email went to the recipient right after the normalization of the Internet.
We are together, we are counting on you.
[11:35 AM, 6/27/2021] Siphiwe: yes. I saw the email. Good work. I know it wasn't easy. Thanks.
[11:35 AM, 6/27/2021] Siphiwe: I'm going back to Bissau tonight
[12:05 PM, 6/27/2021] Sergio Mane: Have a good trip.
Once again, I thought I had properly secured my Universality Place eligibility. The following day, however, Nahmee Cho sent an email stating, “the application for Universality Places closed on 20 June 2021, and only the performances of swimmers achieved by the said closing date are valid for consideration. We remain at your disposal for any additional information you may require.”
The following day, under the authority already given by GBOC President Sergio Mane and exercised by me the previous day, I drafted and emailed from the GBSF account on behalf of the GBSF and its President, Duarter Ioia, an appeal that was sent to Namhee Cho at FINA. Follow-up requests from the GBSF account were made again on June 30 and July 1. Finally, though FINA refused to respond to the GBSF Appeal, it did respond to an inquiry made by the SwimSwam website regarding my application, and stated that, “the ‘official cut-off date (June 20) is communicated to the National Federations/National Olympic Committees well in advance of this applicable deadline. . .’” On July 3, I drafted and submitted to SwimSwam the following letter:
I noted that,
“no such cut-off date was communicated to us. Had we known this, we would not have sent Mr. Baleka to compete in Egypt on 26 June, in order to qualify before the deadline – 27 June – which date was communicated to us and to all swim federations worldwide.”
“We ask FINA, where, when and how did it make a communication referring to an EARLIER deadline for qualifying?”
I also sent a message to GBOC President Sergio Mane via WhatsApp stating,
“Greetings Sergio. people all over the world are taking action to support me. There are petitions, articles and interviews around the world to put pressure on FINA. But I haven't heard from you for nearly a week. FINA did not respond to e-mails from the Swimming Federation. Did they contact you? Has Dr. Diop contacted you? Many people in the United States are saying that you should contact the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland and initiate legal action on my behalf immediately. Please update me on everything you are doing. Below is the CAS contact information.”
I found it incredibly bizarre and frustrating that during this period, Mr. Mane ceased communication with me! However, my friemd Kamm Howard offered this:
“Ask yourself why did the government out-of-nowhere abandon the forward motion of you swimming in Tokyo. Allowing you to proceed would have been a major blow to amature athletics in general and the Olympics specifically to the tune of $100's Billion. Money that would have been taken from western countries and universities and chanelled to African countries and the athletes themselves.”
FINA’s answer to the questions raised above is stated in its Answer of the Respondent, which says,
“Furthermore, the Respondent has clearly stated on its website that the qualification period for Universality places extended to 20th June 2021. Evidence: Exhibit R-5”
and
“On 4 June 2021, the Respondent sent a reminder to the Presidents and Secretary Generals of the NOCs and National Federations pertaining to the participation of swimmers through Universality places. Evidence: Exhibit R-6”
Now let’s examine this closely. If you examine the FINA website, https://www.fina.org/competitions/tokyo-2020-swimming-info , there is only the following statement,
“UNIVERSALITY PLACES
Table of Top-ranked male and female swimmers representing NOCs/NFs that do not have OQT "A" in both genders, as of 16th June, by FINA points. The qualification period for Universality Places extends to 20th June 2021.”
However, as I stated to the CAS in both my Appeal Brief and my Declaration,
“I have used the Internet Archives' "Way Back Machine" to retrieve my own information from many years ago. Using it to track the www.fina.org/cmpetitions/tokyo-2020-swimming-info website shows it was archived on May 5, June 28, and July 3, 2021 and reveals that the language on the site changed sometime between May 5th and June 28th, 2021.
Links to the relevant historical www.FINA.org pages follow:
May 5th web page: https://web.archive.org/web/20210505132531/https://www.fina.org/competitions/tokyo-2020-swimming-info
June 28th web page: https://web.archive.org/web/20210628153610/https://www.fina.org/competitions/tokyo-2020-swimming-info
July 3rd web page: https://web.archive.org/web/20210703171218/https://www.fina.org/competitions/tokyo-2020-swimming-info
Therefore, it appears that FINA retroactively changed their rule. No such language appears on May 5, and is first captured on June 28. This is in contradiction to FINA's claim in their denial of my application that notification was given "well in advance" to NOCs/NSFs.”
The language FINA used stating “The qualification period for Universality Places extends to 20th June 2021” is only used on their website sometime after June 16 and appears nowhere else in any FINA material. Furthermore, here is the June 4th letter it refers to (Exhibit R-6)
The letter says NOTHING about any alleged June 20 qualification period for Universality Places. Additionally, that letter states “by email only” and since I had access to the GBSF email, I know for certain that FINA NEVER sent such an email to the GBSF. If they did, all FINA had/has to do is show the email - which it did not and could not submit to the CAS because such email doesn’t exist!
As I have just shown, the June 4th letter said nothing about an alleged June 20th qualification period for Universality Places, and FINA’s language on their website appeared sometime after June 16th. In no way could either of these two days be construed as “well in advance of this applicable deadline….” FINA is here again making a gross violation of the Olympic Charter which, on page 9, obligates them to mutual understanding and fair play. By failing to email the GBSF the June 4th letter, it is further guilty of discrimination.
In its argument against me, FINA also claims that the Universality Place application that was submitted on time on June 17 and its amended version submitted on June 26th, are two separate applications. This argument is made in order to invalidate my qualifying swim on June 26th since it was therefore made in a separate and “new” application that failed to meet the June 20 application deadline. This “two separate applications” distinction violates the Olympic Charter that expressly commands that there be “mutual understanding” and “fair play”. In other words, because FINA says it is two distinct applications, it is two distinct applications in total disregard for our understanding of the facts and truth of our actions and intentions. So much for mutual understanding and fair play!
However, a very curious and devious thing happened on June 12th that involves FINA and the GBSF in malfeasance and perjury. Let me explain.
Neither Namhee Cho or anyone else at FINA bothered to respond to the appeal made on June 28 nor to subsequent follow up emails that were sent by both the GBSF and myself personally over the next few days. FINA, however, did see fit to respond to the SwimSwam website which had begun to cover the controversy. Here, FINA couldn’t bother with the little swim federation of Guinea Bissau, but saw fit to claim that there was a separate qualification period ending on June 20th for Universality Place entrants. Since neither Mr. Duarte Ioia nor Mr. Aniceto José Bernardo were capable of understanding what was happening and effectively defending me, I drafted a response on behalf of the GBSF in my defense , and sent the response directly to GBOC President Sérgio Mane via WhatsApp as shown above. All throughout this period, both Mario Ceesay and others involved as translators and advocates, were also communicating directly with Mr. Mane who made no objections to my conduct. I repeatedly asked, and was assured, that it was ok for me to proceed using the GBSF email. My fiancé at the time Balanto Djassi, who was working as an assistant to the Minister of Sport, assured me the Sergio Mane was aware of my use of the GBSF email and that I should proceed since there was still a chance I could represent Guinea Bissau in the Olympics if CAS ruled in my favor.
After multiple inquiries and requests made to the GBOC to intervene on my behalf were ignored or denied, such as the request that the GBOC initiate action with the CAS, I finally went to the GBOC headquarters and met with Eugenio de Oliveira Lopes, the GBOC General Secretary. Previously, on June 21, the GBOC informed me that Rebeca Barbosa, the NOC Accreditation Manager, had approved my registration and issued my Pre Verification Card (PVC) that is required for entry into Japan.
When FINA denied my Universality Place application on the 27th, my PVC was de-activated. The GBOC, however, told me that they would send me to Tokyo with the delegation as a non-athlete as a goodwill gesture in recognition of all that I had sacrificed and to motivate me to continue with my future plans to develop the GBSF. However, July 8, when I asked Mr. Lopes to confirm this, he replied that it was not possible. I asked how many people were going to Japan and he showed me a list with 18 names. My name was #18. When I asked how many athletes were going, he said four, not including me.
How, I wondered, could the world’s 12th poorest country afford to bring 14 non-athletes to Tokyo? Why wasn’t the GBOC using this money to develop athletes in Guinea Bissau? Additionally, if the GBOC could bring these other 14 non-athletes to Japan, why couldn’t the GBOC bring me as a non-athlete as well, especially since my name was already on the list and wouldn’t require any additional money?
Mr. Lopes' only response was that FINA rejected my application.
I then had a meeting with the Guinea Bissau State Secretary for Youth and Sport, Mr. Florentino Dias and informed him of the situation. I asked him to intervene and to instruct the GBOC to send me with the delegation to Japan so that I could be there and be in a position to compete should the CAS rule in my favor. Mr. Dias assured me he would intervene, but I never again heard from him about this..
Siphiwe Baleka with Florentino Fernando Dias, Secretario de Estado da Juventude e Desportes (Secretary of Youth and Sports), January.
In a subsequent meeting at the GBOC Headquarters, I was told that 16 people would be going to Tokyo and I was shown the form that was submitted to officials in Tokyo.
GETTING TO TOKYO AGAINST ALL ODDS
Again, I did everything before the deadlines and FINA rejected my application based on an unpublished deadline that they retroactively “clarified” because of my appeal. Nevertheless, at no time did the GBSF or the GBOC mention anything to me about defending my right to compete by initiating a case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). That idea was actually suggested by SwimSwam. I felt baffled and betrayed that GBOC President Sérgio Mane would not take a stand for me, HIS athlete, who had, in fact, met the eligibility requirements.
I filed the case at the CAS, and in order to get an agreement that a decision would be made by July 28, two days ahead of my scheduled race, I had to make some compromise concerning the process and admissibility of evidence that I felt were totally unfair. But it was the only way to get the case filed and still have a chance to compete. Once the case was filed, the issue became - how can I compete if I win the case if I am not in Tokyo? Somehow, I had to find a way to get to Tokyo to give myself a chance. I don't know why the GBOC adamantly refused to assist in this matter.
During that meeting with Mr. Lopes on July 8, I was asked if I was sure that FINA never communicated the alleged June 20 qualification deadline to the GBSF. I replied that to my knowledge, no, they had not, at least not by email because I had access to the federation email account and I had checked every email since the account was opened in May of 2021. I did not think that revealing this information was a big deal since it was Mr. Lopes’ boss, GBOC President Sérgio Mane, that authorized the access. After all, weren’t we all on the same team working together to get me to the Olympics?
Apparently not, because that same day, the password was changed and I no longer had access.
Then, on Wednesday, July 21, FINA submitted its response to the CAS case and an alarming discovery was made.
On July 12, a letter signed and sealed by GBSF President Duarte Ioia, was sent to FINA saying that the email account of the GBSF has been hacked!
TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER
“Swimming Federation of Guinea Bissau
Bissau,
Bissau, on 12 July 2021
Dear President, Dear Sirs,
I took the liberty of informing you that between June 21 and July 8 of this year, the email of the Swimming Federation of Guinea-Bissau was violated.
We are aware that a correspondence was sent between the International Swimming Federation.
In this perspective, we would like to point out that the swimming federation of Guinea-Bissau is not responsible for all the acts done until this date, and therefore inform that the case has been forwarded to the competent authorities.
Please accept my best wishes for success in this institution that you lead with determination and competence.
The President
Mestre Duarte Ioia”
Now, as evidence of the incompetence and lack of communication and internet skills of President Duarte Ioia, notice that the email was forwarded to FINA legal from FINA Diving on July 19, seven days AFTER it was originally sent, because Mr. Ioia sent it to the wrong department with no proper subject heading and with no explanatory text in the body of the email indicating that there was an attachment and what it was about. This is why it took seven days for FINA legal to see it. This is the kind of incompetence that led to my problems with FINA.
A second letter was sent by GBSF General Secretary Aniceto José Bernardo saying the same thing and both letters, as well as a confirmation email of July 16 stated that all the communications from the Federation email account between June 21 and July 8 were invalid. This makes no sense because that would include the amended Universality Place application that was signed and sealed by both Mr. Duarte Ioia of the GBSF and President Sérgio Mane of the GBOC. Are they both now saying that they didn’t sign, seal and submit their own application? This makes no sense.
TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER
“Swimming Federation of Guinea Bissau
Bissau, on 16 July 2021
Subject: Confirmation
Dear president, the cars go through these confirm from June 21 to July 8 all documents sent to Fina via our email are null and void, you must take into account the conversation you have phone with
The President
Ancieto José Bernardo”
The point is that the GBSF President Duarte Ioia and the GBSF General Secretary Aniceto José Bernardo committed PERJURY before the CAS. IN addition, the GBOC President Sérgio Mane, rather than protect me, it’s athlete, instead, instigated the betrayal!
This is the reason why, when asked by FINA Legal Counsel and Integrity Manager Mr Justin Lessard “if possible, to provide the identity of the person who breached the aforementioned email address,” the GBSF General Secretary Aniceto José Bernardo failed to give the answer. Why? Because there was no breach of the aforementioned email address. Mr. Bernardo himself gave the email address and password to Mario Ceesay, President of the GBSF Financial Council, who in turn forwarded it to me. Mr. Bernardo was well aware that I was using the email at the time, and certainly by July 16, so it was possible for him to name the person who breached the aforementioned email address. Yet, he didn’t….
TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER
Dear President,
We refer to your letter of July 12, 2021 in which you inform us that the email address of your federation (fedenatacao.gb@gmail.com) was violated from June 21, 2021 to July 8, 2021.
To avoid any confusion, could you please confirm no later than today that all communications sent to FINA by the email address fedenatacao.gb@gmail.com between June 21, 2021 to July 8, 2021 must be considered null and void?
In addition, could you also, by today at the latest, mention (if possible) the identity of the person who violated the email address fedenatacao.gb@gmail.com?
I thank you in advance.
Best regards,
Jusin Lessard
And that leads to the question why? Why would Duarte Ioia and Aniceto José Bernardo lie to FINA and commit perjury? Why would the GBOC do this to its own athlete and sabotage such an opportunistic moment to bring positive world attention and resources to Guinea Bissau? Only Mr. Mane can answer that question.
ENTER FINA BUREAU MEMBER DR. MOHAMED DIOP
Or perhaps FINA Bureau Member and African Swim Federation General Secretary Dr. Mohamed Diop can answer that question, too. Because on June 28, the day after FINA rejected my application, I sent a message to him via WhatsApp explaining the situation and asking for his advice. His exact response was,
I would like to know what Dr. Diop meant when he said this would expose the GBOC and the new federation? Expose them of what or to what? I expected Dr. Diop to lead the charge defending my case, not low-key threaten me…. What did he mean that “we” did not need this? I absolutely needed this in order to secure my Universality Place and uphold the spirit of the Olympic Charter.
As I said before, I can only speculate and that is why there needs to be an investigation. To my understanding, FINA Board members are elected by the National Swim Federations (NSF) for 8 year terms. Was a deal made by Dr. Diop and Mr. Mane to vote for him again?
In April of 2020, The Nation ran an article entitled, A Bribery Scandal Hits the ‘2020’ Tokyo Olympics: claiming “We now have even more evidence that the IOC is overseeing a thoroughly corrupt process.”
The article claims that Tokyo Olympic officials were busy buying IOC votes. Was GBOC President Sergio Mane involved in this? Is that where the money came from so that the 12th poorest country in the world could send 4 athletes and 12 NON-ATHLETES to Tokyo for the Olympic games?
Where did the money come from and why didn’t the GBOC spend it on athlete development?
After all, since the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta - 25 years -, Guinea Bissau has sent a total of 25 athletes. That’s an average, over the course of seven Olympics including Tokyo, of just 3.6 athletes per Olympics with the greatest amount, 5 athletes, sent to Rio. How is it that a man who has presided over the Presidency of the GBOC from its inception in 1992, can get re-elected with a job performance that clearly shows little to no improvement?
Guinea Bissau at the Olympics from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea-Bissau_at_the_Olympics
Who were these twelve non-athletes that GBOC sent to Tokyo and who approved it and where did the money come from?
But then other questions arise. Part of the alarming discovery on July 21 of FINA’s Answer to the Respondent was the new FINA argument that, according to FINA General Rule (GR) 2.6
“Any competitor or competition official changing his sport nationality from one national governing body to another must have resided in the territory of and been under the jurisdiction of the latter for at least twelve months prior to his first representation for the country.”
The CAS used this rule in its decision. But what is confusing is this. How come this rule wasn’t used to prevent me from competing in Egypt on June 26? How come Dr. Diop recommended that I swim in the African Championships in October knowing that I wouldn’t be eligible if there were a strict application of GR 2.6? How come FINA never said this to me or the GBSF after repeated inquiries about any rules that might prevent me from representing Guinea Bissau?
MY LONG HISTORY OF ATTEMPTING TO DEVELOP SWIMMING IN AFRICA
Starting in January of 2020, I specifically asked Doreen Tiborcz, Masters Committee Chairman at FINA, Dr. Mohamed Diop, FINA Bureau Member from Senegal and General Secretary of the African Swimming Federation (CANA), and Mel Goldstein, Vice Chairman, FINA Masters Technical Committee. if there were any IOC or FINA rules that would prohibit me from representing Guinea Bissau in the Olympics and none of them mentioned any twelve month residency requirement. I was only told by Ms. Tiborcz, “1.) You should not have competed for any other country 2 yrs prior to your competition.”
In fact, I had emailed the CANA Zone 4 Secretariat as far back as August 2015 asking about the possibility of swimming in the African National Championships on the basis of my ancestry. I never received a response.
On January 2, 2016, I emailed Mel Goldstein, Vice Chairman, FINA Masters Technical Committee as well as Shaun Adriaanse of the CANA Zone 4 Secretariat, among others:
“I am hoping to culminate this tour with a competition in Africa sometime between August and December 2016. The purpose of such a trip would be:
1) interest African Americans in the sport of swimming at all levels, from kids through masters
2) provide historical and cultural components to the sport
3) connect black swimmers in America with black swimmers in Africa
4) prospect on possibilities for coaching black swimmers in Africa
5) compete against some of the best swimmers, white and black, on the African continent
6) provide personal fulfillment returning to the continent
In essence, this campaign is a way for me to combine two of the most important things in my life: my ancestors and swimming.
If you are able to provide any information about any opportunities to compete and participate in any ongoing swimming program on the African continent in the second half of 2016, please don't hesitate to contact me.”
Not surprisingly, no one at FINA nor the African Swim Federation, of which Dr. Diop is both a Bureau Member and General Secretary, ever responded.
I reached out to Mel Goldstein of FINA again on August 23, 2019, stating, “I need help contacting Dr. Mohamed Diop, FINA Bureau Member from Dakar. I will be traveling to Senegal and Guinea Bissau in late December and I want to do some swim related activities, possibly some swim clinics.. . . “
Mr. Goldstein responded, “Mohamond is from Senegal not Dakar [note: Dakar is the capital of Senegal]. I will forward your message to him and he will contact you if his federation is interested.” Further, the email thread between him and Mr. Diop was forwarded to me four days later. In it, Mr; Goldstein said, “This gentlemen contacted our National Office and wanted to make contact with you... I am reluctant to give out information. If you want to contact him his email is below…”
FINA’S CORRUPT WATERS
Why is Mr. Goldstein so reluctant to share Mr. Diop’s contact information for such a request? For that matter, why is it, as asked by Wire Sports, that “literally no one at FINA had her or his own individual email. No one. For years and years, emails went to departments. Not to people. That’s — how it was.”?
Could that be part of the notorious culture of corruption which I am now fighting? The article Politics In Play As FINA’s New Start Comes With Old Baggage notes.
“If that FINA balance of priorities sounds far-fetched, best catch up with the list of those who have received FINA’s highest honour, the FINA Order, at the helm of an awards list that includes the criminally convicted and some responsible for the abuse of underage athletes.
It is no coincidence that FINA has sunk to the bottom of the league of Olympic sports federations in recent assessment. . . .
FINA’s monopoly has been broken but the pathway set during the years of Cornel Marculescu as director (1986-2021) remains firmly in place: universality as a controlling force aided and abetted by the acquiescence of leading federations around the world falling down on their responsibility to represent the best interests of aquatic athletes; conflicts of interest; quick judgement and penalties for swimmers; slow or non-existent judgment, and never with price or penalty, for governors who have resisted independent oversight for far too long; top honours for politicians who help bankroll the FINA model and keep the status quo in the driving seat on a gravy train of grace, favour, omertà and a rulebook that is both ignored (when convenient) and evermore recast as a charter for failing governance and governors attempting to hold back change by ring-fencing themselves by words best suited to dictatorships. The depths may be murky but it is all too easy to see why there is a reluctance to hand oversight of FINA governance to an independent body.”
Sports and Politics writer Dave Zirin notes,
“It should be noted that Japan is no stranger to Olympics-related corruption allegations. When Nagano was bidding for the 1998 Winter Games, its team flooded voting IOC members with gifts, spending $22,000 per member in the quest for 62 IOC votes. Even though the IOC had placed a $200 limit on gift-giving to IOC members in 1991, Nagano bidders brazenly pressed ahead. We might know even more details, if the Nagano bid committee had not incinerated all its records after the Olympics, likely destroying evidence of additional trickery.”
To truly understand what happened to me, it is necessary to understand what FINA is and how it works. That is best achieved by reading The FINA Class Action Complaint. According to the complaint,
"FINA’s source of power derives predominantly from its control over access to competition in the Olympic Games, which FINA has lorded over member national federations and the world’s swimmers . . . Formed in 1908 as a collection of eight national aquatics organizations during that year’s Olympiad in London, FINA now comprises 209 member federations. . . . But by virtue of its governance structure and the practicalities of its day-to-day operations, FINA’s decision-making and enforcement authority fall into the hands of a small group of FINA officials who cannot be easily checked by member federations. . . .
FINA and its 209 member federations are governed primarily by a 25-member Bureau. The Bureau’s day-to-day power, in turn, is vested in an eight-member executive committee. . . . Beyond the fact that its governing structure effectively empowers FINA leadership to exercise coercive influence over member federations, such heavy-handedness is cemented in the FINA rules themselves. . . . Given the structure of FINA’s governance and its gatekeeper role in the Olympics, there is practically little that a given member federation—to say nothing of an individual swimmer—can do other than comply with FINA’s demands. . . .
Each of the member federations primarily is concerned with identifying the athletes who will represent the home country in the Olympic Games and ensuring they have sufficient training and other support to prepare for the Olympics. Also, when necessary, the member federations are the athletes’ representatives regarding issues relating to FINA’s qualifying events, the format of such competitions, FINA acceptance of their own planned competitions, technical regulations, and more. The Olympic Games are, in effect, the sole reason these organizations exist, usually pursuant to a statutory dictate recognized by the law of their country as solely responsible for identifying Olympic athletes in their sport . . . .
The fact that member federations frequently disagree among themselves and with FINA on various rules and scheduling relating to the Olympic Games, FINA competitions, and/or member-federations events, combined with FINA’s power structure, means that any given member federation—and more particularly any given designee focused on a specific sport (e.g., USA Swimming)—retains limited political capital with which to negotiate with FINA. And given their legal mandate back home, member federations understandably must choose to expend that capital with FINA on matters pertaining to the Olympic Games. Other battles, including FINA dictates that have nothing to do with preparing for or holding the Games, are therefore simply not worth it for the members to fight, or to risk fighting . . .
No longer a small band of idealistic sport enthusiasts who would be stunned by the monolith that today’s Olympic Games have become, FINA sits atop one of the world’s most popular grouping of sporting events. Its role as aquatics gate-keeper to the Olympic Games allows it, in effect, control of effectively every major aspect of the development of, and profit from, aquatic sports, in every corner of the globe. . . .
FINA keeps much of the wealth for itself. In 2016, and across all aquatics events, FINA awarded less than $5 million in prize money to the athletes who make it all possible. Prizes amounted to about $10 million in 2017, an increase owing at least in part to the blockbuster FINA World Championships.
During the same two-year period, FINA spent nearly the same amount on those swimmer prizes as it did on its 30-40 administrators and employees: payroll charges averaged about $6.2 million each year. And FINA spent a similar amount on “FINA Family” expenses— mostly meaning travel and per diems for certain FINA-appointed dignitaries. All the while, FINA kept $18 million bottled up for maintenance on its new, lavish 43,000-square-foot headquarters. That is just part of the more than $108 million FINA has set aside in dedicated reserves, including for event cancellation. Another $11.6 million remains in reserve without FINA earmarking it for any purpose. . . . In short, and on the backs, legs, arms, and shoulders of the world’s aquatic athletes, FINA earned $118 million in 2016 and 2017 revenues, excluding in-kind contributions. It gave 12.5 percent—less than $15 million of that—back to the athletes in prize money. . . .
The national federations exist primarily, if not exclusively, to prepare and present swimmers for competition in the Olympic Games. Their relationship with FINA is necessarily delicate and subservient to FINA’s demands: FINA, through its Bureau, has sole authority to recognize national federations, and it may terminate any member “for significant violation of FINA Rules.” See FINA Rule C 10.3. . . . FINA’s control over and power in the market for top-tier international swimming competitions is so complete that FINA constitutes a monopoly. . . . “
Is it really so far-fetched of me, in light of Dr. Diop’s and Mr. Mane’s behavior, to speculate and suggest that there really is some sort of corruption involving FINA and the GBOC in my case? Why would Dr. Diop be more concerned with what “we” need and avoiding a fight with FINA than he is with defending my rights as an athlete, and especially an AFRICAN athlete, and the integrity of FINA? This, THIS is the real reason behind FINA’s mean-spirited rejection of my Universality Place application.
Again, Mr. Sergio Mane has been the General Secretary or President of the GBOC since its inception in 1992. Did he travel to the Olympics in Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro just like he traveled to Tokyo this year, probably with friends? And as a member of the Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa (ANOC), did he also travel to their annual conventions in Washington DC in 2015, Doha in 2016, Prague in 2017, Tokyo in 2018 and Qatar in 2019? If so, who traveled with him and where did the money come from? Why is money being spent to send this man around the world to do what? What significant progress has he made for the Olympic movement in Guinea Bissau? If he has treated the other athletes they way he has personally treated me, he would definitely be the most hated man in athletics in Guinea Bissau.
Could there be an even more evil explanation for why CAS dismissed my case and I was prevented from competing in the Olympics in Tokyo? Human Rights Defender Cecile Johnson asks,
“what do you do when your own country’s Olympics committee is so corrupt that it thinks it is more important to take non athletes to the Olympics for a vacation, and has invested nothing in building programs to create Olympians? When a people with no integrity sabotage the honor of your country and disgrace their ancestors in an attempt to kill one man’s dream? This case, it turns out, is about much more than missing alleged deadlines. But the sabotage Mr. Baleka experienced at the hands of his countrymen who instead of seeing the benefits his efforts would bring to highlight their country and create programs for future generations instead chose to perjure themselves and sabotage his efforts to participate.”
What would happen if all Afrodescendants returned and competed for their ancestral homeland?
Look at the current slate of competitors from the Americas and European countries. How many Afrodescendants do you see? What if allowing me to compete and setting an example for other Afrodescendants could change the global sports dynamic. Profits from the Olympics could flow to African countries. Entire sports leagues could flourish. What if the youth of Guinea Bissau and all the other countries in Africa no longer dremed about leaving their homeland in order to play futbol in Europe? What if for the first time the world’s best athletes might want to play for teams in Africa in order to compete with the best athletes in the world? What about all the jobs created from employment in sports infrastructure construction, administration, broadcasting, talent management, etc. Afterall, the global sports market is a multi-billion-dollar highly lucrative industry witnessing continuous growth, expansion and benefits to many communities, generating US$700 billion in revenues annually.
On August 7, 2020 I drafted the following proposal and sent it to Dr. Diop to help him and his country promote the 2022 Youth Olympics, and especially swimming::
It seems someone does not want such a shift to happen. It seems that someone doesn’t want me to set this example, by any means necessary.
IS REDEMPTION FOR FINA POSSIBLE?
The new FINA Executive Director Brent Nowicki stated,
“Athletes go into a fight knowing there can only be one winner. They can accept that, but they can’t accept that if it is not a fair fight. My firm belief is that we are giving them the fairest fight we can give them. . . . Athletes who are concerned, they can contact me at any time. I made it clear my door is always open and I mean that. Athletes are our first agenda and we are doing everything for the betterment of our athletes. We are balancing the interests of athletes in every corner of the world, some with resources and some without. Our decisions might not be welcomed by athletes, but they are taken in the best interest of athletes. I am here to figure out how we can work together and I think we are going to do great things.”
“We’re going to start pulling boards off the house and find out which ones are good and which are bad. We have a strong foundation. A long history. Good employees. We have people committed to the sport. My hope is we can build on that foundation and rebuild the boards of the house and sit down with the architect and get a good blueprint.”
Mr. Nowicki could prove himself by
Emailing me at balantasociety@gmail.com
Creating a salaried position for me such as Director of Swimming Development in Africa and corresponding programs with dedicated resources in order to compensate me for the damages and lost sponsorships and endorsements I have suffered from being deprived of the honor and legacy of being both Guinea Bissau’s first Olympic swimmer as well as the oldest swimmer in Olympic history, a loss estimated in six figures which severely hampers my mission to develop swimming on the African continent.
Redirecting the $29 million FINA has earmarked for Africa from Tunisia and South Africa - two of Africa’s strongest swimming programs, along with Dr. Diop’s Sénégal which already has a FINA training center that is under-utilised, to countries who need the most help.
