The Jamaican athletes who performed so brilliantly in Berlin last week will be, rightfully and, we hope, appropriately fêted when they return home from the World Championships.

But when the celebrations are done, it is critical, we believe, for all stakeholders in the Jamaican athletics set-up to engage in an open and frank debate about how the sport ought to be managed. This conversation must include what should be the proper relationship, and sphere of authority, between the private coaches of individual athletes and technical teams assigned by the Jamaica Amateur Athletic Association (JAAA) for specific games.

Also to be addressed is a clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of an organisation like the JAAA in the context of Jamaica's emergence as a global athletics power and the increasing professionalisation of the sports which it is mandated to administer.

Lack of clarity

It is a lack of clarity on these issues, especially in today's fast-shifting environment, that has led to what we see as a selective application of principle on the part of the JAAA and the global athletics establishment with regard to recent disputes between Jamaican athletes and the local management body.

Indeed, for many people, given the attitude of the recent past - including pronouncements of some who used to lecture about the absence of societal discipline - principle is, after all, a fungible commodity.

The issue surrounding the failure of Veronica Campbell-Brown to run in the final of the women's 4x100 metres relay in Berlin, helps, we believe, to place this matter of subscription to principle in sharp relief and underlines the need for honest discourse being proposed by this newspaper.

By Mrs Campbell-Brown's account, she pulled out of the race after being told an hour and a half before the event that she would not run in the leg for which she had practised during the JAAA mandatory camp ahead of the games which other athletes snubbed.

The JAAA technical staff claim that they needed to accommodate other athletes - who were absent from the mandatory camp - who could not run the curves because of injury, an argument that Mrs Campbell-Brown also made for herself.

Coercive influence

In the circumstances, it is unsurprising that there might have been tensions in the team and the suspicion among some athletes, as Don Quarrie revealed, was articulated by Mrs Campbell-Brown that the JAAA' technical team was being influenced by "outside forces" in its decision making. Or, put another way, there was a sense of a coercive influence by forces who felt they held such power.

That, of course, would be understandable. For, in this environment where principles are flexible or can be selectively applied, if the man brings home extra meat, you should not worry about who might be trampled in the process - regardless how much you trumpeted in the past in the cause of national discipline. A name for this is expediency!

But it is not only in these relationship issues that there needs to be definition of responsibility and authority. It was embarrassing, for instance, to watch the JAAA dither over whether the athletes involved in the drug issue should participate in Berlin.

It is important that we talk honestly about the matters lest Jamaica squander this great gift on offer from our athletes.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.