The commission of inquiry into the dysfunctions of the federations finished the hearing 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.
This Monday: The confounding contempt of French sports leaders
Tuesday: Interview with rapporteur Sabrina Sebaihi
Wednesday: And now, what possible changes in the federations?
If you want to keep faith in the governance of French sport, we strongly advise you not to delve into the work of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the dysfunctions of federations. In four months and 90 hearings, this working group led by Béatrice Bellamy (MP for Vendée, Horizons group) heard what is best in terms of influence and power, from the head of high performance at the Agency national sport Claude Onesta to Noël Le Graët (FFF), from the current Minister of Sports Amélie Oudéa-Castera to Bernard Laporte (FFR). Between omissions, denials of reality, approximations, even suspicions of lies, parliamentarians certainly did not expect to see so much resistance from within.
Shocking testimonies
Originally, the National Assembly had decided to create this commission following the Le Graët and Laporte affairs, pushed to resign after very different scandals but which brought to the surface profound anomalies in the way in which the federations were managed. football and rugby. No one had forgotten the sad Gailhaguet episode at the beginning of 2020 either, in the wake of Sarah Abitbol’s revelations about the sexual violence suffered during her skating career. But what was happening in French sport for such scandals to break out one after the other? The commission of inquiry chose to cast a wide net, and attack the problems from three angles: physical, sexual and psychological violence; sexual and racial discrimination; financial management – but not “the Islamization of certain sports clubs”, which led the RN elected officials to slam the door in September.
Impossible to mention all the auditions, obviously, but some were particularly memorable. Those of victims, like Claire Palou and Emma Oudiou (athletics), or Angélique Cauchy (tennis), shook the elected officials, who “did not measure the level of horrors committed nor the suffering”, as recognized by the one of the vice-presidents, Stéphane Buchou, In The Team. The testimonies of the leaders of all the associations fighting against violence against minors (The Blue Child, The Voice of the Child, The Butterflies, Colossus with Feet of Clay) completed the plunge into this chilling bath.
Dialogue of the deaf
But the worst, perhaps, was the dialogue of the deaf which regularly took place between a commission in search of answers to apparently simple questions (were you aware? What did you put in place to fight against this violence? What was the support circuit within your federation when a case of violence or racism was reported to you?) and leaders incapable of providing them even though they were, or still are, at the highest level level of responsibilities. We can no longer count the contradictions in which they have become entangled, in addition sometimes to the ignorance of the tools at their disposal.
Let us cite for example the president of the athletics federation André Giraud, who described Emma Oudiou’s accusations against the negligence of the FFA as “fanciful or even conspiratorial”, without being able at the same time to say how long the coach accused had been suspended. Heard a second time in November, he said he discovered that he was authorized to trigger section 40 (which allows you to take legal action if you have knowledge of a crime or misdemeanor) and that the FFA had the possibility of becoming a civil party to support an alleged victim.
His predecessor Bernard Amsalem boasted of the establishment of the first ethics and professional conduct commission for French sport, in 2006, acknowledging a few minutes later when faced with requests for details on specific cases that he had not “followed no file” nor “never had any information” concerning acts of sexual violence during his 16 years at the head of the body.
Oudéa-Castera disconcerted
On October 26, the head of the gymnastics federation James Blateau, embarrassed by questions about a coach still in post in Rouen despite denunciations of mistreatment from six former internationals, kicked in, arguing his powerlessness. “We have no control over his employment […], we are nothing at all in that,” he said. “Unacceptable,” replied, a bit taken aback, her supervisory minister Amélie Oudéa-Castera when she herself was interviewed in mid-November. “On the contrary, the federations have extensive disciplinary power. They have the capacity to sanction all of their licensees, whether they are recruited by clubs or by other affiliated organizations,” she recalled forcefully. Before delivering the final blow: “The federations have the full range of weapons that allow them to take their responsibilities. » Apparently, the information did not circulate well.
Amateurism level, we can still take the example of Nadir Allouache. Quick to deny outright the serious accusations weighing on his kickboxing federation, including a case of sexual blackmail – “never in my life”, “it’s false”, “it’s a tissue of lies” – he is shown at the same time to be very confused when it comes to providing concrete answers on specific facts put forward by the commission, contenting himself with referring parliamentarians to documents that he would provide later. A technique also very popular with Noël Le Graët, whose hearing consisted of being told for an hour and a half that he knew nothing. And not even of the existence of Signal-sport cell implemented by the government in 2020, which is still embarrassing for the former boss of the most powerful sports federation in France.
“There reigns in the sports movement an inter-self”
This inability to obtain answers has often annoyed President Béatrice Bellamy, like her vice-president Stéphane Buchou and the rapporteur Sabrina Sebaihi, who have been surprised on numerous occasions by the general amnesia which affects sports leaders. An exasperation summed up by this question from Stéphane Buchou to Bernard Amsalem, who took for all the others: “But what is the role of a president of a national federation? Because you are not the first to not answer our questions, to say “see it with so-and-so, because I don’t know about it”. Do you only have a representational role? Do you live in your bubble, away from all these problems? It’s very surprising. »
At least this working group will have revealed dysfunctions that everyone suspected, but without realizing the real extent of the damage. “There reigns in the sports movement an in-betweenness, a culture which makes it difficult to grasp the societal, social and ethical demands of our time,” explained Marie-George Buffet on the very last day of the hearings. The former Minister of Sports is well placed to talk about it, it is she (with Stéphane Diagana) who has been in charge since last March of the ethics committee and democratic life in sport desired by Amélie Oudéa-Castera. No easy feat.