Additional comments by Senator Richard Di Natale
The following chapters are to be read in addition to the
first three chapters of this report. Greens Senator, Dr Richard Di Natale,
strongly agrees with the three recommendations in Chapter 3. These recommend that
the government develop a statement of sports ethics, and that sports ethics be
taught to students at tertiary level and athletes within sporting
organisations.
Senator Di Natale notes the committee's recommendation 4 in
chapter 4 that introducing new regulations for sports scientists in Australia
should be delayed until after the Australian Crime Commission's and the
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's findings have been released. However,
Senator Di Natale argues that there are a number of practical measures—that do
not require new regulations—that must be considered now in order to protect
athlete health and welfare.
Further, Senator Di Natale does not believe that accreditation
and other measures must wait until the ACC and ASADA have released their
findings. A 'wait and see' position is not appropriate, for the following
reasons.
- First, an accreditation system and other practical measures to
enhance the accountability of sports scientists are in the interests of
athletes and the public, regardless of the scale of the problems that the ACC
and ASADA may uncover.
- Second, the ACC and ASADA investigations will not be a
comprehensive examination of the extent of issues across Australian sport.
Rather, Senator Di Natale understands that the ACC and ASADA investigations are
limited to two major sporting codes, and certain clubs and individuals within
these codes.
- Third, proposals to improve the current regulatory framework will
not impinge or interfere with the ACC or ASADA's investigations. It is unlikely
that these investigations will have anything to say on the accreditation and regulation
of sports science.
The following chapters on the accreditation and regulation
of sports scientists, and the corporate governance arrangements of sporting
organisations, make a number of recommendations. The current frameworks, and
the cultures underpinning them, are inadequate and should be addressed as a
matter of urgency. As chapter 1 of this report noted, the ACC's February 2013
report identified that sports scientists have 'gained increasing influence over
decision-making' within Australian football codes. This was also reflected in
the findings of the Switkowski report. Protecting the welfare of athletes and
the interests of the Australian sporting public should not wait for further
findings to be released. Failings in governance and best practice are already known
and steps should be taken immediately.
Structure of the additional comments
The additional comments are structured into the following
five chapters:
- Chapter 5 examines the issue of accrediting sports scientists. It
makes a strong case for a framework to be put in place to accredit sports
scientists and to ensure that the profession is properly identified and held
accountable.
- Chapter 6 discusses regulatory options to enhance the oversight
of sports scientists in Australia, including a system of registration, a
'negative licencing system' supported by a code of conduct, an external
oversight body and legislated protection of athlete health and welfare.
-
Chapter 7 notes that the boards and management of sporting
organisations and clubs have an important role in establishing a governance
framework within which sports scientists operate responsibly and ethically.
-
Chapter 8 discusses matters related to the inquiry, including the
use of supplements.
Recommendations by Senator Richard Di Natale
Recommendation 1
3.31 The committee recommends
that the federal government consider developing a statement of ethics
that would apply to all Australian participants in sports.
Recommendation 2
3.38 The committee recommends that tertiary institutions
offering sports science courses include topics on ethics, which should refer to
the duty of care of sports scientists to athletes and the importance of
protecting athlete health and welfare.
Recommendation 3
3.40 The committee recommends that sporting organisations
and/or clubs provide all athletes entering professional and/or high‑performance
sports programs with specific training on sports ethics, integrity issues and
their rights and responsibilities in relation to their long-term health and
welfare.
Recommendation 4
5.86 Senator Di Natale recommends that the Department of
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport (DRALGAS) conduct a
feasibility study into Exercise & Sports Science Australia's (ESSA) ability
to administer a national system of sports science accreditation. In conducting
this study, DRALGAS should consider the findings of both the Australian Crime
Commission's report on organised crime and drugs in sport and the Australian
Sports Anti-Doping Authority's ongoing investigation into drugs in sport. ESSA
must be capable of developing and implementing a tiered system that:
- requires minimum qualifications
or relevant demonstrated experience;
- offers specialisation in
relevant disciplines;
- is relevant and of value to the
profession and employers; and
-
is capable of achieving
widespread uptake.
Recommendation 5
5.91 Senator Di Natale recommends that, subject to the
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport's
feasibility study and its consideration of the Australian Crime Commission's
and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's findings:
- Exercise & Sports Science Australia (ESSA) should be
recognised and promoted as the single national accrediting body by all sporting
employers in Australia; and
- where an individual is hired by an employer in a sports science
role, they must be able to demonstrate that they hold current ESSA
accreditation as a sports scientist. This must be demanded by employers to
prevent rogue individuals from 'code-hopping'.
Recommendation 6
5.94 Senator Di
Natale recommends that accreditation as
a sports scientist should be a condition of ongoing employment. If an
individual's accreditation is rescinded by the accrediting body following a
breach of its code of conduct or an individual does not satisfy the
re-accreditation requirements, the individual's employment with the sporting
organisation should be terminated. Employers should actively confirm the
accreditation status and level of the personnel they employ in sports science
roles on an annual basis, by formally requesting confirmation from the
accrediting body. The accrediting body should ensure that it has the
resources and processes in place to respond to these requests in a timely way.
Recommendation 7
6.38 Senator Di Natale recommends that, following the
establishment of a widespread, tiered system of accreditation for sports
scientists in Australia, the government should consider including relevant
sports science disciplines in the National Registration and Accreditation
Scheme.
Recommendation 8
6.57 Senator Di Natale recognises
the need for publicly accessible information
about substances and practices impacting on athlete health and wellbeing. The
Senator recommends that the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government,
Arts and Sport consider forming and promoting an independent advisory group.
The utility of an independent source of advice would be to provide up-to-date,
independent information for athletes, parents, sporting organisations, peak
bodies and coaching staff.
Recommendation 9
7.51 Senator Di Natale recommends that the Australian
Sports Commission's Sports Governance Principles and AIS Sports
Science / Sports Medicine Best Practice Principles be:
- recognised as promoting best
practice principles;
- adopted and adhered to by
Australian sporting organisations; and
- periodically reviewed to ensure
that they strike the right balance between strengthening integrity measures and
respecting the rights and best interests of athletes.
Recommendation 10
7.54 Senator Di Natale recommends that the Minister
for Sport makes publicly available information about the role, composition and
progress of the Australian Sports Integrity Network.
Recommendation 11
7.93 Senator Di Natale recommends that where a qualified
medical practitioner is employed by a sporting organisation or team, the
medical practitioner be required to approve any decision relating to athlete
health and welfare including the use of supplements. Further, a sport scientist
should be required to consult with an organisation or team’s medical officer
regarding supplements as appropriate.
Recommendation 12
8.11 Senator Di Natale recommends that where supplements
are used within national sporting organisations, those organisations consider
encouraging only the use of supplements classified as Group A in the Australian
Institute of Sport Sports Supplement Program.
Recommendation 13
8.14 Senator Di
Natale recommends that national
sporting organisations consider:
- implementing central registers of supplements in use by
teams/clubs; and
-
making this information publicly available.
Chapter 5
Developing a system of accreditation for sports scientists
Introduction
5.1
This chapter examines the important issue of accrediting sports
scientists. Currently, Exercise & Sport Science Australia (ESSA) offers
accreditation for sports scientists, but it is not compulsory. Further, of
those that decide to be accredited, there is no regulatory framework that
governs their conduct as a sports scientist.
5.2
This chapter put the case for a framework that accredits sports
scientists to ensure that they are trained, identified and held accountable for
their actions. It is divided into the following sections:
- current accreditation arrangements and levels of sports
scientists in Australia;
- accreditation in the United Kingdom (UK);
-
support for a national, compulsory accreditation scheme in
Australia;
- the key elements of an Australian accreditation scheme;
- considerations in designing a tiered accreditation scheme;
Current accreditation arrangements for sports scientists
5.3
In her submission to this inquiry, Assistant Professor Annette Greenhow
described the concept of accreditation as follows:
Accreditation is a form of authorisational and informational
regulation and has been described as establishing a ‘token of trust’ providing
the assurance of a minimum level of competency. It provides a system where
individuals voluntarily seek to meet certain minimum entry requirements and
on-going compliance with standards and codes of conduct. One reason for
establishing an accreditation system is to uphold standards and maintain public
confidence in particular activities. However, central to the value and success
of an accreditation system is the credibility of the accrediting authority. The
ultimate decision rests with those who use the services and acceptance of the
intrinsic value of the token of trust.[1]
5.4
Table 5.1, below, was prepared by the Department of Regional Australia,
Local Government, Arts and Sport (DRALGAS) in a response to a question (on
notice) from the committee's public hearing. The table shows current
accreditation and registration arrangements for a range of professionals who
may be involved in a 'sports science' department. It shows that sports
scientists are neither accredited nor regulated.
5.5
However, ESSA noted that it offers general 'sports science'
accreditation to professionals on a voluntary basis. The Coalition of Major
Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS) noted in its submission that
while accreditation 'is a requirement of all doctors, physicians,
physiotherapists and podiatrists who work alongside athletes, accreditation is
not a current requirement to practice as a sports scientist'.[2]
ESSA's accreditation
5.6
ESSA described its role in accrediting qualified specialists as 'to
ensure that appropriate standards of technical and ethical conduct are met and
maintained by all those in practice'.[3]
It has administered a sports science accreditation program since 1996.[4]
ESSA-accredited sports scientists are:
... 3 or 4 year university trained exercise and sports science/
human movement studies graduates. They specialise in helping an individual
athlete or team to improve their sporting performance through the uses of
scientific knowledge, methods and applications in the area of physiology,
biomechanics, psychology, motor control and motor development.
They evaluate research, assess and advise on the technical and practical
aspects of training, injury prevention, technique analysis, and nutrition,
optimisation of performance, and recovery practices in all areas and levels of
sport.[5]
5.7
By way of comparison, ESSA also accredits 'exercise scientists' and
'exercise physiologists'. It explains the accreditation requirements for these
professions as follows:
Exercise scientists are 3 or 4 year (or equivalent)
university trained exercise and sports science/ human movement studies
graduates. They specialise in the design, implementation and evaluation of
exercise and physical activity. They provide intervention for improving general
health, prevention of chronic diseases, and sports performance enhancement.
Table 5.1: Professionals
who may be involved in a 'sports science' department
Profession |
Professional body
|
Accreditation of University or Tertiary Courses /
Overseas Practitioner assessment
|
Registration
|
Sports physician (doctor)
|
Australian College of Sports Physicians
|
Yes, by Australian Medical Council. Undergrad/post
grad medical course. Specialist training
|
Yes, AHPRA
Both at graduate medical practitioner level and at
specialist level – training conducted by College. Protection of title:
'Specialist Sports Physician'
|
Physiotherapist
|
Australian Physiotherapy Association
|
Australian Physiotherapy Council
|
Yes, AHPRA
At graduate level
|
Psychologist – Sport and Exercise
|
Australian Psychology Society (assesses overseas
practitioners)
Also runs 'colleges' including sport and exercise
|
Australian Psychology Accreditation Council
(Universities only)
|
Yes, AHPRA
At graduate practitioner level. Area of endorsement
'sports and exercise' – requires masters of PhD
|
Sports Dietician
|
Sports Dietitians Australia
|
Dietetics Association of Australia. Undergrad/post
grad courses. No recognition of specialities
|
No
Must be a member of DAA to join Sports Dietitians
Australia plus extra course completion required (run by SDA)
|
Chiropractor
|
|
Council on Chiropractic Education Australasia
|
Yes, AHPRA
Graduate level
|
Sports Scientist
|
Exercise and Sports Science Australia. Full
membership as 'sports scientist' requires undergrad degree in exercise/sport
science plus 500 hours supervised practice
|
No. Although ESSA says will commence from 2014
|
No
|
Performance Analyst/Biomechanics
|
None in Australia.
International Society for Performance Analysis in
Sport (UK based)
|
No. Although ESSA may cover relevant undergrad
degrees from 2014
|
No
|
Strength and Conditioning Coach
|
Australian Strength and Conditioning Association (No
membership qualifications apparent)
|
No
|
No
|
Coach (senior coach, assistant coach, senior assistant coach,
development coach, development welfare coach etc.)
|
No specific professional body apparent in Australia
aside from Australian Strength and Conditioning Association
|
No
ASC provides an online education system (called
'accreditation') providing three tiers of education. Service Skills Australia
(Training and Skills Council) provides a VET training package in Sport,
Fitness and Recreation
|
No
|
Source: Department of Regional Australia, Local
Government, Arts and Sport, answer to question on notice, 12 June 2013
(received 25 June 2013).
Exercise physiologists are 4-year university qualified allied
health professionals who specialise in the delivery of exercise, lifestyle and
behavioural modification programs for the prevention and management of chronic
diseases and injuries. [Exercise physiologists] provide physical activity and
behaviour change support for clients with conditions such as cardiovascular
disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, depressions, cancer, arthritis, [chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease] and many more.[6]
Low levels of accreditation
5.8
In its 2012 Annual Report, ESSA listed 2509 accredited exercise
physiologists and only 19 accredited sports scientists among its membership.[7]
ESSA has accredited a total of 52 sports scientists since 1996.[8]
Despite the low number of accredited sports scientists, as mentioned in chapter
2 ESSA estimates that there are 400 to 500 professional sports scientists in
Australia.[9]
ESSA has commissioned a sports science workforce audit in order to obtain
more information about the scope of the profession.[10]
Table 5.2: ESSA
Membership
Membership Category
|
2012
|
2011
|
Movement in numbers
|
Student
|
516
|
692
|
- 25.5%
|
Exercise Science (Full)
|
3092
|
2724
|
+ 13.5%
|
Associate
|
29
|
26
|
+ 11.54%
|
Accredited Exercise Physiologist (AEP)
|
2509
|
2016
|
+ 24.45 %
|
Accredited Sports Scientist (ASp)
|
19
|
17
|
+ 11.07%
|
Academic
|
34
|
34
|
+ 0%
|
Source: Exercise & Sports Science Australia,
Annual Report 2012, p. 8, http://www.essa.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2012-low-res.pdf
(accessed 21 May 2013).
5.9
ESSA attributed the success of its exercise physiology accreditation
program to the recognition of exercise physiologists as allied health
professionals in 2005 and the subsequent allocation of Medicare provider
numbers to them.[11]
Exercise physiologists were also added to the Department of Veterans'
Affairs provider list and recognised by WorkCover and health funds. ESSA
suggested these events led to employers specifying the accreditation in job
descriptions.[12]
5.10
ESSA attributes the low numbers of individuals seeking sports science
accreditation to lack of demand from employers.[13]
Associate Professor Christopher Askew, President of ESSA, suggested that some
professionals had also misunderstood what ESSA was trying to achieve:
Some sports scientists have looked at ESSA and said, 'You do
not give me what I need to do my job. You do not give me a journal in
biomechanics. You do not give me continuing education in biomechanics.' But
that is not what we set out to do. We set out to establish a benchmark that is
gauged from industry standards and from evidence-based practice so that
everyone reaches that minimum set of standards as an accrediting role.[14]
5.11
In essence, the ESSA sports science accreditation that has been taken up
in limited numbers by the industry is for the general or meta-title of 'sports
scientist'. While ESSA has in the past developed a tiered system—which offered a base
level of accreditation together with a higher level of specialisation—due to the low levels of
accreditation it has not promoted this more advanced system.[15]
Professor David Bishop indicated to the committee that the tiered system 'is
all in place currently. It just needs to be reactivated'.[16]
5.12
The National Institute Network (NIN) submitted that as ESSA's
accreditation system currently stands, it is:
... relevant predominately to exercise physiologists working in
clinical settings and has not been considered highly relevant by other sports
scientists who work with athletes.[17]
5.13
In its submission, NIN referred to accrediting bodies associated with
the most common disciplines of sport science. Table 5.3, reproduced from NIN's
submission, shows the accrediting bodies for various sports science
disciplines.
Table 5.3:
Accrediting bodies associated with sport science disciplines
Discipline
|
Accrediting body
|
Biomechanics
|
Australian & NZ Society of Biomechanics
|
Biochemistry
|
Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists
|
Nutrition/Dietetics
|
Nutrition Australia / Dietitians Association of
Australia
|
Strength & Conditioning
|
Australian Strength & Conditioning Association
|
Performance Analysis
|
International Society of Performance Analysis in
Sport
|
Physiology
|
Exercise & Sports Science Australia
|
Podiatry
|
Australian Podiatry Association
|
Psychology
|
Australian Psychology Board
|
Skill Acquisition
|
No accrediting body
|
Technology/Engineering
|
International Sports Engineering Association
|
Source: National Institute Network, Submission 14, p. 3.
5.14
While several accrediting bodies exist for sport science disciplines,
DRALGAS informed the committee at the public hearing that it is 'inevitable
that there will be people who are going to be working with athletes who may not
be covered' by one of these bodies.[18]
Accreditation in the United Kingdom
5.15
The UK has an accreditation system for sports scientists that may offer
a model for broad-based accreditation in Australia. As chapter 1 noted, the
British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) is the professional
body for sport and exercise sciences in the UK. BASES was founded in 1984 and
is 'concerned with setting, maintaining and enhancing the professional and
ethical standards of its members who are actively involved in sport and exercise
science'.[19]
Like ESSA, BASES promotes standards through the adoption of a code of conduct
and an accreditation scheme. Practitioners who are deemed by BASES to 'have the
minimum knowledge, skills and understanding necessary to be safe and fit to
practice as a sport and exercise scientist' are entitled to use the term 'BASES
Accredited Sport and Exercise Scientist'.[20]
5.16
In 2012, BASES had 339 accredited members, 23 Certified Exercise
Practitioners and 20 members holding High Performance Sport Accreditation.[21]
In addition, 191 BASES members were undertaking supervised experience with
100 registered supervisors.
5.17
The English Institute of Sport (EIS) stipulates BASES accreditation in
job descriptions. Professor Kevin Thompson is a
former senior manager and national director of science at the EIS and chaired
sports science committees at BASES over a seven-year period. In evidence to the
committee, he outlined BASES' accreditation process:
There is a supervised experience team. That is usually
undertaken by graduates, so they have their undergraduate degree. They often
start this when they are undertaking a masters degree—that is, a postgraduate
qualification. It involves 500 hours of supervised practice. ESSA have a very
similar process. At the moment there are approximately 200 individuals
undertaking supervised experience. It takes usually a couple of years to build
up that amount of practice. There are approximately 100 sports scientists
already accredited who act as mentors through that process on an annual basis.
Having gained that accreditation, they then practice and every five years they
reaccredit. There is one level beyond that which is for very experienced sports
scientists who have worked for usually six to 10 years in the industry. There
is the potential to take an additional level of accreditation.[22]
This higher level of accreditation—High Performance Sport Accreditation—is based on competencies
in areas such as 'ethical considerations, working within a team, being able to
provide feedback et cetera'.[23]
5.18
Professor Thompson credits EIS' employment pre-condition with an
increase in professional sports in the UK stipulating accreditation in
advertised positions.[24]
As he told the committee:
... accreditation only really gained force within the UK when
the major employers within sport in the UK asked for accreditation in people's
resumes.[25]
5.19
Elsewhere, Professor Thompson has argued:
Critically, as BASES-accredited practitioners have progressed
within the sport industry and gained influential positions, accreditation has
unsurprisingly become more widely accepted as the 'norm'.[26]
He has described a rigorous accreditation system as having:
... great worth to employers who can trust the person
interviewing for the role has relevant and worthwhile qualifications and most
importantly will work using evidence-based practise and within a code of
conduct.[27]
5.20
Professor Thompson told the committee that BASES accreditation had
started out as 'very discipline-specific' but had developed into a more 'broad
based competency'.[28]
He suggested that this reflects the 'interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary'
nature of the profession.
5.21
Professor Thompson referred to BASES' code of conduct as being 'well
established'.[29]
He also noted that the BASES system involved a grandfathering scheme to
recognise the skills and experience of individuals.[30]
In his view, the BASES system provides a good system for Australia to follow.
He suggested that in the UK:
... we now have practitioners who believe in accreditation, a
career pathway and recognition, based in both the professional and the Olympics
sports setting, which I think is a very strong basis.[31]
5.22
Mr Daniel Greenwood, Senior Sport Scientist at the Queensland Academy of
Sport (QAS), referred to the accreditation system in the UK as 'advanced from
where we are at the moment'.[32]
However, he argued that it is not necessarily the 'gold standard' and could be
improved.[33]
Support for an accreditation regime in Australia
5.23
The former federal Minister for Sport, Senator the Hon. Kate Lundy, has
referred to a formal accreditation program for sports scientists as 'a very
worthy idea worth exploring'.[34]
At the Australian Olympic Committee annual general meeting in 2013, Minister
Lundy was quoted as saying:
I've received a lot of feedback from sports scientists and
they are concerned about the reputation of the profession ... Some of them are
highly qualified. Some of them are not. And I think sports bodies and athletes
have a right to know which is which.[35]
5.24
Several submitters to this inquiry have also voiced their support for a
national system that accredits sports scientists in Australia. ESSA, notably,
has called for a mandatory accreditation regime for sports scientists in
Australia, describing current levels of accreditation as 'alarming'.[36]
Professor David Bishop, ESSA's Director of Sports Science, has conducted more
than 70 television, radio and press interviews promoting the work of sports
scientists and calling for national accreditation of sports scientists.[37]
In its submission to this inquiry, ESSA argued that 'regulation of the sports
science industry can only be achieved through ensuring that appropriately
accredited and/or registered sports scientists be employed or contracted to
work with athletes'.[38]
5.25
Mr Richard Eccles, Deputy Secretary at DRALGAS, referred to the
'fundamental position' of the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) as being 'that
action should be taken to ensure that any individuals working in
high-performance sports science meet acceptable professional standards of
accreditation'.[39]
The ASC strongly recommended that:
... action is taken to ensure that any individual working in
high performance sports science in a sport/club/sports institute meets
acceptable professional standards of accreditation.[40]
5.26
COMPPS described as 'incongruous' the situation where 'sports scientists,
with such significant responsibility for the health and well-being of
professional sports people, can operate in an environment that does not demand
professional accreditation'.[41]
One of its members, the National Rugby League (NRL), supported 'a national,
standardised accreditation system for sports scientists'.[42]
5.27
Athletics Australia (AA) called for clarity so it can be assured 'which
scientists are properly qualified and up to date with the latest ethical
standards'.[43]
This, AA suggested, would allow it to only use 'validated' sports scientists
and to provide clear advice to those athletes who establish personal
arrangements.
The key elements of an Australian accreditation scheme
5.28
Senator Di Natale foresees that an effective scheme of accreditation of
sports scientists in Australia would need the following five elements:
- strong support and adoption of the scheme among employers;
- the setting and acceptance of base-level standards of
accreditation;
-
a national system, as opposed to an employer-based system; and
- broad-based agreement on the appropriate accrediting
organisation; and
- appropriate grandfathering arrangements.
The following section considers the committee's evidence on
each of these issues.
Support from employers
5.29
DRALGAS identified two key planks that should form a robust scheme of
accreditation for sports scientists. They are:
... [first] a commitment by employers (whether institutes or
academies of sport or sporting organisations) to only employ sports scientists
of appropriate qualifications with accreditation by an appropriate professional
organisation, and secondly, a commitment that employers will not continue to
employ an individual who has been found by an appropriate professional
organisation to have breached the professional body’s code of conduct
requirements and/or has failed to maintain appropriate accreditation. These
commitments can also be applied to individuals and/or organisations engaged on
a contract basis to provide sports science services.[44]
5.30
DRALGAS referred to the Dietitians Association of Australia as an
example of a strong professional organisation that provides an accreditation
regime that is frequently a pre-requisite for entry into that discipline.[45]
5.31
DRALGAS noted in its submission that, in conjunction with the ASC, it
has begun discussions with state and territory sport and recreation departments
and the major professional sports on stipulating accreditation in the
employment or contracting of sports scientists.[46]
However:
... before such as system can be put into place ... agreement
needs to be reached with all relevant parties as to the appropriate
professional organisation and level of accreditation both of individual
practitioners and the relevant tertiary institutions.[47]
5.32
Professor Thompson recommended that:
... Australian sport should work more closely with Exercise and
Sports Science Australia to deliver an industry-standard accreditation system
which insures that sport scientists require accreditation to gain employment.
Such an accreditation system should value competency and evidence-based
practise and allow existing practitioners with years of experience, but who
might not possess a PhD, to gain accreditation.[48]
5.33
Senator Di Natale notes that the UK example of industry-led efforts to
enforce accreditation requirements shows how widespread accreditation can be
achieved in Australia without regulation. ESSA, for instance, recommended to
boards and administrators that oversight of sports science should include:
- development of an employment policy requiring all high
performance, sports science and medical staff be accredited/registered with
their appropriate professional bodies/boards; and
- formation of a sports medicine and sports science committee that
will allow the board to ensure a focus is given to this particular area of the
organisations’ activities.[49]
5.34
The importance of sporting clubs' corporate governance in promoting a
responsible and ethical working environment for sports scientists is considered
in chapter 7.
The importance of setting a
base-level standards
5.35
Senator di Natale views the setting and acceptance of base-level
standards as fundamental to an effective accreditation system for sports
scientists. At the public hearing, Mr Richard Eccles, Deputy Secretary at
DRALGAS, argued that:
... we need to create an environment where we can be confident
that those closest to our athletes are qualified to do the work they do, that
they meet minimum standards, including ethical standards, and that they are
held accountable for their activities.[50]
5.36
Mr Eccles noted that the profession currently comprises 'a range of
people from various colleges and various affiliations with various regulatory
standards'.[51]
He argued that 'there is a need for some form of consistency across all
the professional bodies'.[52]
5.37
Mr Greenwood expressed the view that:
In my opinion, if you want an applied scientist to be
properly accredited, you need not only minimum qualification standards—and I
think undergraduate degrees are insufficient to call yourself a sport
scientist—but also postgraduate qualifications are important. Supervised
training should also incorporate a large part of that. You then have to have
people who are willing to take on the more junior scientists to lead them into
the field properly.[53]
5.38
In referring to the criticism of ESSA's procedures and current system of
accreditation, Professor Bishop argued in summary that:
... broadly speaking, there is broad agreement that there needs
to be accreditation. I will use an analogy. There is broad agreement that we
want to build this accreditation house; what we are arguing over are the
curtains and the carpet. There needs to be accreditation. If it is three or
four years, if it is 500 or 600 hours, if it is six tiers or four tiers—they
are all the details that we would like to sit around with all of the stakeholders
and nut out. To answer your question, we are very pleased that there is support
for accreditation.[54]
A national accreditation scheme
5.39
Several contributors to the inquiry underlined the importance of a
national approach to accrediting sports scientists. Mr Matthew Finnis, Director
of Australian Athletes' Alliance (AAA), told the committee:
I would prefer a national model which operates across sports
because the fact is that, whilst Australia is a big country geographically, in
this sense we are quite small and it is inevitable that people who operate in
this industry will work for different codes. I think by compiling some
expertise in one place we are going to get better expertise for the benefit of
all and then perhaps be able to link in with international bodies with similar
interests. So I would advocate a national approach.[55]
5.40
Similarly, COMPPS submitted that it is important that accreditation be
administered by a national, independent body:
This would help to avoid a 'piece-meal' approach, different
standards for different sports, and, most importantly, code hopping (i.e.,
sports scientists not adhering to appropriate standards moving to another
sport).[56]
5.41
Further, COMPPS argued that it is important that any national body:
... [be] linked to other international professional
accreditation systems, such as the British Association of Sport and Exercise
Sciences, and Sport and Exercise Science New Zealand, to ensure that sports
scientists who lose their accreditation in one country are not simply able to
move to another country. Equally, that consistency allows for working easily
across jurisdictions.[57]
5.42
Mr Greenwood submitted that 'the absence of an overarching accreditation
system allows anyone to label themselves a sports scientist and practice sport
science in any manner they see fit'.[58]
The problem with employer
accreditation schemes
5.43
It was indicated to the committee that sporting codes in Australia may
be considering establishing their own accreditation schemes for sports
scientists. ESSA expressed concern at this approach:
Our accreditation system and standards systems costs over
$800,000 to run, and there is no change left over. So if the sports are willing
to spend that kind of money, then, as someone said, it is not cost-effective.
We have a similar opinion from talking to some of the sports of: 'We will
register them and we will decide what qualifications they are going to have.'
They could not tell us what qualifications or minimums they were going to have,
so we were concerned about that, given they do not have the experience in an
accreditation system.
Our second concern was the possibility of code-hopping. You
could be with the NRL and you get struck off and then you move onto AFL or
cricket, so it is not a national system to ensure that we are going to protect
the athletes.[59]
5.44
Associate Professor Christopher Askew, President of ESSA, argued that:
I do not think that any one of those groups should have
oversight of any single profession. We would not be here discussing the
possibility of any one employer representing and regulating physiotherapy or
medicine or any of the other professions that are involved.[60]
5.45
COMPPS submitted that an advantage of a national, independent body is:
... that it provides better protection to sporting
organisations from future allegations of misconduct than individual
self-regulation does, and may also help alleviate concerns of cover-ups and
inconsistent standards. This has recently been highlighted by longstanding
allegations that the International Cycling Union was more interested in
protecting Lance Armstrong and the image of cycling than cracking down on
performance-enhancing drugs.[61]
5.46
The Australian Football League (AFL) recently established an internal
Sports Science Association made up of practitioners working within its elite
clubs. Only weeks before the Australian Crime Commission report was
released and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's investigation was
announced, however, the AFL Sports Science Association said that 'isolated
problems between fitness and conditioning personnel and club doctors had been
resolved'.[62]
5.47
Senator Di Natale is not supportive of employer bodies developing and
implementing their own accreditation schemes. In the Senator's view, a
national, independent body should administer sports science accreditation in
Australia for all sports and codes.
5.48
Mr Nello Marino, Chief Executive of Sports Medicine Australia (SMA),
suggested that:
... whilst accreditation is part of the equation, there are a
whole lot of other issues of ethics and integrity that also need to be
ingrained in athletes. In addition to that, certainly the idea of maintaining
professional standards—not just for sports scientists but for all professions
from Sports Medicine Australia's perspective is critical. It at least provides
a foundation to the sorts of skills, expertise and the ethical framework within
which practitioners such as sports scientists operate.[63]
5.49
Dr Ian Ford, Director of the Northern Territory Institute of Sport
(NTIS), similarly cautioned that accreditation should not be seen as
'fool-proof'. Rather, in his view:
... it gives credibility to the profession, to the discipline;
it gives recognition to the work, the experience and the skills that are
required to call yourself a certain type of sports scientist—which I think is
important; and hopefully provides insurance to employers that they have got the
right sort of people there.[64]
The accrediting body
5.50
There is widespread support for ESSA to act as the accrediting body for
sports scientists. In its 2012 Annual Report, ESSA itself asked for:
... greater regulation of the sports science industry by
calling for the appointment of only ESSA-accredited sports scientists across
all sporting codes.[65]
5.51
To this end, ESSA has established a 'high-performance sport
collaborative project' in collaboration with SMA, Sports Dietitians Australia,
Australian Strength and Conditioning Associations, Sports Doctors Australia,
Australasian College of Sports Physicians and the Australian Physiotherapy
Association:
Key goals of this group are to develop (a) a factsheet on
recommended employment criteria for sports science and professional staff, and
their qualifications/accreditation, (b) a flowchart on who should be
responsible for the development, administration and signoff for athlete
supplementation programs, and (c) a position paper on ‘Nutritional supplements
and sports performance’.[66]
5.52
Associate Professor Askew described ESSA's view of the way forward:
I think the very first barrier remains, and that is that it
needs to be mandated that employers of sports scientists employ accredited
sports scientists. That is step No. 1. In the development of how that
accreditation system will look, this is what we are experts in: we seek the
evidence, we liaise with the industry stakeholders and we ensure that the accreditation
process represents and meets the needs of the industry. That process lies ahead
of us. We have a system in place now, but, as you have just said, there is an
opportunity for a much larger buy-in now and we recognise the need to adapt the
accreditation process. We see that that can happen over a six- to eight-month
period—a revised accreditation system can be in place within that time.[67]
5.53
While several bodies exist offering accreditation and/or membership for
disciplines of sports science,
ESSA argued that 'having more than one regulatory body is not in the best
interests of Australian sport and sport scientists'.[68]
Moreover, ESSA submitted that it is 'the only professional body in exercise and
sports science that can provide the quality control required to regulate the
standards of the profession through evidence based practice'.[69]
5.54
ESSA described itself as a 'credible, external arbiter' and submitted
that it is 'uniquely positioned to provide this accreditation'.[70]
Professor David Bishop, Director of Sports Science at ESSA, told the committee:
We believe that, having been doing this for nearly 20 years
and having accredited over 3½ thousand people—and obviously most of those are
exercise physiologists—we have got the processes, the procedures. We have
made mistakes and refined the systems so that we are well placed, following the
input from all the stakeholders, to take this forward.[71]
5.55
The SMA and SDA offered letters of support to ESSA's submission and
endorsed its recommendations.[72]
Mr Nello Marino, Chief Executive of SMA, told the committee that he was 'very
confident' in ESSA's ability to set the necessary standards.[73]
5.56
The Council of Heads of Exercise, Sport and Movement Sciences supported
the role of ESSA in accrediting sports scientists.[74]
It described ESSA's accreditation regime as 'robust and reliable'.[75]
5.57
The AAA submitted that the ESSA accreditation process, if made
mandatory, would address many of the issues it identified in its submission.[76]
5.58
Dr Hugh Seward, Chief Executive of the AFL Medical Officers' Association,
referred to ESSA as an 'accreditation trendsetter' and said that ESSA 'can
provide a great source of expertise'.[77]
5.59
Dr Ian Ford, Director of the NTIS argued for 'supporting further
development and progression' of the work done by ESSA in relation to
accreditation.[78]
He spoke of the need to 'clearly identify what disciplines fall under sports
science' and then to provide support for 'tightening' the accreditation
process.[79]
Dr Ford said that ESSA:
... is certainly a body that has done a lot of work. I do not
think it is about reinventing the wheel; it is about looking at what they are
doing, and the capacity, and providing the support. If, as a result of
discussion with the key stakeholders, ESSA is the best body to progress that,
then we would look to support it I would think.[80]
5.60
DRALGAS also submitted that ESSA is 'perhaps the most immediately
relevant professional organisation currently in existence in Australia'.[81]
However, it submitted that ESSA 'does not currently restrict its membership to
graduates of university courses which have been accredited by ESSA as providing
a minimum level of competency to its students'.[82]
DRALGAS indicated that ESSA will introduce a restriction from the beginning of
2014.
5.61
The NIN submitted that 'the current framework and requirements of a
sport scientist by ESSA is inadequate for the high performance sport system'.[83]
The NIN noted that:
The process of accreditation has been happening within sports
science, but quite slowly, for some time. The issue with accreditation of
sports scientists is that, as was previously alluded to, the definition of
sports science is still so broad and the amount of qualifications that come
under that bracket is so broad that the reason no current body exists is that
it needs to recognise all the disciplines that are involved. To gain any
traction you cannot group some sports scientists and not others, or you have to
change the definition of the term 'sports scientist' to accurately represent
the people that are associated with the National Institute Network or within
the professional bodies themselves.[84]
5.62
However, the NIN did acknowledge that ESSA is in a 'very good position'
to establish a 'broad network'.[85]
It told the committee that ESSA's current limitations—resulting from ESSA's historically clinical
focus—can be
overcome through 'input from the other disciplines of sport science and also
from the more applied sport science'.[86]
5.63
Applied Scientists of Queensland similarly submitted that ESSA currently
fails to:
... adequately represent the needs and requirements of applied
sport scientists or acknowledge the variety of disciplines which contribute to
the sport science collective. The focus on clinical, rather than applied, sport
science presents limitations to the understanding of the role of a sport scientist
in athlete focussed sport environments and restricts their relevance to the
industry as a whole.[87]
5.64
Applied Scientists of Queensland further submitted:
From a knowledge and experience perspective we believe the
university qualifications and the amount of practical experience are both
insufficient. Instead, as alluded to above, an undergraduate and honours degree
should be considered a minimum for university qualifications and a minimum of
1 years full time experience under a senior practitioner should be
required for experience.[88]
Grandfathering arrangements
5.65
The NRL submitted that any accreditation and regulation arrangements
would need to include 'grandfathering' processes to:
... allow the up-skilling for current sports scientists working
in sporting clubs and organisations to ensure experienced practitioners have
the opportunity to gain accreditation.[89]
5.66
Mr Malcolm Speed, Executive Director of COMPPS, also advocated for
grandfathering arrangements to 'enable current practitioners to be accredited'.[90]
He argued that:
There are a lot of very professional and competent sports
scientists working in professional sport in Australia at the moment who do not
have [ESSA] accreditation. Our concern is, subject to being able to regulate
the activities of the sports scientists, that we do not want to lose good
practitioners from the current batch of sports scientists, because the
accreditation system is too high a barrier for them.[91]
5.67
Dr Ian Ford, Director of the NTIS, suggested that grandfathering
arrangements would be 'sensible' because 'people have been involved in certain
disciplines for a very long period of time but may not have some of the formal
qualifications that are required'.[92]
However, he argued that discipline-specific experts should determine whether
such arrangements are necessary.[93]
A tiered system of accreditation
5.68
DRALGAS submitted that if ESSA were to become the peak professional body
for sports scientists, it would need to introduce a tiered system of
accreditation to accommodate the needs of employers.[94]
5.69
Similarly, COMPPS—which
represents seven major employers in Australian sport—submitted that the ESSA requirements for
accreditation are high and difficult to achieve, which in its view may be one
reason why there are so few accredited sports scientists.[95]
COMPPS submitted that it may be preferable for an accreditation model to be
established similar to the current ESSA model, but more applicable for sport
scientists in professional sporting clubs. For example, COMPPS asked, 'should
all sport scientists require post graduate qualifications?'[96]
5.70
Mr Malcolm Speed, Executive Director at COMPPS, referred to postgraduate
qualifications as 'a very high barrier to entry' and suggested that:
In the short term there may be another qualification that
enables sports scientists to be accredited that is less than that. That is an
issue that needs further debate between the sporting bodies and the sports
science community.[97]
5.71
The NRL also supports an accreditation system that 'is able to
differentiate between levels of expertise'.[98]
5.72
At the public hearing, Mr Daniel Greenwood, Senior Sport Scientist at
the QAS, referred to the need for different levels within an accreditation
system. He argued that:
... a tiered system which has an understanding of the
discipline-specific nature of sports science, and making sure that there are
consequences for failing to adhere to moral and ethical standards, are the
pillars of any accreditation system.[99]
5.73
Mr Greenwood also said that an undergraduate sports science degree
should not entitle an individual to call themselves a sports scientist.[100]
Instead, he suggested that this level of qualification should entitle the
individual to provisional membership with an accrediting body.[101]
5.74
In its detailed submission, Applied Scientists of Queensland outlined
two models for a tiered accreditation system. It noted that:
To classify a sport scientist recognition of education,
knowledge and experiential history are important. When considering
accreditation, a tiered system which denotes this understanding would provide industry
standards and aid definition. Importantly this offers potential employers with
confirmation of individuals skills and discrimination of credentials between
individuals for quality control in the appointment of scientific staff.[102]
5.75
The first model proposed by Applied Scientists of Queensland:
... assembles sport science disciplines together and
discriminates between levels of accreditation based on years of experience and
university qualifications. This simplicity standardises expectations and
potentially reduces the workload required for accreditation processes. While
the definition and amount of categories can be specified following rigorous
debate, a provisional 6 tier set-up (Student, Associate, Provisionally
Accredited, Accredited, Senior Accredited, Fellow) is proposed.[103]
5.76
It describes the tiers of accreditation in these terms:
Student membership is open to students in the process
of completing a three or four year degree or equivalent in the field of sports
science.
Associate is available to persons in other
professional fields whose qualifications would not meet the criteria for Sport
Science Accreditation, but whose degree may contribute to the field of sports
science in Australia. For example, a member of another accreditation body such
as an engineer or strength and conditioning professional. This would also
encompass academic professionals, who while not directly interacting with
athletes, use their research to provide important contributions to the area.
Provisionally Accredited Sport Scientist is available
to new graduates of an undergraduate program in sport science or related
discipline who have less than one year’s experience in full-time employment.
Provisional accreditation is also available for those who have completed an
undergraduate degree in a relevant field and are currently completing post‑graduate
qualifications in sport science or related discipline.
Accredited Sport Scientist is available to graduates
who have completed an undergraduate degree and honours degree in the field of
sports science plus a minimum of 1 year full time experience.
Accredited Senior Sport Scientist is available to
graduates who have completed a post-graduate degree (Masters or PhD) in the
field of sports science plus a minimum 2 years full time practical experience,
OR a minimum of 8 years practical experience. Senior practitioners may choose
to specify their discipline specific interests in their post-nominal details
(i.e. Physiology, Biomechanics, or Skill Acquisition).
Fellow is available to members of the governing body.
It recognises those who have achieved a high level of professional
accomplishment, responsibility and service to the association.[104]
5.77
The second model, preferred by Applied Scientists of Queensland, would
provide discipline-specific accreditation:
Under this proposed model ‘sport science’ accreditation can
be organised by a larger organisation which encompasses general skills and
minimum standards. This could be based purely on qualifications and documented
experience. This provides minimum standards for everyone wanting to call
themselves a sport scientist in clubs, schools, and the private sector and
importantly encompasses a code of conduct and ethical accountability.
Once a member of the overseeing body, scientists could
achieve discipline specific accreditation which highlights their
specialisation. Within the discipline specific recognition a tiered system
should exist which could be similar to the previously alluded to tiered set-up.
Competency and accreditation of the individual could be recognised by
discipline specific national groups which already exist, for example:
- Physiology – [National Science Quality Assurance] and the State
and Academy applied physiology network
- Biomechanics – Australian and New Zealand Society of Biomechanics
- Skill Acquisition – Australasian Skill Acquisition Research
Group.[105]
Figure 5.1: Example development chart for sport science
accreditation which encompasses discipline specific knowledge
Source: Applied Scientists of Queensland, Submission 16, p. 10.
National Science Quality Assurance program
5.78
The NIN—which
comprises the state and territory institutes and academies of sport—has a National Science
Quality Assurance (NSSQA) program which provides for a laboratory accreditation
process. It covers physiology and strength and conditioning staff.
However, the program is not available to sports scientists employed outside the
NIN.[106]
5.79
The NSSQA program has recently begun to implement processes for other
fields of sports science, including biomechanics, performance analysis and
sports medicine.[107]
Applied Scientists of Queensland submitted:
While the NSSQA mechanisms are not currently sufficient to
regulate across all sport science disciplines, it is appropriate to consider
the contribution of NSSQA in any plan that looks to establish accreditation and
regulation systems within the sport science industry.[108]
5.80
The NIN, responsible for administrating the program nationally,
similarly submitted that regulatory bodies should:
... work with the NSSQA program to accurately reflect what is
required in an elite sport setting and encourage NSSQA in its expansion of
regulation for all sport science disciplines for high performance sport (eg
NIN, [national sporting organisations] and professional sports).[109]
5.81
ESSA submitted that:
... the public interest is best served by the Commonwealth
Government enforcing mandatory accreditation of all sports science
professionals working within sporting organisations.[110]
Senator Di Natale's view
5.82
Senator Di Natale is of the strong view that an accreditation system for
the sports science profession is necessary. This should be a national scheme
overseen by an independent body. Accreditation should be widespread and for
this to happen, the system needs to be relevant to the industry and hold value
for professionals and employers. Immediate action is required in order to establish
an accreditation scheme.
5.83
Senator Di Natale understands that while some of the major sporting
codes may be considering implementing their own accreditation schemes, the
Senator believes that a single, national system should be introduced that
applies across all sports and codes. Sports science accreditation should be
offered on a tiered basis, with different levels of qualifications, experience
and specialisation recognised through distinct categories of accreditation.
5.84
Senator Di Natale believes that, on the evidence before the committee,
ESSA appears best placed to administer the necessary scheme. However, the Senator
notes that the accreditation options currently offered by ESSA do not meet the
needs of the industry and have not received widespread buy-in. Additionally,
while ESSA noted that it had formulated a tiered system of accreditation, it
appears that this has not been promoted or adopted within the profession.
5.85
Senator Di Natale recommends that DRALGAS conduct a feasibility study on
ESSA's potential to develop and administer a national, tiered system of sports
science accreditation that meets the needs of the profession and employers, and
that can achieve widespread uptake.
Recommendation 4
5.86
Senator Di Natale recommends that the Department of Regional
Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport (DRALGAS) conduct a feasibility
study into Exercise & Sports Science Australia's (ESSA) ability to
administer a national system of sports science accreditation. In conducting
this study, DRALGAS should consider the findings of both the Australian Crime
Commission's report on organised crime and drugs in sport and the Australian
Sports Anti-Doping Authority's ongoing investigation into drugs in sport. ESSA
must be capable of developing and implementing a tiered system that:
- requires
minimum qualifications or relevant demonstrated experience;
- offers
specialisation in relevant disciplines;
- is
relevant and of value to the profession and employers; and
- is
capable of achieving widespread uptake.
5.87
To do so, Senator Di Natale suggests that DRALGAS engage with a broad
range of stakeholders, including professionals, employers and administrators at
both the elite and sub-elite levels, to develop (i) definitions of 'sports
science' and 'sports scientist' which have broad application; and (ii) a tiered
system of accreditation that meets the needs of the profession and employers.
In conducting this study, DRALGAS should be mindful of the costs of
establishing a new accrediting body as opposed to developing and enhancing the
existing functions of ESSA.
5.88
The tiered system should offer a base level of accreditation and/or
provisional membership for students or undergraduate degree holders, as well as
one or more advanced levels that offer specialisation in sports science
disciplines. Senator Di Natale notes the tiered model proposed by Applied
Scientists of Queensland[111]—which provides for
specialised accreditation in physiology, biomechanics and skills acquisition—is worth exploring. The Senator
also recognises the example provided by BASES and its success in implementing a
widespread accreditation regime in the UK. Periodic re-accreditation within an
appropriate timeframe should also be a feature of the accreditation system.
Accreditation as
employment/engagement pre-condition
5.89
Senator Di Natale views accreditation of sports scientists as an
employment/engagement pre‑condition to be crucial to (i) ensuring
widespread buy-in to a national accreditation scheme; and (ii) to establishing
accreditation as 'best practice'. This should apply to a broad range of
professionals who apply scientific principles to the health and performance of
athletes.
5.90
The onus therefore falls to the academies and institutes of the NIN and
the clubs/teams within the major professional sports, as the employers of the
majority of sports scientists in Australia, to lead the way and introduce
mandatory accreditation as an employment/engagement pre-condition. The
committee heard evidence that in the UK the success of widespread accreditation
administered by BASES was the result of leadership from the EIS and other
employers. Senator Di Natale is hopeful that this can be replicated in
Australia.
Recommendation 5
5.91
Senator Di Natale recommends that, subject to the Department of
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport's feasibility study and
its consideration of the Australian Crime Commission's and Australian Sports
Anti-Doping Authority's findings:
-
Exercise & Sports Science Australia (ESSA) should be
recognised and promoted as the single national accrediting body by all sporting
employers in Australia; and
-
where an individual is hired by an employer in a sports science
role, they must be able to demonstrate that they hold current ESSA
accreditation as a sports scientist. This must be demanded by employers to
prevent rogue individuals from 'code-hopping'.
5.92
Senator Di Natale believes that in order to establish accreditation for
sports scientists as best practice, employers must mandate accreditation as an
employment pre-condition. The major sporting employers in Australia, being NIN
and the teams within the organisations represented by COMPPS, should stipulate
sports science accreditation from the identified body as an employment
pre-condition for personnel employed in sport science roles. This should
be construed to apply to a broad range of staff and should not be dependent on
specific position titles or the method of engagement (ie: full-time employee or
part-time consultant).
5.93
A grandfathering period should be implemented to enable personnel
currently employed in a sports science role to attain accreditation.
A tiered system should be introduced once a significant level of base
accreditation has been achieved in the profession. Specialised accreditation
should then become a pre-employment condition for personnel working in relevant
disciplines.
Recommendation 6
5.94
Senator Di Natale recommends that accreditation as a sports
scientist should be a condition of ongoing employment. If an individual's
accreditation is rescinded by the accrediting body following a breach of its
code of conduct or an individual does not satisfy the re-accreditation
requirements, the individual's employment with the sporting organisation should
be terminated. Employers should actively confirm the accreditation status
and level of the personnel they employ in sports science roles on an annual
basis, by formally requesting confirmation from the accrediting body. The
accrediting body should ensure that it has the resources and processes in place
to respond to these requests in a timely way.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page