Of the many and varied diagnoses of our Rio Olympics swim team ills, perhaps the most bizarre popped up on the American swim news site SwimSwam.
Posted by someone claiming to have completed a Masters Degree in Positive Psychology, the self-styled online clinician claimed some of Australia’s swimmers might have been “mentally ill”.
But then, SwimSwam has become somewhat of an advertorial resource for those in the “sport motivational business,” touting for custom in the name of commentary.
Regardless of the range of real world answers our coaches are undoubtedly work-shopping for their Rio inquisition, at least the theme of failure is unambiguous. It goes simply “four clear favourites for at least one individual gold medal failed in that goal.”
In addition, two others with near top rankings did not medal in their races. Emma McKeon’s surprising bronze in the 200m freestyle and Mitch Larkin’s silver in 200m backstroke broke that duck, but these two outcomes hardly drew sighs of relief.
Putting our efforts into even sharper relief was that several such “locks” from other nations slapped the wall first with such routine ease that they might have been clocking off from work. They were Sweden’s Sarah Sjostrom, Britain’s Adam Peaty, Japan’s Kosuke Hagino, and Hungary’s Katinka Hosszu. Katie Ledecky needed a roof collapse to threaten her dominance, and Phelps was no universal favourite.
At past Olympics, a pointer to the cause could have been found in the fact that our losses were in anaerobic/lactate distances (around two minutes and under). This might then have indicated a poor taper transition.
But since Australia has little truck with distance swimming these days – our focus is increasingly on the hardware hot-spot sub two minute races which comprise 26 out of 32 events – this scenario would now implicate almost the entire team. Were there taper problems, or was the team deeply jaded from eight months of unbroken training, with social media and celebrity identity overload thrown in?
Another suspect might be in supplement management. Judging by Swimming Australia’s official supplement policy, all elite swimmers are assumed to be on them. Supplements may legally contain a range of stimulants which, for reasons only WADA knows, are fine to take during the months of a training block, but banned during competition.
Perhaps a change in the supplement regimen upset our swimmers’ metabolism. Perhaps not. These are questions journalists should ask, but don’t.
I don’t believe it was a case of choking, pressure, or galloping anxiety. If our swimmers were anxiety-prone, their careers wouldn’t have advanced so far. Wannabes and nervous Nellies get weeded out in their early teens at state competition level.
Swimming is by far Australia’s biggest participation individual sport, making swimming Olympians veterans of competition at an age when other future Olympians are still part-timing in school sports. Choking slurs have come from commentators whose own experience of high level sport was either brief or crippled by self doubt.
Even when our Rio coaches kindly “admit” our swimmers might have been overawed, this is more likely a case of good old-fashioned blame deflection to place themselves last in the culpability queue behind swimmers and psychologists.
Another area to explore in such a wholesale loss of form is medication changes. Were any of our swimmers receiving TUE (therapeutic use exemption) medicines? More and more international athletes are on prolonged prescriptions for diagnosed ailments. But because the two bodies overseeing Australian TUE allocations are hermetically sealed entities, we will never know if anyone was on TUEs, let alone if any over-cautious dosage tweaking was done in the lead up to Rio. (National and international bodies don’t always agree on TUE clinical norms.)
One also wonders if our salaried sports scientists (two were on the Olympic team) will be part of any review, and to what rigour of inquiry they will be subject to. Or further, if Swimming Australia boss John Bertrand has the wherewithal to probe effectively in this direction.
If team culture is once again blamed, it will likely be a cop out. It seems unfair to knock a team for achieving a massive pendulum swing away from the fractious internal environment of London. If ever a parent of a touring swimmer wanted an assurance of supportive teammates, it was this one. And if management was a little too proactive in promoting a “oneness” within the swim team at the expense of Kitty Chiller’s “Our team” branding, then that may not be the fault of swimmers.
Mack Horton’s calling out of freestyle rival Sun Yang as a drug cheat will have to be canvassed. The pre-Games hurly-burly of high profile bans and appeals undoubtedly played on the minds of conscientious athletes like Horton. The degree to which the incident may have distracted the team, or if Horton was out of line, will need to be noted, at least for the sake of future team protocol.
Finally, AOC president John Coates’ recent allegation of “bloating” in terms of administrative duplication within the constituent Sports Commission entities needs addressing.
Here’s one example from swimming. Our current Junior PanPac team has 30 swimmers, many of whom will no doubt be going to the Tokyo Olympics. For so many high energy kids, you’d expect a decent staff of around half a dozen minders.
Wrong! There are no fewer than 16 coaches, psychologists, performance analysts (true!), doctors and physios on the team. That’s one adult for every two swimmers. God knows how many reports that justifies.
And in the last 12 months before Rio, when the various swimming bodies responsible for chewing up funding largesse did their final bean counting, a new layer of coaching bureaucracy was created to mop up the swill of zeros.
The candidates were given weasel titles like Coaching Development Officer and spent their days emailing coaches instructional video clips from the net, and doing “meet-and-greet” rounds at suburban pools in Hawaiian shirts.
They are now busy shoring up support for our Rio swimming effort. Jobs are at stake. One post Rio email asked its recipients, (with regrettably insular overtones) ‘Are You Sick of The Swimming Bashing?’ and included a jpeg testimonial defence of our swimming efforts from a physio, of all people.
HarryT
Guest
I agree that the progression from 8 year old to Olympic swimmer is a harsh Darwinian process that produces race hardened, confident, winning athletes. My observations of elite athletes is also that many have doubts and fears that escalate as their careers progress. Many crack in competition but those who don't quite often have difficulty when they stop competing. The dichotomy between fear and confidence is usually misunderstood when it comes to high achieving athletes. I often tell parents to go and watch an U20's pole vaulting competition live to observe the huge amounts of raw fear, anxiety and doubt that is on show. It always helps them to understand their child better.
punter
Guest
'Swimming is by far Australia’s biggest participation individual sport', emphasizing on the word individual. Whether they choked or didn't is a matter hopefully they research, the fact is as someone pointed out, 75% of them did not bring their A game to RIO, while the US did. Only Larkin was beaten in the 100 back by someone who swam faster then the trials time, Seebohm, Campbells, McEvoy & even Lakin in 200bk would have won gold if they swam near their recent best times. Something was wrong.
1st&10
Guest
Choke, yes they did . They even admitted it . -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Let The One King Rule
Guest
As a practicing clinician,I am somewhat disturbed that a difficulty to perform at a sporting event, regardless of its importance, is regarded as a 'mental illness'. With that said: 'If our swimmers were anxiety-prone, their careers wouldn’t have advanced so far. Wannabes and nervous Nellies get weeded out in their early teens at state competition level.' This is not really true. I've treated numerous people with anxiety issues who have, nonetheless, managed to make it as elites in their chosen fields. In fact, the most common presentation I see for performance anxiety comes with the opening statement 'I am usually OK at calming myself down, but I just can't manage in this case.' This is because the severity of performance anxiety is relative to the importance of the activity being engaged in -as perceived by the individual engaging in it-. That is why effective treatment seeks to challenge the belief that performance is all important. People who are anxiety prone perform best when the part of their brain that tells them the world will end if they do not perform is turned off, and they can be convinced that life will go on, there will be other opportunities, etc. Many people with mild anxiety issues do this already, and they do it effectively. They make it as swimmers and runners and rugby players and top businessmen and surgeons because they've learned to remind themselves that there's a tomorrow, and even if there isn't, there's a back up. The nature of the Olympics is such that that kind of reasoning, for many people, simply is not possible. Sportsmen and women are too acutely aware of how much it means, and how unlikely it is that they will get a chance at redemption. They're aware that the whole country will love them if they win and lambast them if they don't. They're aware that losing carries financial consequences - lost sponsorship, for example. They're aware of the millions of people watching, hoping and praying for them to carry the day, most of whom will be elated if they win and bitterly let down if they don't. They're aware that this one moment will be the defining moment in their lives to come - that it has all built to this, and can all build from it, if they can only pull it off. They're aware that it is all or nothing, of the difference between Perkins and Kowalski, of what happened to Magnussen, and that it all boils down to that one instance, where the universe will scream to a halt and turn on the perfection of their performances. Regionals, nationals, internationals - none of those carry even close to the same kind of pressure.
peeeko
Guest
i think the writer is in denial
me too
Guest
i've always wondered on what basis swimming is australia's most popular participant sport? is it based (as it should be) on registration with a swimming club or is it simply a guess based on recreational swimming. if the latter there's a heck of a lot of backyard cricketers running around. lot's of houses with a dart board, or hoops set.
BrainsTrust
Guest
If Mitch Larkin performed near his best what about his final relay performance 53.19. His 200m silver was further off his pesonal best than his 4th in the 100m. His worst performance though was that relay time and the American does 51.85. Seebohm no one has explained how she did her best time in the heats in the 100m backstroke. She did get a slightly better time in the final relay. None of this adds up in any rational fashion from the perspective of mental , supplements or regards tapering. Its points to the onset of a factor that hit at the time they went to Rio. If it was one person that might indicate illness. For a whole group the only rational explanation is gas in the Australian building.
Torchbearer
Guest
Have to agree, I think about 75 percent of our swimmers swam slower than their trial times, and with a couple of exceptions, it is hard to find any that did a PB in Rio. Cate choked, she has admitted it (she said she was awake in panic from 2 am till race time at 11pm)...her relay times before and after her event would have won gold (adjusted for flying start). Seebohms relay time on the last day was excellent as well. So it is a complex problem, but some big names, like Phelps, Ledecky, Hoshzu, Thorpe, RIce seem to able to bring their A Game to the Olympic Pool.
jameswm
Roar Guru
I don't think you can say there was one reason for our swimmers underperforming. For example, it seemed clear that Cate Campbell was close to her best. Hernia aside, she swam very fast in 2 relays. She went too hard in the middle of her 100 free and paid the price. What about the 50 free though? What about Bronte? Same? What were the reasons for Seebohm? She was way off? We had the top 2 ranked 200 backstrokers and couldn't get near it. What about Cameron McEvoy? He escaped criticism partly because Chalmers came through. And then of course, some overperformed, like Horton, Chalmers and McKeon. Our high profile swimmers going in were Seebohm, Campbell, Campbell, McEvoy and Larkin. None of them got an individual gold, and only Larkin performed near his best. The Campbells were near their best shape, but not AT the top, and had mind issues. Pretty disappointing to be honest. Look at athletics - we got a 2nd, 3rd, two 4ths, a 5th, 6th etc - 70% of our athletes performed above their world ranking. Credit to them. They're building a good young group with the walkers, Ella Nelson, Brooke Stratton, the girls 4x4 (all young and with Nelson to add), Gregson, La Caze etc, Hall, Denny all young and doing very well in Rio.