National pool repairs

I reply to Joe Cassar's letter (April 8) regarding the national pool complex, in which he repeatedly mentioned alternative communication channels to air complaints such as those made by Joe Caruna Dingli, Kurt Engerer and Clint Mercieca on behalf of all national pool complex users. Where are these alternative channels when members of the Malta Sports Council rarely honour us with their presence?

Mr Cassar also made a futile attempt at gaining public sympathy by continuously mentioning that the national pool complex runs on taxpayers' money. If so, why shouldn't we use the media to show the public where and how their money is being spent? Why shouldn't the council "pursue this subject on a public level"? Is it not everyone's right to know? Waterpolo players and swimmers alike are also taxpayers, apart from also having to pay to make use of the facilities on a regular basis. So why shouldn't we complain publicly? Is this not our democratic right?

Taxpayers' money was indeed used to improve the degenerating quality of the facilities. Unfortunately, the money that was forked out was not always properly spent. The restoration works, which could have easily been started earlier not to disrupt the winter waterpolo league, did not always reach the aspired-to aim. So much so that restoration carried out last year on the pool floor was short-lived and parts had already come off by the time the European Junior Waterpolo Championships started in September 2004.

I would like to draw Mr Cassar's attention to George Whelpdale's implication that we waterpolo players are vandals (Cynthia Busuttil's article entitled Anti-Vandal Measures At National Pool, March 18). After mentioning the sort of vandalism encountered in the complex, Mr Whelpdale said, and I quote, "that before a waterpolo game is held, team and complex officials would check the changing rooms and shower facilities. Another inspection would be held after the game and if any damage is found, the team would have to pay for these damages and it would also be fined". Since he conveniently omitted to include checks on other pool users and concentrated solely on waterpolo players, the implication is clear.

Whereas Mr Whelpdale only hinted, the same cannot be said for the Department of Information's press release 0394, in which it clearly stated that a great part of the Lm77,000 spent on restoration work was due to vandalism that took place after some waterpolo teams had lost a game.

One must here note that often it was not those assigned to such a task who stopped certain acts of vandalism but the waterpolo players themselves. On various occasions players have asked day members and others, such as foreign swimmers, to stop vandalising the place and making inappropriate use of complex equipment, as happened a few days ago during the Swim Meet.

The last point that I would like to clear up for Mr Cassar is that during the period of refurbishment, we were truly "given a cold alternative" as the other pool allocated for our use was rarely heated to an acceptable temperature. FINA, the swimming and waterpolo governing body, establishes that the water temperature should be in the range of 25°C to 28°C, while the alternative pool's temperature was rarely higher than 24°C. One may erroneously believe this is not much of a difference, but only those who had to bear it on a daily basis can attest to the true effects of this discrepancy in temperature.

In spite of all the shortcomings, I feel obliged to thank the council for their well-intended efforts.