Chapter 2
Sports science in Australia:
definitional and practical concerns
Innovation in sport is expected
by the public, by the sponsors and by the participants. The challenge for
sports medicine and sports science is to have that fine line between what is
physiological and safe, and not what the cowboys are doing that might be
harmful and have long-term effects.[1]
Introduction
2.1
This chapter discusses the diverse nature of the sports science
profession and the challenges associated with defining it. It draws attention
to the collaborative role that sports scientists typically play within sporting
clubs and organisations, often focusing on incremental gains in athletes'
performance through cutting-edge technologies and practices. The chapter
concludes by referring to widespread criticism of the role of sports scientists
in Australia.
What is sports science?
2.2
There is no accepted definition of sports science in Australia.
Some definitions make reference to the role of the profession in terms of
sports performance, while others make broader reference to helping athletes.
2.3
Exercise & Sports Science Australia (ESSA) defines sports science
as:
... the study and application of scientific principles and
techniques with the aim of understanding, and providing information that can be
used to improve sports performance.[2]
2.4
Dr Nick Brown, the Deputy Director of Performance Science and Innovation
at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), described the practice simply as
'the use of science to help athletes'.[3]
2.5
The Australasian College of Sports Physicians (ACSP) submitted that
medical scientists, allied health practitioners and medical practitioners can
also be considered sports scientists 'or at the very least acting in part as
sports scientists', depending on the role they perform in sporting
organisations.[4]
However, it is important to note that the Australian Sporting Commission (ASC)[5]
distinguishes between sports science and sports medicine.[6]
2.6
'True sports scientists', the Department of Regional Australia, Local
Government and Sport (DRALGAS) submitted, 'are a small, highly qualified set of
individuals, with significant levels of academic and practical experience'.[7]
However, the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) submitted that the title
sports scientist is 'being adopted by individuals who are not sufficiently
qualified and whose practices are not scientific'.[8]
2.7
Mr Daniel Greenwood—a
Queensland-based sports scientist—submitted
that the absence of a precise definition has 'allowed a variety of
"pseudo-science" practitioners to operate under the same
classification as highly qualified and experienced specialists'.[9]
In effect, the Australian Athletes' Alliance (AAA) submitted, currently
'anyone' can call themselves a sports scientist.[10]
A diverse practice
2.8
The lack of an official or widely accepted
definition of sports science has led to several conceptions covering a diverse
set of practices. The term has been used in media reporting to describe
a range of activities within Australian sport and sporting clubs. Professor
Damian Farrow, Professor of Sports Science at the AIS, believes that the lack
of awareness about the number of differently skilled sports scientists has
therefore led to some being 'tarred with the same brush' as others who have
come under recent scrutiny.[11]
He said that while many professionals answer to the 'generic' term 'sports
scientist':
... we are a group of diverse specialists that have developed
specific knowledge and skill in one area of science. If we consider the team of
sports scientists within a high-performance sport setting, such as the [AIS] or
an AFL club, the diversity of expertise is a defining feature.[12]
2.9
Echoing this view, Mr Richard Eccles, the Deputy Secretary of DRALGAS,
described the practice as a 'broad church'.[13]
DRALGAS critiqued ESSA's definition of an 'accredited sports scientist' as:
... likely to be too broad to adequately differentiate the
level of skills and therefore appropriate level of accreditation for the high
performing sports scientists employed within the institutes and academies of sport
in Australia, and some major sporting organisations.[14]
2.10
Professor Farrow referred to specialists in:
- nutrition—who
assist athletes to maximise their food and hydration strategies to enhance
training and performance;
- physiology—experts
in the conditioning or fitness development of athletes;
- recovery—who
have introduced concepts such as ice baths, compression techniques and better
sleeping habits to high-performance athletes;
- movement—experts
in biomechanics, who measure the technical skill of athletes;
- skill-acquisition—who
work closely with coaches to provide evidence-based advice about the most
effective methods to practice and develop the key skills of a game; and
-
performance—who
collect and analyse the metrics that define a game, relied on to provide
objective statistics on the speed of the game.[15]
2.11
The Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS)—which represents seven
organisations that are governing bodies and custodians of major professional
sports in Australia—similarly
submitted that 'the term "sports scientist" is generic and
that a sports science team may consist of a group of diverse sports science
specialists that have developed specific knowledge and skill in one area of
sports science'.[16]
COMPPS referred to discipline-specific sports scientists, including 'sports
physiologists, recovery specialists, sports psychologists, biomechanists, skill
acquisition specialists and performance analysts'.[17]
2.12
The Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) noted that:
The lack of an overarching regulatory framework, or even a
common set of minimum qualifications and standards which are specific to sports
and athletic performance, means that the role of a ‘sports scientist’ is left
to individual sporting organisations and institutions to determine. The role of
a sports scientist in one sport may be entirely different to the role of a
sports scientist in another.[18]
2.13
One submitter, Mr Andrew Mac Donald, criticised the inquiry's terms of
reference for failing to define 'sports scientists', arguing that the term
applies to an 'unmanageably enormous variety of conduct'.[19]
The tension between performance and
health
2.14
The definition of sports science provided by COMPPS in its submission to
the inquiry highlights the emphasis that is placed on performance:
Sport Science is the study and application of scientific
principles and techniques with the aim of understanding, and providing
information that can be used to improve performance.[20]
2.15
The National Institute Network (NIN) described the practice in similar
terms.[21]
2.16
Dr Jason Mazanov, Senior Lecturer at the University of New South Wales,
Canberra, believes sports science 'has strayed too far towards valuing
performance at the expense of athlete health and welfare'.[22]
In his view:
This is reflected at every level of sport ... from country town
heroes playing while injured to the pursuit of Olympic medals at the expense of
mental health.[23]
2.17
Assistant Professor Annette Greenhow of Bond University similarly
emphasised the need to preserve and maintain the welfare of elite athletes.
Her submission is:
... focused on the special vulnerability of some athletes who
place trust and confidence in others to protect their interests, with the
expectation of technically competent practices and compliance with the law ...
Operating within a highly competitive environment, with economic, social and
psychological drivers to achieve peak performance, opportunities may arise for
the possible exploitation of this special vulnerability in the pursuit of
success.[24]
2.18
Applied Scientists of Queensland also noted the 'influence which sports
scientists can have over coaches and athletes, especially younger more
vulnerable athletes'.[25]
Decision making impacting athlete
health
2.19
Whereas once sport was a 'recreational and casual pastime where even the
top-level players had full-time jobs', it has become increasingly professional
at the elite level. Dr David Hughes, Chief Medical Officer at the AIS,
described this change:
Things have evolved enormously over the last 30 years in
terms of the professionalism of sport and in the ability of athletes to make a
full-time career in some of those codes. But what has not happened is that the
government's framework involved in those sports has not evolved and kept pace,
and I believe that this disparity is what has caused these problems to arise.[26]
2.20
Dr Hugh Seward, Chief Executive of the Australian Football League
Medical Officers Association (AFLMOA), noted that the rise in the number of
qualified sports scientists parallels the transition of Australian Football
League (AFL) players to full‑time professionals.[27]
Dr Seward argued:
The combination of these two factors—the expertise of the
sports scientists and the availability of the players—has results in fitter,
bigger, stronger and faster AFL players. But this has also changed the dynamic
of managing injured players. Once the sole domain of the club doctors and
physiotherapists, now these disciplines work collaboratively in the
preparation, assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of player injuries.[28]
2.21
This may be impacted, however, by the fact that Australia's Olympic
squads and AFL, National Rugby League (NRL), cricket, rugby and soccer teams do
not employ full‑time doctors.[29]
This may mean that medical professionals are not involved in decision making to
the appropriate extent.
2.22
Dr Seward advised that while each AFL club has two to four doctors, none
of these are employed on a full-time basis:[30]
Unfortunately club doctors are one of the few remaining
part-time workers at AFL clubs and clubs often choose to have full-time
employees to undertake an administrative component to their role.[31]
2.23
Dr Larkins submitted that as a result:
Concerns have been raised in medical circles in recent years
in relation to the influence that certain 'sport science' individuals have
exerted on player preparation, injury rehabilitation and, in more recently
publicised cases, medication and supplement administration.[32]
2.24
He submitted that there are:
... clear examples in Australian sport where the role of the
medical practitioner has been undermined and even usurped by non medical
individuals and that sporting codes and associations have allowed this to
happen.[33]
2.25
Dr Seward similarly indicated to the committee that 'with the increasing
influence of sports science, sometimes that encroached on what we, the medical
officers, felt was purely medical decision-making'.[34]
Dr Seward argued for the need for a collaborative approach in relation to the
use of supplements:
The preferred model would be for the sports scientist in
conjunction with a sports nutritionist, a dietician, and the doctor to go
through what they may wish to use together and come to a decision about what is
safe, what is appropriate and, of course, what is legal and complies with the
WADA code. That is what should happen.[35]
2.26
Despite stressing the need for collaboration, Dr Seward argued that
there is scope for club doctors to 'play a more strategic role within their
clubs that has perhaps been overlooked over the last few years'.[36]
2.27
Dr Larkins suggested that, underpinning the multidisciplinary team, the
medical practitioner plays a crucial role in 'overseeing the health of the
athlete and ensuring that the welfare of the individual is paramount at all
times'. In his view, a medical practitioner:
... is best placed to assess health issues and is the only
individual able to legally prescribe medications and make clinical assessments
when there is a health problem arising, be it an injury, illness or mental
health concern.[37]
2.28
While collaboration between sports scientists and club doctors is
important, ESSA's Professor David Bishop similarly believes that 'the doctor
should have the final say because the health of the athlete needs to be the
primary concern'.[38]
2.29
The committee's view is that the protection of athlete health and
welfare must always be the highest priority and overriding consideration in the
pursuit of improved performance.
The collaborative role of sports scientists
2.30
Several contributors to the inquiry referred to the need for a
collaborative approach where a sports science team provides a coaching panel
with evidence-based approaches to athlete development and performance.
Professor Damian Farrow outlined how this may work in practice:
For instance, the coach presents the group with a question
such as Player X has a problem kicking goals in Australian rules football.
A biomechanist, skill acquisition specialist, psychologist
and performance analyst may work collaboratively to compile the objective
information required to diagnose whether this is really true, and if so in what
context, and provide the coaches with a plan of attack to improve that skill.
Similarly, the physiologist, recovery specialist,
nutritionist, psychologist, physiotherapist and doctor may all collaborate on
issues to do with a player’s health.[39]
2.31
Professor Farrow noted that a collaborative team is 'the best method of
providing the immediate peer review required to ensure any recommendation made
to the coaches is principled in science, safe and legal'.[40]
Professor Kevin Thompson also spoke of peer review as a necessary component of
collaboration:
For me, if you have people who are suitably trained,
[ethically] trained, aware of boundaries, aware that you need an evidence base
for practice, can weigh up risks and benefits and then when a coach or an
athlete requests an intervention, whether that be pharmacological or training
change or whatever, that request can be suitably peer-reviewed. It is not
necessarily one person; it is a team of individuals. That is a strength, then,
that within that team you make a decision.[41]
2.32
Applied Scientists of Queensland emphasised the need for a collaborative
process within sporting organisations 'which benefits from open communication
channels between manager and scientists'.[42]
2.33
The SMA suggested that:
In a vast range of sports, sports scientists work
collaboratively with medical practitioners (medical officers),
physiotherapists, dietitians and other members of the sports medicine support
team to ensure that the wellbeing and health of the athletes are at the
forefront of all decisions.[43]
2.34
Concerns have been raised, however, about the position some sports
scientists have held within sporting clubs and the degree of independence they
have operated under. Former SMA president Dr Peter Larkins has referred to
'lone wolf' sports scientists, who are 'given a lot of authority and power by
the clubs that employ them'.[44]
Support for, and criticism of, sports scientists
2.35
A number of commentators have supported the role of sports scientists
and the history of their contribution to sport in Australia. Journalist Mr Tim
Lane wrote:
Over three decades, sports scientists at various Australian
centres of excellence have made a brilliant contribution to much of our Olympic
and other international success.[45]
2.36
Several submitters to this inquiry also praised the role and
achievements of sports scientists in Australian sport. For example:
- Athletics Australia (AA) submitted that Australia's 'small
population and geographic challenges mean that our international success in the
sport of Athletics has always depended on world leading innovation by our
coaches and sports scientists'.[46]
- The AOC submitted that:
Australia has long enjoyed a reputation in international
sporting arenas for having leading sports science/sports medicine practices and
personnel. In that regard, sports science and sports medicine has played a
significant role in the success enjoyed by many Australian Olympic athletes.[47]
- ACSP referred to the 'enormous contribution' of sports scientists
to Australian sport.[48]
- Dr Robins Willcourt—a
sports scientist and director of Epigen Integrated Medicine—described his profession
as 'integral to the functioning of all professional sporting codes'.[49]
- SMA noted that:
Australian sports scientists are highly sought after, and
respected throughout the world, for the contribution they can make to
maximising athletic potential and performance on the field.[50]
2.37
From humble beginnings, a sizeable industry has grown. It has been
estimated that there are approximately 400 to 500 people working as
professional sports scientists in Australia.[51]
After pioneering sports science in Australia the AIS now has about 80 sports
scientists on its staff and is the largest employer of the profession in the
country.[52]
2.38
Professor Peter Ficker was the first scientist to be appointed to the
role of director of the AIS. A highly qualified sports scientist, Professor
Ficker spoke in 2005 of the pursuit of the 'edge' and the need 'to keep working
on the very, very cutting edge of these applications ... that keep us
competitive'.[53]
He called for scientific research and its associated technology to take a more
prominent role to achieve world‑class results.
2.39
In an article Professor Farrow referred to another pioneer,
Professor Allan Hahn, as 'one of the fathers of sports science'.[54]
Commemorating Professor Hahn's retirement as AIS Chief Scientist after more
than 27 years' service in sport, Dr Jodie Richardson wrote that:
In his time at the AIS, Professor Hahn describes sports
technology as having a powerful influence over the entire high-performance
athlete development process. He likens the development of high-performance
athletes to the product development practices in other industries ... Professor
Hahn emphasises that at all levels, from club athletes through to international
competitors; the aim is to develop, refine and promote winning products.[55]
2.40
In Professor Hahn's view:
... sports technologies play a significant role in the
measurement of the physiological and biomechanical parameters crucial to
high-performance in any sport. Techniques including VO2 maximum testing,
genotyping, mathematical modelling of performance; and devices such as force
plates and GPS, provide important evidence-based determination of the
characteristics of an elite athlete.[56]
2.41
The study of sport and exercise science is also a relatively new
area of academia—Australian
universities only began offering degrees in the field in the early
1980s.[57]
However, there are now 12 universities offering fully accredited courses in
Australia, and 3000 students graduating from sport and exercise science courses
a year.[58]
This trend may partly reflect an increasing demand from the professional
sporting industry.
2.42
The general view of the witnesses who appeared at the public hearing is
that issues within the practice are isolated rather than endemic.
2.43
Mr Richard Eccles, Deputy Secretary of DRALGAS, argued that it is:
... important to remember that the vast majority of sports
scientists operate within appropriate ethical frameworks and have athletes'
safety as their primary area of concern.[59]
2.44
The NIN told the committee:
We are very confident that the vast majority of sports
scientists, particularly those working in the Institute Network, are doing the
right thing.[60]
2.45
Mr Nello Marino, Chief Executive of Sports Medicine Australia (SMA),
told the committee that based on feedback provided to him by practitioners, SMA
does not believe that problems are endemic in the profession:[61]
We think there were some practices that were revealed through
the ACC report, but we are not certain whether that was necessarily the case
across all of sport or necessarily all of the large codes.[62]
2.46
SMA described the impact of the
Australian Crime Commission (ACC) report as overshadowing the 'valuable work
provided by the vast majority of sport scientists who provide ethical,
legitimate and untold benefit to their athletes and clientele'.[63]
However, the SMA submitted that:
The fact that many of such individuals exhibiting
unconventional, unethical and unsafe practice highlights some of the
inadequacies in a number of sporting environments into which individuals are
able to be employed without any accountability to a codes of practice or
similar ethical codes.[64]
2.47
ESSA stressed to the committee that the rogue individuals, identified by
the media as 'sports scientists' following the release of the ACC report,
should not be labelled in this way.[65]
It argued that those individuals would not be eligible for accreditation with
ESSA and would not call themselves 'sports scientists'.
Committee's view
2.48
The committee notes that the diverse
views about what sports science is, and the breadth of the activities that several
definitions attribute to the profession, reflect the lack of an official
definition. The committee believes that there is, and should be, a difference
between sports medicine and sports science. The committee agrees with
definitions that refer to sports science's focus on improving performance and
views ESSA's definition as a useful working definition.
2.49
This lack of definition is a
significant barrier for policy-makers, as it is difficult to effectively
regulate an undefined sector.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page