 |
| It's not just in 'clinical studies' that there's 'conflict of interest' |
There’s
something very basic in any competitive activity ruled by, well, rules
and fair play: zero tolerance of interest-conflict. Conflict of interest
is essentially a situation where an individual or an institution has
multiple interests and serving one could be detrimental to another,
then. In other words, if interests conflict, the concerned individual or
organization keeps out of things. ‘Or ought to,’ one might add.
There
are many kinds, of course. In sports it’s about interests coming into
conflict in the case of coaches, players, parents and administrators.
If
an active player is also a selector (except in the case of a skipper
who is ex-officio a selector, i.e. he/she is already selected and
his/her input is considered useful in selecting the rest of the team),
there’s a problem. He/she can weigh in with opinions that favor his/her
selection.
It’s the same with a parent, who
could bat for his/her son or daughter, so to speak. Coaches can help
‘select’ those they coach.
And it’s not
just about selection. There can be hanky-panky in policy-formulation
too. Certain policies might favor someone related in some way to an
administrator. If that is the case, the particular individual should
disclose conflict of interest and opt out of the decision-making
process. Judges do that often enough, but caught-in-conflict
administrators by and large do not.
I
heard randomly that the Squash Federation had elected a new committee.
My first question to a friend in that committee was, ‘are there any
coaches, parents or active players in your committee?’ The answer, soft
but firm was ‘no.’
There are people
interested in squash, past players who have represented the country in
international events as well as top professionals who probably have a
good understanding of identifying institutional and programmatic flaws,
the efficient use of resources and teamwork. Good things can be
expected.
Conflict of interest is not just about players, parents
and coaches holding office. There can be administrators who have
benefited from the ‘largesse’ of sports bodies. For example, in the case
of teams taking part in international events abroad, a ministry
official can be offered a free trip, either as ‘Manager’ or as ‘Head of
Delegation.’
There’s nothing wrong in
this. However, one wonders why, for example, certain errant sports
bodies are never investigated. There are certain federations that have
not submitted accounts for years. When questions are raised by anyone
concerned, typically we have a twiddling of thumbs, passing of files and
all kinds of unacceptable excuses being offered. At the end of the day,
nothing happens. The errant are untouched. They are untouchable
because, if one may put it that way, they’ve ‘touched’ the right person
in the right manner.
If
Minister Namal Rajapaksa is interested in putting things right, he
needs to correct the systemic flaws in the overall sports administrative
edifice. There are many who render amazing services and with little or
no appreciation for the efforts. There are also those who cut corners,
those who are in it for self-gain and those who are taking care of
personal interests.
Maybe they don’t know what
conflict of interest is, but that’s not an excuse. They are required to
know what’s what. In any event ministry officials know or else they
shouldn't be where they are. The minister has to know or has to learn
quickly.
Other articles in the series titled 'The Interception' [published in 'The Morning']
'Possible' is a single word lesson
0 comments:
Post a Comment