A provocative title, so allow me to specify at the outset what exactly I am highlighting and the limits of the argument. Firstly and most importantly, let me make it clear that I am excluding from the discussion the necessary and vitally important domain of child-protection and the protection of vulnerable adults under law. What I am specifically referring to is the concept creep that has seen the safeguarding approach extended to sportsmen and women at senior level, who are otherwise (in the eyes of the law) deemed responsible adults capable of providing informed consent, making decisions and advocating on their own behalf. I am also excluding clear cases of misconduct that unamibiguously violate professional ethics and the boundaries of the athlete-coach relationship - for instance, sexually inappropriate behaviour or physical abuse. What I am also highlighting is the mission creep of those charged with investigating such claims and the present danger of over-reach. Why I feel these trends need to be challenged is that the safeguarding system if left unchecked threatens to penalise coaches simply for carrying out their proper duties.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The story differs according to where in the world you happen to be, but for the most part the roots of the present situation can be traced back to far-reaching initiatives motivated by the need to be seen to atone for past failures, following some very high profile cases of abuse of athletes by coaches and medical staff, many of whom were minors when the abuse took place. The damning reports of systematic failures to act on multiple and highly credible complaints (in some cases the conduct of senior staff within sports organisations effectively made them complicit in the abuse) understandably and rightly caused massive fallout, with serious consequences in terms of public trust as well as jeopardising public and private funding.
To reinforce the earlier point, the measures subsequently taken to improve child-protection and safeguarding for vulnerable adults in sport are necessary and overdue in many cases. However, the initial imperative to be seen to be doing something was followed by ongoing calls in the media for national sports organisations to do more. What arose was a suggestion that we should extend the safeguarding practices designed to protect minors to all athletes, specifically including those competing at senior level. To give an example from the UK, the 2017 Duty of Care in Sport independent report to government included the recommendation that more be done for ‘adult safeguarding’, including for those competing at elite-level and professional sportspeople.
Whilst these recommendations and the subsequent steps taken to expand the remit of safeguarding were perhaps well-intentioned, the unchecked machinery it has spawned imperils coaches by rendering them subject to damaging investigations simply for the crime of coaching.
CONCEPT CREEP…
Part of the issue that coaches are facing is that the whole premise of extending safeguarding to adults is somewhat nebulous - for instance, the aforementioned UK Duty of Care in Sport report includes vague references to blowing the whistle on ‘poor behaviour’. Welfare is a vague and all-encompassing term, so safeguarding the welfare of athletes (who happen to be adults) could conceivably extend to almost anything. Beyond clear and unambiguous cases of misconduct, what constitutes ‘inappropriate behaviour’ as it relates to interactions between adults is a matter of debate. Judging what is appropriate versus inappropriate of course also requires the full context.
Terms such as ‘harm’ have proven to be highly elastic - what constitutes harm is largely subjectively determined. The substance of complaints is often based on highly subjective claims about how the offending words or actions made the person feel, as well as their perceived intent. Even if we consider bullying, which most would agree is ethically wrong, it is hard to define what constitutes bullying without observing it first-hand and being party to the history and the dynamics of the relationship.
It may be that the words or actions caused the athlete emotional distress. However, this does not necessarily imply any wrongdoing on the part of the coach. It can simultaneously be true that the person suffered emotional distress as a result of words or actions taken, yet also true that the other party was not at fault.
In some sense, it is a mark of how far we have come that so much falls under the umbrella of conduct that is deemed unacceptable, even in the context of elite and professional sport. That said, a consequence of how societal norms have shifted is that the automatic knee-jerk reaction is to condemn words and actions that seem questionable. It is beguilingly easy to misconstrue words, implied meaning and intent when taken out of context.
Unfortunately, it is also easy to make the claim that the offending words and actions were motivated by prejudice without necessarily having to substantiate those claims. There is a clear asymmetry here, given that such allegations are extremely difficult to refute in a way that satisfies everybody and the accused can quickly find themselves facing widespread condemnation. In this climate, allegations of wrongdoing have enormous power to do reputational damage and may even be career-ending for the accused. Given the gravity of the situation and what is at stake this should give everybody pause before rushing to condemn - especially those charged with the highly complex and sensitive task of investigating claims.
The term safeguarding itself is not only part of how we got here but also a barrier to escaping. After all, who could take issue with keeping people safe? Those doing the guarding are also rendered somewhat immune from criticism. After all, they’re protecting people - it says so in their job title. As seen with other recent movements a well-chosen name can provide a shield against scrutiny and discourage those with concerns from voicing criticism or challenging the actions taken in the name of such worthy aims. Those witnessing the plight of colleagues in the field who fall foul of the safeguarding machinery might offer their support in private, but for the most part they are mainly relieved it is not happening to them. Whilst most of us know somebody who has fallen afoul of the safeguarding system, until now coaches have been reticent to speak out in public for fear that they might find themselves in the crosshairs.
WEAPONISED…
“If it puts a weapon in your hand, it is aiming at some kind of violence”
The closest analogue to the application of safeguarding in sport at senior level is the burgeoning system of anonymous reporting of such high crimes and misdemeanours as ‘micro-aggressions’ in colleges and universities. You might wonder why the university administration should be so eager to adopt a system that encourages students to report on the teaching staff. We might speculate that this has something to do with the ongoing struggle between administrators and academics for control of the university. Or perhaps the administration already won that war and they are using the reporting process to keep the teaching staff cowed and afraid of students. The reason I bring this up is that a similar scenario seems to be unfolding in sport.
Putting such speculation aside, it is naive in the extreme to think that present system of safeguarding is immune from being abused. The common lack of any serious mechanism for dealing with malicious complaints, or even ruling this out as a possibility when investigating the complaint is a serious problem. This creates the possibility of allegations being used as a weapon to intentionally damage reputations or the means for exacting retribution. Much can be justified when operating under the cloak of safeguarding. By assuming the guise of whistleblower the accuser still gets to appear virtuous.
Given the nebulous nature of what is being alleged, the incentives and the general climate at present it is rare for complaints to be dismissed as frivolous; in fact, the insistence on the ‘duty to report’ effectively makes this obligatory. Irrespective of whether or not they are credible or well substantiated, complaints commonly proceed to lengthy and protracted investigations. Those who find themselves subject to complaints are trapped in a kind of purgatory - simply being ‘under investigation’ shrouds them under a cloak of suspicion which proves very difficult to cast off.
Those claiming to have been wronged assume the status of victim, which affords its own strange power, whilst casting the accused as the villain before any evidence has been presented. In the present climate, allegations of harm even if not well substantiated are powerful weapons to throw around. Moreover, complaints from a third party (who often remains anonymous), such as another coach or even a casual onlooker at a competition, are presently sufficient to trigger an investigation. There is also very little penalty to dissuade spurious claims.
Accusations are weapons capable of causing significant damage and this is asymmetrical warfare. Despite the assumed power imbalance in coach-athlete relations, in this regard there is a significant imbalance in the opposite direction - for the accused there is much at stake, whereas the accuser risks very little. Indeed, it is rare that there is any penalty even when it is found that there are no grounds to support the accusation.
The machinery created to investigate and enforce safeguarding is central to the problem. Not only do the lack of clear limits fail to guard against the process being weaponised but this also creates huge potential for over-reach. If you create a bureaucracy for the express purposes of finding witches then you can expect that it will dutifully do so, not least to justify its continuing existence. Whether those witches are real or imagined is another issue entirely. Given such incentives, the lack of checks and balance in the current system should be alarming. By design, safeguarding organisations operate independently of the national sports organisation; however, at present there is no clear oversight or accountability.
DUE PROCESS…
Since the Magna Carta there has been a widely recognised need to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that judicial procedures are fair and impartial. A central principle is the presumption of innocence - that is, the subject of the complaint is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Due process of law extends to any legitimate judicial process and asserts the right to an unbiased hearing. At minimum, the accused must be provided prior notice of the action, including the grounds of the complaint justifying the investigation, afforded an opportunity to present evidence in their defence and have their case heard in a neutral and unbiased hearing.
These fundamental tenets of due process are little in evidence in safeguarding investigations, which often seem more intent on seeking out evidence against the accused rather than conducting an impartial investigation. An example of how the process is skewed is that the burden of proof seemingly falls upon the accused to refute the allegation. Adding a Kafka-esque element, those under investigation are not necessarily informed what that have been accused of or by whom until much later in the proceedings. In the most egregious cases, those conducting the investigation cast a wide net as they attempt to construct a case, even soliciting testimony against the accused from assorted third parties who were not directly involved or party to any of the alleged incidents cited in the original complaint.
As it stands, the safeguarding process can resemble more of an inquisition than an impartial judicial process. The legitimacy of the process relies on a meaningful separation between those receiving the complaint, those investigating the complaint and gathering information, and those who are ultimately responsible for conducting the hearing and sitting in judgement. Without this, what you have is a kangaroo court.
The failure to protect the rights of the accused is symptomatic of an assumption that coaches are the problem. The peceived power imbalance between coach and athlete helps explain the lack of protection afforded to the accused and the tendency for those charged with conducting the investigation to side with those making claims of wrongdoing. What this overlooks is that those claiming victimhood status paradoxically attain a position of power in today’s society.
Whilst the identity of those making the complaint is treated as a matter of confidentiality (the source of the original accusation may remain unknown), the accused is afforded no such protection and the process often plays out in a very public fashion. The tendency for high profile cases to play out in the court of public opinion is another serious threat. The media has become extremely credulous when it comes to any stories alleging improper conduct. The lack of scrutiny applied by journalists and media outlets is alarming - it is increasingly common that the original allegation is taken at face value without any attempt to investigate or establish whether there is any third party testimony to support the account. There have been a number of cases where subsequent reporting has revealed a total lack of corroborating evidence that the events as described ever took place - by which time the media cycle has moved on.
Finally, a legitimate process stresses the need for the investigation and subsequent hearing to be concluded in a prompt manner in the interests of all parties. Conversely, it is not uncommon for safeguarding investigations to take years to play out. By this time, the reputational damage is long since done. In a very real sense the process is the punishment, irrespective of what the eventual outcome might be.
THE NEED TO SAFEGUARD COACHES…
By ignoring the unintended second-order effects and failing to build in the required checks and balances to prevent over-reach, we have sleepwalked into a scenario that represents an existential threat to the coaching profession. The situation is especially bleak in sports that are not professional - such as the Olympic sports, not least as operating as a coach in these sports is often not financially viable with paid roles being so few and far between. In the present climate what coaches are confronting appears increasingly untenable.
Coaches must be protected from malicious complaints and allegations that are borne of spite and a desire for retribution. More fundamentally, the ability of the coach to fulfil their proper role must also be protected. As it stands, coaches are in a highly exposed position in this regard. By the very nature of our role, simply in the course of undertaking our normal duties we risk having our conduct called into question.
“A coach is someone who tells you what you don’t want to hear, who has you see what you don’t want to see, so you can be who you have always known you could be.”
For the record, I agree with everything in the Tom Landry quote above except for the final part. In many instances, the athlete themselves has no idea what they might be capable of. In such cases it is up to the coach to reveal to them what they might achieve and who they might become if they apply themselves diligently towards that end. Naturally the higher the aspiration, the higher our expectations should be. For senior athletes competing at the elite and professional level, it is not only appropriate but necessary that their coaches and support team hold them to the highest standard.
Equally, the mere act of holding the individual to a higher standard makes it somewhat inevitable that there will be friction from time to time. On occasion our critique or candid feedback might not be welcomed by the recipient. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us to call the athlete on their behaviour when it not up to standard and pull them up when their efforts fall short of what we expect or are willing to accept. Whilst this is our proper role, our words and actions in the course of upholding standards and holding the athlete accountable have the potential to result in bruised egos.
As coaches and professionals we are responsible for what we say and how we deliver feedback; however, we cannot control how it is received. How the athlete chooses to interpret what we tell them and the underlying intent is entirely in their hands. An athlete might conceivably respond to the same direct feedback in a variety of different ways. One potential response is to look inward and do the hard and sometimes painful work of reflecting on how they might have been falling short in a way that allows them to turn the corner and resolve to do better. Equally another response is to reflexively deny that the feedback has any merit and feel aggrieved at being singled-out for criticism, creating the impression that they are being picked on for no good reason.
Clearly, it can be confronting to be told that you are falling short of what you are capable of. By their nature, critique and candid feedback can be hard to hear. Accordingly, there is always a chance that our input and professional judgement may not be appreciated or received in the manner intended. Despite our best intentions, there is the possibility that our words might cause hurt feelings. What we express may even feel like a personal attack for an individual who is not secure in themselves beyond their athlete persona. Being told home truths can lead to lingering resentment that now has an outlet in the form of the complaints procedure.
TOWARDS SOME PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS…
Fundamentally, our role as a coach of a high performer is not to make them comfortable but to create the conditions and provide the necessary guidance that will afford the possibility to excel in the crucible of competitive sport. Naturally this is a discomfiting experience at times. It might even come as a shock to be challenged when they are not accustomed to it in other areas of their life, such as school, where standards are no longer rigorously applied. Clearly the athlete’s expectations need to be aligned accordingly. To that end, effective communication from the outset is certainly part of the solution. A necessary step to protect the interests of both parties is a signed agreement such that both parties provide their informed consent and enter the arrangement with full knowledge of their respective obligations.
An important principle of informed consent is that it is provisional, such that the individual can freely choose to withdraw from participating at any time without penalty. This is especially pertinent as the coach-athlete relationship is necessarily conditional. Not only is the coach’s approval conditional, but we also reserve the right to walk away if we do not feel that the athlete is living up to their side of the bargain. Importantly this applies in both directions. What does need to be protected is the right of both parties to end the association for any reason and seek out other options without penalty. This is one area where sporting organisations must exercise their duty of care to protect the rights of athletes, as a coach might conceivably abuse their authority by leveraging selection or sponsorship opportunities to exercise coercive control over the athlete. Equally, the rights afforded to the coach must include the option to send the athlete out of a session if their conduct is negatively impacting others or request that the athlete leave the training group permanently if they judge that the situation is irreconcilable. As it stands, taking such actions carries the risk of being reported and placed under investigation, especially when the athlete concerned claims those actions to be motivated by prejudice or personal malice.
Any legitimate process must be able to differentiate and deal with three distinct scenarios. One such scenario includes genuine instances of abuse or serious misconduct. Another is malicious complaints or baseless allegations of wrongdoing motivated by resentment or animus due to a perceived slight. A final potential scenario includes cases of genuine misunderstanding where both parties are nevertheless acting in good faith, such that there is no fault on either side.
The proper function of the coach must be protected and the integrity of the coach-athlete relationship must be maintained, not only to ensure that coaches can continue to carry out their duties but also in the best interests of athletes. Unfortunately, the way events are currently playing out we may find a scenario akin to the situation that has befallen university campuses, where teaching staff are frightened of the students. If the coach feels like any word or gesture might elicit a complaint then it highly unlikely that they will feel secure enough to take the athlete to task or provide the critical feedback necessary for them to improve. Ultimately this does not serve anybody, not least the athlete as they risk being deprived of their most valuable source of guidance and support.
Finally, we should take a lead from the structures and procedures employed in other health professions to deal with complaints or allegations of malpractice. It is recognised that such cases are best heard by those within the profession who understand the context and the complex challenges of operating in that specific realm. Logically, the best way to combat the present bias in the safeguarding system is for the case to be heard by a jury of our peers. Those who have ‘skin in the game’ not only have a better sense of what meets the threshold for improper conduct but also intuitively understand the implications involved when they render their judgements.
Cover image credit: Photo by Jonny Clow on Unsplash