The Statement Analysis Gold Medal goes to…. John Coates of Australia
PART TWO
In Part One of this blog we looked at media quotes by the Australian sports administrator John Coates.
But all these quotes serve merely as a hors d’oeuvre for our main Statement Analysis course.
In 2008, shortly after the Beijing Olympics, Coates gave a more than hour-long interview to Bob Stewart as part of a Sports Oral History for the National Library of Australia. The interview, reference TRC 5900/91, is available to buy from the Library website[1], and is available as a recording or as a full transcript.
The interview is more or less a doctorate thesis for Statement Analysts.
In truth some of the tape doesn’t need much analyzing and reads almost as a confessional. In an amazing moment of openness Coates clearly admits, for example, to bribing an elected Australian government minister:
“It was just a lobbying the minister and ensuring there was money to take some additional programs um and to bribe- buy the boats and eventually build the boatshed”
Aside from words like “just” and “eventually”, which are, as always, of interest to the Statement Analyst, this is pretty clear – he bribed the guy.
***
Later, in another extraordinarily frank moment, Coates admits to buying the 2000 Olympics for Sydney.
Asked “what sort of persuasion took place” and “what sort of arguments” he was using, Coates responds:
“Oh we were, it was money…”
“…obviously our government doesn't er spend money like that…”
“…we spent a fair bit of money…”
“…Clearly er the Uganda and um Ugandan and Kenyan members I think were, were very nervous about being, you know, having to deal with me because I sat at their table at a big banquet the night before and so um [lip smack] I just went over and said to them, 'Look if er, you know, if you vote for us and we get up, then um there's 50,000 US for each of your two national Olympic committees, ten a year for the next five years or whatever , you tell us it's to be spent on sporting purposes…”
“…there was an inquiry into all of that and so it's suggested we bought the Games. Well to a large extent we did…”
Again, this passage is pretty clear, and does not need much Statement Analysis from me, or from anyone else.
I am more interested in the sections of the statement where he tries to omit detail and to hide his true motives; the sections where he is less frank, but still gives us, through his statement, a high level of information.
We start with a piece of text from the very beginning of the interview. This involves easy, uncontroversial questions about his childhood, to which he gives easy, uncontroversial answer – but from these descriptions of his upbringing we are able to glean valuable information about his character and his thinking, that helps gives significant insight into later, more important parts of the statement.
For ease of reading I have broken down the statement down into various sections. They aren’t necessarily in chronological order from the statement, more in order of my interest and the interesting use of the language:
· The Early Days
· Sports Science
· East Germany
· Doping
· Moscow 1980
· Legacy
· Bidding
· University
In this part of the blog I’ll look at “The Early Days”. The rest will come in Part Three.
The Early Days
Bob Stewart: I'm interviewing John Coates on Friday the 12the of September, and it's around 10.40. John, thanks for, for the interview. Could you take us through your, your, your early days in and around Homebush in Sydney?
John Coates: Yeah. I grew up in Strathfield. Um one brother, and erm my father was a solicitor. He had a small practice in the city and erm very sport orientated family. Um we... I went to Homebush Public, Homebush Primary and then HomebushHigh School. We, we played cricket for the local church side, St John's West Strathfield. Erm my dad was the club sort of manager of the team.
· The speaker is present – “I grew up in Strathfield.”
· The opening here is very detailed in terms of sense of place.
· “One brother, and my father was a solicitor”. His relationship with his brother seems important, but also complicated somehow – first he corrects himself “We…. I went to Homebush Public”. The “We” presumably refers to this brother. In the next sentence, he nearly corrects himself, but allows himself to be grouped with his brother “We, we played cricket”. Why “one” brother, not “a” brother? Was there another brother that died, or a sister?
· “My father was a solicitor.” His father’s job seems important – the author appears to place high value on knowledge of the law.
· There is no mention of his mother.
· “He had a small practice in the city”. Is he disdaining his father here for lack of success and / or ambition?
· Later he is “the club sort of manager”, which is an imprecise title that perhaps denigrates his position at the club and disdains his father again. However, we note here that he has gone from “father – solicitor” to “dad” when talking about cricket.
· “Very sport orientated family”. Does this imply that love was only given to or occasionally through sport?
· “sport orientated” rather than “sporting”. Is this an admission that, in fact, he had no particular sporting ability?
· “we played cricket for the local church side”. Is he making a distinction here between sport at “school” and the fact he played cricket for the “church”?
· “we played” – we will see later the importance of “we” when Coates wishes to protect himself and put himself in a group. Perhaps his brother was really the player and not him?
John Coates: As Alan Davidson was a very close family friend and lived in Strathfield and he was the president and his, his boys played there too. A bit younger than me, played with my brother. And erm so I was very keen on all that. In terms of sports administration it was... I, I have congenital dislocation of the hips and I think Davo was the first to confront me with the harsh reality that I wasn't going to be a great cricketer.
· “Alan Davidson” was a well-known Australian cricketer. This becomes “Davo”. He is also a “very close family friend” (said much more quickly than the previous sentences, if you listen to the tape). Is this an attempt to make himself closer to a famous sportsman by virtue of family connection and location?
· “and he was the president” – the speaker’s priority here is: closeness to the family; location; title. We have already seen how important location is, but titles also seem important to the author – power?
· “A bit younger than me, played with my brother”. They now “played” with his brother, but not with him.
· “And erm so I was very keen on all that”. This is a vague sentence, after much specific detail, which seems to make it stand out. There seems to be much unsaid. It is unclear what the “all that” is that he was keen on, but the only detail before that makes sense to be keen on is the fact that Davidson was “president”? The sentence seems to act like a full stop to the previous section on his home and upbringing, as if in his mind’s eye he has reached the end of his childhood and is moving on to the adult part of his life.
· “In terms of sports administration”. The speaker is a major figure in sports administration, and it is understandable that he will be expecting questions on this subject, but this is not a question that has been asked.
· “Congenital” here may be important because this implies that the condition is not his fault, that it is an inherited condition, and thus possibly his mother’s fault. We saw earlier that he does not mention his mother when describing his family. Later he is asked again about his mother, and mentions her once, then segues into a story about her father (“So um erm yeah there was... and my mother, her father had been a, a primary school headmaster”).
· Does he have a problem with women? In fact I note that, in the entire one hour seventeen minutes of this interview, Coates actively describes only one woman – the then mayor of of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson.
· Of Atkinson, he later says:
Um and, er but that taught me a lot about, more about politics. We had Joe in power in Bris-, Queensland. Um Brisbane City Council is like a state government er so I was servicing a mayor there uuuhm and… travelling with her, erm taught me about lobbying… all of those things um. And um we… after that the other bids followed, Melbourne and then Sydney.
But back to his childhood:
· “I think Davo was the first to confront me”. Here is the first of another repeated verbal tic, the “I think”. The speaker seems to use the “I think” whenever he wants to insert vagueness into a subject that he, in fact, has a good memory of. Have there been subsequent occasions when he has been “confronted”?
· “Confront” could seem like harsh language, especially in tandem with the overly familiar “Davo” – why is this?
Bob Stewart: So how did that sort of impede your sporting [development?]
John Coates: Oh well. You know I still played cricket and I played fo-... football up until high school but then it was, I couldn't play football after that really. But I continued to play cricket till I was 16 I suppose. Davo, when I was about 11 or 12suggested that I should become the club secretary and send the results in on a Sunday night, which I did so it was my first administrative role.
· “Oh well” and “you know” are typical Australian verbal tics, but have the effect here of slowing down the answer.
· “I couldn’t play football after that really”. Football seems a sensitive subject here, sandwiched between “still” playing cricket and the fact that he “continued” to play cricket. As described above with relation to his father, cricket seems a childhood safe space, spoken with genuine affection and strong specific memories, such as the “first administrative role” referenced after. Football, on the other hand, is hesitated over and the first full “football” is spoken with a strong stress inflection, as if particularly sensitive to say out loud. Was there another event “after” which he could play football “really”?
· “I suppose” seems here another version of the “I think” verbal tic – does this suggest that the subject is sensitive?
· “when I was about 11 or 12”. “about” and “or” is more enforced vagueness, and this story is unusual in that he has gone back in time, having begun the conversation in strictly chronological order. Does this suggest that he has passed over a sensitive subject that he prefers not to talk about? Was there an incident at football that precipitated his transition from childhood to adulthood? Is this sensitivity in reaction to the question – “how did that sort of impede your sporting development”?
· Previously Davo “confronted” him, but here he “suggests” – why the change in language? Did Coates have an unspoken relationship with Davo?
· Interestingly he mentions football and cricket here, and rowing later, but never mentions rugby. However, according to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald[2] he “went everywhere” with the school rugby team as their “photographer”. The article goes on to describe his relationship with schoolfriend and rugby captain Gordon Bray:
· “Bray became captain of Homebush Boys' First XV rugby team. "Gordon, he was the hero at school," says Coates, "and we were mates." Coates went everywhere with the rugby side, taking on the role of team photographer: "I got an absolute buzz out of mixing with great athletes, because I couldn't be one myself." Eventually he was given responsibility for the weekly awarding of "best and fairest" points. "Maybe it was just a coincidence," Bray says, "but I ended up with more points than anybody else."”
· Did Coates have Same Sex Attraction (SSA) for Bray? Did “fairest” in this context have a double meaning?
John Coates: Um but at school, at Homebush High, which was a very strong sporting school, in those days, and still is, we um... the school rowed. And so in about um er third year, whatever that is these days, um I got involved in the rowing. And um the rowing was quite strong in the high schools in those days.
· This entire paragraph seems highly sensitive, containing numerous pauses, um’s, extra stresses and verbal tics. Is this because he realizes he must begin talking about “rowing” and his entry into “sports administration” and must leave the safe subject of “cricket”?
· “at school”. As opposed to at “church”? Was church pure and innocent, whereas school was not?
· “at Homebush High”. (Previously “Homebush High School”). Was he previously thinking about another school, or is NTP?
· “very strong sporting school”. Was the school less strong in other areas? Was he?
· “and still is”. Why the need to highlight its sporting prowess now? More NTP?
· “we um... the school rowed”. The school rowed, did he?
· “I got involved” may also denoted a lack of invitation, and a certain selfish, bullying, sharp-elbowed attitude, to muscle ones way into something. Coates repeats this phrase frequently in the interview.
***
John Coates: So when we mo-... as the school boys moved across to Sydney Rowing Club I was in the company of all these Olympians as a coxswain um at school. And then as I finished school I outgrew coxing, I was um... and became a coach of Homebush High crews, Sydney Rowing Club and at Sydney University for um intervarsity on one occasion.
· “We” becomes “the school boys”. Does he already see himself as an adult? Not the school girls? Is the gender important?
· “I was in the company of all these Olympians”. This seems to be a key sentence, and seems to justify almost his entire career. Is “company” leakage with regards to his later professional life? Is the formal “coxswain” an attempt to give greater weight to his role in the boat, or is this an avoidance of the shorter version, “cox” and its obvious sexual homonym?
· This is also similar to the quote from the SMH article above, describing his excitement at the vicarious proximity to sporting greatness: "I got an absolute buzz out of mixing with great athletes, because I couldn't be one myself."
· Later in the same article he makes his rather troubling statement on the same subject: "The best part of the whole involvement with the Olympics is living with the team," he says. "Just to hang around with these kids when they've finished competition… That's the highlight. That's why you do it."
· In combination with Coates’ awkward descriptions of his upbringing and family life, do the quotes above suggest a strong sexual reason for Coates’ involvement in Olympic sport? Has he ever been accused of inappropriate behavior to sportsmen or women? Has he ignored such behavior if it has been inflicted by others?
***
In the long section above we can see in his statement that Coates has some family issues that he does not explain, may have issues with women, seems to have a difficulty accepting blame, frequently feels the need to persuade, is hesitant, and appears to have a bullying tendency in general.
He also appears to view things in a very black and white way (e.g. Church vs. School, like good vs. evil). This particular personality trait can be an indication of drug use in some capacity.
In that context, the sections we look at in Part Three may be interesting…
No comments:
Post a Comment