‘I'm not going to slam swimmers': Chalmers' surprising response to Magnussen's Enhanced Games quest
Enhanced Games boss Aron D'Souza has offered to pay the legal fees of swimmers who want to challenge World Aquatics' ruling.
World Aquatics will pay swimmers US $20,000 (AUD $30,000) for each gold medal at next month's world championships in Singapore. There is also a world record bonus of US $30,000 (AUD $46,200). The total swimming prize pool is $4.2 million.
The Enhanced Games will pay US $250,000 for each gold medal, plus a US $1 million bonus for world records in either the 50m freestyle or 100m sprint.
'I think it'd be pretty enticing for quite a lot of athletes,' Chalmers said.
'I think that swimmers have been underpaid for a very long time at the big competitions. I've never thought about it a huge amount because you do it for the love of swimming … there's not a lot of money to be made in it.
'Look at the guy that did break the world record and his wife coming out and saying he's been to four Olympics, been in two Olympic finals, been in the world championship final consistently … [the fact] he goes from making $5000 a year to a million in one race is incredible.
'I really hope that there is a shift and that we are able to get a little bit more prize money for what we do. It's threatening World Aquatics a little bit.
'That's why they've come out and said that they're banning swimmers, which yeah, fair enough. But also, those swimmers have come out and announced their retirement.'
Australian head coach Rohan Taylor added: 'I'm just focused on this team ... and providing the right environment for them; a safe, clean sport. That's what we're about. I'm not really paying attention [to it].'
Chalmers has been in great form since taking 12 weeks off after the Olympics, clocking a 100m freestyle time of 47.27 seconds at the Bergen Swim Festival in Norway in April. It was faster than his silver medal-winning performance in Paris (47.48).
The 26-year-old is eyeing off a fourth Olympics in LA in 2028 and preparing for the birth of his first child later this year.
Loading
'It was a massive shock for me [the time of 47.27]. I'm pretty confident that I'm swimming fast,' said Chalmers, who won 100m freestyle gold at the 2023 world championships. 'This could be the year, which is really exciting.
'Our goal is to be at the Olympics in 2028 together and have our daughter in the stands watching us.
'I truly believe it's achievable. If I didn't believe it was possible, I would have retired. I'm at nine Olympic medals. It would be amazing to get to 10.'
Taylor said of Chalmers' swim: 'It made my day when I saw that. I was very happy for him.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Dog's breakfast': Karl Stefanovic slams US beef deal, David Pocock backs inquiry calls
A trade deal to accept US beef into Australia has been labelled a dog's breakfast by Karl Stefanovic after the Trade Minister's apparent gaffe claiming Donald Trump personally lobbied for the deal. Trade Minister Don Farrell on Sunday said the US President raised the issue directly with Anthony Albanese in one of the three phone conversations the leaders shared. The Prime Minister said that was incorrect, and on Tuesday Stefanovic put criticism of the beef deal to Labor frontbencher Amanda Rishworth. 'I think he has clarified his comments,' Ms Rishworth said of Senator Farrell. 'We've discussed it on this show, that Donald Trump made public his issues around beef imports and exports. That was not a secret. 'I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Quite frankly, just silly politics on the side. 'What's important here is putting forward our best foot forward, for the national interest, to be prosecuting our case with the US, and that's what our government will keep doing.' Stefanovic suggested the US beef deal had become a shambles and asked senator David Pocock what needed to happen. 'David, do you think there should be an inquiry? I mean, it's starting to look more and more like a dog's breakfast,' Stefanovic said. 'I think there's real questions to answer around the timing of this,' the senator replied. 'And on the bigger issue, who's going to buy American beef? We have some of the best beef in the world here in Australia. I certainly won't be buying US beef. 'I think a lot of Australians will see it on the shelf, if it even gets here, and say 'well, I'm going to support Australia'.' The Coalition has already called for an inquiry into the beef deal, arguing the government has put biosecurity at risk as a bargaining chip for a US tariff exemption. The Coalition wants a Senate inquiry into the government backflip, citing the timing of the decision amid stalled tariff negotiations. Labor has rejected claims of the link to ongoing tariff discussions, saying the decision follows a lengthy review undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which found new tracing protocols eliminated risks posed by beef sourced from Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. However, Nationals Leader David Littleproud said an inquiry was required to give 'assurance' that 'Labor isn't sacrificing our high biosecurity standards'. As of Monday, July 28, Australian businesses were able to apply for import licences to get US fresh beef and beef products. Mr Littleproud has accused Agriculture Minister Julie Collins of ignoring advice regarding oversight by independent scientific experts. 'Minister Collins needs to explain why the advice of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity wasn't considered and why it has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to such an important decision,' Mr Littleproud said in a statement released Tuesday morning. 'Is Labor willing to undermine Australia's high biosecurity, just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump?' In question time on Monday, Mr Littleproud asked Ms Collins if the Inspector-General's recommendations had been implemented. Risk-based assessments were done by department staff on a scientific basis, she said. 'We have not compromised on biosecurity at all in any way, shape or form, and the member opposite would know, of course, we've had to put around $2bn additional into biosecurity since we came to office because of the way they left our biosecurity system,' Ms Collins said. 'The other thing I would say to the member opposite is he would be aware that this decision has been coming for some time. 'The US and Australia traceability systems are equivalent and that the decision has been taken, based on science, around the US system and the Australian traceability system, and all food imported into Australia must be safe and compliant with our food standards. 'This has been done on a scientific basis.'
Daily Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Daily Telegraph
Stefanovic slams US beef deal, senator David Pocock backs call for inquiry
Don't miss out on the headlines from Breaking News. Followed categories will be added to My News. A trade deal to accept US beef into Australia has been labelled a dog's breakfast by Karl Stefanovic after the Trade Minister's apparent gaffe claiming Donald Trump personally lobbied for the deal. Trade Minister Don Farrell on Sunday said the US President raised the issue directly with Anthony Albanese in one of the three phone conversations the leaders shared. The Prime Minister said that was incorrect, and on Tuesday Stefanovic put criticism of the beef deal to Labor frontbencher Amanda Rishworth. Senator Don Farrell admitted to making a mistake when he said Donald Trump had raised the issue of beef with Anthony Albanese. Picture: Jason Edwards / NewsWire 'I think he has clarified his comments,' Ms Rishworth said of Senator Farrell. 'We've discussed it on this show, that Donald Trump made public his issues around beef imports and exports. That was not a secret. 'I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Quite frankly, just silly politics on the side. 'What's important here is putting forward our best foot forward, for the national interest, to be prosecuting our case with the US, and that's what our government will keep doing.' Stefanovic suggested the US beef deal had become a shambles and asked senator David Pocock what needed to happen. Amanda Rishworth defended her colleague, Trade Minister Don Farrell. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman 'David, do you think there should be an inquiry? I mean, it's starting to look more and more like a dog's breakfast,' Stefanovic said. 'I think there's real questions to answer around the timing of this,' the senator replied. 'And on the bigger issue, who's going to buy American beef? We have some of the best beef in the world here in Australia. I certainly won't be buying US beef. 'I think a lot of Australians will see it on the shelf, if it even gets here, and say 'well, I'm going to support Australia'.' A trade deal to accept US beef into Australia has been labelled a dog's breakfast by Karl Stefanovic after the Trade Minister'sapparent gaffe claiming Donald Trump personally lobbied for the deal. Picture: Nine The Coalition has already called for an inquiry into the beef deal, arguing the government has put biosecurity at risk as a bargaining chip for a US tariff exemption. The Coalition wants a Senate inquiry into the government backflip, citing the timing of the decision amid stalled tariff negotiations. Labor has rejected claims of the link to ongoing tariff discussions, saying the decision follows a lengthy review undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which found new tracing protocols eliminated risks posed by beef sourced from Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins says Australia's biosecurity has not been compromised. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman However, Nationals Leader David Littleproud said an inquiry was required to give 'assurance' that 'Labor isn't sacrificing our high biosecurity standards'. As of Monday, July 28, Australian businesses were able to apply for import licences to get US fresh beef and beef products. Mr Littleproud has accused Agriculture Minister Julie Collins of ignoring advice regarding oversight by independent scientific experts. 'Minister Collins needs to explain why the advice of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity wasn't considered and why it has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to such an important decision,' Mr Littleproud said in a statement released Tuesday morning. 'Is Labor willing to undermine Australia's high biosecurity, just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump?' In question time on Monday, Mr Littleproud asked Ms Collins if the Inspector-General's recommendations had been implemented. Risk-based assessments were done by department staff on a scientific basis, she said. 'We have not compromised on biosecurity at all in any way, shape or form, and the member opposite would know, of course, we've had to put around $2bn additional into biosecurity since we came to office because of the way they left our biosecurity system,' Ms Collins said. 'The other thing I would say to the member opposite is he would be aware that this decision has been coming for some time. 'The US and Australia traceability systems are equivalent and that the decision has been taken, based on science, around the US system and the Australian traceability system, and all food imported into Australia must be safe and compliant with our food standards. 'This has been done on a scientific basis.' Originally published as 'Dog's breakfast': Karl Stefanovic slams US beef deal, David Pocock backs inquiry calls
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
$550 running shoes? The brands battling for the competitive edge in activewear
But, activewear is about more than performance. It's about comfort and tribalism (and, for some, whether it can pass at work or when we're out socially). In that race, Lululemon was arguably the winner on the Gold Coast. While it had no signage at the official event site, the Canadian brand's name was plastered across a red coach ferrying people to the race and back to the QT hotel where it hosted a live recording of Australia's top running podcast, Inside Running, and turned the second floor of the hotel into a clubhouse. Loading Complete with DJ, Lululemon branded cans of 'volcanic filtered' water, free yoga classes, a recovery station, ice cream and coffee. It was also the location of the marathon 'after party'. It may have a handful of elite athletes in its stable, including Olympic marathoner Jess Stenson and Canadian tennis player Leylah Fernandez, but it was clear Lululemon is targeting a different market: those who like mingling as much as moving. 'Brands are competing as much on the 'tribe' they create as they are on performance,' says Trent Rigby, director of the retail strategy consultancy Retail Oasis. 'ASICS is really doubling down on its reputation for serious athletes and performance-led product, while Lululemon is owning the 'social athlete' and wellness space [appealing to those who see fitness as a holistic part of a lifestyle, not just sport].' At the coming Adidas-sponsored City2Surf, New Balance is planning its own disruption campaign, targeting what Rigby refers to as 'style conscious consumers and casual runners'. 'New Balance has repositioned itself brilliantly in Australia,' he says of the once 'pretty daggy' brand. In the activewear race, however, not all brands are keeping up. With its splashy branding, P.E Nation was once a favourite among the affluent. Not any more. 'P.E Nation is a great example of a brand failing to adapt to shifting consumer trends,' Rigby says. 'It's heavily branded statement aesthetic has struggled in today's climate of 'quiet luxury' and understated style.' Jaggard, the activewear brand co-founded by Bec Judd, has suffered a similar fate, says Dr Amanda Spry, from the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University. '[It] has seen a decline in cultural relevance and did not seem to pivot effectively,' she says. Instead, boutique labels with subtler branding have gained traction with the fashion-forward fitness types. Loading Spry points to Nimble, which she says represents 'eco-conscious and wellness-minded individuals', and Stax, 'which targets body-conscious and gym-focused wearers'. Rigby adds Aje Athletica, Alo, Gym Shark and DX active to the list as well as The Upside, which he says is carving out a niche by playing to luxury athleisure. And what of jacked brands such as Nike and Adidas? They are still dominant players that rely heavily on their heritage, Rigby says: Adidas for its 'streetwear-meets-performance' aesthetic, and Nike for its image as an innovator and cultural powerhouse. While Nike now sponsors the Melbourne marathon festival and is targeting female runners with the Nike After Dark series, Rigby suspects the behemoth brands may be too big to build a sense of tribe in the Australian market: 'They can't as easily create the hyper-localised and 'authentic' community-first feel that brands like Lululemon or smaller/boutique labels are excelling at here in Australia.' Whether or not we choose our running shoes or activewear with fashion and tribe in mind, the way each brand markets itself seeps into our subconscious and tells a story about what type of person it represents. 'The activewear brands winning today are the ones merging performance, style and community. They're selling a sense of belonging within a 'tribe',' Rigby says. 'Activewear is no longer just about what you wear to train, but what your choices say about your lifestyle and values.'
