Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2005 > Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs > Report No. 08 - Ireland and the Olympics: From Athens to London

Appendix 1

Ireland and the Olympics From Athens to London

Report for

Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

AGENDA CONSULTING

Corduff Hall, Lusk, County Dublin.

October 2005

Ireland and the Olympics From Athens to London

AGENDA CONSULTING

Corduff Hall, Lusk, County Dublin.

Tel. 01 8431154 Fax. 01 8437356

Contents

Acronyms

Executive Summary

The issues relating to Ireland’s performance in Athens are many and varied. This review has considered the Athens performance against the background of Ireland’s sporting framework and the support agencies that work on a daily basis to develop sport in Ireland. The Joint Committee is looking to the long term development of sport. While Olympiad planning is but one element of future priorities, it has developed a new dimension with the announcement that London will host the 2012 Olympics.

A central question which the Joint Committee has focussed on is whether sporting policies and funds are correctly targeted. While recent attention has been concentrated on ‘elite’ sports development, Joint Committee concerns have been raised about the lack of attention which sport receives in both primary and secondary schools, both of which must be viewed as the ‘nursery’ for future elite athletes. While both ‘sport for all’ and ‘elite’ sport require ongoing investment; the challenge facing the sector is the development of improved linkages or ‘pathways’ between the education ’nursery’ and the high performance infrastructure.

The Joint Committee sees a need for a process of continual improvement, set against a long term strategic map for sports development. The pillars of the strategic map encompass education, ‘sport for all’ including health benefits and high performance, while infrastructural development is a key cross cutting element of the map.

Chapter 2 outlines the results of athlete research and interviews undertaken by the Joint Committee. Most of the athletes surveyed felt that they had not achieved their personal best in Athens. Issues of injury, fitness, lack of professional support constituted the reasons why athletes had not performed to their best. Against this backdrop nearly half of the survey sample did not feel part of the ‘Irish Team’. The research painted a picture of poor performances feeding an existing lack of team spirit, which was subsequently compounded by negative media publicity and pressures. This environment placed additional pressures on the athletes, at a time when their only focus should have been on their Olympic performances.

The feedback from athletes made positive suggestions for improvements to sport which should assist future athletes and Olympic prospects. The scope of suggestions has been grouped under three headings:

1.Sports Framework

2.The Athens Olympiad

3.Athlete Supports & Standards

The following areas for improvement were highlighted by athletes during interviews:

❖Longer term planning in the sports sector;

❖Improved professionalism of support structures;

❖Logistics to the games to be completely athlete-centred;

❖Inclusion of career guidance in support structure;

❖Improved selection and training of support staff;

❖Using international training camps to develop team spirit;

❖The need for support agencies to track, not only athlete performances against training programmes, but also to follow up on athlete well-being, if they are sick or injured in a positive supportive manner;

❖Simplifying the carding scheme and improving cash flow for athletes as well as reviewing appeals process;

❖Review funding mechanisms to address coaching needs of athletes;

❖Developing better supports for individualisation of training programmes;

❖Development of guidance information and research on the use of dietary supplements in conjunction with athlete requirements;

❖Improved pathway development of B standard athletes;

❖Improved communications between athlete & support agencies. Athletes should be kept appraised of the programmes being submitted to the SCI by NGB’s on their behalf;

❖The SCI should seek to incorporate a selection of athletes, funded under the carding scheme, in its promotional activities especially at school level;

❖Improved media management;

❖Qualifying dates for athletes to ensure best competitive advantage.

This review, which aims to complement other policy reviews, has highlighted an array of areas which require improved planning, alignment, communications and funding.

The absence of a long term plan, despite broad recognition that such a plan is an essential element for the development of sport, is a major cause for concern. This issue is given added urgency on account of the geographical proximity of the 2012 London Olympics and the opportunity which this offers Ireland, not only in terms of sport, but also vis a vis tourism, education and the marketing of Irish sporting facilities.

A critical outstanding element of the High performance Strategy is the establishment of an Institute of Sport. While this was proposed as a ‘strategic thrust’ in the Strategy, the operational planning of how it will be implemented is only now being developed by a new Institute of Sport Committee. The Joint Committee view the establishment of the Institute of Sport as a critical element of the high performance framework and wish to see its implementation as a number one priority in the ISC 2006-2008 Strategic Plan.

The following table sets out the review recommendations:

Chapter 1 Introduction

The issues relating to Ireland’s performance in Athens are many and varied. This review has considered the Athens performance against the background of Ireland’s sporting framework and the support agencies (see Appendix 1) that work on a daily basis to develop sport in Ireland. The key output of the report for the Joint Committee is to look to the future. While Olympiad planning is but one element of future priorities, it has developed a new dimension with the announcement that London will host the 2012 Olympics.

Every Olympiad presents a new challenge, however the prospect of the 2012 Olympiad in London presents an opportunity of such significance that the current planning framework must be reviewed to assess whether it is sufficient to meet the demands of the opportunity that presents itself.

The past two Olympic Games in Athens and Sydney brought with them major reviews and many recommendations. The Sydney recommendations were implemented with a view to ensuring better preparations and better performances in Athens. While the preparations were said to be the best so far, the performances lagged far behind. In fact, one year on from Athens, the Irish equestrian international team is still grappling with the fallout from a positive drugs test of the only ‘gold medal’ performance in Athens¹.

The Athens Review is now completed, from which another set of recommendations are to be implemented. However, another year has elapsed and the preparation time for Beijing is now three years. The cycle of; Olympics, review, recommendations and implementation, while on the one hand is seeking to learn lessons from past performances, is also creating a stop-start approach to development and planning for the Olympics.

The Joint Committee sees a need for a process of continual improvement, set against a long term strategic map for sports development. The pillars of the strategic map encompass education, ‘sport for all’ including health benefits and high performance, while infrastructural development is a key cross cutting element of the map ( Chart 1). At the heart of this map are people. An early focus on the benefits that sport can bring to children, teenagers and adults, will result in increased numbers of local, regional, national or international athletes at some point in the future. Sebastian Coe, Chairman of the 2012 London Olympic bid, outlined how watching the Mexico Olympic Games at the age of fourteen provided him with the inspiration to become an athlete². Today’s sport in Ireland must also reach out and inspire the athletes of tomorrow. This focus must be central to the work of all support agencies that can bring positive benefits to sport in Ireland.

Chart 1

While the starting point in this review was ‘Athens’, the scope of the review extends to consideration of the policy framework and the support organisations that are serving the sports sector.

The Joint Committee, through its meetings with representative groups and individuals as well as its own research work, has considered whether the current Government policies are delivering satisfactory results for the investment being made in sport in Ireland. The sector is seeking to address a history of under-funding and accordingly sport is seeking to catch up with the infrastructures already developed in other countries. It is not therefore a question of funding for ‘elite’ or ‘sport for all’, both areas require ongoing investment.

Sport is an important contributor to the health and well being of society. However research has shown that only 40% of Irish adults are meeting the minimum standards for physical activity set by the World Health Organisation³. The impact of insufficient physical activity in combination with changing dietary patterns has been linked with the growing issue of obesity in Irish society⁴. The development of sport in Ireland must therefore be viewed in the broader context of changing lifestyle patterns. The contribution which sport can make must also be measured in terms of the health and well being of the nation.

Irish sport continues to undergo radical change in an increasingly international sporting world. Ireland’s policy framework for the development of sport has been greatly strengthened in recent years. The Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, recognising the positive benefits that sport brings to society and the economy, has mapped an inclusive policy to develop sport at all levels of society. New organisational structures have been established and other support structures are planned.

While these initiatives have been positive, there remains a significant amount of work to do for Ireland to develop a sporting support framework to rival that currently available to many of our competing countries. The publication of the High performance Strategy⁵ in 2001 established clear targets for the establishment of a high performance programme in Ireland. While many of the recommendations of the High Performance Strategy have been implemented, some strategic recommendations, e.g. the establishment of an Institute of Sport, remain outstanding.

The Joint Committee remains concerned that progress in addressing, long term planning, streamlining of inter agency co-operation and the prioritisation of sport within the educational curriculum is insufficient. A major opportunity and challenge surrounds the staging of the 2012 Olympics in London. The Joint Committee is now firmly placing a marker for all concerned, that Ireland and its Olympic team must capitalise on this opportunity. While the current focus of the support agencies is on the 2008 Beijing Olympics, a parallel planning focus must be immediately initiated for the London 2012 Games.

Chapter 2 The Athlete Perspective

Introduction

This Chapter outlines feedback from athletes who participated at the Athens Olympics. The feedback is based on telephone interviews with athletes, selected from a random sample of the Athens Team. In addition the results of a Joint Committee questionnaire survey (see Appendix 2) of Athens athletes provided feedback on the Athens experience⁶. Telephone interviews were also undertaken with Maeve Kyle, coach and former Olympiad athlete and Deputy Jim McDaid, former Minister for Sport. In addition, face to face interviews were undertaken with representatives of the Irish Sports Council and the Olympic Council of Ireland, providing an opportunity to clarify details surrounding a number of issues raised by athletes.

Most athletes felt that they had not performed to their personal best during the Athens Olympics. A variety of reasons were put forward for the lack of performance with issues of injuries, illness, fitness and professional support being highlighted as the main contributory factors to poor performance. Table 1 outlines the factors raised in order of importance.

Table 1 Factors contributing to lack of achievement

Source: JC Questionnaire Survey

While the Sports Council of Ireland viewed the Athens Team as being the best prepared Irish Olympic team to date; athlete feedback paints a picture of poor performance linked with poor ‘Team Spirit’. The underlying reasons for the disparity between expectations and reality are considered below. Feedback from athletes covered a broad scope of areas. The following summarises comments made by athletes under the headings of:

❖Sports Framework;

❖The Athens Olympiad;

❖Athlete Supports & Standards.

Sports Framework

Leadership

Athletes outlined the importance of leadership as an essential element in the development of sport in Ireland. Both Government and business were noted as providing positive examples of strong leadership in Ireland e.g. being the 1^st country in Europe to introduce a smoking ban. Sport was seen as providing a great opportunity for Ireland to highlight excellence and positive messages.

The importance of having a clearer sporting vision to share with and inspire young people was also highlighted. Athletes are setting very high standards for their personal training programmes and they are expecting that the support agencies with whom they work should have equally high standards.

The importance of looking at the ‘big picture’ was emphasised in terms of children, facilities and school education, rather than the ‘show me the medals mentality’. In this regard there is a need for a deep understanding of long term planning and the need for athlete plans to evolve and develop in line with changing needs.

In the context of the negative publicity regarding drugs in sport there is a need to emphasise positive values for sport in Ireland. Such values should encompass openness and transparency for everyone involved in the development of sport.

Organisational support structures

In general athletes were concerned that the current organisational support structures were not as professional as they would expect or required. Some athletes decided to establish their own support structure because they viewed the available services to be inadequate or not expert enough to meet their specific needs. Recognising the importance of addressing the prevention of drugs in sport, the issue of drugs can become an overriding concern of support agencies, while issues relating to sickness of athletes can be overlooked. Where this happens it can contribute to low morale in athletes.

Despite the systems of support and review that are in place, athletes often feel that their views are not being listened to or being taken on board. This is particularly frustrating for the individuals on whom all eyes rest for delivering the final sporting performance.

For some athletes there is still a feeling that their success is being achieved ‘in spite of the system’. This is in part a reflection on the fact that the reality of the athlete’s day to day interface with support agencies is not seen as being aligned with the policy statement and objectives of agencies to be athlete-centred.

The need for supports to extend to career guidance was also highlighted. Balancing training programmes with educational development is a challenge for athletes and professional career assistance will help to set their careers on sound long-term paths.

The Athens Olympiad

Athens Support Personnel

The messages regarding support personnel in Athens ranged from exceptionally good to exceptionally poor. Athletes who succeeded in getting to Athens are by nature, highly motivated and professional. They expect the same standards from their support personnel and where this does not materialise, it can have a devastating effect on athlete morale. While poor support personnel was the exception rather than the rule, where this was a problem, it highlighted a systems failure within the selection and/or training process for support staff attending the Olympics.

Athens Logistics

Athletes that have dedicated their lives to reaching an Olympic standard, expect to have top class logistical arrangements in place on their journey to the Olympics, at the Olympics and when returning home. Sadly this was not the experience of all athletes interviewed. Such experiences lead athletes to view the support structures as not being athlete or high performance orientated.

The experience of athletes travelling to Athens for the Olympics varied greatly, some athletes travelled directly to Athens from their training and acclimatisation camps while others travelled from Ireland. The travel arrangements were organised by the OCI and in some cases the OCI insisted that athletes travel from Dublin as part of the Athens team. Depending on where the athlete was based, this situation was ideal or it was a problem. Where a number of flights were involved in the journey for athletes and / or coaches, this led to long travel journeys and was not an ideal starting point for anyone needing to travel to Athens in peak condition to compete in the Olympics.

The accreditation process in Athens is the first point of contact for entering the Olympic village. One of the athletes interviewed undertook the accreditation process on their own without any assistance from the support team. This scenario was the exception; however it was not an ideal start to the Olympic Games. Athletes that travelled as a group from the training camp in Croatia to Athens with OCI staff found the accreditation process easy.

The OCI confirmed that the accreditation process is streamlined and without problems excepting where late qualifications may arise. It confirmed that accreditation arrangements were in place for all athletes.

Athens Team Spirit

Athletes expressed concerns about the lack of team bonding in Athens. The root cause of the lack of team spirit was established even before reaching Athens. Where athletes trained at different locations, this eliminated opportunities for team development within and between sporting disciplines. It was generally recognised that team spirit needs to be much stronger and that this must be developed in the years leading up to the Olympics. The strong identity of other Olympic teams was commented on and this was seen as a strength for other teams and a lost opportunity for Team Ireland.

Not all athletes participated in the opening ceremony and in hindsight this was also viewed as a lost opportunity for developing team spirit amongst all team members. Some athletes viewed the opportunity of travelling to Athens as part of the team to be an opportunity for team building. Training camps were seen as an obvious route to developing improved team spirit.

Athlete Supports & Standards

Funding

While media attention will often focus on the total amount of funds being provided to athletes; athletes view the funds in terms of weekly or monthly amounts to be relatively small in the context of current cost of living. (The maximum International Carding Scheme grant for an International 1 category athlete is €11,500 for a year. See Appendix 3 for details.) Funding athletes to be full-time and professional is viewed as critical to Olympic success in terms of medals. While athletes recognise the positive contribution that the carding system makes to their training programme, they also highlight the need for increased investment in sport, if Ireland is to achieve greater international success.

Acceptance onto the Carding Scheme is based on performance. Athletes submit for acceptance on an annual basis. Athletes dropped from the scheme may appeal the decision. It is noteworthy that there is no phasing out from the scheme, which could facilitate a more gradual handover from existing talent to new sporting talent.

Funding under the Carding Scheme is paid via the NGB’s. Organisations have varying degrees of systems efficiency to administer these funds, which in turn leads to delays and variability in payment of funds to athletes. While applications under the scheme are lodged in January, it will be a number of months before the first quarterly payment will be issued to an athlete. This system can therefore place additional cash flow strains on athletes whose primary objective is to deliver their training programme.

The lack of funding of coaches was highlighted as an issue, despite the fact that they are the personnel with the closest working relationship to the athlete. While the Carding Scheme will cover the cost of physiotherapists who will assist with addressing sports injuries, it does not encompass massage which is a key preventative measure in the avoidance of injury. Some athletes view this scenario as representing an approach weighted in favour of ‘injury repair’ rather than ‘injury prevention’.

While the carding system provides for a fixed number of visits to a range of support services, the service level is at times inadequate for the specific needs of the athlete.

The opportunity for athletes on the International Carding Scheme to give something back to the development of sport was commented on. It is likely that athletes on the Scheme would be willing to undertake an element of promotional work in Ireland e.g. with school children, if they were asked to do so and subject to fitting in with training schedules.

Appeals Process for Carding System

Media coverage of the announcement of appealed Irish Sports Council grants under the carding scheme, highlighted athlete dissatisfaction with the process⁷. Feedback from interviewed athletes who have had to appeal SCI grant decisions was also negative. The process was described as ‘demeaning’ for the appellant. The expertise of the appeals board was questioned in terms of their ability to assess the athlete’s performance and training programme. While others simply did not use the appeals process due to dissatisfaction with the process in general.

NCTC

Criticisms of the NCTC related to its black and white approach to dealing with athlete issues. For athletes working at the world class tier, there is a strong element of individualisation to their training programme. Some athletes considered that if one did not fit within the NCTC protocol and quality controls, then they could not help. In this context, athletes are likely to stop trying to work with the ‘existing available system’ and move to establish their own dedicated systems and quality controls. Athletes generally recognise that sport in Ireland is coming from a very low base and that there is a limit to the expertise available in the country. They therefore see a need to maximise the expertise that is available and to complement this expertise with expertise from abroad.

The JC Questionnaire Survey showed that 54% of the respondents used the NCTC as their high performance unit. The balance of the respondents used other facilities as their high performance unit. This feedback and comments made to the Joint Committee by NCTC, OCI and SCI representative’s points to the need for a higher tier of training support as envisaged would be available from the proposed ‘Institute of Sport’.

Anti-doping programme

The anti-doping programme is generally viewed in a very positive light and there is an understanding of its raison d’etre. The ISC provide comprehensive rules⁸ regarding the anti-doping programme. While the definition and identification of prohibited substances is clearly established under international rules, athletes can unknowingly take prohibited substances via nutritional supplements. While the extent of usage of dietary supplements amongst Irish athletes is not readily available, it is noteworthy that 52% of a survey of British athletes claimed to use dietary supplements.⁹ The provision of additional assistance for Irish athletes in terms of published guidance information, as well as possible research work on dietary supplements should therefore be more fully assessed in conjunction with Irish athletes and coaches.

Training camps

In general there were positive comments regarding the provision of training camps prior to the Olympics. However it was noted that only A standard athletes could attend these training camps. This could be a lost opportunity especially for athletes who are near the standard but have not crossed to the A standard.

In addition to improving individual performances, the training camps can assist with the development of team spirit and identity. The suggestion of identifying a location for a team training camp for all athletes was made. If the team ‘prospects’ were to come together a number of times in the run up to the Olympics at a common training camp, it would ensure that all team members would get to know each other and an additional platform would exist for overall team development.

The JC Questionnaire Survey asked whether athletes had fully engaged with the Team preparation. While this question is broader than the usage of training camps, 40% of the survey sample said that they had not fully engaged with the team preparation.

Qualification Standards

Concerns were expressed about the impact that the current dividing line between A and B standards is having on achievement in sport. Apart from the lack of financial support for B standard athletes, the current system is negatively impacting the morale of athletes who are close to reaching the A standard but have just missed out. Instead of the system being organised as ‘stepping stones’ to reaching the A standard, it can be interpreted as either an athlete is ‘elite’ or they do not count. The B standard is seen as an invaluable learning experience and a more inclusive approach regarding B standard athletes could help remove Olympic ‘shock’ and ultimately raise athlete standards.

The setting by the OCI of the qualifying date of June 30^th rather than the international deadline in August was viewed as imposing additional strains on athletes. It shortened the window of opportunity for qualifying and placed a competitive disadvantage on athletes who were seeking to qualify during that period.

The OCI rationalised that it was better for athletes to qualify early for the Games. In this regard the OCI sought to have the issue of qualifying dates determined by a Qualification Commission. The Commission recommended the 30^th June as a cut off date. This date was subsequently extended to 12^th July following consultations with the Chef de Mission and other National Olympic Committee’s. Notwithstanding the above determination process, the OCI confirmed to the Joint Committee that the SCI was not in agreement with the qualifying date.

Media

Athletes noted the impact of negative media comment on their morale during the Athens Games. Comments by the OCI were particularly noted in terms of negative media comment. Athletes that were competing in Athens, following years of effort to get to Olympic standard, were hurt to read headlines criticising performances. Some athletes made a decision not to read the media reports on Olympic performances and this enabled them to stay focussed on their own performance.

The return of the team to Ireland was obviously an additional media focus. Naturally the media attention was on the then ‘Gold Medal’ winner, however some athletes felt that there was scant recognition of the effort and disappointment of other athletes who had worked hard to deliver at the Games, but failed to perform to their best.

Managing media pressure was highlighted as being very important. When athlete performances were poor in the 1^st week, increased pressure was placed on athletes competing in later competitions. Athletes, who may be quite young to the Olympics, had to shoulder the pressure of ‘keeping the hopes of the country alive’.

Media management before, during and after the games is therefore highlighted as being very important for the competing athletes in terms of team spirit and individual morale. The period after the Games is a critical period for athletes. After the concentration of media attention on the run up to and during the Games, athletes can find themselves on their own. Athlete support in terms of coaching and psychology should constitute a seamless flow from the Games to the post Games scenario.

Summary of athlete suggestions

The following provides a summary of suggestions made by athletes during the course of this review:

❖Longer term planning in the sports sector;

❖Improved professionalism of support structures;

❖Logistics to the games to be completely athlete-centred;

❖Inclusion of career guidance in support structure;

❖Improved selection and training of support staff;

❖Using international training camps to develop team spirit;

❖The need for support agencies to track, not only athlete performances against training programmes, but also to follow up on athlete well-being, if they are sick or injured in a positive supportive manner;

❖Simplifying the carding scheme and improving cash flow for athletes as well as reviewing appeals process;

❖Review funding mechanisms to address coaching needs of athletes;

❖Developing better supports for individualisation of training programmes;

❖Development of guidance information and research on the use of dietary supplements in conjunction with athlete requirements;

❖Improved pathway development of B standard athletes;

❖Improved communications between athlete & support agencies. Athletes should be kept appraised of the programmes being submitted to the SCI by NGB’s on their behalf;

❖The SCI should seek to incorporate a selection of athletes, funded under the carding scheme, in its promotional activities especially at school level;

❖Improved media management;

❖Qualifying dates for athletes to ensure best competitive advantage.

Chapter 3 Analysis & Recommendations

Introduction

The Joint Committee analysis of the research, presentations, interviews and existing policy framework has highlighted a range of opportunities and issues of significance to the ongoing development of sport in Ireland. This Chapter outlines the issues identified and presents a series of recommendations for the future development of sport in Ireland. The planning process on the run up to the 2012 Olympics and the establishment of the Institute of Sport are considered to be critical strategic issues which require urgent attention.

Olympiad Planning

The absence of a long term planning strategy for Olympic success has been highlighted in this review. The NCTC explained to the Joint Committee how it takes at least 10 years and 10,000 hours of practice to create an Olympic Champion. The High Performance Strategy repeatedly highlighted the need for long term planning in sports development and the Sports Council is developing longer term planning horizons with the NGB’s via its High Performance Unit. While the need for long term plans is acknowledged by all, there is no long term roadmap in place. The primary focus of the support organisations is on Beijing in 2008.

The SCI is a key actor in the planning process for the Olympics. It prepares three year strategy statements in accordance with the Irish Sports Council Act (see Appendix 4) and is currently preparing the 2006-2008 Strategic Plan. While this timeframe helps to drive the implementation of sports initiatives, there is also a need for a longer term planning framework to drive the needs of Olympic success. The SCI therefore has an opportunity to develop a long term plan in tandem with its 2006-2008 Plan, which will act as a co-ordinating framework for addressing the 2012 Olympic tasks.

The proximity of the 2012 London Olympics to Ireland will create special circumstances, not only for our athletes, but also for the marketing of Irish sports facilities to other countries, sports tourism and sporting education for our schools and colleges. The OCI views the proximity of the 2012 Olympics to Ireland as a significant promotional opportunity for sports facilities, providing Ireland has sufficient ‘best in class’ facilities to market to other countries.

Capitalising on this special opportunity will require a planning framework which is broader than sport itself. Chart 2 outlines the key players in the 2012 Olympic planning process.

The Joint Committee views the 2012 Roadmap as a framework into which the 3 and 4 year plans of the support organisations will fit. Alignment and co-ordination of the wide range of planning matters will be critical to success. It is believed that the Department of Arts Sports and Tourism is suitably positioned to undertake a strategic role in co-ordinating and managing the 2012 Roadmap to the London Olympiad.

Chart 2 Key Players in 2012 Olympic Planning Framework

In its presentation to the Joint Committee, the NCTC expressed concerns¹⁰ regarding setting of targets and performance measurement prior to Athens i.e.

❖The overall goal, purpose, mission and expectation in terms of performance;

❖What was meant by high levels of preparedness and what were the criteria for a well prepared team?

❖What were the targets for team work between the main agencies i.e. the Irish Sports Council, the Olympic Council of Ireland, the Paralympic Council, the NCTC and the NGB’s;

❖In terms of legacy building, how will it be built and how will it be measured.

These issues must be fully addressed in the 2012 Roadmap as well as in the respective strategic plans of all support agencies.

Priority Sports

The SCI has identified priority sports with potential for future Olympic success based on past performance, support infrastructure etc. Athletics, boxing, canoeing, cycling, equestrian, fencing, hockey, rowing, sailing and shooting are the current priority sports and they have been financed with €5.6 million over the period 2002-2004.

The question of switching funding to minority sports was suggested by the OCI, in its presentation to the Joint Committee, as a strategy for greater Olympic success. This view followed on from comments made by the OCI President during the Athens Games, when he suggested that sporting disciplines that had performed poorly in Athens should receive reduced funding.

In its presentation to the Joint Committee, the Sailing Association explained the transformation process that sailing had undergone over a short period of time from being virtually amateur to virtually professional. This scenario is typical of the change process that is underway in sport in Ireland. There is widespread consensus that much more work is required in the development of Ireland’s high performance framework.

The Joint Committee views the long term development strategy of sport as the key to Olympic success. It is satisfied that the principles being applied to defining priority sports funding are sound, while recognising that the SCI has the flexibility to also support individual athletes via “bubble support”¹¹ where Olympic potential is identified. The Joint Committee will continue to monitor the assessment of priority sports by the SCI.

The Institute of Sport

The creation of the Irish Institute of Sport National Performance Network and Support Services was a ‘strategic thrust’ of the 2001 High performance Strategy report. The report envisaged that over the period 2001-2006, the sum of €11.1 million would be spent on the Institute of Sport. To date this initiative has not been financed.

The ISC has recently established an Institute of Sport Committee under the chairmanship of Dan Flinter, to prepare a plan for the roll out of the Institute of Sport. It is intended that this committee will report by the end of 2005 with a view to securing funding for the Institute of Sport initiative in 2006.

The ISC views the proposed Institute as a catalyst for moving ahead in the development of Ireland’s sports framework. The SCI envisages the role of the Institute encompassing the areas of:

❖Sports science and medicine

❖Physiotherapy

❖Bio-mechanics

❖Career development

❖Strength & conditioning

❖Advice and research

The Joint Committee is concerned that there has been a lengthy delay in the implementation of the Institute of Sport recommendation. While the establishment of an Institute of Sport in the near future is seen as a number one priority, the benefits flowing from the Institute are likely to contribute more to the 2012 Olympics than to Beijing in 2008.

The NCTC presentation to the Joint Committee highlighted that while staff are the most important resource in the NCTC, organisational issues such as, staff terms and conditions of employment, company formation and future functions of the centre, are still in a ‘vacuum’, in spite of the 2001 Sydney Review recommendation that “The NCTC should have a review of its functions and services carried out by the ISC”.

The SCI explained that while the NCTC was originally established under the auspices of the Department of Education and the University of Limerick, the ISC has agreed to take responsibility for the NCTC and establish it as a limited company. In this regard the future role and responsibilities of the NCTC are to be addressed by the Institute of Sport Committee in the development of its proposals for the establishment of the Irish Institute of Sport.

Sports Funding

The question of funding the sports industry has been raised during this review in terms of ‘elite’ and ‘sport for all’ options. While concerns have been raised about the level of investment in sporting facilities in schools, the capital grant programmes managed by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism are making significant investments in facilities throughout the country. Since 2002 in excess of €250 million has been invested under the capital grant programmes at local and municipal/regional/national levels as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2 Capital Grant Allocations

Source: Department of Arts, Sport & Tourism

The curriculum linkage between sport and education is an issue of equal importance to the question of facilities. While Physical Education curricula have recently been reviewed for both primary and secondary education, the practical roll-out of these curricula remains at an early stage of implementation. Increased prioritisation of sport is needed in the education system, the result of which will be to increase the number, quality and scope of future athletes. An opportunity exists for the SCI to work more closely with the Departments of Education and Science, and Health to drive increased investment, prioritisation and co-ordination of sport.

The question of investment in sport is not an either / or issue vis a vis ‘sport for all’ and ‘elite’ sport, since both areas require ongoing investments. However, the ‘pathways’ linking children’s development to young athlete development and onto elite athletes do not exist. In this respect new educational sporting initiatives are needed, if Ireland is to maximise its return on investments in its high performance infrastructure.

Long term planning of funding is also of critical importance. The Joint Committee was concerned to note that the NCTC Olympic Village was closed during the 2004 Olympic year due to financial constraints¹². The closure was the result of a €60,000 budget cut to the NCTC during 2002/2003. This scenario highlights an unacceptable standard of financial planning on the immediate run up to the last Olympics. It should also act as a warning that a similar recurrence must not be allowed to happen for future Olympiads.

The International Carding Scheme plays a central role in the funding of Irish athletes (see Appendix 3 for background details on current scheme). The scheme is undergoing a review process in 2005 and the SCI expect this review will be completed by the end of the year with a view to implementing the revised scheme in 2006. While the scheme is seen as providing important financial support to athletes, concerns¹³ have been expressed by athletes about the level of bureaucracy involved in administering the scheme.

The Athens Review places strong emphasis on linking funding to contractual requirements¹⁴ for:

❖Compliance with submitted programmes of preparation and competition;

❖Utilisation of approved and appropriate service providers;

❖Fulfilment of key performance targets;

❖Observance of the requirements of NGB’s performance programmes;

❖Observance of OCI and PCI requirements and events.

It further recommends that, ‘For all senior elite athletes, there should be a formal process of annual review by way of reapplication for funding, using the fulfilment of targets/contractual requirements as key criteria’.¹⁵

While the Joint Committee is conscious of the need to obtain value for money in terms of athlete funding, it also wishes to reduce the administrative burden on athletes that are seeking and obtaining sports funding. The dispersion of funds under the carding scheme directly to athletes by the SCI would provide an opportunity for simplifying the administration process. In addition the contractual arrangements with athletes should provide for long term/ multi-annual commitments of 3-4 years based on their career pathway in order to facilitate improved athlete planning for training programmes.

Athletes can be viewed as the last link in the ‘chain’ for financial support. They are also the people in the limelight when it comes to sports performances. There are many other people involved in the dispersion of sports finances whose assessment in terms of value for money is equally important. In this regard each of the support agencies should be working to an aligned set of performance targets which will help to measure value for money and achievement of strategic and operational targets in the sports sector.

The process for distribution of sports funds is outlined in Chart 3:

Chart 3

Qualification Standards

OCI and SCI presentations to the Joint Committee referred to the topic of qualification standards. Two issues arose in the course of the presentations, firstly whether the standards being set were too high and secondly whether the Athens closing date for qualification for athletics and swimming was too early. While the Joint Committee recognises that the setting of standards and closing dates falls within the remit of the OCI, it wishes to ensure that there is full agreement between all support agencies on these topics for future Olympiads.

It is clear that Olympic success will only be in the sights of our world class athletes. However, the path to such success must typically be viewed over a longer timeline than one quadrennial. Athlete feedback about the stress and strains of attending their first Olympiad was identified as a reason for poor performance. Recognising this situation, the President of the OCI, acknowledged the merits of bringing the best of our young athletes, (who have done well at the World Championships) to the Olympic Games. In this context, it is considered desirable that the best of the B standard athletes with long term potential for future Olympiads be included in the Beijing Team. It is recommended that the OCI bring forward operational proposals for discussion with the Olympic Performance Committee on how to define the ‘best of the B standard’ athletes for inclusion on the Olympic Team.

The closing date for qualification was reviewed following the Sydney Review. The OCI established a Qualification Commission to make recommendations on qualification dates and standards. The Commission recommended a cut-off qualification date of 30^th June; this was subsequently extended to 12^th July 2004. However it was confirmed to the Joint Committee by the OCI that the Chief Executive of the SCI, was not in agreement with this closing date. The Joint Committee is concerned that there should be agreement between the support agencies regarding qualification dates and standards.

Olympic Team Support

The Olympic support team is a key actor in the run up to and during the Games. The accreditation of the support team is within the remit of the OCI. The Athens support team constituted 35 people as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2 Athens Support Team

Athlete feedback to the Joint Committee and to the Athens Review identified issues regarding the performance of Team Managers in Athens. The process to date for the selection of team managers involves NGB’s nominating team managers and these nominations are considered and approved by the OCI.

The OCI has recently published a guideline document on Team Leadership to assist National Federations in the selection of team managers, coaches and support personnel. The Beijing Chef de Mission, highlighted the importance of team leadership when he said that; “The Team Leader, Coach’s and Support Personnel play a very crucial role in the success of an athlete. At Olympic level the difference between success and failure is so marginal that it is essential to address all factors that contribute to an athlete’s performance.”

The proposed OCI selection process for team managers is outlined in Table 3:

Table 3

Source: OCI Beijing 2008 Plan, July 2005 version

The selection of support staff follows a nomination process which is supplemented with an education programme. In the context of the critical role that the support team must play in the Olympics, their selection, training and management is also crucial. The selection process for the support team should, in addition to the nomination and education strands, also undergo an independent quality control strand to ensure that all support personnel are fully functional within the team and that the working relationships between support team and athletes is satisfactory. The responsibility for independent quality control of the support team should rest with the Olympic Performance Committee.

Coaching & Mentoring

The importance of coaching in the high performance framework has been repeatedly highlighted in policy reviews and presentations to the Joint Committee. The NCTC has outlined its achievements in developing coaching systems in Ireland. Current coaching expertise in Ireland is being supplemented with international coaches to deliver improved training programmes. However, coaching is to a large extent dependent on volunteerism¹⁶.

The experiences and lessons of existing athletes constitute a valuable resource, which can contribute to the long term coaching framework. It is important that the lessons, skills and experiences of our existing athletes are passed on to future athletes and that suitable programmes are developed to facilitate this knowledge transfer.

Athletes coming to the end of their participation in the carding system should be viewed as a resource for sharing knowledge with new athletes. While some athletes may follow a coaching career path, there is a danger that the investment in athlete knowledge over many years could be lost. It is considered that the development of a mentor programme could facilitate this knowledge capture and transfer, while also recognising that athletes, who are coming off the carding system, still have a contribution to make to sports development.

The carding system for athletes does not extend to funding coaches, who obviously play a key role in the athlete training programme. Extending the international carding system to target funds at coaches working with carded athletes would provide a new opportunity for coaching development via an existing ISC programme framework.

Athlete Views

In the course of athlete interviews, concerns were expressed about the views of athletes not being listened to. The proposed Athletes Commission should therefore fulfil a very important role in voicing the concerns and proposals of athletes. However the Terms of Reference (see Appendix 5) of the proposed Athletes Commission appear to be highly centralised around the Executive of the OCI. In this respect, this new channel for voicing the concerns of athletes must take cognisance of the fact that about one fifth of our elite athletes are located outside of Ireland. Accordingly mechanisms must be established to ensure that the Commission is representative of all athletes, notwithstanding the athletes’ base.

Measuring the performance of the Athletes Commission is a critical element of the initiative and specific measures of performance must be provided for in its future strategy.

The SCI must also carefully listen to the voice of athletes as a key input to policy development. It has an opportunity to measure satisfaction ratings of athletes on an annual basis in terms of its sports and Olympic development. Annual monitoring would provide an ongoing baseline measure of progress in the sector.

Drugs & Sport

The Joint Committee and the support agencies all recognise the detrimental impact that drugs can have on sport across the globe. The SCI anti-doping programme has received favourable comment during the course of this review. It is clear that this programme will remain an important strategic feature in the management of sport for the foreseeable future.

The use of dietary supplements is an area of concern to some athletes in Ireland and abroad. Diet is a critical element within training programmes and it is likely that its significance will only increase in the future. Ongoing research and information on dietary supplements will be of benefit to Irish athletes. Alignment and agreement on the use of dietary supplements with the needs of athletes is an important element of the athlete support framework. It is recommended that additional research and guidelines are developed in this area.

Education & Sport

Joint Committee member comments, as well as presentations to the Committee have highlighted concerns about the development and implementation of physical education curricula in primary and secondary schools. The SCI¹⁷ noted that there was a need for greater co-ordination between Government Departments regarding the development of sport. The main SCI channel for enabling the development of sport in National Schools is via the Buntús Play and Multi-Sport Programme which is administered in conjunction with 16 local sports partnerships. The programme is currently costing €350,000 including a sponsor’s contribution. In the context of SCI expenditure of approximately €30 million this level of expenditure on primary school sports development is viewed as inadequate. A planned expansion of the Buntús programme over the course of the SCI 2006-2008 Strategic Plan is viewed as a number one priority. SCI funding of €1 million per annum for national school sports development is viewed as a conservative expenditure target.

Currently SCI involvement in secondary schools physical education is very limited. The SCI can play an important co-ordinating role in the promotion of ‘Sport for All’ in association with the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health. It is recommended that the SCI, through its professional sporting contacts and linkages with Irish international athletes, should develop a new initiative to promote ‘Sport for All’ principles in secondary schools.

Athens Review Implementation

As with the Sydney Review, the Athens Review provides an opportunity to implement a range of initiatives which typically are building on the foundations that have been laid in recent years. The ISC has developed a ‘Working Operational Plan’ based on the Athens Review to drive forward the implementation of its recommendations¹⁸. This plan encompasses issues to be addressed by the ISC as well as other stakeholders. The number of recommendations which apply to each agency is outlined in Table 4:

Table 4 Operational Plan Agency Recommendations

Source: SCI

The SCI intends to update the operational plan on a regular basis in association with key stakeholders. In line with this operational plan the OCI have prepared their Draft Plan for Beijing 2008 with the mission:

“To take the Irish Olympic Team, as defined by the Olympic Charter, and prepared to the best world standards, to Beijing 2008. To work in partnership with the Irish Sports Council, National Coaching and Training Centre and National Governing Bodies in the development, support and preparation of the Beijing 2008 Irish Olympic Team.”

This draft plan outlines areas for action in conjunction with timelines which are outlined in Table 5:

Table 5 OCI Beijing 2008 Timelines

Source: OCI, Beijing 2008 Plan, August 2005

It is clear that while many areas of action have commenced for the OCI, there remains much work to do in terms of finalising their Beijing Plan. One quarter of the quadrennial has now passed and while the OCI Beijing Plan, provides a framework for managing the planning process, it is still draft. It is noteworthy that areas such as, team philosophy; education strategy; and media management; remain to be defined. In addition the development of ‘team spirit’ has not been addressed in a holistic manner in the Plan. As this was a significant issue for athletes in Athens it should be comprehensively addressed in the OCI Plan for 2008.

It is of great concern to the Joint Committee that one year on from the Athens Olympiad, the planning for Beijing is still a ‘work in progress’.

Conclusions

The Joint Committee recognises that the sports sector in Ireland is undergoing radical changes in line with new support structures and increasing Government investments. Notwithstanding these positive developments, Ireland is still playing ‘catch up’ vis a vis other developed countries. We must continue to develop the sports agenda across; the education system, ‘sport for all’ and high performance in a balanced and holistic manner. Increased investment and co-ordination for sports development in the education system is particularly important in order to maximise the investments which are taking place in high performance systems.

The 2012 Olympics in London presents great opportunities in terms of sport, education, tourism and sports related enterprises. For Ireland to capitalise on this opportunity requires much longer term Olympic planning than has been undertaken heretofore. The Joint Committee is recommending that a new broad based planning committee be established under the Chairmanship of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism to address the multi-agency planning implications for the 2012 Olympic Games. In addition a new strategic Roadmap to 2012 should be developed by the SCI to provide the co-ordinating framework and performance measurement for this event.

The Joint Committee is making the following recommendations in the context of the issues raised during the course of this review.

¹ “Macken Offers to return on conditions” by Grania Willis, Irish Times, 9^th August 2005

² London’s presentation to the International Olympic Committee in Singapore, 6^th July 2005, www.london2012.org

³ ESRI, Sports Participation and Health among Adults in Ireland; Published November 2004

⁴ National Taskforce on Obesity, Obesity the Policy Challenges, 2005

⁵ Irish Sports Council, The Irish Sports Council High performance Strategy — Report of the Irish Sports Council’s High Performance Committee, 2001

⁶ Nine telephone interviews were undertaken with athletes who participated in the Athens Olympiad while seventeen JC survey questionnaires were returned.

⁷ “Nine Athletes win appeal on funding” by Ian O’Riordan, Irish Times 4^th May 2005

⁸ “The Irish Anti-Doping Rules”, Irish Sports Council, June 2004

⁹ British Olympic Association, The Athens Athlete Report, 2004

¹⁰ NCTC presentation to the Joint Committee on 28^th October 2004

¹² Presentation by NCTC to Joint Committee on 28^th October 2004.

¹³ Athlete feedback outlined in Chapter 3

¹⁴ Athens review, Page 72, paragraph 9.24

¹⁵ The Athens Review, Page 72, Paragraph 9.27

¹⁶ Presentation by the Chief Executive of the Irish Sports Council to the Joint Committee on 6^th October 2004.

¹⁷ SCI presentation to the Joint Committee on 6^th October 2004.

¹⁸ See Appendix 6 for a summary of Athens Review recommendations.