There commission of inquiry into the dysfunctions of federations finished with the audition phase on November 23. Before the release of his report on December 19, a three-part look at what was said during the 90 interviews conducted and possible avenues for improvement.
Monday : The confounding contempt of French sports leaders
This Tuesday: Interview with rapporteur Sabrina Sebaihi
Wednesday: And now, what possible changes in the federations?
She attended all the hearings, seated to the right of the president of the commission Béatrice Bellamy, an attentive ear for the victims, quick to hold people accountable for their contradictions. Rapporteur Sabrina Sebaihi (Europe Ecology Les Verts) expresses her surprise regarding the scale of cases of violence, particularly sexual violence, which have been kept silent for years. And says she is stunned by the lightness with which leaders have too often treated these problems.
After 90 hearings, do you come away reinforced in the idea that this commission of inquiry was necessary?
Completely. When we are told at the very beginning that everything is going well in the sports movement, that texts of laws have been passed and have changed everything, and that we realize at the end that the flagship tools of the Ministry of Sports, for example the Signal-sport cell, are unknown to everyone and especially to the victims, this proves the usefulness of this commission. We didn’t think at the start that we were going to hear from so many people, but as time went on, new people seemed interesting to listen to. And testimonies alerted us to federations which had gone under the radar and which appeared to be problematic.
For example ?
The horse riding. We questioned the president of the federation at length, and when after an hour he explained to us that we were wasting time with “an apple thief” by talking about a person who was convicted of sexual intercourse with a woman. minor, it shows a certain mentality. To me, it really is the epitome of the old world within the sports movement.
Do you have a more precise vision of the causes of the malfunctions?
It’s clearer, but there are so many it’s terrifying. Things that seem obvious on the outside, such as making homophobic or racist remarks that everyone in society would condemn, are considered normal, like folklore, in a sports arena. I hope that our outside perspective has allowed them to realize that no, this is not normal.
Is that what the world of sport is missing, getting out of this space?
The victims denounced it, it is one of their main complaints. When they wanted to speak, we told them that they absolutely should not do so because it would harm the image of the club, of their discipline, of the sport family. Or they didn’t have confidence in those who were going to carry out the investigations because everyone knows each other. Concerning judo for example, the words used were very strong: they spoke of a mafia, of a sect.
Did these auditions surprise you?
What we discovered, all these cases, goes well beyond what the commission was created to do. The most serious thing from my point of view is that we have had leaders face to face who think that they are not accountable, or who have never had to be accountable, and who have therefore come without having prepared for their hearing. In both cases, it is serious: in the first, it means that they consider themselves above everything; in the second, that the Ministry of Sports is failing in the control and monitoring of these federations.
Have these leaders shown more ill will or carelessness towards you?
Some people really showed bad will. They came backwards, they didn’t want to talk to us, and it was difficult to talk. For others, it is a lack of knowledge and above all a lack of interest in these questions, because they consider that being president of a federation is representation, in no case rolling up their sleeves and taking care of the serious matters that pass through their instance.
Which auditions particularly struck you from this point of view?
Bad will level, athletics [le président André Giraud et la directrice générale Souäd Rochdi], it’s obvious. Besides, they came a second time, it went a little better. Horse riding too [le président Serge Lecomte et le directeur général Frédéric Bouix], they didn’t want to talk to us at all. We also felt Bernard Laporte was very outside of all that, like football leaders in general. Philippe Diallo [président de la FFF depuis le retrait de Noël Le Graët en janvier 2023] came with a very simple argument: “this is not my record, this is my road map”. He says that he is not responsible for old affairs, even though he sat on the Comex and was vice-president! We have the impression of having had a lot of tongue-in-cheek. I’m thinking about tennis too [Gilles Moretton]who twisted the facts for almost the entire hearing.
You also said after Gilles Moretton’s visit that the commission reserved the right to transmit reports to the public prosecutor’s office for perjury. Are you going to do it, and for what testimonies?
It’s interesting, we received a lot of letters from people who followed the hearings and who made detailed reports, with the moments where there were lies, and the evidence underneath. It is on the basis of these elements and the written reports of the hearings that we will know which person we will be obliged to make reports on. We must send a strong signal to explain that the work of a commission of inquiry is extremely serious, that what the victims experienced is serious, and that when you are president of a sports federation you have responsibilities. Including that of telling the truth.
We felt your exasperation when certain leaders, for example André Giraud, discovered during their hearing the tools at their disposal?
It sounds crazy, yes. He didn’t know he could trigger section 40, or that the federation could become a civil party. The president of gymnastics did not know that he could take disciplinary sanctions. Really, we wonder if they understood the role of federation leader. But they are not the only ones responsible, they are accompanied by technical executives, who are state agents. A DTN is still supposed to know who can trigger an article 40. We have seen extremely surprising situations like this.
Do you have any examples in mind?
Claude Onesta who apologizes for his dedication to Didier Dinart before saying that it was not racist. It shows a shift, there was no consideration of the evolution of society, this is not possible. Some people were very annoying, pretending not to understand the questions. It’s not so much towards us, it’s above all disrespectful to the victims who testified and if these leaders had really been aware of things, they would have listened to the hearings which concerned them before coming. Judo is the same, we auditioned many people and Jean-Luc Rougé [ancien président de la FFJDA de 2005 à 2020] comes with his hands in his pockets to explain to us that he is not here to talk to us about that…
Which audition was the most frustrating?
We would have liked to have more answers from some. I think of football, the FFF remains in my opinion the federation where speech has been the least freed. When I see the hearing of the legal director [Jean Lapeyre], it took him an hour and a half to recognize that everyone knew about Noël Le Graët. What a waste of time! We could have covered many other things during that time. But I wouldn’t speak of frustration because each audition brought elements. Even the ones where leaders didn’t respond or weren’t prepared, that’s information in itself.
Did you receive any pressure during these four months of auditions?
We received quite a few letters to complain. The first was that of David Lappartient [président du CNOSF] who said that the sporting movement had been caricatured, that outrageous comments were being made. But most of the complaints and discontent came to us indirectly. I was told, for example, that the commission was making people cringe, and I was advised to no longer publish my agenda for the week in order to have peace of mind. But that didn’t stop us from working. We still feel that there was a lot of attention paid to us.
Which makes it all the more clear that it was necessary?
What is certain in any case is that after these hearings, no one will be able to say “we were not aware of what was wrong” or “everything is fine”. This is no longer possible.
You also interviewed the Minister of Sports. Did you feel her shaken by all this?
When she reframes the president of the gymnastics federation by telling him that, of course, he has sanctioning power, even she is surprised that he doesn’t know it. We sent him a letter following the hearing of the director general of Insep [Fabien Canu, le 5 octobre]because we were surprised by his answers [il avait reconnu notamment un « un déficit d’information » sur les violences sexistes et sexuelles]. It is still the only establishment under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Sports. So we strongly alerted the minister, and I know that there is a letter that was sent back to Insep to put things in order. I think she was also surprised by the lack of knowledge of the Signal-sport unit. She was able to see it, at least, and she wants to do something about it. Things that were taken for granted by the ministry were in fact not taken for granted at all. This commission will have served to highlight them, too.