Whistling a bit more

Following yesterday's post on whistle-blowing, I received several messages from people, either commenting or asking for more information. Indeed, in this morning's Guardian newspaper, there was further coverage of Piquetgate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/15/pat-symonds-renault-piquet-briatore
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/15/flavio-briatore-renault-singapore-nelson-piquet-transcript

My response to one person who contacted me was: "One needs to ask why whistle-blowers in sport are an important or a distinctive issue? Given the team mentality and the culture of groups of athletes sticking together in sport, individual interests and concerns will often be subjugated at the expense of collective solidarity. This has resulted in the emergence of a culture where the prevailing view is: ‘what happens in the dressing room, stays in the dressing room’. It is very clear from revelations that leak out on an almost weekly basis in sport, that one is entitled to be seen in sport but often one is not necessarily allowed to be heard. Hence, it would appear to be acceptable in many cases that athletes are neither able nor willing to express their views on matters that may be concerning them. However, individuals still retain the right to their personal freedom and liberty both legally and in terms of the guidelines laid down by organisations like the CIPD. The question is: in sport, given the prevailing organisational culture and mentality, are individual athletes being afforded their full rights, and in cases where they do actually exercise these rights, are such athletes then being marginalised or treated in a different to their peers?

My view is that sport is changing rapidly and faces many challenges that often lead individuals, groups and organisations to operate in ways that may be unethical, illegal, dangerous, and possibly even unfair. In these turbulent times, I think it is important that the integrity of sport is preserved, if not strengthened. In which case, I there should be policies, procedures and mechanisms in place to ensure that anyone who has concerns about an issue is able to represent their concerns to someone or something that will deal with them to the satisfaction of the person airing those concerns. There is a fundamental issue of good governance here, the principles of which would have to be applied in such cases. In other words, the potential for corruption, retaliation and ‘white-washing’ would have to be mitigated in the policies procedures and mechanisms put in place (and indeed the outcomes that are delivered). That said, I would not see any re-appraisal of what ‘whistle-blowing’ in sport means as being a charter for the disaffected, the aggrieved or the irritated to make unsubstantiated and scurrilous claims about people they work with or organisations they are employed by. This is why the Benetton case will be interesting to watch.

As for the biggest whistle-blowing case in history, this one has got to be up there at the top; even now it still rumbles on and has taken a lot of people down with it. Kirk Radomski was the whistle-blower in this case: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_roger_clemens_grand_jury_probe_steroid_d.html

Otherwise, Mike Newell’s claims about football agents is an interesting case too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/4605184.stm "

So, what was the biggest whistle-blowing scandal in the history of sport? What was involved? Who was involved? Was the whistle-blowing necessary, desirable or needlessly disruptive? Was the whistle-blower vindicated, discredited, protected, persecuted? And how was the whole issue managed? How should it have been managed?