BEIJING OLYMPIC REVIEW:REDUCING THE number of focus sports and maintaining the high level of funding were among the key recommendations of the 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Reviewpublished yesterday – although perhaps the most surprising element was the lack of hard criticism of the Irish performance.

While the 90-page document, commissioned by the Irish Sports Council and overseen by an independent consultant, makes many good points regarding Ireland’s preparations and performance in Beijing, the problem is there’s no great urgency about the Olympics on a cold morning in February, with the next Games, in London, still over three and half years away.

Another drawback is that only 28 of the 55 Irish athletes who competed in Beijing responded to the review questionnaire.

More tellingly, there was no involvement by the Olympic Council of Ireland, who will publish their own review at the end of the month, and in a short statement, claimed they did not participate because “previous inputs to the Sydney and Athens Olympic Reviews were not properly reflected in the final Irish Sports Council reports”.

Beijing represented Ireland’s third most successful Olympics, after 1956, and 1996 – thanks to the three medals won in boxing (silver for Kenny Egan, and bronze for Darren Sutherland and Paddy Barnes).

The review argued that, overall, the Olympic and Paralympic teams’ performances represented an improvement on Athens 2004.

All the outcome targets set by the Athens Review were fulfilled, while in Beijing, two sports exceeded targets, five sports achieved targets, and six sports failed to do so.

There is no significant criticism of the various components of Ireland’s performance, funding, coaching and medical back up.

However, the psychological aspects of some athletes’ preparations was questioned, as was the decision-making process that allowed some of them to compete while clearly injured.

One of the key recommendations, that funding be maintained at the current level through to London, was based on comparisons with similar-sized countries, namely New Zealand and Denmark.

“We’ve done the maths, and compared to similar-sized countries, such as New Zealand, the level of investment is now where it should be,” said Neil Tunnicliffe, of Wharton Consulting.

“But these things still take time, over a number of Olympic cycles, and in the longer term there is reason to believe that Ireland can be as successful. It’s a simple equation: investment equals outcomes. If investment is withdrawn in any way then you’d have to expect performance outcomes will fall.

“One of the other big recommendations is the number of focus sports is reduced, and brought down to those that are critical to Ireland’s development, and where a proper, domestic high-performance infrastructure can be created, in the sports where Ireland has a tradition of success.”

Tunnicliffe admitted the limited response of athletes had to be taken into account: “We certainly had to interpret the results more carefully than we would have had we a full response.

“We had to bear in mind that certain sports weren’t represented, and also the loading of responses. But it’s balanced up by athlete interviews, and also the fact that we consulted very widely within the sports. So I still think all told it is a very three dimensional view of what’s happened over the past four years.

“But you can only take snapshots, a moment in time, of something that’s evolving over a period of years. And I think this snapshot does show the evolution is heading in the right direction, and Irish sport is on an upward trajectory.

“Assuming the investment continues for the next four years at the same level then when we get to 2012 there is every reason to hope performance output in 2012 will be even better than Beijing.”

As regards the Olympic Council of Ireland, however, Tunnicliffe was notably coy: “Look at performance in the Games. It’s all about little percentage points that accumulate, and there are deft little things that can affect an athlete’s equilibrium when they get to the start line.

“It’s the responsibility of everyone concerned to make sure those percentage points add up, rather than get knocked down.”

Gary Keegan, high performance manager with the boxing federation in Beijing, and is now director of performance management services with the Irish Institute of Sport, welcomed the recommendation that the institute’s role be accelerated in the run up to London.

“I don’t think the boxing model was unique in any way,” he said. “It was the process and the team put together. My only question mark is over the people who support the athletes, not the athletes themselves. It’s about putting high performance people around the athletes.

“We’re expecting athletes to perform at a high level, but the people with them need to be at that level too. That’s what the Institute will be trying to do.”

Beijing Olympic Review

Key findings

Beijing, both Olympic and Paralympic, demonstrated an improvement on Ireland’s performances in 2004 – attributable to the effects of substantial levels of investment.

Some sports provided a tangible return on that investment; other sports offered a more uneven return. The strongest output was the “what good looks like” programme within boxing; its strengths are systemic and structural, consistent and repeatable.

In contrast with Athens, where numbers of athletes appeared physically unprepared for the challenges, Beijing was marked more by a psychological deficit.

Key recommendations

Funding should focus on a smaller number of sports which deliberately generate consistent and repeatable medal success.

The Government should continue to invest in sport to at least the levels established over the past four years.

The Irish Sports Councils should work towards multi-annual budgets to allow sports plan confidently over a number of years.

The focus sports should be required to demonstrate an improved level of planning.

The Olympic Council of Ireland is held to account to demonstrate a performance return from any investment made by the Irish Sports Council.