Course Project Task # 5

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

28 HABERL AND PETERSON

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

OLYMPIC-SIZE ETHICAL DILEMMAS 29

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

30 HABERL AND PETERSON

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.

OLYMPIC-SIZE ETHICAL DILEMMAS 31

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

32 HABERL AND PETERSON

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

OLYMPIC-SIZE ETHICAL DILEMMAS 33

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.

34 HABERL AND PETERSON

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

OLYMPIC-SIZE ETHICAL DILEMMAS 35

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.

36 HABERL AND PETERSON

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

OLYMPIC-SIZE ETHICAL DILEMMAS 37

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

38 HABERL AND PETERSON

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.

OLYMPIC-SIZE ETHICAL DILEMMAS 39

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.

40 HABERL AND PETERSON