How many medals is enough? We have lost sight of what matters. If we don’t redefine the meaning of success, we could destroy sport

HOW well did we seize the chance of a lifetime that London 2012 offered our nation? Perspective is everything. In those heady days after the closing ceremony, there seemed so much to celebrate. Third in the constantly visible medal table reached beyond our wildest dreams; and 65 medals, 29 of them gold, jangled joyfully in the tracksuit pockets of Olympians and even more for our Paralympians. Britain felt proud. In terms of instant impact, it felt huge.

But how long did that impact last and how deep did it go? As host nation, we had bigger, longer-term ambitions beyond that summer. We wanted to create lasting inspirational stories of human possibility achieved within a framework of fair play, integrity and respect. We committed to regenerate communities within east London and connect and engage the whole country in the lifelong benefits of sport for all.

When I was an Olympic rower, we always analysed our performances to learn what we did well, what we could improve, and what we would do differently next time. Win or lose, we reviewed rigorously because we wanted to improve. We couldn’t afford to be defensive about our performance, dishonest about our weaknesses or ignore things we had got wrong. We now need the same mindset and accountability from leaders across government and sport to look at what they did and didn’t deliver.

There are some great stories from London: packed venues for every event, Katherine Grainger’s fifth Olympic medal and Jessica Ennis leading a magical night in the stadium. Maybe that would be enough, if we weren’t in the business of wanting to create a sustainable high-performance system and deliver on our serious national ambitions to create positive social change through sport.

But too many athletes have told stories of abuse, bullying and negative mental health issues. A stream of doping scandals emerged. Significant levels of affordable housing in east London never materialised. And too many communities have seen no increased access or opportunity through sport.

These stories point to the need for a step-change, first, in how we look after athletes and help them become even more powerful role models for society, and second, how we can create greater positive social impact through highperformance sport.

Better athlete welfare doesn’t mean going soft or saying it’s easy to win a medal. It means that there are unacceptable costs in the pursuit of sporting excellence — doping is one and ignoring welfare should be another. Beyond that, our system has disconnected highperformance sport from the grassroots. This is what we should be setting up mission boards and trackers for — not just medals.

Wouldn’t it be great to set ourselves the challenge of working out what the best sporting journey for an athlete could look like? Or challenge ourselves to find a way of winning medals that also improves participation? We seem to have accepted that it’s inevitable that winning medals has no real impact on grassroots participation, rather than explore how we might do it differently. Other countries, such as Norway, win lots of medals at the Winter Olympics and yet boast a thriving youth sport system that is part of family life.

Voices for cultural change grow daily, led by brilliant athletes who demand more from our sporting leaders. Baroness Tanni GreyThompson continues to fight for measures yet to be implemented from her Duty of Care in Sport review, completed over five years ago. Anna Watkins, a 2012 Olympic rowing champion, recently returned to lead the British Athletes Commission to address long-standing athlete welfare issues. As she said, ‘we need to be the generation that sorts this out’, or it will be a ‘big failure for our generation of sports leadership’.

CULTURAL changes in highperformance sport would be a much tougher but surely more meaningful ambition than simply chasing more medals. Language around ‘cultures of fear’, ‘win at all costs’ and ‘humiliation of athletes’ has emerged from reviews across sports including cycling, para-swimming, canoeing and gymnastics. These phrases resemble former Eastern bloc sporting narratives. And while we need to chase down those who have abused and bullied within the system, it is critical to understand how this was possible and what part our narrow medal-based vision played in enabling this.

The desire to be ever higher in the medal table meant our focus was increasingly on quantity rather than quality. Yet what those medals represent has too often decreased the experiences of athletes, the impact of their journey on themselves and others, and what sport represents to the rest of society.

While the Government and UK Sport quote public survey results showing that the British public like to see British athletes winning medals, they don’t track the impact of stories emerging that athletes were abused, bullied or cheated. I’m not sure we have any evidence that public ‘pride’ goes up with each medal won or when we move from sixth to fifth or fourth to third in the medal table. If we don’t stop and think, we could destroy sport constantly chasing more medals with diminishing returns.

Why should a country of 70million people win more medals than countries the size of the US or China? Or outperform Russia, who clearly bypass ethical boundaries? Why divert ourselves from the bigger goal of improving the brilliant stories athletes could tell and the wider social impact that could be worth so much more to us.

Clearly, winning one gold medal in Atlanta in 1996 and placing 36th was not a result commensurate to Britain’s size of population and economy. But does that mean we should be laser-focused on topping the table? UKSport calculated that Team GB could top the medal table at the 2032 Games if the Government doubled the investment to £3billion. No human costs, ethical risks or welfare consequences were considered. Nor whether there would be any greater positive social impact.

Voices advocating better use of sport in society are growing, led by athletes recognising how traditional narratives based around medals limit the potential of what sport could deliver. The 2012 Olympic cycling champion Victoria Pendleton has been among those destigmatising mental health issues. The 2012 Olympic canoeing

Athletes have told stories of abuse, bullying and mental health issues

Let’s redefine success beyond three minutes on a podium or a medal table

champion Etienne Stott set up his environmental advocacy movement ‘Champions for Earth’ to use sport to promote climate issues. And ‘The True Athlete Project’ led by tennis player Sam Parfitt and 2012 Olympian Laurence Halsted sets out a vision for a more compassionate world through sport.

These athletes are working for long-term social impact through sport that outlasts any medal tally. In the recent BBC documentary Field of Dreams, Freddie Flintoff described using cricket to transform the lives of youngsters in his home town of Preston as ‘one of my greatest achievements’.

It’s time to forge a new 25-year vision: let’s redefine success beyond the blink of an eye crossing the line, three minutes on a podium and a number on a medal table. Let’s challenge ourselves to win medals where we can be proud of every single story. And let’s start prioritising how we can deliver greater long-term positive outcomes for individuals and communities through sport. There’s a better way to succeed in sport, and we shouldn’t rest until we find it.

• Cath Bishop, an Olympic rowing silver medallist and world champion, is the author of The Long Win: The Search for a Better Way to Succeed, adviser to ‘The True Athlete Project’ and chair of the ‘Love Rowing’ foundation, which supports projects to bring rowing to more communities around the country.