USA Swimming has had its first close encounter with the kind of controversy that could cause it a few headaches in the weeks, months and years ahead as a result of its deal with the Wasserman Group. The partnership is one that effectively renders a national swimming federation a media player in competition with other media players.

USA Swimming has suspended any access to meets that had been granted to Floswmming, a website on which Garrett McCaffrey gives coverage to swimming events. You can read both sides of the story here.

I have no idea whether Mr McCaffrey overstepped the mark, nor, therefore, whether USA Swimming is applying a heavy hand where a quiet word would do. What I do know is that access in the USA appears to be more liberal in many ways than it is at many leading meets in Europe and indeed at world level, where journalists are barred from the poolside altogether (even in the warm-up pool), the mixed zone the place where the worlds of water and words meet should they be happy to do so. Filming of any kind is also often prohibited unless you hold broadcast rights. Nor do websites that are not attached to media outlets using professional, accredited journalists get a look in, too many the cases of those without any proper function at a meet warming the seats in the media tribune.

That culture of limiting or barring poolside access developed partly out of complaints from coaches and swimmers that their privacy was being invaded at a time when they needed to focus on the job at hand - and federations have sometimes been a little overzealous in their wish to control the media. For example, barring access to the warm-down pool is counterproductive to coverage: when journalists are fed a diet of what are often appalling, meaningless, trite and badly translated quick quotes, articles take on a faceless flavour void of the colour of humanity and the lore and passion of sport that makes the wider world tune in.

In that sense, the fact that Mr McCaffrey was allowed, like other reporters to get on to the deck and talk to real people, is a plus for the grand prix organisers and USA Swimming. The worst thing about the incident - which I'm viewing from a long distance, of course - is the perception of USA Swimming as an outfit that wishes to stifle good coverage in order to keep the smile on the face of its media partnership. USA Swimming would, I have no doubt (and that's why I haven't bothered to ask), deny that this one small incident is anything other that an attempt to bring someone who behaved badly, in their eyes, into line. Such a denial would carry credence too (with no criticism intended towards Mr McCaffrey, who appears to have acted out of enthusiam and passion for the sport he loves). But this is about perception and the debate on the new role of the federation in the world of media continues to gather pace on discussion forums and blogs.

All such things have a tipping point - one that can end with a thumbs up or a thumbs down. USA Swimming will have to work hard and play an extremely even hand to get the thumb to curl up - and incidents like the brush with Mr McCaffrey won't help send the digit in the right direction.

Longer term, the USA may well move towards more control of journalistic activities. That needs careful thought and the application of one essential rule: whatever the rule, it is the rule for all, including 'media partners'. The moment one outfit is granted access beyond another, bitter response is all but guaranteed.

Personally, I have found the folk at USA Swimming both very professional and a joy to deal with. It is to be hoped - indeed expected - that as the American federation dips more than a toe into the media pool, it manages to ensure best coverage of its kids and coaches for all - not merely the partner of potential profit. The lessons ahead do not only apply to USA Swimming, of course, but to all those who wish to share a pillow with the Fourth Estate.