Coaching Knowledges Understanding the Dynamics of Sport Performance

1. 1Reframe the relationship before you act. Treat the coach-athlete relationship as a power relationship, not a title you hold. Respect is granted by athletes in response to how you use that power, so you cannot demand it. Write one line: 'My athletes decide whether to respect me by watching how I use ___.' Fill the blank with your real levers: what you teach, what you decide, what you say.
2. 2Map the network around the relationship. The source frames respect as shaped by the social and cultural forces surrounding coach and athlete, not as a private two-person matter. List the athletes, their parents, and the relationships between athletes that touch your decisions. For each, note how your conduct reaches them and how they shape what your athletes expect of you.
3. 3Audit the knowledge you coach from. List the ten claims you rely on most (drills, training theories, tactical rules). Mark each as 'tested by me' or 'inherited'. The source warns that coaching knowledge carries a false sense of objectivity and tells coaches to actively question what they know. Re-examine every inherited claim you cannot defend.
4. 4Tie every instruction to a purpose you can state to the athlete. Following Dick (via Woodman), you must clearly understand the purpose of each practice, its place in the total preparation scheme, and the growing, changing person doing it, including the role sport plays in their life. Before each session, write one sentence per main activity: 'This is here because ___ for this athlete.' If you cannot finish the sentence, cut or change the activity.
5. 5Check your practice for exclusion. Anderson's chapter argues coaches are socialised into a social exclusion model that produces misogyny, homophobia, ableism, racism and violence, and that coaches can use their agency to move sport toward inclusion. Run your language, selection habits and team jokes against that list. Change one concrete behaviour per item you find.
6. 6Make respect two-way. Ask athletes, in a set time slot, how decisions land: 'What did you understand about why we did X? What did you not trust?' Treat the answers as evidence about your credibility, not as insubordination. Lyle's humanistic benchmark for coaching behaviour supports this stance.
7. 7Prepare your response to the moment respect is tested: a player questions a call, or a parent challenges a decision. Do not defend rank. Give your reasoning, admit what you do not know, and show that the decision serves the athlete's development. Credibility, not authority, resolves the challenge.
8. 8Review on a schedule. At the end of each block, re-read your knowledge audit and purpose sentences. Ask what you changed because an athlete or the evidence pushed back. A coach who never revises has stopped questioning their knowledge.

The supplied passages describe Markula and Martin's chapter, which contains 'compelling examples' of coaches needing respect from players. The passages do not reproduce them, so what follows is an illustration built from the chapter's stated principles, not a case from the book. A coach inherits a drill from their own playing days and runs it without explanation. A player asks why the squad repeats it every week. If the coach answers 'because I said so', they are using power as imposition, and the relationship runs on rank. The source's approach is different. The coach first asks what the drill is for in the total preparation scheme, which is Dick's test. They find the purpose is weaker than assumed for this athlete, and they say so. They keep the part that serves the athlete and drop the rest. They have used their knowledge ethically, questioned it actively, and shown it to the athlete. Under the source's logic, this is what earns respect and credibility.

• If an athlete challenges a decision, then answer with the purpose and your evidence, not your position. Respect is earned by the quality of your reasoning.
• If you cannot state why an activity serves this athlete, then change or remove it before you run it. Unexamined inherited knowledge undermines credibility.
• If your practice, language or selection reproduces misogyny, homophobia, ableism, racism or violence, then treat it as a respect problem as well as a fairness problem, and use your agency to change it. Athletes judge how you use power.
• If parents or other athletes are shaping how an athlete sees you, then address that network directly. Respect is formed in it, not only between the two of you.
• If you find yourself demanding respect, then stop and look at your conduct. The source holds that respect cannot be imposed, so demanding it signals the conduct is the gap.

• Treating a qualification or title as the source of respect. The tell: you cite your credentials or position when questioned, and athletes comply without engaging.
• Coaching from knowledge you have never questioned. The tell: your answer to 'why do we do this?' is 'it's how it's done' or 'it works'.
• Seeing respect as one-way, from athlete up to coach. The tell: you never ask athletes how your decisions land, and you read feedback as disrespect.
• Ignoring the surrounding network. The tell: conflicts with parents or between athletes catch you by surprise and you treat them as outside your remit.
• Letting exclusionary norms run unchecked because they are inherited from sport's culture. The tell: jokes, selection habits or standards go unquestioned because 'that's how sport is', and some athletes quietly disengage.

• ▸Power inventory: list the decisions and levers you hold over athletes (what you teach, decide, say).
• ▸Network map: name the athletes, parents and relationships that shape how athletes see you.
• ▸Knowledge claims: list the ten claims you coach from and mark each 'tested' or 'inherited'.
• ▸Purpose statements: for each main activity, finish 'This is here because ___ for this athlete'.
• ▸Athlete context: note where each athlete is in their development and what sport means in their life.
• ▸Inclusion check: record any language or practice tied to exclusion and the one change you will make.
• ▸Athlete feedback: record what athletes said about how your decisions land and what you will act on.
• ▸Challenge response: describe how you will answer when your authority is questioned, by reasoning rather than rank.
• ▸Review date and revisions: record when you will re-audit and what you changed since the last review.

1. 1Drop the transfer model first. Treat each instruction as an input the athlete will process through their own schemata (Bartlett, 1932), shaped by current and past experience. What you said and what they built are two different things until you check.
2. 2Before the session, name the three things you assume you share with the athlete: the role each of you holds, the goal of the activity, and the meaning of the drill. Write each as one sentence. These are the points where meaning most often diverges.
3. 3Check whose responsibility you have made learning. Traditional accounts hand responsibility for development to the coach (Göncü, 1993), and athletes and coaches then hold different meanings and sometimes different goals. Ask the athlete what they believe their part in the activity is.
4. 4After giving an instruction, ask the athlete to describe in their own words what they will do and why. Do not ask 'Understand?'. Compare their account with your intent and note every gap.
5. 5When an athlete repeats an error, hold two explanations open before you diagnose: the athlete does not see the impact of the mistake, or the athlete lacks confidence in a newly developed technique and keeps making sub-standard attempts. Ask a question that separates the two.
6. 6Build shared language. Agree on the phrases the pair uses for actions, concepts and plans, and use them consistently. This is how inter-subjectivity develops, and it gives you both a way to navigate a situation jointly.
7. 7Read the history behind the behaviour. Athletes learn the meaning of sport and of the roles of coach, athlete and parent from early experiences and from older athletes. Ask where their expectations of you come from before you correct them.
8. 8State your ethical goals and reasons for being in the sport to athletes explicitly, and ask for theirs (Markula and Martin). Agree a joint account of purpose, then revisit it when decisions affect selection or roles.

Take the passage's own case. A coach says a certain athlete does not see the impact of mistakes, because the athlete keeps making them in practice. The athlete, in fact, lacks confidence in a newly developed technique and keeps producing sub-standard attempts. The coach's meaning is 'you are not paying attention'. The athlete's meaning is 'I am unsure this works'. The coach repeats the instruction, the athlete repeats the error, and the 'How many times have I told you?' loop begins. Applying the drill-down, the coach stops repeating and asks the athlete to say what they think the attempt is meant to achieve and how it feels. The athlete's answer exposes the confidence gap. The coach then reframes the goal, perhaps as making the attempt under agreed conditions rather than fixing the mistake. Both settle on a shared phrase for the new technique and a shared sense of what a good attempt looks like. The error pattern is now treated as a problem of meaning and confidence, not of attention.

• If you catch yourself repeating an instruction ('I've told you before'), then stop and ask the athlete to explain it back before saying it again.
• If an athlete repeats an error, then treat 'does not see the impact' and 'lacks confidence in the technique' as competing explanations and test both before correcting.
• If goals or roles for an activity are unstated, then assume coach and athlete hold different ones and name them aloud.
• If a decision affects an athlete's standing, such as a change to the starting line-up, then tell them directly and explain it yourself. Do not let it travel by third parties, which breeds suspicion of favouritism.
• If you move to a more participatory style, then confirm that meaning is actually shared. Changing style alone does not resolve the underlying issues.

• Treating communication as a sequence of steps to execute: you deliver clear instructions and consider the job done. The tell is that the same correction recurs session after session.
• Reading repeated errors as inattention or a lack of effort when the athlete is unsure of a technique. The tell is that the athlete's attempts stay sub-standard while your corrections intensify.
• Taking sole responsibility for learning and for goal-setting, so that the athlete's goals for the activity differ from yours. The tell is that the athlete describes the purpose of a drill differently from you.
• Announcing decisions without explanation, in the style of coaches expecting players 'to listen, to absorb, and to comply'. The tell is that athletes learn of decisions secondhand and suspect favouritism.
• Assuming that a switch to a democratic style creates shared understanding. The tell is that conflict continues because the unexplained decisions and power imbalances remain.

• ▸Activity or instruction: state the drill, instruction or decision in one line.
• ▸My intended meaning: write what I mean the athlete to understand and do.
• ▸My goal for this activity: state the purpose as I see it.
• ▸Athlete's goal for this activity: record it in their words, after asking.
• ▸Roles as I see them: describe what I expect of myself and of the athlete.
• ▸Roles as the athlete sees them: record their account, after asking.
• ▸Athlete's explain-back: note what they say they will do and why.
• ▸Gap between the two accounts: list the mismatches in meaning, goals or roles.
• ▸Shared phrase or agreement: write the agreed wording, goal or role, and the date to revisit it.

1. 1Treat your knowledge base as a working hypothesis set, not a credential. A qualification signals assumed competence, but Bates's sources hold that experience is 'no guarantee of knowledge'. Start by listing what you currently 'know' about your sport and athletes, and mark each item as formally taught, inherited from your playing or coaching exposure, or tested in your own context.
2. 2Sort each item into the three strands the construct integrates: scientific (Woodman's list: physiology, biomechanics, motor learning, psychology, nutrition, pedagogy, sociology and so on), pedagogical (how you set, sequence and explain practice), and relational (how you and the athlete make shared meaning). Most coaches find one strand thin. Name it.
3. 3Capture events, not impressions. After each session, write down one incident that surprised you or that you handled by feel. Record what happened, what you did, and what followed. Implicit knowledge built through exposure stays unusable until you make it explicit.
4. 4Reflect by decomposing. Break the incident into its component parts and state how they relate (athlete state, your instruction, the environment, the drill's demand). Bates's point is that reflection lets you see the relationships among parts, so you can recognise the same characteristics in a future problem. Recalling an event does not do this.
5. 5Write one recognition cue from each reflection: 'When I see X and Y together, the underlying issue is likely Z.' This turns a single solved problem into a transferable pattern.
6. 6Check the cue against the social side. Ask whether the athlete shares your meaning for the words and feedback you used. Language limits the coach-athlete relationship, so test for shared understanding by asking the athlete to restate it in their own words. Also check whether your authority is shaping what the athlete will tell you (Avner's warning on power and knowledge).
7. 7Re-test your standing expectations against how the sport is changing. Tennis is one case: Federer and Nadal moved the boundaries of acceptability, so coaches' expectations of what players need had to shift. Ask which of your benchmarks were set by an earlier era.
8. 8Own the schedule. Because coach education struggles with ambiguity and shifting social dynamics, you carry responsibility for your own development. Fix a recurring slot for the reflection routine and treat it as a core competency, not an extra.

Take the tennis case from Bates's chapter. The men's game has been reshaped by players such as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, who keep moving the boundaries of what is acceptable, so coaches' expectations of what players must achieve have to move with them. Suppose a coach built a strong working understanding through years of exposure. Under Bates's argument that experience alone guarantees nothing, those years are not enough, because the benchmarks inside that understanding may be out of date. The coach logs an incident in which an athlete's training load matched the old benchmark yet fell short against current opponents. The coach breaks the incident into its parts: the benchmark used, the athlete's response, the opponent profile, and how the coach explained the target. The coach then writes a recognition cue and tags the knowledge as scientific, pedagogical or relational. Finally, the coach asks the athlete what the target meant to them, which tests whether meaning was shared. The knowledge base changes as a result: one benchmark is revised, one cue is added, and one communication habit is adjusted. That is the 'dynamic, constantly evolving' base Bates describes.

• If a belief rests only on 'I've always seen it work', then log it as untested and gather evidence in your own setting before you build practice on it.
• If an incident surprises you, then reflect on it within the same day by splitting it into parts and relationships. Do not file it as a one-off.
• If your athlete's response differs from what your instruction predicted, then check shared meaning (their restatement of your words) before you change the drill or the science.
• If the sport's standards or tactics are shifting, as in tennis, then re-test your benchmarks against current performance before you reuse them.
• If your knowledge log is lopsided toward one strand (scientific, pedagogical or relational), then direct your next reflections and reading at the thinnest strand.

• Equating tenure or qualification with knowledge. The tell: you answer 'why' questions with 'years in the game' or a certificate, and cannot cite a tested cue.
• Reflecting as storytelling. The tell: your notes recount events but name no component parts, relationships, or future recognition cues.
• Treating sport science as neutral truth. The preface warns of a 'false sense of objectivity'. The tell: you apply a protocol or workout without asking what convention or history produced it.
• Ignoring the relational strand. The tell: athletes nod, then repeat the error, because your words never became shared meaning.
• Letting power replace inquiry. Avner warns that power and knowledge can be abused by the uninformed coach. The tell: athletes stop questioning or giving feedback, so your knowledge stops being corrected.

• ▸Incident: describe in two sentences what happened and what surprised you.
• ▸Component parts: list the athlete, instruction, environment and task demand factors involved.
• ▸Relationships: state how the parts interacted to produce the outcome.
• ▸Knowledge strand: tag it scientific, pedagogical or relational (or a mix) and name the specific domain.
• ▸Source of belief: mark whether the belief was taught, inherited through exposure, or tested here.
• ▸Shared-meaning check: record what the athlete said when asked to restate your instruction.
• ▸Recognition cue: write 'When I see ___, the likely issue is ___.'
• ▸Currency check: note which benchmark or expectation may be outdated given how the sport is changing.
• ▸Next test: state one change to try and the date you will review its result.

1. 1Start from who you are. Chris Volley says empowerment 'struck a chord' in his coaching degree and that he tries not to be a different person with his 'coaching hat' on. Name the values you actually hold before you adopt the language, because an authoritative role put on for show 'would have looked very false'.
2. 2Set the starting dial by context, not ideology. Volley says whether a coach needs a hierarchical role depends on the athletes' age and experience and on the coach's own age and experience. Write down those four factors for your group and decide how much choice athletes get on which decisions.
3. 3Say from the first contact that the athlete owns the choices. Volley's process 'from the start' was to get athletes to take responsibility. Tell athletes which decisions are theirs, such as training on their own, and which you may need to control.
4. 4Give the option, then let the mistake happen. Volley says 'you almost have to let them make their mistakes', without an 'I told you so'. Offer the choice, state your recommendation, and accept that the athlete may choose differently.
5. 5After an outcome, run a questioning debrief in three parts: explain the reason for what happened, confirm the athlete had a choice to change the outcome, and work out what they could have done differently.
6. 6Back every recommendation with a reason you can defend. Volley notes that guiding by questions needs 'a lot of answers, experience and knowledge'. Say 'if you run today you might get ill in the next few days' rather than 'I'm not sure if you should be doing that'. When the athlete asks 'Why, I feel alright?', you need an answer.
7. 7Accept that you cannot monitor everything. Volley cannot know what each athlete did each day, since about forty athletes have access to him. Build toward athletes following a suggestion such as rest without you watching, and stop trying to police unseen sessions.
8. 8Make decisions that affect athletes open and explainable. In the rugby case of Rose, a more constructive handling of dropping her from the starting line-up, and more open decision-making, could have helped her development. Explain selection and role decisions and invite the athlete into the 'what went wrong?' question.

Chris Volley coaches a triathlon performance group, and about forty athletes have access to him, against roughly ten per centre elsewhere. His athletes are self-disciplined, so the problem is not getting them to train but controlling them when he needs to. Suppose he suggests an easy day. Once the athlete is out of his sight he cannot know whether they ran for two hours or biked for four. Under his approach he gives the reason for the easy day and states what he expects to happen if they ignore it. The athlete decides. If the athlete overtrains and gets ill, Volley does not say 'I told you so'. He explains why it happened, reminds the athlete that they could have changed the outcome, and asks what they might do differently. His stated goal is an athlete who, when told to rest rather than train, goes and rests. He also names the cost: the style fails if he lacks the knowledge to answer 'Why, I feel alright?'.

• If your athletes are young or inexperienced, or you are a new coach, then tighten structure and keep more decisions yourself. Volley says the need for hierarchy depends on the age and experience of both athletes and coach.
• If an athlete asks 'why?' and you lack a concrete answer, then pause the empowerment approach on that issue, say what you know, and build the knowledge before handing over the decision. Vague guidance 'can be interpreted in a negative way'.
• If an athlete made a poor choice, then explain the cause, confirm they had a choice, and ask what they could have done differently. Do not frame it as 'I told you so'.
• If a decision affects an individual's place or role, such as dropping a player from the starting line-up, then use an open, explained process rather than an undemocratic one.
• If a single 'best practice' or coaching maxim is being applied to every situation, then question it. The ethics chapter warns that any coaching knowledge can become a tool of dominance when it is not critically examined.

• Empowerment as abandonment: you hand over choices without reasons or guidance. The tell is that the athlete asks 'why?' and you have no answer, or your advice sounds like 'I'm not sure'.
• Empowerment as a persona: you adopt the language but not your own values. The tell is that you act differently with the coaching badge on than off it, which Volley says looks 'very false'.
• Hidden control: you say athletes decide but override them or punish them when they choose differently. The tell is the 'I told you so' tone after a mistake.
• Expecting visibility: you try to confirm what every athlete did every day. The tell is anxiety and checking-up that does not scale with a large group.
• One-size dogma: you apply 'athletes first' or any single style regardless of age, experience and context. The tell is that you cannot say why this approach suits this group.

• ▸Context check: List the age and experience of your athletes and of you, as the factors that set how much hierarchy you need.
• ▸Decision at stake: State the choice, such as a training load, a rest day or a role in selection.
• ▸Who owns it: Mark whether the athlete decides, you decide, or you decide jointly, and why.
• ▸My recommendation and reason: Write the specific expected outcome you would tell the athlete, so you can answer 'Why?'.
• ▸Knowledge gap: Note anything you cannot yet explain and how you will find out.
• ▸Athlete's choice: Record what the athlete decided and whether it matched your suggestion.
• ▸Outcome: Record what actually happened.
• ▸Debrief questions: Write your explanation of the cause, confirm the athlete had a choice, and ask what they could have done differently.
• ▸Next adjustment: Decide whether to widen or narrow the athlete's ownership next time, and why.

1. 1Define success before you act. Kidman & Hanrahan's line, 'if coaches are not achieving success (however it is defined)', makes the definition your first decision. Write down what success means for each athlete across performance and personal development, not only results.
2. 2Treat the session plan as a hypothesis, not a script. The modelling approach (identify, analyse and control variables, then apply a sequence) is useful. Jones et al. call it an oversimplification of a complex procedure: 'a professional coach is much more than a subject matter specialist and a systematic method applier'. Use the sequence, and hold it open to change when the people in front of you respond differently.
3. 3Audit the social layer of every coaching decision. The preface says tactics, workouts and coach–athlete relationships are shaped by history, scientific convention and the limits of language. For each drill or instruction, note what social assumption it carries (who it suits, who it excludes, what it takes for granted).
4. 4Build shared meaning with each athlete. Bowes frames coach and athlete as 'constructive thinkers' who each build their own understanding. Check what the athlete took from an instruction before you assume it landed, and adjust your language until both of you mean the same thing.
5. 5Earn respect rather than assume it. Markula & Martin state that respect cannot be imposed or demanded and does not follow from your power position. Respect comes from athletes who feel their trust grow day by day. Treat the coach–athlete relationship as a power relationship and test whether your use of power serves the athletes or only your own cause (reputation, salary, wins).
6. 6Run a reflective loop on a fixed routine. Bates argues that experience builds a coach's knowledge and that reflective practice turns it into a dynamic, evolving knowledge base, making you more secure in an ambiguous environment. After each session, record what happened, what you did, and what you will change.
7. 7Take ownership of your own development. Bates notes that coach education struggles with ambiguity and shifting social dynamics, so the responsibility for continuing professional development falls on you. Add formal qualifications, since Pullo's profile of effective coaches includes them, but do not let them substitute for reflection.
8. 8Check for abuse of power and knowledge. Avner warns that an uninformed coach can harm an athlete through power and knowledge. Before you impose a method, ask what individual and cultural relationships it ignores.

Take the passage's own scenario of a coach whose reputation and salary are tied to team results. The coach wants players to train a certain way and practise certain tactics to maximise winning. Under the hint of power, the coach simply directs. Markula & Martin note that the official position does not bring respect, and players or parents are by no means obliged to give it. In practice, the coach explains why the tactic serves the athletes' own aims as well as the coach's, and then checks whether the athletes understand it the same way (Bowes' shared meaning). Afterward the coach reflects on how the athletes responded (Bates), and sees that when respect is withheld, effectiveness drops. The coach then adjusts the process rather than pushing harder, which is Kidman & Hanrahan's point about changing the process when success is not arriving. The example is a synthesis of the passages' arguments, not a documented case.

• If results are not arriving, then change the process rather than increasing pressure, and check first whether the problem is social (trust, language, respect) rather than technical.
• If an athlete's response to an instruction differs from your intent, then assume the meaning was not shared and rework how you communicate before reworking the drill.
• If you notice you are relying on your position to get compliance, then treat it as a respect deficit and rebuild trust through consistent daily conduct.
• If your coach education did not cover the situation (ambiguity, shifting dynamics), then fill the gap through structured reflection and self-directed development.
• If a method works from a model or textbook but ignores the athlete's cultural or individual context, then adapt it, since power and knowledge misused by an uninformed coach can harm the athlete.

• Treating coaching as a sequential, technical process only. Tell: your plans are neat but athletes disengage or respond unpredictably, and you blame them rather than the process.
• Believing a qualification equals competence. Tell: you stop learning after certification, and you cannot explain how your knowledge has changed through experience.
• Demanding respect through authority. Tell: compliance in training, but little trust, and conflict with players or parents.
• Assuming your instructions mean the same to the athlete as to you. Tell: repeated errors despite clear explanations, and athletes who nod but perform differently.
• Ignoring the social construction of your knowledge. Tell: you present tactics, training methods or science as objective truth and never question who they serve or exclude.

• ▸Athlete/group and session: name who you coached and what the session was.
• ▸Success definition: state what success meant here, in both performance and personal development terms.
• ▸What I intended vs. what happened: note the gap between your plan and the athletes' actual response.
• ▸Shared meaning check: record one instruction and how the athlete interpreted it.
• ▸Respect and power: note where you relied on position, and where trust was earned or lost.
• ▸Social context: list one social, cultural or individual factor that shaped the session.
• ▸Process change: name one thing in the process you will change next time.
• ▸Knowledge gap: identify what you did not know, and how you will address it (CPD step).

1. 1Audit your own coaching environment for the five socio-negative outcomes Anderson names: misogyny, homophobia, ableism, racism and violence. Name the specific mechanism operating in your setting rather than treating 'exclusion' as abstract.
2. 2Identify people who exist outside your sport's usual categories (gender, sexuality, ability, race) and issue direct personal invitations to join, rather than waiting for them to self-select into a hostile environment.
3. 3Mandate non-discriminatory language among your own athletes now; do not wait for athletes to demand the inclusion of sexual minorities in official policy before acting.
4. 4Scrutinise structural access when you organise meets or sessions: identify factors that may include or exclude people with disabilities and make the simple adaptations that are within your control.
5. 5Educate your coaching peers directly — give them a reading, name the overt and covert ways they produce an exclusive environment, and treat this as teaching, since great coaches are great teachers first.
6. 6Champion policies and practices that influence other coaches, positioning yourself as an agent who reproduces sport differently rather than passively inheriting the social-exclusion model you were socialised into.
7. 7Treat each inclusive act as socialisation: use it to reshape how your existing athletes understand diversity, so inclusion propagates through the group rather than resting on one individual.

Anderson, as an American high school teacher with a top-notch running team, invited a deaf student onto the team. The student may never have considered running on his own, but the invitation thrilled him into participation. The effect reached beyond that one athlete: it socialised the rest of the team into a new way of understanding diversity in relation to ability-status, and several teammates even learned sign language. This shows the mechanism of proactive agency — the coach identifies someone outside the usual category first, then extends the invitation, converting a single inclusion into a shift in the group's culture. It also illustrates that inclusion is an outcome the coach actively produces, not a property sport possesses on its own.

• If an athlete type is absent from your team, then identify and personally invite someone from that category rather than assuming they simply aren't interested.
• If you are waiting for athletes to demand inclusion of sexual minorities, then stop waiting and champion non-discriminatory language yourself.
• If you organise a meet or session, then check access barriers for disabled participants first, because simple changes often make a large difference.
• If you cannot change the structural systems that promote and reward coaches, then still act by educating your peers, since peer education moves sport in a progressive direction.
• If a colleague produces exclusion through good-intentioned orthodoxy, then teach them the covert mechanisms rather than condemning them, because most coaches have good intentions.

• Assuming sport is inherently socio-positive and inclusive — the myth Anderson challenges; the tell is a coach who believes participation alone builds teamwork and self-esteem for everyone and so takes no proactive action.
• Passivity disguised as neutrality: waiting for marginalised athletes to demand inclusion; the tell is the absence of any coaching-influenced policy on treatment of gay and lesbian athletes.
• Copying the exclusive model when adapting: adaptations like wheelchair basketball reproduce hyper-competitive, class-discriminatory exclusivity (the Paralympics modelling itself on the Olympics rather than a total-inclusivity model); the tell is gatekeeping over which athletes, sports and events 'count'.
• Focusing on what disabled people can't do rather than what they can; the tell is adaptation framed as accommodation of deficit instead of expansion of participation.
• Being caught up in the 'orthodox fervour of sport' despite good intentions; the tell is a coach who reproduces exclusion while sincerely believing they are neutral or fair.

• ▸Exclusion mechanism present: name which of misogyny/homophobia/ableism/racism/violence operates here
• ▸Absent category: list who is missing from your team across gender, sexuality, ability, race
• ▸Direct invitation: name one specific person you will personally invite and when
• ▸Policy gap: state the non-discriminatory language rule you will mandate among athletes
• ▸Structural access fix: name one simple adaptation that removes a barrier for disabled participants
• ▸Peer to educate: name one colleague and the specific covert mechanism you will show them
• ▸Group socialisation effect: state how this act will reshape your existing athletes' view of diversity
• ▸Structural limit acknowledged: note which reward/promotion structure you cannot change but will work around

1. 1Pick an event that is live for you. Choose an unplanned or unanticipated moment, such as a teaching strategy that failed or a practice structure that broke down. It must connect to your beliefs and how you see your coaching role (your philosophy or habitus). Events that don't touch these rarely become knowledge.
2. 2Break the problem down. List the factors that led to the event: what you set up, said, or structured, and what followed. Treat the event as something with causes, not as bad luck.
3. 3Challenge the validity of your own action in that specific situation. Ask whether what you did was justified by the context, or whether it was habit, imitation of your own former coaches, or social expectation.
4. 4Connect cause to effect in one written sentence ('Because I did X under condition Y, Z happened'). The source says establishing causation is only half the process, so do not stop here.
5. 5Reframe the cause-effect link as an issue in practice that you need to overcome. This turns an explanation into a problem you can act on.
6. 6Generate alternatives from the six sources in Gilbert & Trudel (2001): (1) your existing repertoire, (2) creative thought, (3) coaching materials, (4) reflective transformation (observing others), (5) joint construction (colleagues), (6) advice seeking (specialised expert coaches). Use at least one source outside yourself, because you cannot hold all the answers to every novel problem.
7. 7Test one alternative through action in the next relevant session. Choose it deliberately, not by habit, and write down what you expect it to change.
8. 8Evaluate the result against the original problem. If the outcome is positive, close the reflective conversation and record the relationship between the key factors. If it is negative, formulate another alternative and repeat. Record why it worked or failed, so you can recognise similar problems later.

The passages give the mechanism but no full case, so this is an illustration built on their structure and not a source example. Event: a practice structure you planned collapses mid-session. Break it down: list the factors that preceded the collapse, such as how you set it up and what you instructed. Challenge: ask whether you chose that structure for this group or because it is how you were coached. Cause-effect: 'Because I set up X without checking Y, athletes did Z.' Reframe: 'I need a structure that handles Y.' Generate alternatives from your repertoire, a colleague (joint construction), and an expert coach (advice seeking). Test the best option next session. Evaluate: if the problem recurs, formulate and test another. If it resolves, record the factor relationship, which is what makes the fix recognisable in future problems and not just a one-off patch. The source contrasts this with trial and error, where you try one way after another, eventually succeed, and cannot say why, so the fix has no functional validity outside that isolated action.

• If an event doesn't connect to your beliefs or your view of your coaching role, then don't spend a full cycle on it. Choose an event that is live for you.
• If you have named a cause but have no alternative to test, then you are only halfway: reframe it as an issue in practice and generate alternatives.
• If your alternatives all come from your own repertoire and creativity, then deliberately add one external source: materials, observation, a colleague, or an expert coach.
• If the test outcome is negative, then formulate a new alternative and repeat. Do not close the cycle or revert to habit.
• If the test succeeds, then close the reflective conversation, but first record the relationship between the key factors so it transfers to future problems.

• Stopping at cause and effect. The tell: you can explain what went wrong but your next session looks the same.
• Trial and error dressed up as reflection. The tell: you eventually fix the problem but cannot say which factor mattered, and the fix fails in a slightly different context.
• Reproducing habit instead of testing. The tell: your 'alternative' is how your own coaches did it or what social expectation says coaches do, because emotional and subjective elements and early socialisation go unquestioned.
• Trying to be the coach with all the answers. The tell: you never consult colleagues, observe others, or ask expert coaches, and your alternatives come only from your own repertoire.
• Treating reflection as a free-standing routine. The tell: it is squeezed out when time is short, because the process takes time, willingness and an open mind and is not a problem-free routine that applies the same way everywhere.

• ▸Live event: describe the unplanned or unanticipated incident and why it matters to your philosophy or role.
• ▸Contributing factors: list what led up to it (set-up, instructions, structure, context).
• ▸Validity challenge: was your action justified in this situation, or was it habit or expectation?
• ▸Cause-effect statement: 'Because I did __, __ happened.'
• ▸Issue in practice: restate the problem as something to overcome.
• ▸Alternatives (by source): repertoire / creative thought / materials / observation / colleague / expert coach.
• ▸Test chosen: which alternative you will try, when, and the outcome you expect.
• ▸Evaluation: result versus the original problem; positive means close, negative means formulate the next alternative.
• ▸Knowledge recorded: the relationship between factors that you can recognise in future problems.

1. 1Name the relationship as a power relationship. Markula and Martin treat the coach-athlete bond as one, and your knowledge, selection decisions and control of the training setting give you authority the athlete does not have. Write down where that authority sits: what you decide, what the athlete cannot easily contest, and who else (parents, administrators) shapes the situation.
2. 2Define your ethical goals in writing, then state them to athletes in plain language. Markula and Martin say coaches should establish what counts as ethical coaching behaviour and articulate it clearly. Cover what you will and will not do, and what you are trying to achieve together.
3. 3Build a shared understanding of why each athlete is in the sport. The source stresses a shared understanding of reasons for involvement. Ask each athlete for their reasons before you fix targets, so that the goals you push are mutually agreed and not only yours.
4. 4Persuade by reasoning. When you set a demand, give the reason and invite the athlete's response. Bowes frames communication as developing shared meaning, with coach and athlete as 'constructive thinkers'. A bare instruction transmits a step, whereas a reasoned one lets the athlete build the meaning with you.
5. 5Adapt your expertise to the athlete and the situation. Expertise, knowledge and good methodology do not by themselves bring recognition or respect. Check how this athlete, in this setting, will receive a given method, and adjust it before you apply it.
6. 6Question your own knowledge on a schedule. The source asks coaches to actively question what they know and use it ethically. Use Bates's reflection in practice: after sessions, note what you assumed, what the athlete's response showed, and what you will change. Because Bates argues the responsibility is yours, do not wait for coach education to prompt it.
7. 7Screen for harm and exclusion. Avner warns that power and knowledge are easily abused by an uninformed coach, with potentially harmful consequences for the athlete. Anderson names misogyny, homophobia, ableism, racism and violence as outcomes of exclusionary sport. Ask of each practice whether it advantages some athletes or shuts others out, and use your agency to move it toward inclusion.

The passages give no detailed case, so this is an illustration built only from their principles. A coach starts a season with a squad. Before setting any targets, the coach sets out three ethical goals in writing and tells the squad what they are. Each athlete is then asked individually why they play. One athlete's reason is enjoyment and development, not selection. The coach adapts the plan to fit rather than imposing a standard method, which follows Markula and Martin's point that expertise alone does not earn respect. Later, a drill is challenged as unfair to an athlete the group habitually sidelines. The coach does not pull rank. The coach explains the purpose, hears the objection and changes the drill, which uses persuasion and reasoning rather than coercion, and keeps the group inclusive in line with Anderson. That evening the coach logs the incident in a reflection note (Bates), asking what was assumed and what the objection exposed. Authority is used openly, tied to agreed goals, and corrected when it risks harm.

• If you are about to give an instruction the athlete may not accept, then give the reason and ask for their response before you enforce it. Fall back on pure authority only when it is needed to prevent harm.
• If an athlete's reason for playing differs from the team goal, then negotiate a shared target or adapt the plan. Do not apply the group aim as if it were agreed.
• If your expertise is not producing respect, then examine how you adapt it to the athlete and the situation. Do not assume the knowledge speaks for itself, and do not assert it harder.
• If a practice benefits some athletes while excluding others on gender, sexuality, disability, race or through violence, then change the practice. You hold the agency to do so.
• If you are unsure what the athlete experienced, then ask, and record it in reflection. Do not infer it from your own intent.

• Treating knowledge as self-justifying: you cite expertise and method in place of reasons. The tell is athletes complying outwardly but not engaging or offering feedback.
• Keeping ethics private: you hold values but never state them. The tell is athletes who cannot say what the coach stands for, and disputes where each side assumes different norms.
• Following a communication script: you apply steps and ignore shared meaning. The tell is athletes who repeat your words back but act differently from what you meant.
• Abusing power through ignorance of context: you apply methods without regard for individual and cultural differences. The tell is withdrawal, distress or exclusion in particular athletes that you notice late or not at all.
• Never questioning your own knowledge: you wait for coach education to correct you. The tell is the same assumptions in your plans season after season, with no reflection record.

• ▸Where my authority sits: list the decisions I control that athletes cannot easily contest.
• ▸My ethical goals: write 2-4 plain statements of what I will and will not do.
• ▸Date and method stated to athletes: record when and how I told them, and how I checked they understood.
• ▸Each athlete's reason for being in the sport: one line per athlete, in their words.
• ▸Mutually agreed goal: the target we both accepted, and where it adjusts the group plan.
• ▸Reasoning given for the demand: the explanation I offered for a contested instruction, and the athlete's response.
• ▸Exclusion or harm screen: note any practice that disadvantages or excludes someone, and the change made.
• ▸Assumption I questioned: one thing I took for granted in my knowledge, and what the athlete's reaction showed.
• ▸Next adjustment: one change to my practice, with a review date.

1. 1Drop the transfer model first. Treat each instruction as input to the athlete's existing understanding, not as a delivered package. Bowes argues that knowledge is created when people process information from current and past experience through their own schemata (Bartlett, 1932). A message that was said is not yet a message that was understood.
2. 2Before you coach a point, name your own schema. Write down what you assume the athlete knows, wants and is capable of, and what 'good' looks like for this skill. The source says shared meaning demands awareness of self as well as of the other. Your assumptions are the first thing to check.
3. 3Find out what the athlete's schema contains. Ask what the athlete thinks the task is, why they are doing it, and what the mistake means to them. Early experiences shape how athletes understand the meaning of sport and their own role in it, so do not assume they define the activity the way you do.
4. 4Establish shared vocabulary on purpose. Inter-subjectivity (Göncü, 1993) shows up in the phrases athletes and coaches use to describe actions, concepts and plans. Agree on what each recurring term refers to. Have the athlete restate it in their own words, then compare their version with yours.
5. 5Read verbal and non-verbal signals as evidence of how the message landed. Watch what the athlete does next, their attempts, their hesitation, where they look. The source treats communication as interaction, so the athlete's response is data about their schema, not just compliance or defiance.
6. 6Check whether you and the athlete hold the same goal for the activity. When the coach alone carries responsibility for development, coaches and athletes drift into different meanings and goals for the same drill. Say your goal for the drill aloud and ask for theirs.
7. 7Replace the repeated instruction with a diagnostic question. Statements like 'How many times have I told you?' signal that the transfer model has failed. Stop repeating the instruction. Ask 'What did you see?' or 'What are you trying to do on this attempt?' and build the next instruction from the answer.
8. 8Close the loop: agree on the revised understanding, then watch whether behaviour changes. If it does not, treat the meaning as still unshared and go back to step three. Do not conclude the athlete is not listening.

The source describes a coach who states that an athlete does not see the impact of mistakes, because the athlete keeps making the same mistake in practice. The coach's schema reads the repetition as a failure of awareness or attention, so the likely response is to repeat the correction ('How many times do I have to tell you?'). The athlete, however, does not have confidence in a newly developed technique and keeps making sub-standard attempts. Their meaning for the repetition is 'I am unsure of this skill', not 'I do not care about errors'. The two parties hold different understandings of the same behaviour, and louder repetition cannot fix that. Applying the steps: the coach names their own assumption (this athlete is not paying attention), asks the athlete what they are trying to do on each attempt, and hears the confidence problem. The two then agree on a shared goal for the drill, such as completing a small number of controlled attempts of the new technique, and a shared term for what counts as an acceptable attempt. The coach has now built a new collective understanding rather than issued the same message a fourth time.

• If you catch yourself repeating an instruction ('I've told you before...'), then stop and ask what the athlete understood; repetition means the meaning is not shared.
• If an athlete's behaviour looks like carelessness or non-compliance, then first look for a different meaning of the activity for them (such as low confidence in a new technique) before correcting the behaviour.
• If your goal for a drill may differ from the athlete's, then state yours and ask for theirs before the drill starts.
• If a term or cue recurs in sessions, then confirm what it refers to for both of you by having the athlete paraphrase it.
• If the athlete is young or new to the setting, then expect their schema of sport and of the coach's and athlete's roles to come from early experiences and from older athletes; check those expectations before assuming alignment.

• Treating communication as a sequence of steps (state, demonstrate, correct). The tell: you are satisfied that you 'said it' and are frustrated that the athlete 'did not get it'.
• Taking all responsibility for the athlete's development on yourself. The tell: you and the athlete describe the activity's purpose differently, and the athlete seems to be waiting to be told what to do.
• Reading mistakes as lack of awareness without checking the athlete's reasoning. The tell: persistent errors on a new technique get met with more correction, and attempts stay sub-standard or tentative.
• Never examining your own schemata. The tell: your expectations of athletes' roles and abilities feel like facts, and surprise at an athlete's response is blamed on the athlete.
• Assuming shared vocabulary because everyone uses the same words. The tell: athletes nod at a cue but produce different actions, or paraphrase it in a way that differs from your intent.

• ▸Skill or instruction in question: write the specific point you are trying to communicate.
• ▸My schema: what I assume the athlete knows, wants and can do here, and what 'good' looks like.
• ▸Athlete's stated meaning: their own words for what the task is and why they are doing it.
• ▸Observed signals: what the athlete said and did (verbal and non-verbal) after the instruction.
• ▸Gap identified: where my meaning and theirs differ, including any difference in goal for the drill.
• ▸Shared terms agreed: the phrases or cues we will both use, and what each refers to.
• ▸Athlete's paraphrase: the athlete's restatement of the agreed understanding, in their words.
• ▸Next-attempt test: what I will watch for to see whether the meaning is now shared.
• ▸Follow-up: if behaviour is unchanged, what I will ask differently next time.

1. 1Write your own socialisation history in one page: what the system rewarded in you, and which practices you believe worked because they worked for you. Anderson names this as the main route into reproduction: coaches who progressed through the system 'utilise their individual agency to reproduce a faulty system they believe worked for them'. Until you see this, your defaults pass for neutral.
2. 2Audit the social structure of your team. List how the game is physically structured and played, and how athletes are promoted, divided and rewarded. For each item, ask who gets selected, grouped or rewarded by it and who does not.
3. 3Audit the culture. Write down the creeds that operate in your environment: hard work, giving it one's all, a hyper-masculine disposition, and no room for a sore loser. Anderson's examples are 'no crying in baseball', 'there is no I in team', and the disapproval of dropping out, of 'throwing like a girl', of challenging the coach, and of giving less than one hundred per cent. Mark each one you voice, enforce or tolerate.
4. 4Inventory the five powers you hold (French & Raven): legitimate (appointed status), coercive (ability to take something away), reward (ability to give something desired), expert (formal training), referent (respect). Few occupations combine all five. Your choices carry more force than you assume, so list where each power touches selection, feedback and playing time.
5. 5Check outcomes against the named harms: misogyny, homophobia, ableism, racism and violence. For each, find one place in your recruitment, language or rules where your team could be producing it. Anderson's claim is that organised team sport largely serves athletically talented, able-bodied, white, heterosexual males, so test who your structures actually serve.
6. 6Pick levers by reach. Anderson says the coach holds great power to socialise people into a different belief system, and 'to a lesser extent' to alter certain structures. Start with the norms you set (what you praise, what you sanction, what you say) and then change the structures you control (promotion, grouping, reward).
7. 7Make each change specific and visible. Replace one phrase, one selection or grouping practice, and one team rule. State the change to the team and say why. Reproduction happens by default, so challenge has to be deliberate and repeated.
8. 8Expect friction and give it time. In Lyn Gunson's account, athletes met a different coaching style with 'quite a shock' and needed 'quite a while' to adjust. Review after a full period of use before judging whether a change failed.

Lyn Gunson, interviewed in the book, describes choosing against a default. She says she is 'not like a lot of the guys because I tend not to be autocratic'. She wants the athlete 'at the centre', and says 'a lot of coaches try and own the player's development and performance', which she does not believe is best. Her strategy is to 'create conditions by which the athlete can develop their own performance and feel ownership of it', using direct, pointed questions such as 'What do you think is happening?'. The cost is real: players found it 'quite a shock', and most took it on emotionally at first, so it took 'quite a while' before they could discuss performance in an unemotional way. She kept the approach anyway. Read through this construct, it is a deliberate use of coach power: she holds the legitimate and expert power, and she chooses to redistribute ownership rather than concentrate it. The passages do not describe recruitment or policy changes by her, and her generalisation that women 'don't analyse that well' is itself the kind of belief an agency audit would test. The example shows choosing against the norm, absorbing the cost, and persisting. It does not show a complete inclusion strategy.

• If a practice survives mainly because 'it worked for me', then treat it as inherited rather than evidenced, and test it against who it excludes before you keep it.
• If a team creed ('no crying', 'no I in team', 'like a girl') is being used to correct behaviour, then ask which group it disadvantages. Drop or reword it if the answer is a group Anderson names (women, gay athletes, disabled athletes, athletes of colour).
• If you can change either a norm or a structure, then change the norm first, since the coach has great power over it, and take on structures within the limits of your control, which Anderson describes as lesser.
• If you are tempted to use coercive or reward power to enforce a new norm, then check that it is also backed by referent power (respect). Compliance from fear or reward alone does not socialise a belief.
• If athletes resist a change early, then hold it for a full review period before reversing. Gunson's athletes needed a long adjustment, so early discomfort alone is not evidence of failure.

• Treating sport as inherently inclusive. The tell: you can describe no case where your own structures or sayings excluded anyone. Anderson calls the 'socio-positive' view a myth.
• Treating the coach as only a product of the system. The tell: 'that's just how the sport is' explains every choice. Anderson stresses that coaches are socialised but retain agency and gatekeeping power.
• Changing words but not structures. The tell: you drop a phrase while selection, grouping and rewards stay the same, and the same athletes still get promoted.
• Overreaching on structure. The tell: you plan changes to league or sport-wide structures you cannot alter. Anderson limits the coach's structural power to 'a lesser extent', so start with what is in your control.
• Replacing one generalisation with another. The tell: you assign traits to a whole group (as in 'women … don't analyse that well') and design coaching around the assumption instead of testing it with the individual athlete.
• Quitting after the first shock. The tell: you revert to the old style when athletes react badly in the first weeks, as Gunson's did, without a review window.

• ▸My socialisation: list the practices I inherited and believe 'worked for me'.
• ▸Structure audit: how athletes are promoted, divided and rewarded, and who benefits from each.
• ▸Culture audit: the creeds I voice, enforce or tolerate (for example 'no crying', 'like a girl'), and who each disadvantages.
• ▸Power inventory: where I use legitimate, coercive, reward, expert and referent power, one line each.
• ▸Outcome check: one place where misogyny, homophobia, ableism, racism or violence could be produced in my team.
• ▸Norm change (primary lever): the specific phrase or sanction I will change, and the replacement.
• ▸Structure change (secondary lever): the one promotion, grouping or reward practice within my control that I will change.
• ▸How I will announce it: what I will tell the team and my stated reason.
• ▸Review date and evidence: when I will review, and what I will look for before keeping or reversing the change.

1. 1Name the discourses you coach inside. List the ones the passages identify: professionalism as objectivity, mental toughness, 'sacrifice' and playing through injury, win-at-all-costs, gender expectations in a male-dominated profession, and ethnic assumptions about talent. Write each as a statement you or your environment actually says.
2. 2Trace each statement to its source. Ask whether it comes from coach education, a former coach, the sport sciences, or the club culture. The passages show that sport science can carry 'a false sense of objectivity and truth' and that a single approach can harden into 'the only true way'.
3. 3Audit your own language for what it licenses. Foucault's point in the passages is that discourses supply the language available to you and so restrict thought and action. Note which phrases ('professional', 'mentally tough', 'weak', 'faulty') end a conversation instead of opening one.
4. 4Check for an unquestioned model. Where one style or philosophy is treated as the answer for every athlete and situation (the passages' example is Martens' three styles, with cooperative favoured, or 'Athletes first – Winning second' as a universal maxim), ask: does it fit this athlete and this context? Does it leave out other ways of knowing?
5. 5Test for exclusion built into routine decisions. Review how you treat athletes by ethnicity, gender and position. Ask whether your beliefs about their talents shape training or motivation, and whether you steer athletes toward sport only (and away from other pursuits) because they are seen as assets.
6. 6Check for pressure to sacrifice. Look for athletes with low self-esteem or weak support who will risk their health to be accepted. Note where you or your culture reward playing hurt, and where an athlete who struggles is labelled deficient instead of being given tools to improve.
7. 7Open the decision-making. Where selection or de-selection is closed or undemocratic, explain the reasoning to the athlete. Then ask 'what went wrong?' about the causes of a conflict instead of only coping with the incident.
8. 8State your ethical goals and share them with athletes. Define what you take good coaching behaviour to mean in this context and say it plainly, so athletes can question it.

Zoe Avner's account of her coach Alain, in the passages, shows the construct operating. Alain repeatedly called himself a 'professional'. Avner came to read that as meaning he was '100 per cent objective and infallible', so his actions could not be questioned or dismissed as irrational. Through Foucault, she sees that the discourse of professionalism legitimised his knowledge and claims to truth and so created his power. Alongside it ran a model of mental toughness. She was labelled 'faulty' for lacking self-confidence and self-assertiveness, yet was never given tools to improve, or led to believe she could. She felt she could not talk openly with him about injuries or his coaching style. She believed something was wrong with her because her body kept breaking down, and she trained a whole week on a pulled hamstring. The audit move is to treat 'professional' and 'mentally tough' as culturally produced claims, not neutral facts, and to ask what behaviour each one makes unquestionable.

• If a framework, style or maxim is presented as the only correct approach, then treat it as a discourse, test it against the specific athlete and context, and look for alternatives before applying it.
• If you label an athlete as lacking mental toughness, then check whether you have taught or shown a path to develop it; a label without tools is a failure of coaching, not a verdict on the athlete.
• If an athlete is willing to play through injury to be accepted, then read it as a response to fear of rejection or de-selection and remove the link between acceptance and sacrifice.
• If you claim objectivity or 'professionalism' to close a discussion, then reopen it and make the reasoning open to challenge.
• If your beliefs about a group's talents influence placement or motivation, then check that assumption and offer athletes alternative sports or positions.

• Treating coaching knowledge as neutral science. The tell: you cannot name any social or cultural assumption in your 'best practice'.
• Swapping one dominant model for another, such as adopting the cooperative style as the new orthodoxy. The tell: you apply it to every athlete and situation and call other approaches wrong.
• Equating professionalism with infallibility. The tell: athletes stop questioning decisions, and you hear 'he knows what he's doing' instead of reasons.
• Reproducing sacrifice culture while calling it toughness. The tell: injured athletes keep training and are praised for it, while those who struggle are described as weak.
• Treating inclusion as well-meaning but exclusion as someone else's problem. The tell: you steer athletes into sports by ethnicity or by their value as assets, without asking what that costs them.

• ▸Statement I or my environment uses: write the exact phrase (e.g. 'be professional', 'toughen up').
• ▸Discourse it belongs to: professionalism, mental toughness, sacrifice, win-at-all-costs, gender, or ethnicity.
• ▸Source: coach education, sport science, former coach, club culture, or other.
• ▸What it makes unquestionable: describe what behaviour or decision it shields from challenge.
• ▸Who it benefits and who it constrains: name the roles or athletes on each side.
• ▸Evidence of harm or exclusion: note injuries played through, athletes labelled 'faulty', closed selection decisions.
• ▸Alternative way of knowing: write one other framing for the same situation.
• ▸Open decision or explanation I will give athletes: state what you will share and when.
• ▸Ethical goal I will state to athletes: write it in one plain sentence.