Written on Tuesday March 15 2005

After months of wild speculation, no small amount of mis-communication, and rumour and counter-rumour by the bucket-load, former GBWBA Executive Committee member Ian Laker speaks to UKWBF about the reasons for his recent departure from the organisation.
 

The Great Britain Wheelchair Basketball Association Executive Committee has long been accused by many of suffering from a lack of accountability. With few people ready to volunteer to commit their time and energy to the key GBWBA roles, those already in place are arguably without reasonable competition for those roles. However, Ian Laker suggests that the members themselves must take their share of the responsibility for this situation;
 

"The fact is that many members have forgotten that the Executive are a membership-elected governing body." he begins. "As such each member can stand up for the Executive and be counted. Whilst apathy and selfishness exists, based on the last 8 years or more no one is standing up against the Executive when it counts and therefore they can be confident in their positions and what they choose to do."
 

"The Executive, like all club committees is made up of those who wanted the job. It is not a skill or knowledge based election system, and the fact is that the strongest minds and personalities will therefore be in control, for better or worse."
 

In addition to this, Ian does not think that the introduction of lottery funding at Elite level in the sport was necessarily a good thing for all those involved with the game; "Our sport changed when we got lottery funding. The sport is now divided into professional and amateur in attitude as well as training, skill and commitment levels. As the sport is so small in numbers the Executive constantly try to merge the two sides at some level." he explains.
 

He is in no doubt that this has created something of a rift between the professional and the recreational GBWBA member; "Both Pro and Amateur have to take responsibility for changing and improving things because in reality they need each other." he says, also citing the fact that even those at a lower level can sometimes only have the best interests of their own clubs at heart, often to the detriment of the game's bigger picture.
 

Turning to his specific reasons for departing his Executive Committee post, Ian spells out exactly what the pitfalls are of investing so much time and effort into the sport, particularly when problems arise; "My fundamental reason for leaving is that it (working on the Executive Committee) makes me upset and angry and gives me sleepless nights. This often creeps into my working and personal life and I have decided that it is not the way I wish to live." he admits, not unreasonably.
 

In particular, the theme that seems to run through most of Ian's reasons for his decision appears to be the state of the women's game in this country, particularly in light of the recent resignation of Great Britain women's coach Dan McCaffrey. Ian complains that the attitude towards the women's team in recent times has been some way short of acceptable, a situation he finds difficult to comprehend; "In today's society we should not be questioning equality. Would we accept the same decisions we make for the women's team if they were made for the men's team?" he remarks, his belief in persisting with a fully-fledged women's national team understandably unshakeable.
 

"I sat on the Exec and was in the GB Men's team briefly when our men were placed 12th out of 12 in the world. There were years and years when they did not perform well and there were very little funds for them to do anything with. In those days we (The Executive Committee) knew and acted with the simple belief that it was right to have and fund, however we could, a national men's team. For me it is simple, the Executive Committee exists to run wheelchair basketball. That means the leagues and the national teams. The juniors and women need to be playing at international level as much as possible. Who knows? They too may get lucky in a major tournament and get funding. Everyone knows the Atlanta story that got our men their funding. Where would even our men be today without international competition when they were not successful?" he argues, and it is difficult to disagree.
 

On the appointment of McCaffrey as Great Britain women's national team coach Ian believes, contrary to the beliefs of many, that the Executive Committee were not wholly responsible for what turned out to be a less than successful appointment. McCaffrey resigned shortly after Athens and Ian reflects; "The three-person interview panel made their decision unguided by the Executive. How else could a person who failed to meet three of the four main requirements, as advertised, be given the job? To be fair, if you read Dan's CV and believe he could deliver what he promised, then with strong guidance he could have been a good long term prospect as a coach."
 

Clearly that guidance was not forthcoming, but it is the way in which McCaffrey's appointment was handled, rather than the decision to appoint him, that still wrankles with Ian; "My personal issue was to do with how it was handled in terms of feedback. I had coached the team in Hamburg and the team's stats were good. There was even a written commendation for being the only team to use all of its players. I believe that with the time available before the Paralympics that the team could have improved further and increased it's world ranking. As I see it, no one on the interview panel knew sufficient facts or had done any background checking to make an informed decision. They instead took a long term view with the women's programme, thereby condemning the women to a guaranteed poor performance." he adds.
 

Despite his efforts in Hamburg, Ian does not believe that the job should have been his, but has a clear idea of who the ideal candidate was; "Steve Caine (Ian's former assistant with GB women) was in reality the best choice on the day. The reason why he did not get the job was tragically down to personal feelings and not in the interests of the sport and the women."
 

Caine left for Italy soon after, leaving McCaffrey to take charge of an ill-fated Athens 2004 Paralympic campaign. The tournament ended in turmoil, with suggestions of disharmony between players and coach, and even that one or two players had refused to play for McCaffrey any longer. Ian has his own thoughts on what went wrong; "Seventy-five per cent of the team made statements regarding misconduct by Dan. The issues were not basketball related but reflected a poor understanding of modern society protocols especially when in a public environment." Despite this, Ian still believes there is a place in our sport for McCaffrey, and indeed that the Executive would be wise not to discourage him or hound him out of the game. They are listening, as despite the disapproval of many McCaffrey looks set to be introduced into the coaching set-up of the men's national team, albeit some way below head coach David Titmuss in the hierarchy.
 

"To over punish youthful naivety would be irresponsible of the Executive and it is really about education and organisational support. The move to the men's set up is not a promotion. A move from head coach to something like number six assistant is not a promotion but a correct positioning of his current experience level. This sport does not currently attract many highly qualified basketball people and he may have potential. He is qualified but not experienced." says Ian, while keen to refute suggestions that any of the women players from his club, Force, were the instigators behind the troubles in Athens.
 

Ian does not subscribe to the view that the Executive Committee are guilty of mis-communication with their members. Many have complained that a range of decisions have been taken by the Executive without consulting the members, an allegation which Ian is quick to dispell; "The Executive does not need to explain and at the AGM (Annual General Meeting) nobody asks enough detailed questions. If you are really not happy and really want to do something then it is your right to read, understand and use the constitution." he remarks, again citing the willingness of many to complain after having shown an unwillingness to get involved in the initiation of change or the democratic process.
 

One of the issues which causes most consternation among members is the power held in the sport by Great Britain men's coach David Titmuss. While Ian acknowledges that it is unhealthy for any sport to offer too much power to one individual, he also recognises the qualities and talents brought to the wheelchair game by Titmuss; "I believe he has brought a level of professionalism and understanding." says Ian.
 

Despite this, he has reservations that Titmuss is the only man who can do this for the sport, and questions his appreciation of the sport below Elite level; "It bothers me that our national coach seems to actually not respect the rest of the sport below elite level and seems detached from the Executive and the masses. It is wrong that he is both head coach and world class performance manager and I do not believe that the Executive sub-committee that runs this section has any real control. I cannot see who he actually answers to except himself."
 

In addition, Ian is not entirely convinced by the results of the Great Britain men's team during Titmuss's tenure, and he claims not to be alone on that viewpoint; "Many on the Exec have expressed disappointment that we have not won as much as would have hoped, especially in the European Championships. Is he a good coach ? Could we do better? My answer is only that we should at least consider it, unless we are all positive that he is the best choice around. We deserved Bronze in Sydney and got bronze in Athens after all."
 

Ian Laker was talking to Stephen Orford

  Return to homepage