Claire Heafford Interview: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

After the “Whyte Review,” the “Reform 25” initiative was launched. How satisfied are you with it?

In 2020, G4CI set out exactly 78 demands and compared them with BG’s measures in 2025. I can say I am about 36 percent satisfied.

Roughly one third of our demands have been implemented, one third are in progress, and one third have not yet been addressed. Gymnasts are expected to give 100 percent in training - I would like to see the same standard applied to protecting athletes.

What is still lacking?

From the emotional perspective of someone who has experienced abuse, it is difficult to believe that these shortcomings are not intentional or malicious. But over time, I have come to believe this is about a deep cultural shift—and we are only at the beginning.

Strategic litigation is the third pillar of G4CI’s work. Proceedings in German courts have been difficult so far. What is your experience?

Most abuse cases involving girls and women in sport fall below the threshold of criminal law. They involve physical abuse without direct contact—such as training through injuries—or coercive control and emotional manipulation.

These forms of abuse cause severe psychological harm but are often not recognized. Civil class-action lawsuits are extremely important because insurers now exert pressure on the federation and hold it accountable. Compensation payments have been relatively low, but long-term systemic change is the goal.

Another difficult issue in Germany is dismissing coaches. How is this handled in the UK?

It is extremely difficult to dismiss coaches. Abuse is often confirmed in hearings, but then legal standards are applied that do not account for these forms of abuse. As a result, coaches are allowed to continue working.

This is a major injustice. A large part of our work involves challenging such decisions. Recognising coercive control as abuse is essential for protecting children in sport.

There is also a structural issue: British Gymnastics represents both athletes and coaches, creating a conflict of interest that often works against dismissing coaches.

Some argue that certain gymnasts worked well with coaches facing serious allegations. Does that trivialise the issue?

It is complex. For me, it resembles a Faustian bargain. As an elite athlete, you make a pact with the devil: you reach the Olympics, are seen as superhuman, but effectively give up your human rights.

Many athletes get caught in a cycle. Olympic status can benefit them for life. Why would they criticise the system that enabled it? This also normalises training practices that should be investigated.

Is abuse a fundamental problem in elite sport?

All sports have issues with athletes’ rights, but how they manifest depends on the culture of the sport.

In gymnastics—artistic, rhythmic, and acrobatic—there is a particular problem affecting women and girls, because misogynistic attitudes are deeply embedded in the structures. In the UK, 89 percent of gymnasts are girls under twelve.

This makes it both a child protection issue and a problem of violence against women and girls.

Physical and emotional abuse is often committed by female coaches. Does that surprise you?

Unfortunately not. It relates to the environment in which these coaches were trained.

In the 1970s and 1980s, many male coaches in the Soviet Union moved into women’s gymnastics. They pushed for more acrobatics and younger bodies, which are easier to manage physically, and displaced female coaches.

These women then had to justify their place. Many adopted harsh and manipulative methods to prove they could deliver results.

Much has been written about the Karolyi system after “Athlete A.” What about coaches from the former Soviet Union who moved west?

They are comparable in terms of structural conditions. In state-run systems, success brought national prestige and significant social and economic advantages.

Families saw it as an honor when a child entered a training center. Personal sacrifice was expected and valued.

British coaches were even sent to Romania and Moscow to learn these methods. As a result, coaches like Adrian Stan and Vladimir Aksenov—and their training methods—shaped gymnastics culture in many Western countries.

How important would a public list of banned coaches be, like in the USA?

Essential. Because transparency is essential.

It would show that safeguarding standards are being enforced. Currently, we only have a list of coaches banned in the past. Despite many investigations, very few new names have been added.

In contrast, UK Athletics publishes all sanctions, hearing outcomes, and details on its website.

What do you think about raising the minimum age for female gymnasts?

I strongly support it. Currently, female gymnasts can compete at World Championships and the Olympics in the year they turn 16, while men must be 18. This encourages pushing children toward elite performance before they are physically and psychologically ready. The International Gymnastics Federation and the International Olympic Committee must acknowledge this issue.

What needs to change in the long term?

Federations must establish standards for good coaching behavior, as British Gymnastics has begun to do.

They must educate everyone in the system—coaches and athletes—and encourage athletes to report when standards are not met. They must ensure athletes are heard and empowered.

This would create a healthier system where performance and personal responsibility go hand in hand.

What is achievable?

We can have a sport that respects human rights and protects athletes.

There is no reason why athletes cannot succeed while optimising their performance in a healthy way. Brutality and avoidable suffering are not necessary.

I firmly believe that top performances are possible without harming athletes.