I attended the IASI World Congress earlier this year (March 2009). My presentation to the Congress was recorded. Although I do try to link to other people’s presentations in this talk and address members of the audience I do hope this video gives a feel for how my ideas about sharing in sport are developing and how they form the basis of my response to the David Crawford report and my fascination with Public Sphere.

This is the SlideShare presentation that I used at the presentation.

Introduction

This has been a fascinating week for Australian sport. It started with Tiger Woods’ victory at the Australian Masters golf tournament and is ending with visceral debate about play, games, physical education and sport in Australian society. Although I have written two posts about the Independent Sport Panel’s Report I have been mindful of Todd Sieling’s manifesto for slow blogging. He suggests that slow blogging is “an affirmation that not all things worth reading are written quickly, and that many thoughts are best served after being fully baked and worded in an even temperament”.

Slow blogging is an art at a time when the immediacy of the Internet offers the opportunity for “daily outrages and ecstasies that fill nothing more than single moments in time, switching between banality, crushing heartbreak and end-of-the-world psychotic glee in the mere space between headlines”.

David Crawford’s Review of Australian Sport has offered remarkable opportunities for comments and responses. I have taken some time to read the Report and in this post I would like to explore some of what I consider to be the important issues raised. Before I do so I need to declare some interests.

Personal Interests, Private Troubles

I have had a lifelong interest in sport and physical education. I have played, taught and coached a variety of sports and have been fortunate to have been involved in international sport since 1980. I qualified as a teacher of physical education in 1975. My own pathway in sport has been enriched by a profound sense of the educational value of physical activity and a passionate, personal, intrinsic commitment to sport from a very early age. I completed my PhD (a sociological account of teaching physical education) in the late 1980s in England at a time when teachers were withdrawing from after school activity in state schools. I witnessed at first hand the break of the umbilical connection between teachers and pupils. I believe this had immense implications for the organisation of sport and the loss of an educational ethos in physical activity. From 1978 to the present I have had a profound interest in the social and cultural aspects of sport and for over a decade taught courses in sociology and cultural studies.

My academic life gave me access to the work of Norbert Elias through Eric Dunning’s sociological approaches to sport. Elsewhere in this blog I have explored themes of play and playfulness and these aspects were nourished in me by Ione and Peter Opie’s work as well as by Johan Huizinga and Roger Caillois. Some of the early sociologists of sport encouraged me to reflect on play, display and spectacle and I was particularly influenced by Gregory Stone, Allen Gutmann and Fred Inglis. Like any student in the 1970s and 1980s I had access to many of the writings of leading Marxist thinkers. I was fascinated by John Hoberman’s work too and much more recently by Andy Miah.

This passion for sport has infused much of my life. I am a product of sport providing a social inclusion opportunity and I hope I have not forgotten the importance that sport can play in life changing experience. Whilst at the University of York (1973) I completed what I believe to be one of the first undergraduate studies in Apartheid and Sport. This fascination with the power of sport as a form of expression continues today with my enchantment with the possibilities midnight basketball holds.

I came to Australia in 2002 to join the staff at the Australian Institute of Sport and have had remarkable access to elite sporting environments and cultures in Australia. My sport journey started standing behind the goals at Buckley Wanderers trying to save the heavy leather laced balls missed by the goalkeeper, through thirteen years of school physical education to working with the Welsh rugby team to coaching on river banks in Australia. Recently I became a member of the Board of Australian Canoeing.

I am hopeful that these private troubles (as C Wright Mills called them) have some bearing on the public issues raised by David Crawford’s report.

Public Issues

Just before I read David Crawford’s report I came across Nikolai Bohlke and Leigh Robinson’s (2009) paper Benchmarking of elite sport systems. I did not have access to the full paper but noted from the summary that their research “used semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis to investigate the elite sport services offered by two successful Scandinavian sports”. They found that “a number of the services that led to the success of the two investigated systems are strongly context dependent”. they propose that “benchmarking is only appropriate as a tool to further understanding of elite sport systems if it is approached as a way of learning, rather than copying”.

So as the Crawford Report was released I was thinking about within and between sport system comparisons and the kind of evidence (and time) one might need to understand a sporting culture. I liked in particular Nikolai and Leigh’s point about learning. I found Chapter 1.1 (Defining Our National Sports Vision) of Crawford particularly interesting in setting a context for me to read the report. I was drawn to some points made on page 8:

In all, we need to consider what we can afford to invest and how we appropriately balance this investment to support a broader definition of sporting success. This will mean more explicitly defining elite sporting success in the context of prioritising those sports which capture the country’s imagination and represent its spirit and culture. These are the sports where our performance on the national and world stage is important to our sense of success as a nation.

There should be debate about which sports carry the national ethos. Swimming, tennis, cricket, cycling, the football codes, netball, golf, hockey, basketball, surfing and surf lifesaving are among the most popular sports in Australia, a part of the national psyche. Many are team sports and are the sports we are introduced to as part of our earliest education and community involvement.

If more money is to be injected into the system then we must give serious consideration to where that money is spent. If we are truly interested in a preventative health agenda through sport, then much of it may be better spent on lifetime participants than almost all on a small group of elite athletes who will perform at that level for just a few years. (Emphasis is mine.)

These three small paragraphs are the essence of the debate for me and appear to have been a raw nerve for some people’s sense of the world whilst reaffirming others’ core values. I have tried to capture the range of responses to the Report in an earlier post (Engines Started …) This introductory section (1.1) led me to think about:

• 21st century approaches to fitness and health
• How a nation state defines priorities for the allocation of the public purse
• Whether funding is a right or a privilege
• Whether history is destiny
• The imperatives for ethical sponsorship
• The advantages of a common wealth approach to social capital

I have combined these into three themes: insatiability, connectedness and deference.

Insatiability

For some time I have been concerned that it is possible to have an insatiable appetite for funds to support elite sport. In fact my arrival in Australia in 2002 coincided with a major dilemma for the Australian sport system … how do you progress after a successful home Olympics that was the focus of enormous investment? I still wonder if 2000 was a justifiably proud high water mark for Australian Olympic endeavour. Thereafter we had to compete with the energy of new host nations and the growing presence of the United Kingdom with significant financial resources at its disposal. Australia shared its expertise with the United Kingdom post-Sydney Olympics and many other nations warmed to the Australian model of success. It seemed to me that the only way to compete with these nations was to assume all Olympics were home Olympics so that Australia could resource a small demographic with sufficient long-haul training and competition opportunities.

I believe the Crawford Report provides an opportunity to debate these issues in a transparent way. I think the Report makes a strong case for “a nationally agreed plan for sport which encompasses all relevant areas of government and engages all tiers of government” (Summary of Findings 2.1 point 6). What interests me in particular is the timescale is required to agree and operationalise a plan that impacts on our lived (rather than aspirational) experience of sport in Australia. The development of a national policy requires stability of political will. This is exactly the problem facing young scientists in the World Economic Forum … how do you develop an ecologically sound energy policy for 2030 when there will be multiple changes of government in that time scale?

Connectedness

I believe fervently in a sustainable sport system that is funded ethically and that has an educational vision. I believe that the essence of sustainability (as an alternative to insatiability) is the family and the local community. I live in a rural community near to Braidwood in New South Wales and am becoming more and more aware of how a community can include and support its members. Local communities have local heroes and these have enormous influence over behaviour.  Successful communities are connected and grounded.

I take another key message from the Crawford Report to be how Australia wide connections can be made. If we are to have a vision for a healthier Australia then it must start in the family and at school. Any policy must deal with rural and regional Australia as well as urban and metropolitan Australia. These issues were at the fore of the recent SEGRA Conference in Western Australia. I think there are very important messages in the Crawford report about capacity, educational policy, access and inclusiveness that should stimulate our discussions about connectedness.

There is enormous sense in having a national service for elite sport as there is for having a national approach to voluntary effort. I do believe that one of the major (unintended) consequences of resourcing full-time positions in sport has been for volunteers to think that paid staff can deal with all eventualities. This is a time, as Charles Leadbeater suggests, to think of working with one another and thinking of pebbles rather than boulders.

I think a connected system that has a scalable collaborative ethos can achieve remarkable outcomes. In a sustainable sport system it will be the aggregation of effort that makes optimum use of human and financial resources. This necessitates our whole sport system accepting that there is an alternative to zero sum models of sport success. This alternative goes beyond the social traps identified in the tragedy of the commons.

Deference

There are numerous descriptors for the behaviours of voracious individuals and groups. I believe the Crawford Report invites us to reflect on possessive individualism and to contemplate a non zero sum approach to the flourishing of the sport system. Robert Wright has written about non zero as the logic of human destiny. He shares insights into reciprocal altruism that resonate with ideas developed by Peter Singer.

This to me is the ultimate challenge in the Crawford Report and the Prisoner’s Dilemma for our sport system. What if we can transform all the energy we invest in sport to enable all Australians to flourish? What if we take this one step further and have a global approach to sport as an ethical domain in which activity flourishes and that our part in it is to contribute to sport as a form of mutual recognition. What if sport will be about the triumph of the human spirit and its continuation as a life choice possibility throughout the twenty first century when we will face much more important challenges than whether we win gold, silver or bronze. Some years ago, Bill Clinton observed that:

The more complex societies get and the more complex the networks of interdependence within and beyond community and national borders get, the more people are forced in their own interests to find non-zero-sum solutions. That is, win-win solutions instead of win-lose solutions…. Because we find as our interdependence increases that, on the whole, we do better when other people do better as well – so we have to find ways that we can all win, we have to accommodate each other.

Conclusion

I have really enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on David Crawford’s Report. Over the last few days an editorial comment from The Age has kept intruding in my thoughts.

Australians will celebrate any gold medal won in 2012, even if it is in a sport they never think of between Olympics and even if it is won by someone they have not previously heard of and might never hear of again. Nor can anyone begrudge individual athletes their success. But, as the report notes, the present system funds such success at the rate of $15 million per gold medal. The nation’s self-esteem is surely neither so low nor so brittle as to require this level of investment, and it is money that in some instances could be more wisely spent. A shift to funding high-participation sports at grassroots levels might not result in the same surge of collective euphoria every four years, but it would contribute in a more sustained fashion to national wellbeing. (My emphasis)

I am hopeful that the educational possibilities contained in the Report, the suggestions about using existing facilities more effectively, and the valuing of local heroes are celebrated and ultimately accepted by the Government. Late in the evening here in Mongarlowe I am wondering if we have found something in the Crawford Report rather than lost something.

The aggregation of our efforts in Australia is possible and I do believe it is our pathway to sustainability. We can be a non zero sum sport system if we have the collective courage and the political will.

The publication of the Independent Panel’s Review of Australian Sport has stimulated enormous discussion. Yesterday I linked to the publication of the report. This post looks at some of the responses in the last twenty-four hours.

This was the Google News graphic at 7.00 p.m. EST on 19 November.

John Coates argued the case for funding Olympic sports in an article in The Australian. This was a report of his initial response to the Crawford Report and this an ABC report of his response (the ABC report includes video and audio items). The Australian Olympic Committee has appointed a study group to examine the Crawford Report.

Sally Robbins argues strongly for Olympic funding. The Canberra Times cites Cadel Evans, Anna Mears an Ken Wallace as supporters of Government funding for Olympic sports. This is an article in The Age expressing Cycling Australia’s concerns. This ABC post notes Archery Australia’s concerns. Wally Mason observes that “Clearly federal funding does not come out of a bottomless pit and every Olympic medal comes at a cost. It is a cost most of us are prepared to pay.” Andrew Southcott’s response to the Report indicates that a Top 10 Olympics’ finish is not good enough.

Simon Crean was reported as observing that Australia’s sporting success was “a fundamental part of the Australian brand”. Jacquelin Magnay discussed the Report’s recommendation about the format of the Australian Sports Commission’s Board. In an earlier article she argued that the “sport panel has totally misread the nation’s love of the Olympics and the pride of beating bigger countries on the international stage.” Her first article summarises the Report’s main recommendations. This a video segment from athletes supporting funding for elite sport. This ABC post explores the ‘contentious nature’ of the Report. This ABC post reports the publication of the Crawford Report. This is the Canberra Times’ report of the publication under the headline ‘A sporting nation divided’.

Nicole Jeffrey notes that not all of the Crawford Report have been challenged. She notes that the Olympic sports have welcomed the recommendation that “the national sports federations should have primary responsibility for development of their own high-performance programs”. The sports have welcome statements about physical education in the national curriculum and the provision of funds to build sporting facilities. An ABC post noted that ‘Big Codes welcome Crawford Report‘. John Alexander argues that the “key to our health care costs which are crippling is preventative medicine in the form of physical activity. Australia needs a renaissance of our lost culture of the fun and exhilaration we enjoyed through active participation in sports.” Mike Hurst notes the importance of fitness in schools.

An editorial in The Age suggests that:

Australians will celebrate any gold medal won in 2012, even if it is in a sport they never think of between Olympics and even if it is won by someone they have not previously heard of and might never hear of again. Nor can anyone begrudge individual athletes their success. But, as the report notes, the present system funds such success at the rate of $15 million per gold medal. The nation’s self-esteem is surely neither so low nor so brittle as to require this level of investment, and it is money that in some instances could be more wisely spent. A shift to funding high-participation sports at grassroots levels might not result in the same surge of collective euphoria every four years, but it would contribute in a more sustained fashion to national wellbeing.

In the same paper, Greg Baum posits “Here is the nub. The Crawford report implies what we will say outright, that it would be poor reflection of our maturity as a nation if we continued to live and die exclusively by our Olympic medal tally.”

Richard Hinds argues that the AOC gravy train plan doesn’t have wheels. He concludes that when the Federal cabinet meets to discuss the response to the Report “In their hands will be a document that has the potential to prompt much- needed change in the impact sports funding has on the everyday lives of Australians – not just for those 16 chest-beating days every four years.” In an earlier article Richard Hinds observes that “It remains to be seen if the Crawford Report will be successful in its laudable intentions: to ensure government spending leads to increased grassroots participation, greater inclusiveness, the restoration of physical education in schools, a positive impact on public health and to improve and empower poorly administered sports.” Dan Silkstone explores the Report’s focus on participation sports and in another article discusses the gold medal stoush.

Ruth Brown, Charlie Happell and Trevor Cook provided a Crikey view of the Crawford report.

There have been some interesting comments in response to web based articles. As of 7.30 p.m. (EST) on 19 November, for example, there were 25 comments on John Coates’ article. One of these poses a question about the impact of investment in elite sport: “Has the advent of the funding of elite sport in Australia improved the health of young Australians over what it would have been without this funding? If so, it is money well spent. If not, then monies should be focused on participation rather than excellence. Before 100 million is given, this should be answered unemotionally and convincingly.”

Postscript

Some links from 20 November via Peter Logue: a Sydney Morning Herald post by Malcolm Maiden and an interview with David Crawford on Radio National.

Australia Talks (Radio National) discussed the Crawford report 19 November

The Independent Sport Panel appointed in August 2008 by the Minister for Sport, Kate Ellis, has delivered its report. Its task was to investigate ways of ensuring that Australia’s sporting system remains prepared for the challenges of the future. Its brief was to “look at sport at both the elite level and at the grassroots community level, as part of a top-to-bottom examination of Australian sport and will look for better ways to run, promote and manage sport in Australia”.

This is the Minister’s press statement about the report.

As one might expect there were some immediate responses to the report including this one. I am looking forward to writing about the report and am keen to explore what a 21st century sports system might look like in Australia. I believe it will be a connected sport system (Institute 4.0) and it will address its positioning in an edgeless space. These two themes have been important issues for me this year.

The second presentation of Day Two of the NESC Forum was delivered by Gavin Reynolds of the National Sport Information Centre.

Photo Source

This is a copy of his PowerPoint presentation:

The first session of day was introduced by Anne-Marie Harrison (Victorian Institute of Sport). She welcomed Wilma Shakespear and Michael Scott to their joint presentation providing an international perspective to the Forum.

Wilma Shakespear discussed  her experiences at English Institute of Sport (EIS) and her global observations about high performance environments. She described her early experiences in arriving in England in 2001 and noted the transformation of the high performance sports system over the following eight years. Two key features of the change in this time were the merging of EIS in UK Sport and the  allocation of funds to successful programs.

Wilma observed that as the system changed the focus of the system changed. The system became creative and innovative. It was targeted at sports who were close to medal performance. There was broad spectrum engagement. Development programs were part of this change.

Wilma pointed to the emergence of a Performance Directors’ Forum within UK Sport. This forum enabled exchanges at a time when the system was developing. She noted too the annual conference hosted by UK Sport as a much anticipated event that everyone wanted to attend.

In her overview of global developments, Wilma compared the Olympic Gold Medal table for USA and Germany 1988-2008. She noted the structural issues Germany faced and the internal focus that emerged post re-unification. Wilma emphasised the global forces at play in high performance sport and urged delegates to respect and recognise the knowledge available within and outside Australia.

Wilma concluded her talk with the characteristics of an outstanding high performance system:

• The Australian daily training environment
• The Japanese planning approach
• The French integration of education
• UK funding, research and innovation
• The German club structure
• Canadian approaches to high performance independence

Michael Scott

Photo Source

Michael’s presentation to the Forum was specific to swimming. As background information, Michael noted that Great Britain won 6 medals in Beijing  (more than last four Olympics combined). In the Rome 2009 World Championships Great Britain won eight medals (placed third on points score, and 27 finalists.)

Michael noted that performance success has clear implications for funding. He reported that UK Sport adopts a no compromise approach to funding success. Michael is accountable for the performance of swimmers and is employed by HP Swimming Ltd, a body independent of Bitish Swimming.

Funding for swimming in the 2005-2009 quadrennium was 20 million pounds (sterling) and for 2009-2013 this rose to 25 million pounds sterling. These funds include:  athlete funding awards, SSSM appointments in Scotalnd, Wales, and the There are 30 staff at present not all full time. There are additional funds for performance lifestyle support too. Further investment is being made in research and innovation. Michael has responsibility all aspects of World Class Performance.

In the UK there are 5 training centres with 14 full-time coaches. These training centres are operated and managed by British Swimming. Michael was very clear that Swimming in the UK controls its own destiny. It is one of a small number of sports that has guaranteed four year funding with additional funding bonuses if 2010 performance goals are met.

Michael noted that the performance plan for Swimming requires identified annual benchmark events  (2010 Commonwealth Games, 2011 World Championships, Shanghai). Athletes are assessed at these events. Success is calibrated in a series of athlete incentive payments: Podium Level A 26,000 pounds sterling, Finalist 19,000 pounds sterling, Top 16 finish 13,000 pounds sterling. Ultimately the strict incentives are designed to deliver performance at the home Olympics.

Michael directs the British Institute of Swimming. It is a hands on role. He has a strategic plan for four years. Each year there are Annual Performance Target KPIs in three Dimensions: athlete, climate, systems. UK Sport undertakes an independent survey of athletes’ perceptions. These KPIs:

• Monitor progress
• Provide evidence of impact
• Inform prioritisation
• Help understand factors most important in the lead up to the Olympics

Michael noted that 42% of Australian medals in Beijing were won by swimmers. He noted too that despite this funding in 2009 was the lowest in the quadrennium. ustralia had a $2m decrease whilst GB had an increase 5 million pounds sterling. Michael indicated that Europe is getting stronger in swimming and drew attention in particular to Germany and Russia. He noted Brazil’s improvement even before the Olympics award.

Michael’s strong concluding point was that Australia must decide on its funding model. He emphasised the importance of accountability and controlling one’s own destiny.

Patrick Hunt introduced Neil Craig, Ken Wallace, Gary Slater, Andrew Matheson as the panel members.

Patrick noted that the theme for the NESC Forum was relationships between coach, practitioner, manager, and athlete. This panel explored these relationships. Patrick worked as the facilitator for this panel.

Photo Source

Andrew discussed how a diverse group of people worked together in a network for a performance outcome cohered in rowing.

Neil discussed how the system worked in a club culture. It is a culture that is results driven. It is strong on continuing improvement. Athletes deliver the product. The expectation of sports scientists is to fit into the culture. The club has decided to compete in all games. This needs innovation and the willingness to make errors. The expectation is that you must contribute to the health of the team: you must trust each other and work together. It is important to address any issues early. Neil emphasised accountability and responsibility.

Gary discussed his role as practitioner bringing teams together. He noted the dfferent role he played as a consultant.

Ken discussed his role as an athlete. Want to work closely with coach. Trust and communication. A lot of services happen away from me as athlete. Athlete wants everyone on same page and for me to be the best. Example of Beijing Games. Communications system as an example. Ken’s background doing it tough outside the system. Love and passion before HP system. Still discovering opportunities. Top end 1% quest.

Photo Source

Neil discussed what would change the team dynamic. Losing He is getting better at being no different at all. Adversity is seen as an opportunity, and the voice of responsibility is encouraged. Players want a balanced approach from coach and from each other. Blame is transformed by responsibility. The club has a 24 hour rule about response to performance. After 24 hours next phase starts. Winning is a challenge particularly with a block of success (Geelong, Women’s Hockey) and can be seductive. There needs to be a rigorous, candid approach. AFL performance is very public. This is a whole club ethos and the senior coach’s responsibility. Neil defines and dictates the culture of the club. There are tough conversations to ensure no issues fester.

Andrew discussed his NZ experience and noted the strength of a centralised program. Everyone is in same place. It is easy to facilitate discussions and interactions. Centralisation helps simplify delivery. There are many enablers focused on performance.

Neil asked who controls this relationship? Who appoints? At the club Neil determines employment decisions. What if you are a sports scientist in a system? This led to a wide ranging discussions about sport scientists and coaching.

Andrew discussed chasing the 1% of innovation and missing the 95%: what if we get the right athletes and coaches; develop simple technical models from the first stroke: and the athletes are conditioned and nourished. They will be well prepared athletes. Andrew continued with his discussion of managing a data rich sport. It is very important to have critical wisdom to identify relevant, appropriate data.

Neil discussed managing interactions within a club and the importance to be attached to meetings and touching base. Gary discussed facilitating a network of practitioners. Ken discussed the occasional meetings with service staff and continuous daily work with coach.

Andrew, Ken, Gary and Neil discussed what excited them about their work.

The final session of Day One was introduced by Ken Norris. James Fantasia (Director of Football), Rodney Eade (Head Coach) and Bill Davoren (Head, Physical Conditioning) presented The Team Behind a High Performing Sport: A Case Study.

James Fantasia introduced the talk. He shared a video of  a week behind the scenes with the Bulldogs club in Round 15 week v Collingwood (one point loss 110-111). Channel 7 filmed the week’s preparation. James provided some historical background to the Bulldogs (Founded 1877, entered the VFL in 1925). he noted the development of a Learning Centre at the club (a $30 million faciliity). The club has 20 full-time personnel and 55 part-time staff. There are seven key areas (administration, coaching, physical conditioning, development, medical services, recruiting, football operations and logistics).

James presented an organisational plan but acknowledged that the club is a flat line organisation. He noted the importance of the club’s business values. The Bulldogs are a process driven club keen to preserve intellectual property.  The club uses the Leading Teams approach. Bulldogs have adapted this approach. James discussed role clarity at the club and noted that everyone is clear about their responsibilities.

James concluded his talk with some characteristics of the culture at the club:

• Education priorities
• Attention paid to the recruitment of staff
• Standards on and off the field
• Honest and open communication including peer assessment

Rodney Eade discussed the Coaching Department at the club and explored the environment the club wants to create. There are 45 players and 20 staff. The key functions of the Coaching Department are: game plan; skills; training planning; analysis; game review; match day preparation; season, weekly and daily planning; individual sessions. Rodney discussed four key points:

• Role of the Head Coach
• Motivation
• Openness to knowledge sharing
• Clarity of goals (and process delivers goals)

Rodney noted the commitment to a continuous improvement environment. Creative thinking is encouraged in high challenge environments. Emphasis is placed on an enjoyable daily training environment. He was very clear about the superordinate importance of the team.

Bill Davron discussed his 12 months of learning in AFL. A year ago he jumped at the opportunity to take up his role at the club.He shared his admiration for the game and the players in it. he gave an example of  Preliminary Final intensity. In this game one athlete ran 19.5kms, 7kms of this at high intensity. The player had 350 efforts and 290 maximum accelerations.

Bill underscored the demand to make hard decisions quickly in AFL and used his own experience of modulating training for 45 players’ loads. What pathway should be developed for each player?  Bill emphasised the importance of links he had developed with Victoria University to develop his approach at the club.

Wes Battams introduced Michael Flynn and Hamish Jeacocke to present on Finding the edge: a case study with Triathlon.

Michael discussed his learning journey through observation and experience and introduced his theme of innovation through survival with this video:

Michael drew attention to the lessons that can be learned from:

• The Australian coat of arms
• A circle the wagons under attack.
• Geese flying in formation

Michael’s vision for the edge is fundamental clarity. Like Peter Keen, he wishes to have goals that are a real test for big dreams. He emphasised the need to plan first, attract the best people, identify passionate loyal colleagues and risk takers.

Michael’s talk was interwoven with data presentations by Hamish Jeacocke. Hamish presented results data from 1997 to the present for all three triathlon disciplines and overall race results. Michael explored the implications of these data for technical and tactical developments in triathlon.

Photo Source

Allan Hahn introduced Dan Billing as the first presenter in the afternoon session. At present Dan’s work is addressing occupation (trade) specific requirements in the Australian military. His talk was entitled Human Performance in the Military Context.

Photo Source

Dan discussed the environments in which soldiers perform and considered the implications of physical fatigue in a military context. He noted the importance of adaptability and discussed the monitoring of the potential weakest links in teams.

Dan explained the deployment cycle for military personnel. The cycle involves personal training, task force generation, preparation, deployment, and demounting (reconstitution, recovery and leave). He discussed the recruitment prcesses and the dilemmas posed by the difference between chronological age and training age. He noted the need to identify early those individuals of poor physical condition and how to monitor carefully the exercise dose across 1000 recruits.

In the next part of the talk Dan discussed selection into specialist occupations in the military. He noted the importance of physical robustness, dealing with dislocated expectations and mental resilience. The recruitment process was particularly important in identifying those with an internal locus of control.

Dan discussed the prevention of heat injuries in the field. He noted the use of hand held heat stress monitors. Dan’s group is developing guidelines for heat acclimation. He noted that the incidence of heat stress is linked to the load military personnel carry. These loads can range from 22kgs to 55kgs in some cases.

Dan developed his talk with a discussion of mission rehearsal exercises. He noted the importance attached to the fidelity of rehearsal contexts and the use of equipment to monitor physiological status. He indicated that prognosis and diagnosis are possible with these status measures.

Dan discussed deployment with reference to physical capability and body composition. He noted the different approaches required by missions and emphasised the importance of balanced physical capability.

Dan concluded his talk with a discussion of the development of generic fitness standards for military personnel and the establishment of baseline standards.

Dan concluded his talk with some key challenges:

• The relative proportion of pull (reactive) research compared to fundamental push research.
• Converting research into policy is time consuming
• Posting cycles impact upon planning
• Hierarchical structures