Australia's men's 4x100m team was among the flops at the London Olympics. Picture: Gregg Porteous Source: The Daily Telegraph
UPDATE: AUSTRALIAN swimming has been hit with two damning reports today revealing athletes breached team rules relating to alcohol, prescription drugs, bullying and team curfews during the 2012 London Olympic Games in incidents described as "culturally toxic".
The bombshell findings were part of “The Bluestone Review” as well as the Australian Sports Commission's Independent Swimming Review into the culture and leadership of the Australian swim team, which were both released today.
“Standards, discipline and accountabilities for the swim team at the London Olympics were too loose,” the Bluestone report said.
“Situations were left to bleed with not enough follow through for fear of disrupting preparation for competition.
“Although few situations relating to London reported through this review were truly grave in nature, they compounded in significance as no one reigned in control.
Swimmers described London as the “Lonely Olympics” and the “Individual Olympics” as team morale dropped to an all-time low.
A dejected James Magnussen after the 4x100m relay team finished a disappointing fourth. Picture: Phil Hillyard Source: The Daily Telegraph
The focus on just winning gold medals, specifically related to the men’s 4x100m freestyle relay team and world champion James Magnussen, contributed to the downfall of unity within the team.
The environment became a battleground for swimmers seeking attention.
“Poor behaviour and disrespect within the team were not regulated or resisted strongly by other team members, and it was left unchecked by or without consequence by staff and coaches on a number of occasions,” the report found.
“Some individual incidents of unkindness, peer intimidation, hazing and just ‘bad form’ as a team member that were escalated to personal coaches were not addressed and had no further consequence.
“It seems there was a lack of authority (including moral authority) within the group, which occasionally peaked in a mood where the boldest took centre stage.
“At its least attractive, the team dynamic became like a schoolyard clamour for attention and influence.”
The ASC report said “mistrust, poor behaviour, disappointing results, and increased financial dependence on government funding” were at the heart of the problem confronting Australian swimming.
“Some of these seem to have been present for some time, while others emerged noticeably at the London Olympics,“ the ASC report said.
The resignation of the General Manager of High Performance David Crocker in 2011 led to a culture where decisions were being made “on the fly”.
The ASC report said many of the high performance manager’s responsibilities were transitioned into the role of head coach Leigh Nugent, who was “under considerable pressure to balance the skills required to fulfil administrative responsibilities with those required in the head coach role”.
It stated that the workload reduced the head coach’s “capability for oversight of coaches and athletes operating in home programs around the country".
“With the head coach focusing significant attention on what had been the GM HP’s responsibilities, there was diminishing oversight and coaches were able to use funding in their programs without debate about what would provide best value for money.
“In some cases resources were allocated without SAL having real insight into the proposed benefits. “
The report blasted Swimming Australia's lack of accountability with taxpayers' money and its relationship with the Australian Sports Commission.
“Despite the considerable level of funding, SAL’s approach to this relationship has been described as bare minimal reporting for its expected entitlement to be continued and increased. This mentality appears to have filtered its way through the organisation, with similar attitudes from management, the HP Program, coaches and athletes exhibited over the last Olympic cycle.”
Swimming Australia president Barclay Nettlefold said the organisation would embrace the reports' findings.
"We’ve been proactive and work has already started on the majority of the recommendations in these reports, including the introduction of a High Performance Director and an Ethical framework,” said Nettlefold.
“The board will now implement a 100-day plan to further address the recommendations in both reviews.
“The underlying message from these two reviews is that we all have to be accountable for the future success of swimming in Australia and that starts with discipline and setting the right standards of behaviour from the top down.
“The establishment of an Integrity Panel will look at specific incidents discussed in the reviews and address them in isolation, and in accordance with the Swimming Australia Team Agreements and disciplinary procedures available.”
MORE KEY FINDINGS FROM THE REPORTS
* ATHLETES felt disconnected from head coach Leigh Nugent: "The head coach and some support staff did not hear about the majority of the now reported incidents until they were back on Australian soil. Things were ‘managed quietly’ rather than brought to a head, and several examples of coaches passing over the responsibility for hard conversations were given. It was noted that the individual coaches were intently focused on performance, and some had little interest in ‘policing the culture or counselling swimmers’."
* A LACK of focus on people: "Participants reported that in the zealous and streamlined attempts to obtain gold medals, the delicate management of motivation, communication and collaboration were lost. The 'science' of winning appeared to whitewash the 'art' of leadership."
* TOO great an emphasis on individual preparation: "The opportunity-cost of not being together as a group was high; the group never really morphed into a team."
* NO "low-key" places to hang out... "The Olympic village environment, described as ‘mayhem’ and ‘a candy shop
of distractions’ added to the dispersion of people and their attentions."
* SOCIAL media had a dramatic and negative impact: "Some athletes engaged deeply in public debate on what they were doing, how they were doing, and even on who they actually were as individuals. This served to fuel emotions, good and bad, at a time where calmness, intensive focus and consistency should have prevailed. Social media also allowed already disconnected athletes to seek support from sources external to the team, which again diminished the reliance on a unified team."
* PERCEPTION that Swimming Australia was only interested in the "big boys and girls": "The glorification of a few was seen somewhere between embarrassing and irritating to other team members. One person said he felt that it was not really about whether you swam your heart out, it was about whether you could sell your heart out."
* TOO much focus on gold: "The perceived expectation that success could only be defined by a certain time, position or medal seems to have created an anxiety that some athletes did not tolerate well."
* FAILURE met with silence: "It seems that morale began to drop once the team started to lose in the
first few days. Athletes reported that there was either praise for a win, or silence. 'Things were quiet and weird when someone lost. You just sort of went to your room and got out of the way.'"
* EMOTIONS were not controlled: Some athletes let their emotion play out as bravado, withdrawal, disinterest and sulking ... In the absence of psychological ‘recovery work’, emotional volatility was high. At the Games was too late to start learning how to cope with all eventualities."
* SWIMMERS described the Games as the "Lonely Olympics"... "There was no collective voice back to the media on behalf of the swimmers on either performance or personal issues, and as the first week unravelled, the swimmers felt undefended, alone, alienated and that no one ‘had their backs’ this year."
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét