Olympic-Size Ethical DilemmasIssues and Challenges for Spor.docx

Olympic-Size Ethical Dilemmas:
Issues and Challenges for Sport
Psychology Consultants on the Road
and at the Olympic Games
Peter Haberl and Kirsten Peterson
U.S. Olympic Committee Coaching and Sport Sciences
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Providing sport psychology services to athletes and coaches
before and during the
Olympic Games presents a number of ethical concerns and
challenges for the practi-
tioner. These challenges are amplified by the nontraditional way
in which sport psy-
chology services are delivered, requiring careful attention to
maintaining ethical be-
havior no matter the setting. The purpose of this article is, from
the perspective of
sport psychology consultants employed by the U.S. Olympic
Committee, to outline
specific challenges, including prolonged travel with teams,
multiple relationships,
and such Olympic Games-related issues as dealing with the
media, team identifica-
tion, servicing multiple teams simultaneously, and practitioner
self-care. Strategies
for coping with these challenges as well as questions to ponder
are also presented as
a way to increase awareness of this field’s unique challenges for

the aspiring
practitioner.
Keywords: sport psychology, consultation, Olympic Games
Ethical concerns in sport psychology have recently received
increased attention in
professional journals, both within the discipline-specific
journals of sport psychol-
ogy (e.g., Biddle, Bull, & Seheult, 1994; Etzel, Watson, &
Zizzi, 2004; Watson,
Tenenbaum, Lidor, & Alferman, 2001) and chapters in sport
psychology books
(e.g., Gordin, 2003; Whelan, Meyers, & Elkins, 2002), as well
as within psychol-
ogy journals at large (e.g., Andersen, Van Raalte, & Brewer,
2001; Moore, 2003).
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 16(1), 25–40
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Correspondence should be addressed to Peter Haberl, U.S.
Olympic Committee Coaching and
Sport Sciences, 1 Olympic Plaza, Colorado Springs, CO 80909.
E-mail: [email protected]
The two major professional associations in sport psychology—
the Association for
the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology (AAASP) and
the American Psy-
chological Association’s (APA) Division 47—have also
increased their efforts to
highlight ethical concerns and raise awareness of ethical issues
for their member-

ships. These efforts have included, for AAASP (1996), the
development of a sport
psychology-specific set of ethical guidelines (modeled after the
APA, 1992, ethics
guidelines), regular articles in their newsletters, and an ethics
keynote address by
Gerald Koocher at the 2004 national conference. These
advances in ethical aware-
ness are welcomed in the field of sport psychology as a sign
that the field is matur-
ing toward a more professional and standard model of service.
A number of authors have addressed consultancy issues working
with Olympic
athletes and working at the Olympic Games (e.g., Bond 2002;
Gould 2001;
McCann, 2000; Roberts, 1989). Although these articles and
others like them dem-
onstrate an increased interest and focus on service provision
during the Olympic
Games, little has been written about the specific and unique
ethical issues faced by
sport psychology consultants who are helping athletes prepare
to compete and suc-
ceed at the Olympic Games. This article will provide an
overview of the evolution
of the field of applied sport psychology as well as the
development of the sport psy-
chology department and its functions at the U.S. Olympic
Committee (USOC) to
provide context for readers unfamiliar with the field. The USOC
Sport Psychology
service provision model will then be presented, with emphasis
on the particular
ethical challenges we face in the run-up to and at the Olympics,
as well as the strat-

egies we employ to mitigate those challenges.
APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY’S (RELATIVELY)
SHORT BUT ROCKY ROAD
Although the roots of sport psychology can be traced back into
the late 1800s with
the sport-oriented social psychology studies of Triplett (1898),
acceptance of the
applied, service-oriented side of the field has been much more
recent (Williams &
Straub, 1998). It has only been in the past 30 years that sport
psychology has
moved beyond research to become an accepted area of service.
The field of sport psychology had been traditionally housed
almost entirely
within departments of physical education or sport sciences, with
the emphasis on
an academically oriented, research career track. With the rise of
the application of
these principles to athletes and coaches, however, the issue of
what constituted op-
timal training for a sport psychology consultant became a hotly
debated topic. On
the one side were the sport science educated practitioners—
mostly researchers and
academicians—whereas on the other were psychology-trained
clinicians largely
unschooled in the sport sciences. With such varied educational
backgrounds, it is
little wonder that debate erupted over what constituted the
boundaries of compe-
26 HABERL AND PETERSON

tence for sport psychology consultants, a debate that continues
to the present. The
AAASP, in an attempt to legitimize the field, weighed in with
its own set of sport
psychology certification criteria in 1989.
Despite these developments, the field of sport psychology is
still largely unreg-
ulated, with practitioners from widely divergent backgrounds.
Nevertheless, over
the past decade, the public and the sporting world have become
more comfortable
with the idea of sport psychology and have accepted it as an
important contributor
to athletic excellence. With this acceptance have come
increased opportunities for
sport psychology service provision. The current field model of
service provision
has evolved out of early ambivalence about what sport
psychology could offer, as
well as the emphasis on education in sport psychology
principles. These influences
led to a “take it to the athletes” approach to service that
differentiated sport psy-
chology practitioners from their traditional, more office-bound
psychology coun-
terparts. As others in the field (e.g., Andersen et al., 2001)
pointed out, this depar-
ture from traditional models of psychology service provision
has not been without
its challenges, both logistically and, of course, ethically. As a
result, sport psychol-
ogy has been compared to rural psychology (e.g., Moore, 2003)
and the industrial/

organizational psychology consulting industry, with challenges
with regard to
boundary maintenance, multiple and sometimes conflicting
roles, as well as the
pros and cons of immersion into the culture of its clientele.
These departures from
the traditional psychology service model have and continue to
pose particular ethi-
cal challenges for practitioners.
DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT FOCUS OF APPLIED
SPORT PSYCHOLOGY AT THE USOC
Sport psychology at the USOC has grown in a similar way to the
development of the
applied field at large. Rooted in the 1970s, the USOC’s first
sport psychology practi-
tioner was a part-time “visiting professional” affiliated with the
first Olympic train-
ing center in Squaw Valley, CA. The USOC hired its first full-
time sport psychology
professional in 1987. This person chaired a program that
focused at that time primar-
ily on research, with a secondary emphasis on service provision.
Over the years,
however, the staff has increased as athletes and coaches have
recognized the impor-
tance of mental preparation for athletic excellence, and the
focus of the program has
shifted from research to an almost exclusive emphasis on
practice.
Currently the USOC Sport Psychology staff consists of four
licensed psycholo-
gists, all of whom have obtained additional education in the
sport sciences and

sport psychology. Our current mission—“From National Team
to Olympic Suc-
cess”—guides and concentrates our practice on nationally
ranked athletes as they
seek to make the jump from national to international and,
specifically, Olympic
success. Although the field of sport psychology has historically
distinguished be-
OLYMPIC-SIZE ETHICAL DILEMMAS 27
tween sport psychology services that are either educationally or
clinically focused,
we find this distinction to be artificial and not very practical in
our setting. Based
on the nature of our athlete population, all the services we
provide impact athletic
performance at some level, and all of an athlete’s psychological
issues need to be
considered in light of this more holistic stance.
Our services include counseling and a primarily cognitive–
behavioral approach
to sport psychology mental skill building for this athlete
population. To optimally
service these athlete clients, each staff member engages
primarily in long term,
multiyear consulting relationships with a limited number of
national and Olympic
teams. In our “at home” work setting at the Olympic Training
Centers, our interac-
tions with the athletes resemble a traditional counseling setting
in the sense of see-
ing athletes in our offices for consultations. Similar to how

others in the field work,
however, in the interest of accelerating the development of
trusting, credible rela-
tionships, even here we strive to take our practice to where the
athletes are—in the
training room, the cafeteria, the sports medicine clinic, and
during physiology and
biomechanics testing sessions.
Our focused approach with fewer teams has led to inevitable
trade-offs in terms
of depth over breadth of service. Whereas our message is spread
to fewer athletes,
we have the luxury within this model of spending more quality
time with those
teams we work with. On the other hand, we pay a price for this
depth of service:
Most of the sports we work with are based elsewhere, so most
of this quality time is
spent on the road, culminating in the experience of providing
service at the
Olympics.
THE OLYMPICS: POSSIBLY THE WORLD’S MOST
UNIQUE SPORTING AND CULTURAL EVENT
The Winter and Summer Olympic Games, each held every 4
years at staggered in-
tervals, are considered by many to be truly global sporting and
cultural events that
often transcend sport to showcase humanity. These are totally
unique events for
this reason, but for many others as well. No other sporting event
combines so many
sport competitions at the same time and place, which creates an
unmatched sense

of size and spectacle that in and of itself can unhinge even the
most seasoned, inter-
nationally competitive athlete. At the 2004 summer Olympics in
Athens, Greece,
for example, the athlete contingent totaled 10,500, with an only
slightly smaller
number of support personnel, with both of these groups being
outnumbered by
journalists (International Olympic Committee, 2004). With
numbers like these, it
is small wonder that the Olympics is often considered the most
logistically chal-
lenging event in sports, forcing athletes and coaches to engage
in an unaccustomed
level of advance planning to be functional, much less
successful. At the same time,
athletes and coaches are often unprepared for the high levels of
interest displayed
by formerly distant family members and friends, all of whom
are suddenly in-
vested in the athlete making the team and then wanting to
accompany the athlete to
the Olympics themselves. Add in the recent overlay of security
concerns given the
Games’ attractiveness as a potential target for terrorism, and it
is easy to see why
mental training and preparation for athletes and coaches is
considered a critical
pre-Olympic ingredient.
For the individual athlete, the 4-year cycle of the Olympics

bestows a level of
importance on the Games that often makes them a career-
culminating event; for
some, it is truly a once in a lifetime chance. A successful
performance has the po-
tential to make a significant financial impact for the athlete.
Clearly, this competi-
tive crucible creates unique pressures for everyone involved:
athletes, coaches, and
support staff.
SPORT PSYCHOLOGY SERVICE BEFORE
AND DURING THE OLYMPICS
It comes as little surprise to learn, then, that over the past 30
years Olympic athletes
have increasingly incorporated sport psychology principles into
their performance
preparation. Many countries, either through their National
Olympic Committees
or through their individual sports federations, provide their
athletes with ongoing
sport psychology services. As part of these developments, the
field of applied sport
psychology has seen a growing practitioner presence at the
Olympic Games. In-
creasingly, sport psychology consultants have also received
accreditation1 to the
field of play, allowing them to continue working and providing
services to their cli-
entele directly at the Olympic Games. The USOC has been no
exception to this
trend, responding to ever-increasing team requests by gradually
increasing the
number of sport psychology staff at the Games and extending
better access in the

form of field-of-play credentials. Having the USOC as an
employer in this situa-
tion creates an advantage for us in that we can talk directly to
decision makers, im-
pact our accessibility in ways that most other independent
service providers can-
not. What follows now is a more in-depth description of our
service model before
and during the Olympics, with discussions of ethical challenges
and strategies.
Life on the Long Road to the Olympic Games
That sport psychology practice is often differentiated from other
forms of psychol-
ogy service provision by where we do our work has already
been discussed. At the
1At every Olympics, each country is allotted a finite number of
credentials for their athletes,
coaches, and support staff. The accreditation determines one’s
level of access to Olympic venues and
the Athlete Village. This credential limit is unique to the
Games, with the demand inevitably exceeding
the supply.
USOC, taking the service to the athletes goes beyond the
occasional trip with a
team. All of our staff members regularly travel with the teams
with which we have
long-term relationships—usually several times per season for
competitions and in

the off-season to training camps. In the year before an Olympic
Games, this means
that we are on the road on the average of a week per month with
a particular team.
As others have noted (Andersen et al., 2001), being on the road
challenges the
traditional boundaries that psychologists maintain with clients.
We are usually
housed in close proximity to the athletes and are expected to be
on call for the dura-
tion of the trip. A typical trip for a staff member may include
travel with the team;
sharing a hotel room with a team staff member; eating meals
with the team; attend-
ing practices to observe, learn, and demonstrate availability;
sitting in on coaching
sessions; facilitating team meetings; and also working
individually with athletes
and coaches. This type of work over time leads to our
acceptance by athletes and
coaches as being part of the “team around the team.” Athletes
and coaches grow
more comfortable with us in the role as the on-site consultant
who can provide
mental training education, support, and coping strategies in the
midst of the train-
ing and competition routine. With this longer-term exposure to
our presence, ath-
letes create their own ways of working with us. Some consult
with us regularly on
an individual basis, whereas others attend group meetings and
use us more as the
occasional sounding board.
In addition to the more structured pieces of work we do, this

constant contact
provides many opportunities for what McCann (2000) called the
“ski lift and bus
ride consult” (p. 211) or what Giges and Petitpas (2000) termed
“brief contact in-
terventions” (p. 177). These quick interventions are often very
effective, building
on the existing relationships to teach or counsel in the moment,
when the motiva-
tion to learn and change behavior is highest.
Although there are decided advantages to this service model in
terms of maxi-
mizing the opportunities for effective contact, increasing trust,
and more quickly
developing a working relationship, there are disadvantages as
well. As other sport
psychology consultants have noted, it is an often exhausting
way to work for the
practitioner on the road who keeps long hours and is never
officially off the clock.
Despite the constant contact with people in this role, it can also
be a lonely job
when one is on the road for any period of time. The sport
psychology consultant is
almost always the only person on the team in his or her role, so
collegial support,
much less consultation with another like-minded professional on
the road, can be
extremely limited. The practitioner is also away from the
support of home and
family, which can strain the individual as well as the family
members left to cope at
home.
It is easy to see how this personally stressful time, combined

with the ambiguity
that comes with close, prolonged proximity to a group of people
in often high pres-
sure situations can pose a particularly complex set of ethical
challenges for those
of us doing this work on a regular basis. The burden of doing
one’s job in a consis-
tently ethical way falls to the individual because there are far
fewer structures in
place to ensure this happening by itself. Certainly, defining
boundaries and ad-
dressing confidentiality issues as well as role expectations at
the outset and
throughout the relationship is tremendously important. The staff
at the USOC is in
an enviable position in that we are a staff greater than one,
which allows us the rela-
tive luxury of phone and e-mail consultations while on the road.
Ideally, being able
to partner with another sport psychology consultant while on the
road would be an
even better solution for dealing with self-care issues in this
stressful environment.
It would certainly help (although it is almost completely
unfeasible) to have a sec-
ond person on hand so as to better avoid the risks of multiple
relationships, the con-
sequences of which are described in the next section.
Multiple Relationships and Who Is the Client?

Within the previously discussed limitations of our work on the
road, the issue of
multiple relationships is clearly a prominent one. Because we
spend so much time
with the athletes and coaches we work with, it is almost
inevitable that our interac-
tions move from the professional to the social level and back
again. It is simply not
feasible to sit down at a team meal with staff or with athletes
and always limit the
conversation to sport psychology. Often, athletes and coaches
will engage us in
conversations about our personal lives (e.g., marriage, children,
hobbies). They
have a genuine interest in knowing about our personal situation,
and we feel it is
appropriate to be honest and authentic in such interactions, as it
helps build trust—
what we consider to be the key ingredient for our successful
work. At the same
time, there is a level of sensitivity and awareness in these
situations, as we are con-
stantly monitoring when a conversation is moving from a purely
social one to one
in which the topic requires professional alertness.
To provide a sense of the complexity of these types of
interactions on the road
with a team, consider these scenarios: A sport psychology
consultant is having din-
ner with the team, conversing socially. Over the course of
dinner, the crowd thins
and the consultant is left with an athlete she has not yet had
personal contact with.
The athlete shifts the conversation from a social to a
performance-related topic.

Does the consultant continue the conversation at this different
level? We would
typically choose to continue the conversation, although with the
awareness of con-
fidentiality as a new issue—either addressing it with the athlete
explicitly or im-
plicitly by keeping an eye out for the presence of others within
earshot. Although
this example highlights the blurry boundaries that exist in this
setting, it also illus-
trates the benefits of the sport psychology consultant being an
integrated part of the
team. This is one of the many ways that sport psychology
consultants “gain entry”
with otherwise hesitant athlete clients.
Consider another dinnertime scenario. An athlete at the table
begins to make
fun of a teammate’s tendency to choke under pressure and
wonders aloud to the
group what the sport psychology consultant is doing to help that
athlete. All eyes at
the table turn to the consultant. This can challenge any
individual’s ability to think
fast on his or her feet—we have learned the value of quick
deflections and of hu-
mor to defuse situations of this kind while maintaining our
effectiveness as service
providers. This scenario clearly demonstrates the flip side of the
coin: that al-
though access is important, it can lead to situations that are
neither comfortable nor

easy for the consultant to deal with.
The issues of multiple roles and boundary setting become
salient when we pro-
vide services simultaneously to athletes, coaches, and support
staff on the same
team. Identifying the client is obviously a key issue (Perna,
Neyer, Murphy,
Ogilvie, & Murphy, 1995). Working in a team environment
often makes this an
even more difficult question to answer ethically. For example,
we might consult
with a coaching staff member who struggles with her
relationship with the head
coach, then consult with the head coach on a team issue, and
later work with an ath-
lete to understand a comment made by the head coach. We
further might work with
two athletes, both of whom consult with us on performance
issues, while at the
same time also wanting to discuss their interpersonal conflict
with each other and
how this conflict affects not only their relationship but team
cohesion as a whole.
The team captain may also want to talk to us about this team
cohesion issue and get
our input.
As one can imagine, these various issues and their intersections
can get quite
complicated and the question of who is the client is not always
easy or straightfor-
ward to answer. As a result, we strive to set the stage and create
realistic expecta-
tions for how we work with each party within a team at the
beginning and through-

out the relationship. It is critical that everyone on the team
understand the
multiplicity of roles we engage in on the road, but that, despite
the intertwining of
relationships, confidentiality within each relationship is
paramount. This is a par-
ticularly important if sometimes difficult message for coaches
to hear and under-
stand, and why the process of relationship building and trust in
sport psychology is
so important. The coach, whose very livelihood often hinges on
the team’s ability
to perform, is often understandably unwilling to give up even
the idea of control of
his or her athletes to someone else like the sport psychology
consultant. But with-
out the promise of confidentiality, clearly some athletes (as well
as some coaches)
would never feel comfortable enough to explore the necessary
issues in the first
place.
At the Games: Logistics, Time, Space, and Resources
Our work at the Olympics can be considered a culmination in
and of itself. For one,
it generally constitutes for our staff the longest contiguous
block of time on the
road—away from home and family—and comes after an ever-
increasing travel
load through the quadrennium. The Olympic atmosphere itself is

stressful and hec-
tic, with tremendous logistical challenges. The accessibility and
travel challenges
alone are daunting due to dependence on mass transit and the
often great distance
between venues and where the team is living, be it in or out of
the Olympic Village,
as well as where we are housed, which may or may not be close
to the team. In ad-
dition, there is greatly increased media attention and heightened
visibility of sport
psychology. Often we work with multiple teams housed in
separate areas and on
different or overlapping competitive schedules—a phenomenon
unique to the
Olympics.
As part of our teams’ staff at the Olympic Games we might have
consulting ses-
sions with athletes and staff that last anywhere from 5 min to 2
hr at any time of the
day, including into the late evening hours—in many cases the
best time for the ath-
letes and coaches because the rest of their days are often hectic.
At times, by neces-
sity, these sessions are held in very public places: at the gym,
poolside, on the bus
to and from the Olympic Village, or in the Olympic Dining
Hall. Some meetings,
of course, require a more private setting, away from teammates,
coaches, and com-
petitors, but finding such a setting is not always easy.
Sometimes we are fortunate
enough to have a room available, but more often than not
procuring a confidential
environment requires some advance scouting. At times we may

even offer to use
our own room if we are staying in the Village, for it might be
the only place that al-
lows for a truly confidential setting where an athlete or member
of the coaching
staff can let down their emotional guard. We do so as a last
resort, with the athlete’s
permission, and strive to balance their comfort (by leaving the
door ajar, for exam-
ple) with the need for confidentiality.
Another issue specific to the Olympics is the challenge of
identifying outside
resources. Given the relatively long time the athletes are on
site, knowing potential
referral sources becomes a more critical issue than during
shorter-term trips. Lo-
cating these resources is particularly problematic when the
Games are held in a
foreign country and necessitates some advance planning for us
as we attempt to an-
ticipate needs and identify potential local mental health
resources. At the Games,
without this advance preparation, it is virtually impossible to
“refer out.”
Olympic Media, Celebrity, and Related Dilemmas
for Sport Psychology Consultants
At the Olympic Games, there are more journalists accredited
than athletes. This me-
dia blitz has been known to derail even the most talented
athletes, particularly those
from sports that do not receive much media attention in the
years leading up to the
Games. At the same time, it is also important for the sport

psychology consultant to
anticipate and prepare for this phenomenon—on behalf of the
athlete but also on a
personal level. The sheer numbers of journalists at the Games,
coupled with the
prominence of the event, add up to an inevitable supply versus
demand issue. And
sport psychology as a topic, for better or worse, is typically in
high demand, leading
to frequent media requests for consultants. Clearly, this raises
issues regarding con-
fidentiality as well as the very nature of the consultant–athlete
relationship.
There are a number of ways in which the media learn about
sport psychology
and the relationship between a consultant and the team.
Sometimes the teams we
work with share this information openly. For example, because
we are often con-
sidered part of the teams we work with, it is not unusual to be
listed as such in the
media guide and included in the official team photo. At other
times, our relation-
ship with an athlete is disclosed by the athlete personally. It is a
reality that at every
Olympics there is a subset of athletes working with sport
psychology who are quite
willing to talk about incorporating sport psychology into their
preparation (e.g.,
Chastain & Averbuch, 2004; Runyan & Jenkins, 2001; Street &

White, 2002;
Turco, 1999). Once this happens, it is not unusual for such a
conversation with the
media to be followed by a request to speak to the sport
psychology consultant di-
rectly—particularly if the athlete just had a successful
performance. This is poten-
tially a very slippery slope, and it is our preference to stay away
from the spotlight
of the media in these situations as much as possible while
respecting the media’s
right to do their work. In these situations, we carefully weigh
the costs and benefits
of any information we provide to the media. Done correctly,
media attention can
provide an ideal opportunity to educate and clear up
misconceptions the public
may have about general sport psychology principles. These
benefits, however,
must not come at the expense of compromising an athlete’s
confidentiality. It is our
policy to never speak about an individual athlete even if such
permission is pro-
vided by the athlete. The risks of our comments being
misinterpreted or miscon-
strued and out of our control are too great. Even the most open
athlete may wonder
why, for example, after granting permission to the consultant to
speak to the press,
that the consultant ends up getting more press than the athlete
is, to the detriment of
the consultant–athlete relationship. Thus, in the real world of
the Olympics, al-
though it often proves unrealistic to maintain total anonymity as
sport psychology
consultants, we refrain from revealing the content of our

relationships with the ath-
letes we work with.
Often when athletes perform beyond expectations at the Games,
the sport psy-
chology consultant receives undue credit from the media. This
can take two forms.
The first is when the media simply and naively makes the
attribution that the addi-
tion of this particular ingredient—sport psychology—was what
made the differ-
ence. The second and more obviously unethical form is when
this attribution
comes from the sport psychology consultant personally. It is
seductive but never
constructive for a sport psychology consultant to make this
connection. For one,
such cause-and-effect relationships are impossible to ascertain
given the complex-
ity of elite athletic performance, and two, it clearly places the
needs of the sport
psychology consultant for self-validation ahead of the athlete.
To Identify or Not Identify, That Is the Question
Andersen et al. (2001) cautioned sport psychology consultants
to be aware of the
issue of overidentification, which happens when the wins or
losses of the athlete/
team become the wins and losses of the sport psychology
consultant. For these
consultants, overidentification is a threat to effective service

provision. We agree
that overidentification—vicariously living through the athletes
one works with—
is an area of vulnerability for sport psychology consultants. At
the same time, it is
simplistic to suggest that we just not identify with our teams.
Distancing oneself
from a team or athlete is not only very difficult, but it may be
basically counterpro-
ductive on a number of levels. In a team sport setting, creating a
“we” versus
“them” mentality is a very effective way of fostering team
cohesion. To work ef-
fectively within a team sport setting, it is very important to be
considered part of
the in-group, something that might not happen for the sport
psychology consultant
if he or she is perceived as not identifying with the team or as a
neutral outsider.
Based on our experience, the athletes want to know that we are
squarely on their
side rather than just on the fence, or obviously worse, rooting
for the other guy. We
think it is possible to identify with the team and the athlete, yet
at the same time re-
tain the professionalism to provide effective services, even
while feeling the joy of
success and the disappointment of defeat in competition. Often,
our teams look to
us as role models for how to cope with these situations.
Granted, being part of the in-group is not necessarily easy.
Consider the follow-
ing example: A consultant has worked for 4 years with an
athlete and has spent
countless weeks traveling all over the world with her and her

team. The consultant
thought the athlete was optimally prepared, but she
underperforms and fails to
medal at the Games. The consultant must process the normal
and intense emo-
tional reaction to this crushing disappointment at two levels—
the athlete’s as well
as his own. One of the benefits of having had the privilege of
working at multiple
Olympic Games is a constant lesson in humility that the world
of sports provides,
not just for athletes, but also for consultants. As has so often
been said on the Wide
World of Sports, sport is indeed filled with the “thrill of
victory” as well as the ”ag-
ony of defeat.” As sport psychology consultants, we have had
the honor of working
with athletes who experience and cope with both sides of the
performance spec-
trum. Clearly, skills such as emotion management, appropriate
perspective taking,
and unconditional self- and other acceptance in the face of wins
and losses are not
just skills we ask our athletes to develop but ones we must also
work on ourselves.
McCann (2000) provided an excellent checklist that allows
consultants to evaluate
their effectiveness at the Olympics beyond the “wins and
losses” column.
A related issue pertains to the situation in which the sport
psychology consul-
tant works with multiple athletes in an individual sport, only
one or two of whom
will be able to qualify for the Olympic team due to quota limits.
From an outcome

perspective, therefore, only a select few will be successful. This
scenario presents a
number of potentially challenging situations. The consultant
may, consciously or
unconsciously, prefer one athlete over the other and in the
process not only hope
that this athlete makes it but possibly provide better service for
that athlete over the
other, as in “Athlete X doesn’t have a chance, I am wasting my
time with her.” The
consultant, while creating his own ranking of who has the best
chance, might com-
municate this hierarchy on a subtle level to the athlete and in
the process influence
the athlete’s level of confidence. Being aware of such potential
biases is a key step
in the right direction to prevent such a negative influence.
The win–loss culture of sport also brings up the question of who
the sport psy-
chology consultant approaches immediately after a
competition—the winner who
gets to live the Olympic Dream or the athlete who came up short
and might never
get another chance? For the consultant who overidentifies, it
would be tempting
(and undoubtedly more fun) to bask in the glory of the winner.
We think that in this
scenario, our time is best spent with the athlete who did not
reach the outcome
goal. In this situation, right after competition, it is likely that

not much needs to be
said. Simply being present may be all that is required. The
victorious athlete has
many friends, the one who loses usually does not. From the
feedback we get from
our athletes, it is clear that they most appreciate our
identification with them in
defeat.
The Competitive Cauldron
Reactions to Olympic Games’ stress will often surface because
the much-antici-
pated outcome is uncertain and athletes and coaches grasp for
anything that en-
hances their sense of control. Even our most conscientious
coaches are not im-
mune to this pressure, and we have been surprised more than
once at the Games by
a coach who typically respects our confidential relationships
coming up to us and
asking, “I’ve seen Jack talk to you. How is he doing? Is he
ready to go?” For the
consultant in the moment, this can be a difficult situation to
balance, helping the
coach cope with her own precompetition anxiety without
betraying the confidence
of the athlete. A very public case in point occurred at the 2004
Olympics when an
Australian rower who was overcome by anxiety simply stopped
rowing midrace,
dooming her boat’s chances for a medal. Had a sport
psychology consultant been
working with that athlete and been aware before the race of her
possibly over-
whelming anxiety symptoms, what would that consultant’s

obligations to the
coach or team be? This may be a more challenging dilemma
than meets the eye, as
it is not necessarily clear who the client is—the individual
athlete, the team of eight
rowers, the coach, or all of the above? Obviously, this type of
situation, all too
common in sport, viewed in hindsight reminds us all of the
importance of estab-
lishing role clarity and the importance of having the chance to
work with athletes
and teams beforehand to prepare them optimally for the
Olympic environment.
Working Simultaneously With Multiple Teams
Although the USOC sport psychology staff has by necessity
limited our work to a
few teams each, it is only at the Olympics where the situation
occurs that all these
teams are at the same place at the same time. At the recent
Athens Olympics, for
example, our staff each provided service to two to four Olympic
teams. Scenarios
like this require careful planning, open communication,
tremendous flexibility,
and avoiding what McCann (2000) called the gurufication of
sport psychology—
the idea that the sport psychology consultant is indispensable
and therefore neces-
sary for a team’s success. Although there are many benefits to
being present at the

competition site before, during, and after the actual
competition, our presence can-
not ever be construed as a necessary condition for athletic
success. Our work is
very important but at the same time it is only a small piece of
the complex perfor-
mance puzzle at the Olympic Games.
As a rule, we make an effort at the Games to be most accessible
to those teams with
whom we have spent the most time with prior to the Games
while also trying to meet
the needs of the teams in which the relationships are not as in-
depth. Although we
make every effort to communicate and live up to this prioritized
approach with our
coaches and athletes, the reality at the Games themselves can
play out differently.
Preconceived notions of where we will spend our time often go
out the window as sit-
uations evolve and crises erupt. Each day at the Games
becomes, therefore, a process
of establishing our priorities in terms of where our time is best
spent. Consider this
example: The consultant is with Team A at a competition in
which one of the athletes
performed well under expectations and requests assistance from
the consultant in
processing the experience as she has to regroup to compete
again the next day. Unfor-
tunately, this request will cause the consultant to miss the bus
back to the Village, up-
setting a previously agreed on plan to facilitate a team meeting
with Team B. Tech-
nology has aided us in this quest, as a quick cell phone call can
effect a swift

rescheduling, but the strain of making these decisions on a daily
basis is great and has
the potential to compromise our effectiveness over time.
Sexual Attraction
Pope, Keith-Speigel, and Tabachnick (1986) reported that 87%
of psychothera-
pists, on occasion, have been sexually attracted to their clients.
Physical attractive-
ness and successfulness were reported as the two main
characteristics that contrib-
uted to this sexual attraction. Our clients certainly score high on
these two criteria.
Given that the nature and setting of our work makes for a large
gray zone in which
relationship boundaries are less rigid than is typical, it certainly
behooves us to ac-
knowledge the potential for our own feelings of sexual
attraction and to discuss
and process these with our peers as they occur. This is
particularly pertinent during
the Summer Olympics, where the climate tends to dictate a
dress culture that
shows more skin than at the Winter Games. At the Winter
Olympics, for example,
most participants are likely to be wearing a ski jacket and
multiple layers of cloth-
ing. At the Summer Games, on the other hand, if we work with a
water sport we
most likely will be wearing shorts, T-shirt, and sandals and may

find ourselves sit-
ting next to an athlete who is wearing a bikini. In this
admittedly “seductive” envi-
ronment, awareness and insight into our feelings is critical.
Self-Preservation at the Olympics
Taking care of oneself as a service provider with sleep,
exercise, nutrition, regular
contact with family at home, perspective taking, and peer
debriefing consultation
is a crucial precursor to remaining balanced and capable of
ethical decision mak-
ing while on the road and at the Olympics. Getting adequate
amounts of sleep may
seem obvious, but it can often be a real challenge at the Games.
As has already
been discussed, and in agreement with others in this line of
work (Bond, 2001), the
work days on the road are long—a phenomenon only
exacerbated at the Olympics
due to the nature of the event itself as well as the increased
demands on our time.
Exercise as a form of self-care is a priority and one that would
be assumed to oc-
cur naturally at a sporting event like the Olympics. Ironically,
however, even work-
ing this regularly into our schedules can be a challenge, due to
both the lack of time
and the competing need for sleep as well as to our own self-
sacrificing “helper”
tendencies. Nevertheless, we agree that daily exercise has a
variety of huge psy-
chological benefits for us. Aside from the stress-relieving
benefits, it also provides

us with valuable “alone time,” giving us a chance to process the
day’s experience
and often paves the way for creative ideas and solutions to
interventions or team
presentations (see Benson & Procter’s, 2003, notion of the
breakout principle for
more information on this idea). Proper attention to nutrition
also contributes to
overall effectiveness.
Perspective taking is a helpful exercise, as the sheer magnitude
of the Games
can easily warp one’s sense of proper perspective. Staying in
regular contact with
family members can also be considered part of perspective
taking. During a partic-
ularly stressful time at the Games, one of our staff was talking
to her daughter on
the phone and attempted to describe to her the magnitude of the
Olympics by list-
ing a few of the many sports being competed. Her daughter
responded with the
question, “Mommy, is there ball bouncing at the Games? How
about ball throw-
ing?” Imagining her daughter’s interpretation of this event
through her young eyes
made the consultant laugh and immediately put things back into
the proper
perspective.
We have discussed the uniqueness of the Olympics and its
effects on athletes
and coaches, but it is difficult to overestimate the impact of the
Olympic experi-
ence on the sport psychology service provider. Self-care is
important because as

consultants we are not immune to this “Olympic-size stress” and
the many ways it
can impact each of us (e.g., Nideffer, 1989). We have touched
on the important role
that peer consultation plays for us in maintaining ethical
standards and profes-
sional effectiveness. Having a staff of four consultants each
with the experience of
having worked at multiple Olympic Games is a blessing because
in actuality, with
us all working at the Games simultaneously, it offers one of the
few times we have
in-person peer consultation opportunities while on the road. We
also reach out to
and maintain contact with other sport psychology service
providers scheduled to
attend the Games so as to extend and enhance our team network.
This team ap-
proach allows us to be available to each other, formally and
informally, on a daily
basis to navigate the stress, pressure, and joy that comes while
working in the com-
petitive cauldron of the Olympic Games.
CONCLUSION
The rising popularity of the field of applied sport psychology
coupled with the
unique nature of its service delivery model continues to raise
questions about how
to best provide services in an ethical manner. It is hoped that

the issues and ideas
raised in this article will contribute to a greater awareness and
understanding of the
ethical challenges and pitfalls as they pertain to sport
psychology service provision
before and during the Olympic Games. It is critical to note that
the perception of
sport psychology service provision as being less formal or
structured than tradi-
tional psychology service delivery should never be confused
with the sense that
sport psychology service providers can be any less vigilant in
their pursuit of ethi-
cal practice. Quite the opposite is true—the lack of structure
should be a cue for
ethical practitioners to tread carefully, seek consultation
regularly, and strive to
keep the interests of their athlete or coach clients in the
foreground at all times.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. Sean McCann for his
review and comments on
earlier drafts of this article.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles
of psychologists and code of conduct.
American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611.
Andersen, M. B., Van Raalte, J. L., & Brewer, B. W. (2001).
Sport psychology service delivery: Staying
ethical while keeping loose. Professional Psychology: Research
& Practice, 32, 12–18.

Association for the Advancement of Sport Psychology. (1989).
Become a certified consultant. Re-
trieved February 28, 2006, from
http://www.aaasponline.org/cc/how.php
Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology.
(1994). AAASP code of ethics. Re-
trieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.aaasponline.org
Benson, H., & Procter, M. (2003). The breakout principle. New
York: Scribner.
Biddle, S. J. H., Bull, S. J., & Seheult, C. L. (1994). Ethical and
professional issues in contemporary
British sport psychology. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 66–67.
Bond, J. W. (2001). The provision of sport psychology services
during competition tours. In G.
Tenenbaum (Ed.), The practice of sport psychology (pp. 217–
229). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Infor-
mation Technology.
Bond, J. W. ( 2002). Applied sport psychology: Philosophy,
reflections, and experience. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 19–37.
Chastain, B., & Averbuch, G. (2004). It’s not about the bra.
How to play hard, play fair and put the fun
back into competitive sport. New York: Harper.
Etzel, E. F., Watson, J. C., II, & Zizzi, S. (2004). A Web-based

survey of AAASP members’ ethical be-
liefs and behaviors in the new millennium. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 16, 236–250.
Giges, B., & Petitpas, A. (2000). Brief contact interventions in
sport psychology. The Sport Psycholo-
gist, 14, 176–187.
Gordin, R. D. (2003). Ethical issues in team sports. In R. Lidor
& K. P. Henschen (Eds.), The psychol-
ogy of team sports (pp. 57–68). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Gould, D. (2001). Sport psychology and the Nagano Olympic
Games: The case of the U.S. freestyle ski
team. In G. Tenenbaum (Ed.), The practice of sport psychology
(pp. 49–76). Morgantown, WV: Fit-
ness Information Technology.
International Olympic Committee. (2004). The numbers game.
Olympic Review, 53, 32–34.
Jansen, D., & McCallum, J. (1994). Full circle. New York:
Villard.
Koocher, G. (2004, September). Staying inside the safety zone:
Ethical dilemmas in sport psychology.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Advancement of Applied Sport Psy-
chology, Minneapolis, MN.
McCann, S. C. (2000). Doing sport psychology at the really big
show. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Doing
sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Moore, Z. E. (2003). Ethical dilemmas in sport psychology:
Discussion and recommendations for prac-

tice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 601–
610.
Nideffer, R. M. (1989). Psychological services for the U.S.
Track and Field Team. The Sport Psycholo-
gist, 3, 350–357.
Perna, F., Neyer, M., Murphy, S. M., Ogilvie, B. C., & Murphy,
A. (1995). Consultations with sport or-
ganizations: A cognitive–behavioral model. In S. Murphy (Ed.),
Sport psychology interventions (pp.
236–252). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Pope, K. S., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Tabachnick, B. G. (1986).
Sexual attraction to patients: The human
therapist and the (sometimes) inhuman training system.
American Psychologist, 41, 147–158.
Roberts, G. (Ed.). (1989). Delivering sport psychology services
to the 1988 Olympic Athletes [Special
issue]. The Sport Psychologist, 3(4).
Runyan, M., & Jenkins, S. (2001). No finish line. My life as I
see it. New York: Putnam.
Street, P., & White, D. (2002). Nothing to hide. Chicago:
Contemporary Books.
Triplett, N. L. (1898). Dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and
competition. The American Journal of
Psychology, 9, 507–533.
Turco, M. (1999). Crashing the net. The U. S. Women’s
Olympic Ice Hockey Team and the road to gold.
New York: HarperCollins.
Watson, J. C., II, Tenenbaum, G., Lidor, R., & Alferman, D.
(2001). Ethical uses of the Internet in sport

psychology: A position stand. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 32, 201–222.
Whelan, J. P., Meyers, A. W., & Elkins, T. D. (2002). Ethics in
sport and exercise psychology. In J. L.
Van Raalte & B. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring sport and exercise
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 503–523).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Williams, J. M., & Straub, W. F. (1998). Sport psychology:
Past, present, future. In J. M. Williams
(Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak
performance (3rd ed., pp. 1–12). Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield.

Olympic-Size Ethical DilemmasIssues and Challenges for Spor.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Olympic-Size Ethical DilemmasIssues and Challenges for Spor.docx

Similar to Olympic-Size Ethical DilemmasIssues and Challenges for Spor.docx (20)

More from cherishwinsland

More from cherishwinsland (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Olympic-Size Ethical DilemmasIssues and Challenges for Spor.docx