Business of Sport: Athletics Ireland left bruised by Tokyo Olympics review
SUCCESS: In the Mixed 4x400m Relay, Ireland's Christopher O'Donnell, Phil Healy and Sophie Becker wait to see if they have qualified for the final in Tokyo. They did so, after the disqualification of the USA.
ATHLETICS IRELAND suffered from “a lack of resource and coaching structures”, did not have a clear “framework for athlete support” and did not meet performance expectation in what was a "disappointing (Olympic) Games”, a Sport Ireland consultancy report has found.
The ‘Tokyo Games Review’ revealed that “some athletes went into the Games fatigued by performing so close (to the Olympics)”, and maintains there is not enough accountability and transparency “in athlete funding decisions”.
Issues around the ‘Code of Conduct’ which “could have been made more accountable and enforceable” and concerns that “the talent pathway is not as strong as stakeholders would like,” are other areas that make for sobering reading for Athletics Ireland.
And all this from an organisation that was the highest-funded sport within Team Ireland and sent a greater number of athletes to Tokyo than to London 2012 and Rio 2016 - but performed worse.
While much of the attention around the launch of Sport Ireland’s report this week focused on the fresh tremors across old fault lines in Irish boxing (IABA) - Athletics Ireland may be grateful that attention was diverted to a sport that cannot stop punching itself in the face.
It has been left battered and bruised by the Tokyo Review, to such an extent that it was the only sport (apart from sailing) not to receive an increase in High-Performance Funding in preparation for Paris in two years.
Added to that, Irish athletics has now slipped from first to third in the highest-funded sporting bodies on the Olympic roster – a fairly stark outcome for a sport that is seen at the core of the Olympic Games.
What will be focused on in the fallout of this 258-page review of all Olympic sports is that Athletics Ireland received €3.3m in High-Performance funding in the lead up to Tokyo –- and yet it is charged with not having adequate coaching structures and athlete support systems in place.
The scale of such funding also presents further challenges about how that money is spent, as the findings recommended it now must “create clarity about funding decisions which are accountable and transparent”.
The Pitch contacted Athletics Ireland to discuss all of these challenges but has not received a response.
Further questions will emerge around sending such a large number of athletes who are simply not prepared enough for the rigours of the toughest athletic competition in the world.
“Whilst the NGB sent more athletes to the Tokyo Games than the previous two Olympic Games, performance did not match pre-Games expectations,” states the report.
“Despite sending a large number of athletes, few athletes challenged in finals and semi-finals.” That “large number” was 27 competitors in track and field, which outweighs London 2012 (22 athletes) and Rio 2016 (17 athletes).
In Tokyo, Athletics Ireland’s competitors reached just eight of the key performance indicators which the report splits into three levels of achievement – ‘Top 8’, ‘Top 16’ and ‘Top 24’.
Last summer Irish competitors secured one top 8, three Top 16s and five top 24 positions, compared to the best Olympics of the last three cycles, London 2012, when the athletics team had one op 8 - with Rob Heffernan’s bronze medal – seven top 16s and nine top 24 positions.
With less athletes, London comes out with 17 key athletic performance objectives achieved, to the nine in Tokyo.
With such disappointment echoed by athletes within the review, it is yet to be determined what Paris will bring to a declining sport and if Athletics Ireland can do what is recommended and “devise a clearer coaching structure and pathway strategy (model)”.
When producing its new strategy it will do well to address why it has still not established “a clearer framework for athlete support beyond the Sport Ireland Campus” – in other words an over-reliance on SI’s High-Performance Institute and not enough on its own resources.
The ‘Institute, which is led by Director Paul McDermott, is aware of severe shortfalls in coaching and will work with all NGBs to address such issues, also as part of his role as the head of National Governing Bodies for Sport.
Sport Ireland’s new CEO Dr Una May impressed to The Pitch that the statutory body does not “enforce rules and regulations (within) autonomous bodies” – she was speaking about boxing at the time, but she will no doubt be concerned by the transparency issues in athletics.
What Athletics Ireland and its CEO Hamish Adams does to address these significant shortcomings is now the €3.3m question.
