Waterhouse v Singleton, ASADA v Essendon Bombers, ASADA v Cronulla Sharks; these are just the most recent examples of how self-governance within our sporting codes is not reliable.
Cultural organisations, in particular sporting ones, are a road littered with the burnt out wrecks of self-regulation being subject to conflict of interest, lack of incentive and turning a blind eye.
The episode of poor sporting governance began with a tit-for-tat between John Singleton and Gai Waterhouse over alleged insider trading-like information shared among the Waterhouse family about a Singleton horse.
It was built up all week, like a story with such famous and traditional names will be, and was supposed to reach some sort of climax today.
Only it didn’t.
The state racing authorities did start compiling evidence such as betting records and conducted a steward’s inquiry. However the details that emerged from the inquiry were not particularly explosive.
There were some details about treatment of the horse that were partially known and Gai may have something to answer for, but the major questions haven’t really been addressed.
Those questions revolve around the position of the Waterhouse family on both sides of the fence.
The position of Tom Waterhouse himself being on the betting side and the presentation of sport side of another fence.
Far be it from me to suggest rugby union is completely clear of vested interests, but in order to maintain integrity, George Gregan had to drop his irregular coaching role with the Brumbies in order to maintain a role at the Australian Rugby Union.
That was deemed necessary to achieve a level of best governance without conflict of interest.
A myriad of other conflict of interests at left alone in a sport such as racing that places large emphasis on public gambling when the public have very little information a select number of insiders and, apparently, footy players or brothel owners also have.
These obvious issues aren’t addressed at a steward’s inquiry, and possibly shouldn’t be included in the scope of such an investigation.
But Blind Freddy could pin the tail on the donkey here and point out the need for bigger issues to be addressed. Will that happen inside racing once this inquiry blows over? Probably not.
Focusing on the finicky details in this inquiry is a nice diversionary tactic and the hope will be it causes the media and public to miss the forest for the trees.
It’s been clear for some time we can’t rely on the governing bodies of this type of organisation to actually mete out real punishment or deliver change that may affect their own friends.
Last night ABC program Four Corners focused on Surf Life Saving Australia, an organisation that has done much good work but is also an example of self-governance gone awry.
There have been three deaths due to what appears to be lax safety standards at the Surf Life Saving Australia at national championships.
A previous director of SLCA has been quoted as saying, “there is nothing wrong with the organisation at the beach level. What is wrong is the people that manage that, and at the national level (they) need to consider a change.”
The organisation commissioned a report by Deloitte to try and get to the bottom of the governance and information structure within the organisation in the wake of these deaths.
Since the report was turned in by Deloitte it hasn’t been made public in full by the organisation and the only obvious change was confusion over new, or re-publicised, safety equipment.
A feature of the Four Corners report was the repeated “not comment” responses from the Surf Life Saving acting CEO.
It is clear the institutional governance can’t be fully relied upon to do the best thing for the people in the sport and accept appropriate responsibility.
Looking toward the international cycling community provides example of how internal regulation failed spectacularly in the case of performance enhancing drugs, but also in general policing and investigation.
It has taken a belligerent and possibly overly aggressive investigation by US government bodies to crack open the rock of Lance Armstrong’s cheating.
It seems as though at a minimum of a couple – and probably a fair few – stages, the governing bodies were aware of cheating and probably even helped cover it up. I’m sure they would use the ‘for the good of the sport’ lines to help themselves sleep well at night.
When the proverbial hit the fan in cycling, International Cycling Union President, Pat McQuaid wanted us to believe he was “shocked and angry” after reading the revelations in the USADA report details of doping.
Nothing has changed. He’s still in charge of the organisation despite plenty of people who don’t want him there, including online petitioners.
It looks like the International Cycling Union has called the public’s bluff because they’ve not even decided to run through the rigmarole of finishing their own pointless internal inquiry.
It is from that angle that I watch the unfolding problems with drugs at the Essendon AFL club and Cronulla Sharks NRL team. It’s clear the bodies governing sport won’t govern themselves to a high standard on their own.
There is clearly an inbuilt culture of disinterest with following the rules and complying with public expectation of clean competition.
The disinterest shows up clearly in the NRL when players turn up to interviews wearing thongs like they’re ducking down to the shop for milk.
If a young man believes the investigations into his club aren’t worth getting as dressed up as most people I know do for work each day it reflects on the guidance and information he receives on a day-to-day basis.
Disinterest and even disrespect rears its head when Paul Gallen feels confident saying that ASADA is “running their own rules” and isn’t asked to pull his head in by his employers.
For a start, the rules ASADA adhere to are dictated by a Member of Parliament of your country Paul, so maybe take that into account if they aren’t in lock-step with the priorities of your own.
It’s now at the point where ASADA hasn’t even been able to complete its interviews.
If the NRL doesn’t want to comply then say so, don’t pretend you do and then make it as hard as possible to get the job done. That’s behaviour parents are usually weeding out of their children during their early teenage years, not befitting of a professional sport.
In the AFL the problem at Essendon is spiralling to further depths.
The new exciting catch-terms are “exotic substances”, “experimental environment”, “Ziggy Switkowsky report”, “the football department”, “the buck stops with me” and “I’ll put myself up for election – in November”.
Taking the step of conducting a review might put the AFL club in a slightly better light than the NRL counterparts but there has been very little commitment to improvement or changes.
Portioning blame toward “the football department” inside a football club is almost humorous and subtly allows the people in oversight positions to escape much of the blame when the dust settles.
The players unions of both sports have been pushing all the blame to the clubs while attempting to remove any expectation of adulthood from the players themselves. Apparently the players aren’t supposed to know what’s being put into their bodies and the culture of absolute trust should absolve them that responsibility.
We haven’t even reached the part where criminal involvement in sport, betting or drugs has been fully investigated yet.
Before the racing inquiry this week racing lawman John Schreck was quoted in Fairfax press as saying “the most important thing is the sport, and the sport has to be the first priority in everybody’s mind at all times such as this [one].”
Too often what is best for the sport in the eyes of governing bodies, athletes, insiders and financial parties is very different to what the public believes and expects. That much is clear.
As a sports fan it is natural be peeved at any government intervention or government body involvement with our beloved cultural interactions.
Next time those thoughts cross your mind, remember the clear track record of self-regulation failing or operating half-heartedly in sports. That is exactly why bodies like ASADA need to step in.
Avon River
Guest
Don't forget that this whole episode has effectively proven that WADA/ASADA testing is effectively a costly waste of everyones time. Do you reckon AFL HO is pleased about that? Early it wad illustrated that major legislative restrictions had meant that while the AFL integrity officer had regular meetings with police & ASADA - that important intelligence could not be shared......and intelligence is all they've got now. So do you blame the AFL in particular if they are perhaps a little sceptical or even resistive.
Richard
Guest
Great article Elisha so thanks for posting. Unfortunately, I can't think of a mainstream sport that doesn't have a problem of some sort at some stage in their history. I use the word problem purely for expediency to denote a variety of issues. However, government regulation is not the answer but government pressure or an inquiry is a perfectly reasonable pressure point to create and insist upon change. If change doesn't occur within the sport then funding is withdrawn and sanctions applied. There are exceptions to the rule though. I think currently, the UCI needs an overhaul. FIFA needs an overhaul desperately. I love horse racing but have no confidence in the integrity of the sport (all aspects of horse racing from betting through jockeys through trainers through horse welfare). Self regulation should work if an independent commission that is totally independent oversees the sport. Cheers
BennO
Guest
Interesting story midfielder. Surfing is a funny case in point because generally self regulation at the rec level has worked ok. I'd like a few more waves when I surf snapper but not enough to bring in outside rules. Consequently I don't bother surfing snapper very often. I don't live there but when I'm in that area. At the pro level it's a different story and there's all the self reflection following AI's death. Self regulation probably hasn't worked brilliantly but over the long run it will probably do ok. Incidentally, I think stu nettle at swellnet is a great writer and promotes thoughtful discussion. Swellnet and the roar are my daily reads. It's worth checking out if you're not familiar with it.
Mark Young
Roar Guru
thanks for clearing that up Justin! Yeah I had forgotten about the slightly P-weak reaction to Damien Oliver last year.... But that is the past, I can't wait to find out who knew what with the More Joyous fiasco!
Justin Cinque
Expert
Mark you are right. Once warned off, you are not allowed entrance to any racecourse in the world. You are also correct in saying racing cares so much about integrity. But do the stewards have the intestinal fortitude to force a change in the industry? I thought the Victorian stewards went light on Damien Oliver last year (but have since incorporated strong minimum suspensions for similar crimes) and a few lower-profile incidents since Oliver's have underwhelmed me in their sentence. I don't think this high-profile MJ inquiry is going to bring about the penalties that will change some of the dodgy things in racing.
Midfielder
Guest
Benno That was a excellent read .... reminds me of a guy at Byron this year ... just off the first sun caravan park is an area which body surfers use ... next there is a wreck that board riders use ... it's sorta unofficial but the conditions suit both ... closer into the shore is where young families go...way off the shore well past most board riders are the guys with winged kites on boards... Anyhow this bloke with a kite comes screaming in from the north tho the board riders, and the body surfers and the families ... over and over again and he was travelling ... until this kids Dad the size of a Max Truck almost took his head off ... But it started something... what was once a kinda well agree use of the beach suddenly had board riders following the kite guy ... sometimes people just start things and others follow ... but again great read.. .
BennO
Guest
Here it is midfielder, in case you're interested http://www.swellnet.com.au/news/3507-longboarders-legropes-and-the-law
Mark Young
Roar Guru
Hi Mushi! If my taxes are going to funding a sport, and that sport is dodgy, I would rather see the money withdrawn and spent on the disabled and roads.
mushi
Roar Guru
But on the government intervention if they are benefiting from funding from the public don't they then require public scrutiny?
Elisha Pearce
Guest
I had a pretty good look at it mate. Yeah I think the report is better than the response has been and will be to it. Thats the point. It was clear the guys in charge of the football club were shifting blame to the football part rather than themselves and tries add some layers of "confusion" about who reports to whom etc.
Elisha Pearce
Guest
Great post Bella, I enjoyed your perspective. The female/male divide on the safety is an interesting angle. That appears to be the case now I've read what your experience was and overlay that with what the Four Corners report uncovered. It certainly seemed the female organisers, participants and family members were more aware of the need to address safety.
BennO
Guest
Most definitely midfielder. But it's nice to paddle out without one occasionally too. If it's small, clean and uncrowded. I guess there's a growing minority who never use em. There was a discussion on swellnet recently about it. It raised most of the old lines of more kooks in the lineup since leg ropes, back in the old days blah blah. Most agreed that you should use em for the safety of others as well as keeping your board. But there was an angry few who decried their use no matter how crowded the lineup. I'll see if I can find the link later when I'm at a computer.
Elisha Pearce
Guest
Yes, the governing bodies of each body, in reality are the top dog in each code. It's very difficult for ASADA to do anything meaningful without their cooperation, which we see fairly blatantly in NRL and passive aggressively in AFL. I'm not necessarily saying I have the answer, or that there should be a unified body to govern all sports, but it is a problem that keeps coming up.
Mark Young
Roar Guru
Elisha it is interesting that you cite the Waterhouse Singleton Tiff as an example of a sport not being able to regulate itself effectively. I don’t have much nice to say about Racing, it seems like an elaborate scheme to separate people from their money, with people like the Waterhouses getting fat of it all. But by god they understand how important public perception and confidence is. They have waded into this issue with relish and aren’t afraid to issue brutal penalties, if you get warned off, you effectively cannot enter a racing premise anywhere on the planet! (Can a racing person back this up? Correct me?) They do this because, unlike a lot of other sports, such as sadly, the NRL and tragically, SLSA they realise that the ultimate judge and jury is the public. The fans, who pack the grounds, read the newspapers and spend their money. Once they lose confidence in what you are doing, you are royally screwed. SLSA just could not fathom that continuing to hold their championships at the beach which has already killed two young lifesavers would inevitably lead to yet another death. Which it did. Now, they are going to suffer as Horrified Mums and Dads direct their kids away from Nippers, and appalled supporters (I Include myself here, a former “Guardian of the surf” 2004-2010) stop donating. None of this requires a government to achieve. The Drugs in Sport situation we now have is very similar. If the public believes that the NRL is full of drugs and (for example) Paul Gallen is a cheat, there will only be two losers, the NRL and Paul Gallen. It doesn’t require the Government to get involved, it is the responsibility of the NRL and any clubs to fix their issues.
BennO
Guest
Nah I didn't see it earlier. I didn't even know it was on! I appreciate the links but haven't clicked thru on those yet. I'll definitely watch the 4corners show too.
delbeato
Roar Guru
Interesting article Elisha and a good topic. I agree that sports administrators tend to be hampered by conflicts of interest, when it comes to maintaining the integrity of their sport. What is interesting though is the relationship between anti-doping bodies such as ASADA and sports bodies. Technically, ASADA can't step in and clean up a sport unless the sporting body itself has authorised them to do so. In theory, the AFL, NRL or anyone else can decline to affiliate themselves with ASADA. In practice, this is very difficult for major sports - due to the loss of credibility and likely withdrawal of government funding. While I agree that an independent body overseeing the integrity of sports is important, with ASADA playing that role with doping only, I'd argue that they are not a substitute for good governance by the sporting body itself. The bottom line is that sports bodies are the peak bodies for governing their respective sports. In that way, self regulation remains the predominant means of regulating sports. Due to the "trivial" nature of sports (i.e. primarily serving as a form of entertainment), it would be difficult to justify their being brought under full government regulation.
Bella
Guest
In being an ex-female surfboat rower, I was surprised in watching four cornors that Surf Life Saving Australia's approach to risk management has not changed since hanging up my oars in 2001. The female crew that I did row for, made the decision to all wear helmets all of the time whilst rowing....not just in rough surf (which was proposed by one of the clubs). We found that each of us avoided some sort of serious head injury at least once during a season. I also do recall an incident during a carnival whereby a male crew member had split his head during a race....an announcement came over the loud speaker for all females rowers to put on their helmets....!! Firstly do males have harder heads and secondly it was a male that had split his head!!! In viewing the program last night the male versus female divide appears not to have changed, with the female crews being at forefront of embracing change and addressing safety. I work for a global engineering company, whereby the safety of our people is our number one risk and our aim is for zero harm and zero fatalities, which a global message that is constantly communicated through out the company. SLSA could learn from such risk management practises to tighten the framework, process and controls surrounding the people risks involved in SLSA...from what I can see the 3 fatalities is 3 too many and not enough action has been taken to ensure zero harm in the future....
me, I like football
Guest
Did you read the Ziggy Switkowsky report? He put the blame squarely at the top, whether they act on that is another point entirely.
Midfielder
Guest
Benno As someone who surfs a fair bit... most like leg ropes you don't lose your board ... I remember when leg ropes first came in there was some resistance similar to car seat belts in many ways... my personal observations are most like leg ropes ..
Elisha Pearce
Guest
Good points Benno? Did you watch the Four Corners piece? Its in the link. Check it out. The safety equipment was a confusing outcome of a far greater issue - whether events should have been held at all. I know what you're getting at there with the leg ropes but the care for competitors went a lot further than safety devices. I saw the safety devices as an ill thought out 'counter' to what transpired. I'm happy to be corrected on my definitions. I'll check it out. I had thought it was more uninterested but you may be correct. For an english student I've never spent as much time with a dictionary as I probably should. :P **** On the links - I don't always provide them but when I do I think they provide a good chance to pick up some back ground on the bigger topics I try to cover. I don't expect to, or believe I can, address every angle of an issue in my own short piece. So check out the links. I try to diversify my sources a bit too. You'll see a few UK ones, Sydney ones, online, print etc. ****