Global Athlete
Global Athlete

Episode · 1 month ago

Re-release: Current Athlete Representation Models with Beckie Scott


This is a re-release of our interview with Beckie Scott, originally published within GA Podcast EP03.

Just because you’re elected to a position of power doesn’t mean you can make the changes you want. Beckie Scott joins Noah to discuss her experiences with both the WADA Athlete Committee and IOC Athletes’ Commission and the ups and downs of athlete representation and power in international sport governance. 

In this episode, we talk about…

  • What drove Beckie to get involved in the WADA Athlete Committee and IOC Athletes’ Commission 
  • Details about Beckie’s experience within WADA AC  
  • What professional support Beckie received while working with WADA AC
  • Why Beckie chose to become a part of the IOC AC  
  • An insider’s perspective about the power, loyalty and perks given to IOC AC’s members 
  • The influence of the IOC AC over WADA 
  • Making athletes feel important vs. listening to and acting on athlete’s concerns 
  • What Beckie believes is the only way athletes can shape the future of sport   

Memorable Quotes:

  • “It was really important that athletes know that we weren’t aligned with the leadership and the decision-making body at that time, that we felt very strongly on behalf of athletes that this was not representative of their rights and was not representative of clean sport and the right direction to go at all.”
  • “I think the future does lie with independent organizations...either the NOC Athlete Commissions becoming independent or the international federations...are really good starts and are probably gonna shape the way forward.”     

Guest Bio:

Beckie Scott is an Olympic gold and silver medalist in cross-country skiing. She was a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Athlete Committee from 2005-2018, during which time she also served as chair of the committee, and she served on WADA’s Foundation Board and on the WADA Executive Committee. 

In 2006, she was also elected as a member of the International Olympic Committee’s Athletes’ Commission. She served a full 8-year term ending in 2014. She’s also worked for the Canadian Olympic Committee and was on the board of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games Organizing Committee. In 2019, she was officially appointed as an Officer of the Order of Canada.  



Links to resources:

Beckie Scott 

World Anti-Doping Agency’s Athlete Committee 

International Olympic Committee’s Athletes’ Commission 

Follow Beckie on Twitter @BeckieScott4 and follow Global Athlete @GlobalAthleteHQ. Get in touch at and join the movement at

Beckie Scott is an Olympic gold andsilver medalist in cross country skiing. She was a member of the World AntiDoping Agency's, Athlete Committee from two thousand and five thousand andeighteen, during which time she also served as chair of the committee andshe served on WADA's Foundation Board and on the WADA Executive Committee intwo thousand and six. She was also elected as a member of theInternational Olympic Committee's Athlete Commission. She served a fulleight year term, ending in two thousand and fourteen she's also worked for theCanadian Olympic Committee and was on the Board of the twenty ten VancouverOlympic Games, Organizing Committee in two thousand and nineteen. She wasofficially appointed as an officer of the order of Canada Beckie. It is such apleasure to welcome you to the Global Athlete podcast. I want to focus todayon an overview of the athlete representation model that you're sosteeped in in Olympic and Paralympic Sport. I kind of view this as the first of atwo part mini series, because next week we're going to focus on theprofessional players, associations and and kind of, compare and contrast, your experience of the experience ofathletes in the Olympic sport versus the professional sports in the US andCanada and internationally with the World Players Association. So I'mcurious, you know, first of all, why did you initially want to get involvedin the WADA and IOC Athlete committees? What drove you? So I think my initialinterest was born out of my experience in sport. You know, which was that Ihad been an athlete competing at you know the highest level. For a long time.I saw decisions being made on behalf of athletes that affected athletesimpacted. You know the way the events were run on and on and on, but notnecessarily you know in light or with respect to how the athletes felt aboutthings or the athletes would have would have done things. So it was always something that I wascurious about an interested in, and then I think after Salt Lake City, ofcourse, when you know I was directly involved in a fairly highly profile,public doping scandal. You know my interest really picked ananti doping and that's where you know I began to to write lettersand began to talk to people and so in it's sort of spiral from there yeah forlisteners who don't know becky was originally originally finished. Thirdin the race in the solid games in in two thousand and two behind two Russianathletes who were later convicted of doping, their samples where came backpositive and eventually your bronze medal, was upgraded to gold. I canimagine that that was, you know, super motivating to want toget involved, what we're. So, what we're kind of some of the changes thatyou wanted to see when you first started getting involved in thosecommittees? Well, I think you know very initially,even before Salt Lake City, I had a suspicion, I had a feeling that thingswere not being done right in this port of cross country. King, like it justseemed to me that there were too many...

...inconsistencies in the way that doppingcontrol and testing was being done. The all the you know the rumors that theperformances and then the fact that the FIS was you know. I think- and I think this isthe case with most international federations, there they're really in aplace of conflicted interest where they are tasked with driving revenue, TVviewer, ship and building the business of the sport while simultaneously alsotasked with you know, keeping it clean and inlighter that you know, potentially presenting a risk to themselves of ofexposing. You know superstars and people who would generate persha anddollars to e to the sport as drugsheaven. They tend to air on theside of business development and continuing to you know, try to generate as manyresources as possible and fall down significantly. I think oftenwhen it comes to clean sport and making sure the sport as well as being wellpoliced. I guess, if for lack of a better termen in terms of drugs anddoping, can you complete that chain? For me,though, because you mentioned that this has a conflict of interest, how doesthat trickle upward down? However, you viewit to water. How does that conflict of interest in sport administration end upat the world antidoting agency? Well, I think you know what is ofcourse task was over seeing all the international federations in terms ofcompliance and making sure that they're upholding all the rules and standardsand systems that are in place it to the best postle to the best of theirability or to the expectations that have been laid out in the code. So you know it's one thing to take a box and it's,but it's quite another to you, know to see it and practice on the field andwhen what I saw you know, when I was competing in in cross country, skiingwas was just some some real gaps and inconsistencies and things that justdidn't add up. In My. In my view, I want to get to your time on the IOC atthe commission in a moment, but sticking with water for now did you kind of once you got there and you sawhow the Athlete Committee operated. What did you was? Did it meet your expectations?What was it like to be in the room? Were you able to push for some of thechange that you were hoping to push for when you, when you wanted to be on thatcommittee in the first place, so my time there really went through anevolution. You know like when I first joined the Water Athlete Committee. Itwas as a member of the committee and it was chaired by a gentleman from Russia as it turns infact, and you know, and things were...

...relatively calm and it was a prettystraight forward committee with pretty easy terms of reference, and-and I would say you know not a whole lot of- I don't know what the right, where itis necessarily, but we weren't we weren't, tackling big topics. Weweren't really having difficult conversations. Everything really waspretty smooth and pretty standard, and then you know. After a while, I was tappedon the shoulder to become the chair. I accepted. I was still very interestedin anti doping and you know, and growing more and more involved in theorganization as a whole. Getting onto you know, different committees as well,and just you know, increasing my engagement andinvolvement in an antidoting and shortly after that, you know Russiahappened and that's when everything changed and everything just you know ina completely radically different direction and the Athlete Committee you know became quite embroiled and-and I was you know, leading that committee and and speaking of be halfof that committee and then out of a lot of the activities that wewere undertaking in a lot of the statements and positions we were making came the question of representation,because you know as one example, I think the first time it ever was setout loud at a meeting at Wata was after we proposed the idea of a charter of athletes rights, and youknow this really was upsetting and quite concerning to the IOC, and theycame back to me and to their committee, but largely to me with the position that who are you to do that?Who? Who Do you represent anyway? And you are not even voted in. So that'swhen that conversation. Actually, that was the catalyst for that conversation.Was that the way the athlete committee within water had been formed andcreated and had operated and existed within Wana until that point had neverbeen questioned, actually had never been, you know pulled apart the way it wasuntil we started to become really active and challenged the leadership ofwater and the IOC, and then suddenly, you know we were being told wellactually you're not legitimate anyway, because you're not boated, you're, notelected, like the members of the IO C athlete comision now do you have a sense of how the I the Ethic Commission that waterpre existed your membership, but do you know how it came to be and how it cameto be that it was just appointed members and not elected? I have an idea, you know, and I thinkit was a creation of David Helman, the thedirector general for many years, twelve...

...years it was a, I think, a conversation at the timewith the with the governing bodies. You know- and I remember clearly also, thathe said that they had to push back on the IOC, because the IC had wanted itoriginally to be fifty percent members of the. I C Athlete Commission and theysaid well, you know that's too many and they pushed it back to to to. I thinkat the time you know so, but again you know theappointed method wasn't actually that bad in a way to go because- and itworked well for a lot of a long time for many years, because you knowdifferent National Anti Dopin agencies or National Inflict Committees would, you know, submit an athlete based ontheir experience, their expertise there, their background and Anti doping theirprofile? Sometimes and often you would get really qualified really engagedmembers. As a result, I want to be explicit with with listeners I thatwhen you were talking about the Russian scandal, the Athlete Committee was areally strong voice to exclude Russia from the Olympic Movement until theymet the road map and what a the water governing board was not amenable tothat, especially at the end. Initially, they were. Did you you know youmentioned that that you were the voice of the Athlete Committee where you did you have carte blanche to be ableto speak your mind to the media. Did you have a direct line to be able tospeak for athletes at that time? Yeah, I would say so. I don't feel like therewas ever any attempt to muzzle or to you know, squelch anything that I wassaying I felt fairly free to speak my mind and not only tothe media, but to the members of the board and the executive teamdirectly. So often you know I had many opportunities in the meetingsto say exactly what was on the mind of our committee and how wefelt about things, and we also you know, issued many statements as if youremember you know during that time as well, it's directly I was into thepublic star, because I think we felt that it was really important thatathletes know that we weren't aligned with theleadership in the decision making body at that time that we felt very stronglyon behalf of athletes. This was not representative of their rights, it wasn't representativeof clean sport an in the right direction to go at all beyond your ability to shape the media,and I don't actually know the answer to the question: Did you have any realpower, any real power within the system? No, I would say I did not. I did noteven have a vote. You know when it came down to it, it wasn't it was, and you know, by theend, you know my. I think my presence in the room was viewed as largelyantagonistic, and you know I mean spanking. Frankly theyeven they moved my my chair to the back...

...of the room. My report was alwaysscheduled after lunch. When nobody was in the room. Did there was some very subtle and someyou know not so subtle moves to just you know, I think gradually move me tothe side, because I was just getting in the way. I think what about access to information as thecommittee? How? How did the agenda for your Athlete Committee meetings get setset set and did you feel like you were being fully informed on on how Wata wasbeing governed? When you were the chair of the Athlete Committee yeah, I don'tthink there was ever attempts to. You know swar to us that way, but I think theyrecognize that there were some very smart individuals on that committee whocould see through things quite quickly, so if there ever was any to attempt asnowball, it was called out pretty quickly that I don't believe that was happening.I think that things you know when we went through thegovernance review. Changes were made to our terms ofreference, and things like that that there was some some some stick handlingthere. That was done deliberately to get the result that they wanted. Butyou know sometimes I just by that point in timeit was, I don't know you had to sort of pickyour battles to my final question specifically aboutthe water athlete committee was what kind of professional support did youhave? I mean these are big decisions that you were tasked with. Making theywere it was you know, it's a huge organization that you were supposed tobe advising did you have? You know dedicated staffon the Athlete Committee or were, and how did your relationship work withgetting help on the things that you were working on? That's a good question because that Ithink that went through an evolution as well. You know- and we did definitelyhave dedicated staff working with the Athi Committee for many years and obviously you know Rob Keeler well andhe was the deputy director general. He worked directly with US for a number ofyears and then, when he left, you know- andthings got quite heated- we we had a change over in terms of who we usedwith it the organization and the support we received and I felt like ithad diminished greatly, and it was very clear and evident that being alignedwith the Athlete Committee you know was. I think there was anattitude within the organization. It wasn't good for the organization. Youknow that that maybe bit being a line of supporting me,particularly you know, and so, for example, we had a. We had an athlete forum in Lasan in you know my final year and I I did a tremendous amount of work onthat, because there was very few people...

...internally who were interested insupporting that, and I believe that that was driven also by there. Just thethe fact that the IOC did not support the lot of ethic committee andtherefore Wata did not really want to support their own eathly committee likeit was quite a quite evident. You know by that point in time that we weren'tnecessarily a welcome part of the team. So you were, you know it sounds likethings were, were pretty. You know nothing controversial at the beginningof your time at water, and you were you were on that Water Committee in twothousand and five, but by my understanding, and then you decided atthe two thousand and six Torino Games to run for the IOC Athlete Commission,which is a very different process to get on to so. First question is: Whydid you want to go through that process? Why do you want to be on the IOCcommission when you were already on the water commission yeah? It's a reallygood question, because I had actually the year you know in the years leadingup to those games. You know been through the Court of Orbita for sportprocess, where I had, you know been witness to the IOC arguing against thereallocation of the metals. In my event, so you know it was the Norwegian andCanadian Olympic Committee who effectively battled the IOC for them toreverse that that metal distribution and take the medals away from theRussian athletes who had tested positive. So I had seen them in actionand it wasn't really wowed by their. You know the way they behaved in terms of the Opholdin, theirown values and apparent. You know charter, but I again, I guess I was still verycurious and still, I think of it naive in my interpretation of what an athleterepresentative could do. So I really felt like at the time. Oh, if I get inon the inside, you know this. This is the biggest Fort Administration in theworld. Obviously it's it's! A very powerful organization I believe in theOlympics. I really was you know. Still quite you know, I think, full of full of belief in the power of sportand the Olympic Games and why not go on the be on the inside andtry to you know, influence change for good on the inside. So that's that wasmy thinking at that time. How did you know how did thoseexpectations line up with reality when you got there well, they were fairly well squashed pretty quickly and I'll. Give you agreat example when I, when I went to my first meeting my very first meeting,there was another Canadian on the committee and she said to me: I justsaw you know you don't talk for the first two years and I said what what doyou mean? She said. Oh, no, just listen! Just listen all you! You know becausethat's kind of the way it goes- and I was like all that's nonsense. So Ispoke up. You know at the first meeting...

...and on- and I did get some reallyincredible- looks of surprise that I had I had come in as a new member andhad the audacity to actually speak at the first meeting. So that gives you akind of sense of the the level of protocol, the status, thehierarchy that the power in the room, that that tends to influence how things aredone and how things, actually you know, are, are decided and what opinions areare shared in the end yeah. I think this is a question that a lotof athletes have when they kind of lose faith in the IOC Athlete Commission,which is. Why did the leadership of that committee? Who have that powerthat you're talking about? Why do they continue to go along withthe IO C's line and not stand up for athletes? The way that they do? I think, because there is a verypowerful there's, a very powerful mechanism atwork there and it is the the delivered and intentional the psychology behind making you feelyou know when you become an is Yo member, you you are made to feel reallyimportant. You are showered, you know with gifts with with services, you know you areshuffled around in your own car with you are just you you're, given thefeeling and the sense that you are really superior. You know there's ahierarchy and sport and you are at the top, the very tough when you become anILS member and they work really high to install that in people and then withthat console and the expectation of loyalty- and there are, I would say,very, very, very few who are able to resist that because, as Soonas you stepout of line and as soon as you confront or challenge- or you know, maybe show your disloyalty tothe brand of the club whatever it is, you know you, you will be you well,there will be consequences, and you know it happens to enough people thatyou see it and you understand, and if it happens to you, certainly understandvery quickly that, in order to make you like easier, you fall in line and Ithink that's. I really do think. That's behind it. All this incredibly powerful pull to be part ofthe club and because there are a lot of parks. A lot are the perks. What you mean when, whenyou the loss of perks, when there will be consequences because you're you wereelected by the entire attending athlete body at the Torino Game, that I meanyou had a mandate, so you know you weren't just appointed by theadministration, so I guess I you know...

...if you can be more explicit about likewhy it is that you're not empowered when you arrive there to stand up yeah well, I think that the part of it,too, is that you are given the feeling you are standing up. You know you aregiven the the like. Everything is sort of presentedto you and a communicated to you in a way that I think does make them feel or it doesmake you feel like you're representing the athletes, and you know it's all done in a way toreally help you feel justified there, and and besides that, you know it's there's this this. Also this again itcomes back you're on the inside and those who are outside. So if you arehearing challenging voices or if you are getting, you know a letter from theWater Athlete Committee- I mean they are so far beneath you. It's just that's the that's the way it can all bejustified. You know it's sort of this. I know it's the inner circle that it'sreally untouchable is there and this I might know theanswer to because I was an athlete and never received any direct solicitationof opinion. It felt like it. Is there a direct line for you as an IOC AthleteCommission member to athletes to understand what it is, what kind ofissues athletes are facing and and what it is that you maybe you should befighting for so during my time. No, absolutely not.There was never any ever effort, I mean they would have these athlete forumsand you know, go through the go through the motionsof having athletes gather and giveopinions, and at the end you know the person would say: Oh we've, a dot,we're going to adopt all of these recommendations. You know and theneverybody with clap and go home and nothing changed. I mean honestly now they have. The conference calls ofcourse. So there is a direct line, you know and that that's so that'sdifferent. That is changed, but it certainly that wasn't the process ofthe practice. When I was there one thing I've been surprised to learnabout you, thow these positions are and actually all IOC members right, notjust the Athletes Commission are advertised as volunteer, but there isactually some financial incentive and I didn't quite realize it, but I'veactually heard from athletes that that have been on that commission. I wouldbeen IOC members that the financial incentive can actually be a little bitof a you know. It could be an influence.It's not a small amount of money. Do you feel comfortable talking about kindof like what the financial perks are of being an IOC member? You know not necessarily because it's Ithink it's I'm past that time like, I think it's changed, even since I, likemy final year, was two thousand and...

...fourteen. So that's quite a long timeago, and I think it's probably changed even since then so I would just say youknow there were financial pricks for sure. There was also the lifestyle perk.You know: you're flown first class, all over the world state as to a five starhotels like there's, there's a lifestyle component to that whole world.That is, I think, very attractive to a lot of people. You've mentioned alittle bit th the connection between the IOCETL Commission and the waterathe commission, you mean you were on both of these committees, what kind of- and it sounds like to me that from whatyou were saying that most of the influence that the IOC has over Wadawas coming more from the administration than it was from like the connection ofthe athlete committees. But but was there overlap between the work you weredoing in the two and was there influence that you? As you say, the theIOCAIMA ion that viewed themself as being so far above the Water AthleteCommission? Did they have influence over the water athlete? Commission? Oh absolutely, they definitely did youknow and that influence grew, because that, because by the time you know, I had left it well in the in the last fewyears. You know there there was always turnover happening so so, whereas athletes coming into the waterethnic committee may have been selected, you know on a rarely objective set ofcriteria. They were now being selected based on there. You know preferredstatus within the IOS, so there was all so that was happening. So you know atone point in time. We could get things through and get things past, because westill have fifty percent of the members who weren't allying with the IOC, but that changed. You know it becausethey recognized that there was an opportunity to put in more athletes and,of course want. I accepted that they wanted that, and so it was happening atthe Executive Board Level Foundation Board level and at the the AthleteCommittee level, and it made my job very difficult, very impossible at times actually to getanything done, because they were directly fighting to rent your job asCher Yeah Yeah. They I was you know getting. I got, you know emailsdirectly, confronting challenging targeting all of the time making mylife. You know it was. It was almost like. It was a goal to make my lifetypical. You talked initially about having spoken upin that very first IOC Athlete Commission Meeting that you were partof, and I know that you continued to standup for what you believe in. Did you ever feel like you, you had areceptive audit, I mean Everset of audience is probably the wrong way toput that, because clearly you didn't, but did you ever make any progress? Didyou did you? Did you get anything done as for standing up for what youbelieved in at the ill see level I would say: No, I don't think anythingever came out. Tom was out of the...

Athlete Commission that was meaningful,that when I was there I would say definitely not. There was a there was aclear mandate and that was from the executiveoffice, and that was followed by the I of C Athletes Commission, and there wasno real diverting from that. As an IOC member, what was your relationship likewith IC administration? Did you know? Did you communicate mostlywith the chair of the athlete Committi or did you were you? Were you in touchgetting communications directly from the administration at the IOC and and was it just an ex? I mean I guess, I'mtrying to get a picture in my mind of like how this like this group ofathletes, who are all kind of in it and, and you know, as you've,explained really body into the IOC model and dedicated the I C like. I guess. What is the reason forbeing there like like? Is it just a show? Well, you know it's a great questionbecause they really do make an effort to again make you feel like you're. Your work is important and you knowyou're again and again, I'm speaking of even era with you know on a twothousand and six o o thousand and fourteen. So we would be, you know,placed into other commissions within the IOC as the Athlete Representativeand prepare reports. You know and report on the reports and submit all kinds of things and havemeetings, and you know there was. There was a fairamount of work, but but was it actually effective? No, I don't think so like was itactually? What was what was being decided and what was being implementedand activated? You know was happening at the administration level. TheAthlete Committee wasn't doing doing the work, so I think it was largely designed to makeus feel important and like we were contributing, you know in a meaningfulway, but vitral St ically like in especially when I reflect on it nowit's kind of like what. What was that? What about the ability to shape thenarrative like you had it wade? So you know you talked about that was that wasreally powerful and that you did you had the ability to speak directly tothe media or directly to the administration at water. Did you havethat same freedom at the IOC and and did you feel like you're? You had amicrophone that really mattered? Well, I don't that's a good. You know. I think thaton occasion I did speak up like I really- and I remember clearly oneforum, for example, and Copenhagen, and it was with all the IOS members- andthey had done this an then there's big presentation on thegreatest athlete of all time and they had six speakers come up and five ofthe six you know presented on it was all they're all Menand, then the wineathlete at the end they presented was...

...was a woman, Nadia Comin it, and youknow later on, we have these breakup groups and- and I went to the one ongender quality and women in Sports. You know because at that time there wasthis real effort around the rhetoric to to to to produce this rhetoric abouthow gender quality was so important, and so such a you know priority andsuch a push at that at that time, for the IOC and I and I stood up- and Iasked the question I said well, you know if gender equality is such of apriority- has such a such a place of emphasis, an effort forthe IOC right now. Why did we just sit through a presentation where five ofthe six greatest athletes of all time, rold men? Surely you could have foundat least one other woman or you know balanced it out somehow and theresponse to me. You know later I had a staff member pull me aside and say youknow, is a really vicky like that was totally outside and, like just tell me who can you think ofthat would be a female, Michael Phelps or female? You Sing Bolt. That was hisresponse and I just was so stunned. I couldn't even re reply. I just thoughtwow, okay, you guys you really don't get it so yeah, but but if I you know and towards the end in the ILC sessions,you know I would, I would say things, but I, but I knew it even at that pointI that this was like. You know, throwing sand in the ocean.There was no. There was nobody listening to the athletes. That's forsure. It's funny on last week's podcast. I got kind of outraged because of thethe reporting that the Kirsty Coventry has been. The chair of the AthleteCommittee has been approved as an IOC, general member and because I know that there's so manyperks that come along with that and it feels it would. I view that, in thelight of the professional athlete so like theProfessional Leagues and and this model of the unionization and collectivebargaining, it's just you know, there's no way to square that with this ideathat the head of the commission would then become one of the administration.Immediately I mean you can't imagine the head of the NFL Players Associationjoining the owners at the NFL Commissioner's office, but but the way that you tell of the ofthe culture there, but it kind of it seems like it is more or less a naturalprogression, you're just you're, just climbing up the ladder and of coursethe next step is to just be a general IOC member yeah. I think it's a reward. I do, Ithink it's a loyalty thing and it's a reward and she's not the first. That'sfor sure there was two before her two chairs of the Athlete Committee thatwent on to become lifetime members. I know for a fact: It was promised toothers who didn't receive it because...

...they, you know, ran into conflict ofone, in particular at the end of her term, but yeah. It's a membership has its privileges sort ofthing. I want to end by kind of getting yourtake on like what the future might look like or how the future could look orwar. What kind of system could work for athletes? Have you you know you've hada kind of remarkable position on all these Internet. You know the biggestinternational athlete commissions you've also been involved somewhat withadministration with the Canadian Olympic Committee and the VancouverOrganizing Committee. You know what kind of a system can you envision whereathletes in international sport in this? You know these sports that are sodiverse in geography and in the type of athletics athletes that we have. Howcan they ever gain real power over administrators? How can athletesactually shape sport? I mean, I think it is starting to happen Noah with thecreation of these independent athlete organizations, and I really do thinkthat is the only way forward in terms of at least getting an equal foot inthe door and a lie. You know a voice at the table thatwill be reheard and interacted with on an equal level, andso you we've seen it now obviously global athlete, but the German athletesthe athletes can and Canada. You know, athletics is AthleticsAssociation, so it's happening because athletes have kind of. I think they're,finally, coming into the realization that if that is the only way for it,these, the wine and athletes, a committee or an association, stillexists under the umbrella of the administration. It can never truly be athat effect of like it always will be beholden to the desires of the of thatadministration, or it will be, you know, cast out or I you know ostracized or whatever to thepoint where it's it's no longer effective anyway. So I think the futuredoes lie with independent organizations. How that how that shapes up yo now interms of the the vast spectrum of athletes and the round the globe andall the sports? I don't know, but but I do think you know either these the NOCathlete commissions becoming independent or the internationalfederations. You know which we've seen two examples with the Germans andAthletic Association are really good, starts and probably gonna shape the wayforward. We will leave it there. Becky Scott is an Olympic golden silvermedalist, a former member of the IOC and Wata Athlete Committees. Becky,it's been such a pleasure. Thank you so much for your time and your insights.Thank you know. It's been great to chat.

In-Stream Audio Search


Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (15)