Van Commenee said: “If I hold athletes and coaches accountable every day, how could I work over the next four years if I am not held accountable myself? It’s a no-brainer. I never understand when people who have failed stay in jobs, as in politics and football.”

From an article in the Telegraph.


Athletics Weekly contacted me for comment, and I wrote the following:


My view, as a former foreign Head Coach of British Triathlon -


While it's admirable and rare for a performance leader to hold himself accountable to the failure to meet the UKA performance target, his resignation will not help UKA move forward, and creates a discontinuity in leadership and uncertainty for all involved, from athletes to coaches. Medal targets are somewhat arbitrary in the first instance, and a non-coaching Head Coach can only have so much impact, particularly over only one quadrennial.


In my role with British Triathlon as Head Coach, the limitation was the quality of the personal coaches working directly with the athletes, and this is the same for UKA. As long as athletes like Mo have to head overseas to find the level of personal coaches and training groups they need, UKA's impact will be limited, no matter what other resources they have access to. Furthermore, the opportunity of young developing athletes to train alongside the current champions will be limited, when those athletes are primarily outside the UKA system.


Whomever is the next UKA head coach is less important than implementing the strategy of further investment in world leading event coaches that British athletes want to train with, and that are fully supported by UKA, and

that get results. If the rumours of Dan Pfaff leaving UKA are true, then that is a bigger loss to UKA than CVC leaving, however neither bodes well for the future of UKA.


comment on twitter @joelfilliol

AuthorJoel Filliol