A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password


Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

March 2018

Calendar Calendar

You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Dave Culbert questions Hollingsworth's ruthless ambition

Dave Culbert questions Hollingsworth's ruthless ambition

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Ends justify the means, six medals a must

By David Culbert
News Limited newspapers
June 14, 2012

Athletics Australia high performance manager Eric
Hollingsworth. Source: The Daily Telegraph

ON a hot August night in Beijing in 2008, after Steve Hooker, Sally Pearson and Jared Tallent had delivered athletics its best Olympic result in 40 years; Athletics Australia president Rob Fildes breathlessly announced a six medal target for London.

It's an ambitious goal, one worth pursuing, and one which AA has aggressively pursued.

The Beijing campaign was led by high performance manager Max Binnington. But he was viewed as being ``not hard enough'' so was replaced by the ambitious Eric Hollingsworth.

Hollingsworth came to AA with a colourful background in performance roles and has become the athletics supremo.

He's survived more than one internal investigation and whilst not enjoying full board support, he has the support of Fildes as the man who can deliver six medals.

Funding has been lavishly spent on the handful of potential medallists and at this year's national championships potential medallists where actively encouraged not to compete, which led to the worst national titles in living memory.

Meanwhile the sport below the super-elite is struggling. The domestic series languished as the top stars focused on London, not local competitive appearances.

Behind the scenes a struggle ensued between Hollingsworth and the selectors, led by former walker Dion Russell along with athletics legends Melinda Gainsford-Taylor and Steve Moneghetti.

Hollingsworth won the battle in sending a small team of guaranteed performers to the Delhi Commonwealth Games as he looked to prepare medallists for London.

This made many uneasy, but the last straw came on the eve of the Olympic trials this March when Hollingsworth stated to the ABC's 7.30 program that ``We've got almost everyone over the line that we need for the team."

Effectively he was telling those with even a glimmer of hope he didn't need them, he had the dozen or so that could deliver six medals.

Thankfully the selectors and the athletes have ignored him.

Picking a young gun like Melissa Breen is not based on medals, but the future and I'd like to see potential 400m finalist Steve Solomon in an individual berth.

If the six medal target is achieved, Hollingsworth and Fildes can rightly claim their decisions have been justified.

But medals alone will not guarantee a prosperous athletics scene in Australia nor deliver a new generation of stars. Evidenced by the fact that despite Cathy Freeman's gold in Sydney, we have no women's 400m runner or 4x400m relay team in London.

Has the ruthless pursuit of medals been worth it? We will find out shortly.


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
Culbert is absolutely correct here if athletics is to survive with any significance then non medalist and the best Australia has must be given the oportunity to go to the biggest athletics stage- the Olympics.
The Olympics is about participation not just medals.

Very few care for walking and it would not even be an Olympic sport if Australia didn't support it. A medal in walking is an achievement few other countries recognize and can hardly be considered part of the track and field target medal count.

Australians should be given the opportunity to aspire to make the Olympics regardless of their medal chances. By taking that away from sprinters,middle and distance runners what hope is there for Australian athletics in the future.


Reading this and several other comments from Dave Culbert (via his twitter account) it's not hard to see that Culbert is not a big fan of Hollingsworth. Culbert wrote: " There is no place for someone with an attitude like Eric Hollingsworth in Australian sport", on his twitter acount on 15th June.

Only need to read Patrick Smith who is not an athletics person as such and therefore can have a detached/unbiased view about the lack of genuine leadership at AA.

As Smith noted - it was a ridiculous comment from EH about the 'hundreds of athletes' who have done the right thing by achieving the A mark before the cut off date. Just opened himself up for ridicule.

Be interesting to see if Eric says anything more on the matter.

Like Fast noted on another thread, I would love to see Tamsyn Manou take a prominent role in AA. She has the enthusiasm & the right attitude to ensure the ATHLETES needs become the focus of AA.

"Let's Go While We're Young"



David Culbert: Athletics Australia’s Olympic-sized PR disaster over LaCaze

Written by: David Culbert
18 June 2012

With 39 days to the London Olympics it’s an exciting time for Olympic sports.

It’s also a potentially dangerous time, as the spotlight burns much brighter on the Olympic sports – the athletes and administrators -than in the previous three and half years.

This has its advantages, such as Tim Sheridan’s brilliant Wide World of Sports story on the talents of javelin thrower Kim Mickle. It’s a story unlikely to be told at any other time than in the months prior to an Olympics.

The flip side is the increased interest often exposes the underbelly that exists in all sports but goes unnoticed for most of the four year Olympic cycle.

Triathlon, swimming, rowing and weightlifting have all been in the spotlight in recent weeks. They have handled the media blowtorch with varying degrees of success.

It was the turn of athletics last week, and after celebrating the announcement of a 54-strong team, including the discretionary selection of rising sprint star Melissa Breen, Athletics Australia clutched defeat from the jaws of victory by totally botching another made-in-heaven media story.

The unexpected qualifying performance by young up and comer Genevieve LaCaze was a marketers dream. Eloquent, ambitious, likeable and let’s face it, beautiful, LeCaze had athletics fans cheering for a new name.

However her effort came less than 48 hours after the Athletics Australia cut off date.

A social media blitz snowballed instantly under the #letlacazego and #letlacazerun hashtags.

By Friday lunchtime, AOC boss John Coates had leapt to LaCaze’s aid, providing a direct invitation to a spot on the Olympic team.

Almost at the same time, as the Athletics Australia board assembled to contemplate what they should do, AA’ s high performance manager Eric Hollingsworth made his own thoughts known to Fairfax athletics writer Michael Gleeson.

His view was straight forward, she was too late. There could be no change to the date. Rules are rules. LaCaze wasn’t going to London.

“As far as I am concerned it is one of the cultural issues of this sport – and I was brought in to bring clarity, rather than everything being done behind closed doors,” Hollingsworth said.

As LaCaze and her supporters waited, the AOC formalised their view via Twitter @AUSOlympicTeam. They wanted her in.

We would love to have Genevieve LaCaze in London on the Australian Olympic Team. Congratulations on a fantastic run!

Hollingsworth’s position inflamed the athletics fraternity, causing a social media frenzy. To read more on Hollingsworth, see my story for News Limited last week, before this hailstorm. He is a polarising figure, so opposition quickly flowed.

So Coates and the AOC wanted LaCaze in London, Hollingsworth didn’t, but what would the AA board do?

To the disbelief of the athletics community, Coates and the AOC, AA not only rejected LaCaze’s qualifying time, but they delivered a cold statement to support their decision.

Crafted by lawyers to defend AA’s position, the statement screamed “we are against the athlete.”

To the fraternity it was breathtaking in its lack of sympathy.

It also put Athletics Australia at odds with Coates, the AOC and the entire athletics community they represent.

Athletics Australia CEO Dallas O’Brien was forced to front the media. This was unfair. He had to sell the unsellable. His key message writers failed him miserably. He repeatedly said that AA had made the decision “because hundreds of athletes” would be impacted if they changed their mind on qualification dates.

“Hundreds”? Who were the hundreds? No more than 10 athletes would be impacted, and most of them would benefit from an extension to the qualifying deadline.

This resulted in more scorn for AA via social media and on Saturday morning it was revealed that only two of the seven directors had supported LaCaze.

More damaging was the recollection by athletics blog writer Tim McGrath from the well read athletics website Inside Athletics that Hollingsworth had a poor memory.

Inside Athletics posted that Athletics Australia had bent the date rules last year. What the article didn’t say was that it was Hollingsworth who unilaterally instructed the entry of an athlete he personally coaches, 400m runner Sean Wroe, for the individual event at the 2011 world championships.

Inside Athletics had an official response at the time that said Wroe was included “just in case”. Yet this luxury wasn’t provided to any other athlete, nor was it done with the approval of the selectors or the Athletics Australia board.

At the time, athletes and coaches in Daegu were furious that Hollingsworth had delivered such favoured treatment to his own athlete. Back home the selectors were appalled and the AA board delivered a please explain.

Hollingsworth’s actions in 2011 made his hardline approach to LaCaze and his personal mission for clarity and openness to be in total opposition to his own actions less than twelve months earlier.

So by mid morning Saturday some AA board members decided enough was enough. Phone calls were made, the AOC consulted once more and the board reconvened.

As we all waited, the AOC tweeted again:

@GenGen_LaCaze We will be doing our best to get you to London. Your job is to stay fit and fast! #thesussiesaecoming

With no other choice, LaCaze was in - this was now a “win-win” for everyone.

It was a decision that should have been made in the first place, but certainly the second Coates made his support so clear more than 24 hours earlier.

But the damage was done. Hollingsworth’s lack of consistency and total lack of compassion has angered the entire athletics fraternity, leaving an already polarising character totally without support.

And for the board, whose job it is to work for the athlete, they have been portrayed as being totally against the athlete, an untenable situation for the board members who didn’t want a talented young athlete to represent them and our country at the Olympic Games.

They tarnished their own reputations, the brand of the organisation they direct and with it the faith of the entire athletics community in the space of 24 hours.

Athletics Australia demands the highest of international standards from their athletes, but sadly failed terribly in their own performance, which was a long, long way from world class.

And we still have 39 days to go… Which sport is next?

Wow - rarely do we see someone of Culbert's position in athletics go on the attack so strongly. Culbert has no vested interest in this. He offers his opinion from a a unique position as an experienced & successful athletics person both as an athlete and now in the marketing & business side of the sport. He knows the landscape, so there's a lot more to this going on behind those infamous' closed doors' and I suspect a few heads might this space.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum