Irish cyclists who represented the country at the Olympic Games did not feel at their peak while Cycling Ireland's training base in Mallorca is not fit for purpose and does not facilitate intense training, a new review of cycling performance at Games has found.
The review by Sport Ireland has also concluded that coaching and governance structures within Cycling Ireland were “not of a high performance culture”. It also found not enough was being done by Cycling Ireland to establish the "current performances, goals and ambitions" of riders and to set out a plan to make progress.
The review added there was “not a clear enough pathway” for riders and this was particularly the case for cyclists after their talent was spotted and they became part of Cycling Ireland's high performance programme.
Advertisement
“There is not a clear enough bar that measures performance each year which subsequently helps to set certain levels of support,” Sport Ireland said of Cycling Ireland. “This is linked to the sentiment that there was not enough challenge for spots prior to Tokyo, which may have contributed to performance.”
- The new Sport Ireland review examines how Cycling Ireland and the riders prepared for, and performed at, the Olympics and Paralympics. There were two separate sections for cycling at the Olympics and at the Paralympics. This piece by stickybottle only reports on the Olympics section. We will return to the Paralympics.
In terms of track riders only, the review points to the lack of a velodrome in Ireland – and the lack of access to any international velodrome for almost a year before the Games – as being an issue. However, Sport Ireland also clearly states success can be achieved before a velodrome is built. It said Cycling Ireland cannot not wait until after the velodrome is built before it creates a successful high performance programme.
“There is a desire to have a system in place by the time (a velodrome) is built so it can propel already high performance athletes vs waiting to build a programme and system once the velodrome is built,” the review states.
“There is also a view that (a new velodrome) provides a real opportunity for sustainable success once built, but it cannot be a case of waiting around until it is built, and the programme can still be a success in the meantime.”
The review also found, under the heading ‘preparation for the Games’, that Cycling Ireland’s high performance programme “could go further with vision and planning”.
The finding that the riders “did not feel at peak performance going into the Games”, for the biggest races of their lives, is worrying especially as the programme was funded to the tune of almost €1.6 million, plus another €110,000 in special funding.
“There was a clear consensus of disappointment within the NGB around performances at the Games, given athlete potential and the number of athletes competing,” the review said. It added the Olympic road and track cycling team did “not meet original performance expectation of securing three top 10 finishes”, though noted a large team qualified including for a team event on the track, which as a first.
Sport Ireland recommended Cycling Ireland “establish a clear vision and purpose for investment decisions”, saying it also needed to “review the programme’s training and coaching structures”. It further stated Cycling Ireland needed to “redefine the talent pathway” for young riders who show promise and who must be nurtured.
It also said Cycling Ireland must establish clear criteria for riders and that decisions around committing resources to individual cyclists should be made based on the criteria.
Sport Ireland also told Cycling Ireland to “redefine the talent pathway” for road and track riders, from youth level up to senior. A “heightened focus” was required to ensure that when talent was spotted it was moved through the pathway in a bid to maximise the riders’ potential at the right times.
This redefining of the talent pathway also needed to be stricter when measuring the success and progress of riders. Sport Ireland said it should be made clear to riders that different levels of support were on offer in an “accountable and measurable” way.
Sport Ireland added Cycling Ireland needed to “devise a clear coaching model, structure and pathway that upskills and trains coaches via sustainable investment to help increase professionalism and high performance coaching”.
As well as telling Cycling Ireland to consider an alternative to using the unfit for purpose Mallorca training base, it said other locations must also be established for intense short periods of training.
Related News
During the last Olympic cycle, Sport Ireland noted there were 22 carded – or funded – cyclists in the programme who received 530 days of support from the Sport Ireland Institute. Spending on the cycling team during the Olympic cycle was €1,595,000 and another €110,000 in special funding.
Under the heading of “athlete readiness” – how well prepared and what form the cyclists were in when their events arrived – the review finds that a lack of competition and lack of “quality training camps” had “hindered preparation”. The review added the “last major international competition" for track riders "took place 18 months prior to the Games and prevented track athletes reaching optimal condition”.
While the report does not say so, this was because the pandemic resulted in many international track races being cancelled. Some other nations were not caught out in the same way because their riders can avail of high quality road racing in road teams supported by their federation or by competing with professional trade teams on the road.
Overall, the track riders – Emily Kay, Shannon McCurley, Mark Downey and Felix English – had no access to an indoor velodrome for almost a year in 2000 while “Mallorca did not provide a sufficient environment to train”.
The “athlete readiness” section also said the road riders – Dan Martin, Nicolas Roche and Eddie Dunbar – saw their preparation “significantly disrupted”, one assumes by Covid-19 though that is not stated. Unspecified “logistical challenges” for the road riders had “pushed focus away from (their) performance”.
The review added the “resignation of performance director (Brian Nugent – Ed) in December (2020 – Ed) hindered the capacity within the high performance unit, along with the overseeing and management of coaches”.
There was also a system of “quasi-Cycling Ireland staff/contractors” operating in the coaching arena building up to the Games. This had “contributed to the view that more could have been done to build up established coaching structures/training”.
In the area of ‘governance’, the Sport Ireland review noted an “improved alignment between staff and the high performance committee”, though this was “not operating within a high performance culture environment”. There was also “no alignment on the high performance committee around the direction of travel” of Cycling Ireland as a national governing body.
When the review evaluates Cycling Ireland’s high performance structure, or programme, it is very positive in places; saying there were “good levels of simplicity, accessibility and communication” with “no bureaucracy, ensuring functionality”. The programme was also “quick to respond to issues that arose”.
However, there was “no clear vision around the programme during preparation” and a “lack of clarity in where best to focus resource”. There was also “insufficient individual athlete programming,” the review said.
“Was not enough focus towards ensuring athletes and NGB understand current performances, goals and ambitions, and what the plan is in order to achieve these,” it said. The review added the resignation of the performance director “inevitably impacted” the high performance structure and its functionality.
In relation to the Mallorca location as a training facility, the review said it was “no longer fit for purpose as a training camp” adding it “does not facilitate intense training sessions”. Riders were also unable to do altitude training there in Mallorca, where the Irish riders “can feel isolated when based there for significant periods of time”.
In relation to athlete performance, the review said “despite a couple of good performances, there was overall disappoint around performances in road and track”. It described the road race as “brutal and challenging”.
There was also some “misfortunate with crashes” in events – on the track – which it linked to a lack the competition (due to the pandemic – Ed) suffered by riders across the whole field. For some riders, they simply did not perform their best on the day.
Athlete support was sufficient at the Games, meaning the athletes only had to focus on their own performances. However, there was some overreliance on staff “who had several responsibilities”.
Overall, the riders flew business class into camp and then straight out again, which was ideal for performance – namely recovery and conditioning. However, it did not generate a ‘Team Ireland’ feel for the riders, which the review says may have helped with their performances.
