A web of leadership lies for Sally Pearson and Eric Hollingsworth

I'm not sure why you deliberately misunderstand in your replies. It's an interesting tactic. I think my comments are explicit enough to inform that the position of captain of an elite athletics team as I understand it is NOT an enforcement position. I would expect a more informative reply from someone of your considerable experience and ability. Maybe I am naively ignorant and unworthy of having knowledge imparted hence your disingenuous brush-offs.

Warren, quick google search & it appears Dr Mike is a Dr in Philosophy ? That being said, it looks like he's got a very interesting CV including previously being the 'Head of Performance Psychology at the Australian Institute of Sport'. Whether he's spruiking or starting a serious debate is not a question I'm going to answer, but on face value he should have some interesting insight above that granted to us mere mortals?

I think Doc, that because of the solitary nature of the sport, track and field athletes just love being part of a team. Having managers and captains to help them out is a much appreciated luxury. As it happens my son was the captain of a 250 strong NSW athletics team. The reason he was chosen was that he is very laid back yet he is such a hard competitor. All his PBs were accomplished in major events. His demeanour was friendly and relaxed and many younger athletes who were encouraged to observe his events commented to him that he had shown them that it was all about enjoying what you are doing as an elite athlete. While his friendly nature endeared him to all, it was the emphatic nature of his success that inspired the other athletes. I think Sally Pearson has the same attributes and this is why I think her captaincy is important.

Your premise is that self focused track athletes can't be captains. What about rugby, cricket, tennis and netball. Their national captains are incredibly self focused, yet their role is never questioned. To me it seems that Pearson's preparation, her results, and her dealings with an apparently very unpopular manager has inspired her team and will continue to inspire them for some time. Sounds like a good captain.

Tend to agree with the original poster. Where it is a clear team sport, then there is a need for a clear leadership cohort but it is much less cut and dried in sports where individuals generally compete on an individual basis and only come under any sort of "team" situation for representative/championship meets. There is a clear place for senior/more experienced athletes to mentor, or at least set examples for, younger team members but this can hinge on two issues. The temperament and ability to communicate of the senior .... and the ego and capacity to listen of the junior. To the situation in question: - should Pearson have accepted the nominal position ? A sound argument for saying No; however whatever has came out from the team seems to indicate that she sets an immaculate example for professionalism in her approach and she is supportive to her team-mates. - has there been a communications breakdown between AA admin & Pearson's "team" ? It would appear likely .... who's to blame we don't know. With regards to preparation for her event, Pearson did the right thing by running in London. - there IS a need to rules of personal conduct whilst in such team situations. Whilst one expects adults will behave as adults, it's not always a given thing. Discipline in such situation lies in the hands of management rather than athletes themselves. - Hollingsworth's conduct ? Some of those who spoken out against him in the media have "records" as athletes that are less than stellar or inconsistent at intl levels ... and have had run-ins with other athletes. Someone in his position does sometimes need to be a hardhead and tell "harsh truths" from time to time but it does seem he has a record of being needlessly tactless. In making this statement when he did, and in deliberate contravention of express orders NOT to do so, his intent can only be seen as deliberately destructive. He wrote his own professional "death warrant".

Your argument seems to be that elite athletes exist somewhere between narcissism and psychopathy and therefore are neither suited to leadership roles nor accepting leadership from other athletes. Harsh. I'm not a doctor anything nor an elite athlete however everything I read in the media seems to contradict your opinion of the need for leadership and while the extent of egoism in elite athletes may be high during times of peak performance who would understand those pressures and behaviour better than another elite athlete? Maybe the question is one of semantics? Is the leadership of a captain one of administration or influence? The later is all I see as their part and as a possible point of encouragement and guidance for younger athletes. How is that an interference in their preparations or performance?

Thanks for the reply Dr Mike. The propensity for young (yes most elite athletes on national teams are young) people under extreme pressure to make bad behavioural choices (they aren't alone in that of course) is well documented especially in a team (forced or otherwise) environment. The whole point seems to me to have a well liked and respected peer in a position to act as an example and to help the team through that peer pressure to act with enough respect for each other and themselves that they can travel, live and train without disruption that will cause negative issues with performance and more importantly to some avoid behaviour that portrays a negative image to the public. If team management alone were enough to ensure this as you suggest then there would never be a story other than fixture results in the sports pages. Unless I am totally misunderstanding your point I continue to strongly disagree with your opinion.

You obviously haven't followed the story Johnnyball. Everyone in AA including the high performances coaches told Sally she was making the best decision for her preparation by competing in London at the time. She was pissed that she was still fined for missing the camp despite everyone's recommendation that she compete and made some noise about it. Hollingsworth decided she made him look bad and wouldn't (despite direct instructions from his employer) take it. The only thing that is relevant is that his prime objective is to assist in the success of the athletes he is in charge of. He failed miserably by putting his (apparently massive) ego first. This could all have been aired out in a couple of weeks but by all accounts he isn't a man to takes instruction, only give it.

Overcooked that is

Hollingsworth calls the team together, queen bee says no, I am doing my own thing and the coach is at fault? Why have a coach? And what message is sent to team members who turned up. A gold medal is more important than protocol it seems. In the main the press has overlooked this story, probably to create interest as tv coverage is abysmal

Well said!

not the point Dr - it is a fact that there is such a structure and having accepted the role fulfill it. If you can't/don't want to then pull out. Look no further than Magnussen and his cohort and those hoodies at the Olympics. PS what's the point of the "Dr" title?