“A need for change” emerges following UK Athletics report

Although many sports are currently cancelled due to Covid-19, that’s not the only issue of their plates. UK Athletics (UKA) has been shaken by the results of an independent review into the organisation, citing concerns with its structures, culture and ethical approach. The review, led by Dame Sue Street and commissioned by elite sports funding body UK Sport, offers a framework for UKA to reform, and not before time.

UKA has been suffering from a series of crises and scandals, and so it was necessary to make the body “fit for the future”. And the list is a considerable one. In February, Panorama revealed that four senior UKA figures had debated whether giving Mo Farah four injections of the amino acid L-carnitine before running the 2014 London Marathon was ethical and in the “spirit of the sport”. There were also concerns over the usage of legal thyroid medication to aid performance – although UKA has denied this.

UKA has faced criticism over its relationship with Alberto Salazar, who was banned in October for doping offences, and it failed to hit its medal target at the 2019 World Championships. Significantly, the body has also lost two former executives in the past few months – chairman Chris Clark, and chief executive Zara Hyde Peters, who failed to disclose her husband’s “inappropriate relationship” with a 15-year-old girl, have both departed.

This is a bad place for a sporting body to be, but it is open to change

A summary of the findings from the independent review offers a particularly damning picture of the issues facing the sport. It reads: “The scars inflicted as a result of the period of difficulty within athletics are clear to see. The impression formed during the review was that athletics in the UK is not (currently) in a good position. Many of the participants that were interviewed highlighted a disappointment at having experienced poor behaviours within the sport, and also referred to a general culture of mistrust.

“This was particularly highlighted in relation to the relationship between UKA and the HCAFs (home countries athletics federations). UKA were accused of adopting a defensive approach to the engagement with stakeholders. It was often referenced that the current state of athletics ‘couldn’t get any worse’.” This is a bad place for a sporting body to be, but UKA has said that it welcomed the review and accepted “a need for change”.

Street acknowledged that there have been some improvements under the UKA’s new leadership, chief executive Joanna Coates and chair Nic Coward. Coates has already stated a desire that, in future, UKA would be more concerned with ethics than medals, and Coward echoes the “need for change”.

Street also reserved some criticism for UK Sport’s focus on medals

The inquiry has recommended board reforms, and is necessitating the introduction of an ethical decision-making culture and a new communication strategy. Street also reserved some criticism for UK Sport, saying it had focused too much on medal totals in the past and had therefore not scrutinised individual sports closely enough.

UK Sport chief executive, Sally Munday said: “The independent review into UK Athletics has provided clear areas of focus to help UKA and the wider spot in the UK to tackle the deep-rooted problems in athletics.” UK Sport has provided UKA with £27 million in funding since 2017, so it has an interest in dealing with this negative culture.

Munday continued: “[The report] has laid the groundwork for some really positive collaboration between ourselves and the home country sports councils to agree a very clear change plan for UKA and the home country athletics federations to work on together.

“We hope that this can mark the beginning of a new chapter for athletics in this country. We’ve been encouraged by the positive engagement we’ve had with the board an executive leadership team at UKA in recent weeks and believe that this can be the springboard needed for one of our most popular sports to flourish.”