Guest Submission: John Coates Part Three

The Statement Analysis Gold Medal goes to…. John Coates of Australia

 

PART THREE

 

In Part Two we looked at the early childhood years of John Coates. Here we look at various other important subjects that come out of the statement.

 

Sports Science

 

Bob Stewart: Yeah. Was there any sort of sport science support for you guys at that stage?

 

John Coates: N-, no. The um... it was up to the coach to get um whatever er off the water training and conditioning for thecrew you could organise. I think in '68 there was um a Dr Rowley Richards who had a fair bit to do with that crew. Um and together with the coach certainly worked out that at altitude you, um you needed to um conserve yourself until the end and thatcrew came home well and did well as a result and it seemed to be the way to handle that. So there was some sport science there but nothing in terms of what um the institutes now provide.

 

·       Does the interviewer use “sport science support” here as a euphemism for performance enhancing drugs? Is that how Coates takes the question? 

·       When listening to the tape Coates’ answer is interesting. He begins with a hesitate “N-“ before giving a much stronger, longer, and stressed “No..” Why is he initially hesitant? 

·       Coates talks about “the” and “that” crew – does he have one particular boat in mind?

·       If drugs were taken, it wasn’t the speaker’s fault, it was up to the coach, and may have been down to a doctor in 1968 before the speaker started with the team.

·       This is another interesting chronological jump, veering back from the 1980’s (which is where the conversation is at this point) to many years previously. Why does he need to go so far back in time? To avoid responsibility?

·       “Off the water” – this is expected language in the context of rowing, but could this also be leakage referring to a urine test?

 

***

 

Bob Stewart: What about this also there was a clash between an emerging professionalism during the eighties. Did that sort of imp-, affect you or...

 

 

John Coates: Oh, no. I think um... well the Olympics became... people don't realise... open in the seventies and um it er... my attitude has always been to provide as much support for the athletes as possible um… and um it's... our Olympic sports are very disparate um and they range from some which are still amateur... boxing would be probably the only one... to others that are very professional- football.

 

John Coates: But um er it er... um my attitude within rowing was always to provide as much assistance as possible to the athletes to enable them to give them the opportunity to excel.

 

·             Coates is highly hesitant here and in amongst a series of attempts to influence (e.g. “people don’t realise”, “open in the seventies”, “our Olympic sports are very disparate”) repeats an important sentence – “my attitude has always been to provide as much support for the athletes as possible”. Is he talking about doping? 

 

***

 

John Coates: Um and then um, so that... it was just an era of more professionalism, the sports scientists, the sports medicine, practitioner, they were all being recognised. It was understood that um for it to excel the athletes needed all the, the support. Um it um, so that it was a time of... the eighties was a time of significant change in understanding all that.

 

·             “it was just an era of more professionalism, the sports scientists, the sports medicine, practitioner, they were all being recognized” He uses the word “professional” several times in this statement. It uses it here in an apparent echo of his talking about the East German rowing team – is he using it euphemistically to mean “doping”?

·             In reverse priority terms we get “practitioner” (no article), then “sports medicine”, then “sports scientist”, along with a need to persuade regarding understanding and what the athletes needed to excel. 

·             “for it to excel the athletes needed all the, the support”. What was “it” that he refers to here?

·             “support” is often used in a social drug taking context, since drug users (or alcoholics) will often refer to the “support” of their friends or family, which they are in need of.

·             Is this evidence of a widespread culture if not organized structure of doping in the Australian rowing team in the 1980’s? 

 

***

 

 

East Germany

 

And so, erm, I er, you know, that, that had a big impact on, that had as much of an... and then we had a sculler who came 12th or 13th, something like that. We had a pair, men's pair that was about the same. And um we were just um babes in the wood compared to the um professionalism of the eastern and the western Europeans.

 

·       This is a highly sensitive passage, with very careful phrasing, frequent pauses, verbal tics and correcting. 

·       “pair, men's pair” – another clarification from genderless to male – is this in contrast to a “female pair”, or a reluctance to mention “men’s pair”?

·       “babes in the wood” – specific memory?

·       “professionalism” = euphemism for money? Or drugs? Or both?

 

Bob Stewart: Now...

 

John Coates: That was when East Germany was at their best.

·       “was” not “were”? Is he thinking of a singular East German? Was there an East German advising or working with the Australian team? Or later? 

 

 

Bob Stewart: Now at that stage the East Germans were sensational. Was there any feeling that they were getting an unfair advantage or there was something about their training systems that...

 

John Coates: Oh they had um, they were obviously more scientific. Um I don't recall having any particular views aboutdoping with the east, eastern, er East Germans or anything like that at that stage. But um, you know, it was, they were a very professional organisation, the rowing team.

 

·       The East Germans “had” something

·       It was “obvious” that they were more “scientific”, so this should have noted by everyone, not just him.

·       He doesn’t recall “particular views” “at that stage” – does he recall other views? Does he recall things that could not be “viewed”? Does he recall particular views at other stages? “Obviously” is another “visual” word in this answer, which speaks to a particular memory.

·       Was the rest of the East German team other than the rowing team not “professional”?

·       The speaker seems to be aware of drug abuse by East Germany, but may not have physically seen it happen. Was he aware of similar activity in his own team?

·       “east, eastern, er East Germans” seems a highly deceptive statement.

 

Doping

 

Bob Stewart: What about the, the, the doping issue in, in the Games? How, how, again as an administrator, and how, how do you respond to, to that issue?

 

 

John Coates: Well obviously it's been a problem. You know, there have been cheats. We would like to think as an Olympic committee we've... well, the IOC's led the world. It used to be the IOC that was the only one that was testing . We were funding that. The IOC that determined through research which were prohibited drugs and which weren't, which should be.

 

 

John Coates: And since the late, since 1988 again, governments have now joined that fight and so we... the IOC contributes 50 per cent of the doping money and the rest of the governments around the world only match it. So we're putting, again this is another... where the money's going. We're, we're probably putting 30 million in a year, the IOC, and that's what the total contribution from all the governments of the world is.

 

·       Doping is “obviously” a problem. Did Coates see doping? Was he aware of it at the time?

·       There follows a confession – “you know, there have been cheats”.

·       “We would like to think” – they would like to, but they cannot.

·       Note Coates’ pronoun use in this passage – it is all over the place.

·       In general, is this a reliable explanation? I have to say no. I would have many more questions for Mr Coates on this subject alone.

 

 

***

 

 

 

Moscow 1980

 

Bob Stewart: What about the, that period leading up to 1980 and the, the Moscow Games? Was that a worry to you that politics was throwing itself...

 

John Coates: Oh I was, you know I was much involved with the... so by then after that '76... um yeah along the way I'd become a, a delegate from rowing to the Australian Olympic… Federation. In um… ‘78 I became the honorary secretary of Australian rowing, Australian Rowing Council it was called.

 

·       “involved” used again (at this point in the interview this is the 5th time he has used this phrase), but this time he was even “much involved”. Was this a particularly important subject? Was he particularly bullying about getting involved with it, uninvited?

·       “by then after that” “along the way” – this is a triple temporal lacunae (TL) – by its absence, 1976-1978 may be considered a key period in Coates’s life, and a period I would want to ask questions about.

 

John Coates: And… um I was the honorary secretary. I wasn't the manager of the team but the rowing people, er the Olympic people had appointed me the, what was called the administration director of the 1980 Olympic team, which was the um three IC.  We were er... basically only had one employee and a secretary at the AOC in those days and so we did a lot of the work, they were all volunteers.

 

·       There are continued and repeated sensitive passages here. What he had done by this early point in his life that was so impressive to keep “appointing” him?

·       Coates stresses that he was the “secretary” (“honorary” even) and not the “manager” – is this distancing and NTP, another attempt to deflect blame?

·       “the Olympic people” (genderless, non-specific) “had appointed” him – passive

·       “three IC” – status is important, but perhaps here also an attempt to distance again subtly, he was not in charge, nor even the “2 IC”.

·       “so we did a lot of the work, they were all volunteers”. Note the switch in pronouns. “They” were all volunteers – was he paid?

 

***

 

John Coates: The government, I think, had, was putting… some money in, it was not a million dollars but like three or four hundred thousand or something like that. They said um you can't use it for the Games. So we had to... again the rowers and water polo needed to go away early. So we um, we went, we knew the Seaman’s Union were keen, um left wing, Moscow.

 

·        “it was not a million dollars but like three or four hundred thousand or something like that” –the speaker appears to have a good idea of what the number was, but feels unable to say it. Why is this? Why mention that it was“not a million dollars”? Was some of the money misappropriated?

·       “Seaman’s Union” – This is an echo of “embark” earlier in the interview, and several other boat-like references (in addition to rowing itself) - is he thinking about boats? Was he given a boat?

 

John Coates: And um, but they were very supportive and um in those, those days I addressed a lot of stopwork meetings and um we raised the money through the union movement. Seaman’s and other maritime unions, fire and deckhands, waterside workers. I used to drink with all the union delegates at night and rev 'em up and... And, and I spoke at stopwork meetings and things like that and so we were, we were the thorn in the side for the government, I, I guess.

 

·       “very supportive” – drugs?

·       More water references – boats again?

·       “the thorn”, not “a thorn”- self-importance?

·       Did the union channel money directly from the Russians?

 

 

John Coates: And then we had to make sure that when it eventually went to the final vote at the Olympic F-Federation which I was not a member, you may have known that that vote was six-five in the decision to go. And that had a very big impact, all of that on me as to, you know, why the Olympic Federation should remain independent of government and needed to be financially independent and that was the motivation for a lot of the things I did later on which is nous.

 

·             Almost this entire paragraph could be blue for high sensitivity. It is a HINA clause in relation to something that likely happened before the Moscow Olympics. It is, in plain words, his justification for “a lot of the things I did later on” – he “was not a member” and the vote was “six-five”, i.e. too close for comfort? He appears here to make clear the importance of membership, the ability to control a vote, being “independent from government”and being “financially independent”.

·             Note for American readers that “nous” is a word used in British English or Australian English to mean “common sense” or “alertness”. It can have an element of discretion, and of cunning.

·             What did he do before the Olympics? What were the “things” he did later on? I would wish to ask many questions around the subject of this time period, and regarding money – both the improper procurement and improper spending of it.

 

 

***

 

Legacy

 

John Coates: And um that's a legacy now that there's then a thing called the Australian Olympic Foundation. So it's a very good sporting legacy which was really in my mind something we wanted to achieve ever since I'd seen what government tried to do to the Olympic movement in 1980. Over, you know, Moscow and, you know, how dependent we were on money in those days.

 

·             Blue, as many of you will know, is the color for the highest sensitivity. In Statement Analysis we shouldn’t overuse it, for fear of lessening its impact. But this is another highly sensitive passage from Coates. It is, again, a HINA for his behavior around the time of the Moscow Olympics.

 

 

John Coates: Oh it elevated it… in the eyes of the community um and it got a financial benefit. Um and we got um all of these you beaut sports facilities um. Sydney was way behind the other cities in terms of sports facilities so it got, Sydney got that real legacy in sport facilities. And we've got a foundation … which… um now that money is invested and it has become 180 million, um of which 50 has been, about 52 million has gone to the last two Olympiads, to our expenditure over the four, each of the four years.

 

·             “of which 50 has been, about 52 million” – Note the change in language: 50 has “been”, but “52 million” has “gone”. This is also a discrepancy of 2 million – why so? 

·             “sports facilities” (plural) becomes “sport facilities” (singular) – which one particular sport benefited from the “real legacy”? Rowing? 

 

 

***

 

Bidding 

 

John Coates: And then the er... in er '85, '86 I got involved in um the bidding side for Olympic Games. And um Sallyanne Atkinson had become the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and I was headhunted by a bloke called Barry Paul and Sir Robert Mathers to go up and um be chief executive of that bid, which was something new to me.

 

·             “And then the er... in er '85, '86 I got involved in um the bidding side for Olympic Games” – major hesitation and high sensitivity to the subject of bidding being introduced. Why is this so sensitive?

·             “I got involved” seems increasingly to be a shorthand for Coates to mean something more. He appears to use this phrase as a means of admitting a certain passive, somewhat detached involvement in something unsaid – something untoward?

·             “I was headhunted by a bloke called Barry Paul” – again the passive appointment. Was this at the behest of Atkinson? Did she know Coates before and was Coates instrumental in her becoming Lord Mayor? Was this a favor returned? “a bloke” is distancing language.

·             Who was / is Barry Paul? Was he later accused of wrongdoing?

 

John Coates: So I left my law firm and, with the family, we moved to Brisbane, on very short notice. And um we... um that got me involved in a side of the Olympic movement I hadn't been before. I'd just been going to the Olympic Games and the oddmeeting. But um I was then bidding and travelling the world with Sallyanne and raising the money back in Sydney for a bid.

 

·             “So I left my law firm and, with the family, we moved to Brisbane, on very short notice.” - TL– time is sensitive here, why?

·             Need to persuade that time was short and this justified the move?

·             “with the family” and “I, we, we, me” – is this expected regarding his family? This does not seem to be a reliable introduction to them? Why is his pronoun use so variable here?

·             “And um we... um that got me involved in a side of the Olympic movement I hadn't been before” – there is an extreme hesitancy to say this sentence, which is clearly sensitive. “been” is slightly stressed as if I counterpoint to “seen” which might be more expected in this sentence. So he was obviously aware of the other “side” of the Olympic movement, but had not personally been involved himself. What “side” does he refer to? Whichever side he describes, he was involved in this after (this taking of “sides” is more evidence of his black and white personality – either you are with him, or against him).

·             “I'd just been going to the Olympic Games and the odd meeting” – NTP, and an attempt to diminish the importance of “odd” meetings. Were the meetings themselves “odd”?

 

 

 

***

 

University

 

We end here back near the start of the interview, at Coates’ time as a student. It is useful background for his personality, and also his qualifications.

 

Bob Stewart: So take us through your university days then. You were doing a law degree and...

 

 

John Coates: I did the st-...

 

Bob Stewart: following...

 

 

John Coates: I did the straight law degree at Sydney and um... but while that was happening, um was very much coachingHomebush High, coaching Homebush High boys who rowed at Sydney Rowing Club at that stage as well. And um… yeah, so I was doing that. And um, and in those days you did two years full time then two years articled clerk, which I did at my dad'spractice. He passed away in my third- at the end of my third year, and family friends, er a family, er a lawyer who'd been, gone through the Air Force with him, World War II  um and did law after World War II, er he took over the practice and so I joined that practice as an employee or finished my last year of articles and... um but, um by then I certainly was doing enough to get through university but was more um, much more interested in the sport.

 

·       This entire answer seems highly sensitive, containing complex elements of his family, his law studies, and the beginning of his career in sports administration. This seems to be a key period in his life. This is allied with hesitancy, repetition, need to persuade and various apparent omissions.

·       “while that was happening, was very much coaching” – this is oddly passive, was he doing anything else? Was the law degree happening to him without his involvement? I do not believe he was doing very much coaching, if any.

·       “coaching Homebush High, coaching Homebush High boys” – why the clarification, was he very much not“coaching” the Homebush High girls?

·       “I did the straight law degree” becomes “And yeah, so I was doing that” – this appears less certain, the law degree seems more distant?

·       “my dad’s practice” – his father is now his dad again, and in the context of his work – is this a fondness in advance of mentioning his death? “passed away” is softer than “died”. 

·       “so I joined that practice as an employee or finished my last year of articles and... um but um, by then I certainly was doing enough to get through university but was more, much more interested in the sport”. – he states that the reason he joined the practice (and later “that” practice) was because it had been taken over by the family friend, after the death of his father. He feels the need to point out that he joined “as an employee”, not as a lawyer, or as director or stakeholder in the business. Does this mean that, in fact, he had not passed his law degree, or had received poor marks? 

·       “or finished” is a strange phrase, did he in fact not finish his last year of articles? This would appear to be supported by the following sentence, which appears to be a reason for having not finished – that he as “much more interested in sport”. Did he finish his degree? Did he fail? 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject has raised enough concerns to warrant an investigation into the activities surrounding his past and possibly current involvement in organizational Olympics structure, financing and operations., 

He has given us concerns about a number of topics to which answers are needed.  

Has there been corruption?

Is there corruption now?

The subject does not now stand accused of corruption, but it is his own words that draw our interest and perhaps the interest of the public into what goes on behind the scenes as locales compete to host future games.