JSES The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026)
ISSN: 2703-240X
www.jses.net
An emergent athlete development framework for Swiss Triathlon Cameron Lamont1, Andrew J. Martin1*, Geoff Watson1 1
School of Sport, Exercise & Nutrition, Massey University, New Zealand ARTICLE INFO Received: 01.20.2026 Accepted: 11.08.2026 Online: 14.10.2026 Keywords: Athlete development Athlete-centred Case-study Auto-ethnography Coach education
1.
ABSTRACT Issues surrounding selection, de-selection, and non-selection within National Sport Organizations (NSOs) have been shown to negatively affect athletes' self-esteem and longterm retention in sport (Edwards & Brannagan, 2023; Wrang, 2023). In New Zealand, these concerns and stakeholder complaints have prompted recent reviews of high-performance sport, resulting in policy changes aimed at safe-guarding athlete well-being (Rew, 2025; Roberts et al., 2021, Winther et al., 2025). This article examines how a practitioner addressed limitations in existing athlete development pathways while maintaining alignment with established frameworks. The lead author, a former professional athlete from New Zealand and current Swiss Duathlon’s National Coach within Swiss Triathlon, critically reflects on their practice through an auto-ethnographic lens. Two widely applied athlete development frameworks are examined from a practitioner perspective, the LongTerm Athlete Development Model (LTAD; Balyi & Hamilton, 2004) and Foundation, Talent, Elite, and Master Framework (FTEM; Gulbin et al., 2013, 2014). Guided by Schön’s (1983) concept of the ‘reflective practitioner’, the study’s trustworthiness is enhanced through triangulation, cross referencing to a bricolage of secondary sources, strengthening credibility and confirmability. Findings informed the creation of the LEAD framework, an emergent athlete-centred framework subsequently accepted by Swiss Olympic, that provides practical protocols for selection, de-selection, and non-selection. The LEAD framework supports resource management, talent identification and transfer, and is adaptable and transferable to other triathlon and broader sport contexts.
Introduction
1.1. Athlete development frameworks: Policy, selection and athlete well-being Recent research on National Sport Organization (NSO) policy highlights that athlete development frameworks operate as strategic governance tools shaped by political, financial, and performance pressures (Ives et al., 2023; Gale et al., 2025; O’Gorman et al., 2021). Coaches and performance staff are responsible for enacting these frameworks while managing accountability demands and athlete welfare, often within constrained funding environments. As a result, development
systems may prioritise efficiency and short-term outcomes over holistic athlete care. However, contemporary literature increasingly highlights the ethical responsibility of sport systems to balance performance outcomes with athlete well-being, particularly during transitions such as selection, non-selection, and deselection (Brown et al., 2018; Henriksen et al., 2018). Historically, selection criteria have focused primarily on physical testing and performance data, despite evidence that early success poorly predicts long-term elite performance (Till & Baker, 2020). Such practices risk overlooking maturational variations, late entry into sport and psycho-social contexts. Selection-related transitions are recognised as risk points impacting self-esteem and retention, particularly in high-
*
Corresponding Author: Andrew J. Martin, School of Sport, Exercise & Nutrition, Massey University, Nutrition, a.j.martin@massey.ac.nz
JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
1
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026) performance and youth contexts (Edwards & Brannagan, 2023; Wrang et al., 2023). Recent recommendations call for policy frameworks to incorporate psychological support to safeguard athlete well-being (Rew, 2025). Similarly, studies of New Zealand elite athletes indicate selection pressures contribute to psychological distress, and hence the need for greater organizational support (Winther et al., 2025). Coaches play a central role in talent identification, athlete selection, development, and welfare; however, practitionerinformed research remains limited (Stolz & Pill, 2014). While policy frameworks provide structure, coaches operationalise these policies in daily practice, making athlete-coach relationships critical to achieving both performance and holistic development (Kidman, 2005; Pill, 2018; Vinson & Bell, 2019). Despite widespread adoption of structured athlete development models, there is limited applied research demonstrating how NSO frameworks can integrate athletecentred welfare principles, particularly related to selection, nonselection, and deselection, without compromising performance objectives. This study addresses this gap by presenting a practitioner-informed case study illustrating how athlete-centred development practices can be embedded within existing NSO frameworks. The paper draws on the lived experience of a highperformance athlete and coach, supported by contemporary scholarship and practitioner insights. The practical applications of this are encapsulated in the Lamont Emergent Athlete Development (LEAD) Framework, which has been accepted by Swiss Triathlon. 1.2. Theoretical and conceptual concepts Talent identification (TID) programs are important strategic initiatives for NSOs, but must be aligned with long-term development, ethical responsibility, and athlete welfare (Collins et al., 2022; Reeves et al., 2018). NSOs often prioritize early selection and short-term success, undermining long-term development pathways (Taylor & Collins, 2020). Research emphasises that athlete progression is non-linear and more closely associated with developmental stage than chronological age (Gagné, 2020). The Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model (Balyi & Hamilton, 2003) and the Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP; Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007) have influenced global development pathways. However, critiques suggest limited empirical support and insufficient consideration of psychosocial and contextual factors (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Ford et al., 2011). The Australian Institute of Sport’s FTEM (Foundation, Talent, Elite, Mastery) framework provides greater flexibility by allowing athlete progression based on readiness rather than age (AIS, n.d.). Despite this adaptability, FTEM and its international derivatives remain predominantly physically focused. Notably, the removal of psychological components from some adaptations contrasts with growing evidence emphasising the need for greater athlete care and wellbeing support (Campbell et al., 2021). Collectively, these models highlight a persistent gap between pathway structure and athlete experience, particularly in relation to selection, non-selection, and deselection processes. Calls for athlete-centred coaching, supported by mentoring and JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
practitioner-led development, continue to grow (Kidman & Lombardo, 2010; Lascu et al., 2024). However, research rarely demonstrates how these principles can be systematically integrated within existing NSO frameworks, an issue this current study seeks to address. 2.
Methods
2.1. Epistemology framework This research is situated within a social constructivist epistemology (Cresswell, 2007), emphasizing the role of social interaction and shared meaning in shaping individuals' understanding of the world. This perspective enabled a practical examination of change management in real time from a practitioner’s experiences, informing policy within a highperformance National Sport Organization (NSO). This approach culminated in an emergent athlete development framework for Swiss Triathlon with potential adaptability and transferability to other sport contexts. The transferability of sport coaching research from scholarly to practical domains has been questioned (Lyle, 2018), noting a disconnect between practice and therefore being largely absent from coach education. Stolz and Pill (2014, p. 28) argue for a shift from purely “empirical-scientific research to practitionerreferenced research” where reflective practice enables coaches to critically evaluate and learn from their own experiences. Auto ethnographical approaches within sport research offer a means to address this gap by illuminating lived experiences of high performance environments while situating them within broader cultural and institutional structures (Anderson, 2006; Ellis et al., 2011; Sparkes & Smith, 2014). 2.2. Research design: Case study and auto-ethnography This study utilizes an auto-ethnographic approach (Ellis 2012), combined with an instrumental case study design (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2009). The lead author, as a ‘reflective practitioner’ (Schön, 1983), drew on experiences across regional, national, and international coaching roles whilst also contributing to athlete development policy within Swiss Triathlon. This dual positioning enabled critical examination of athlete progression and the implementation of system change within a high-performance environment. Swiss Triathlon was selected as a case study, due to its governance being situated within an established Olympic sport and its affiliation with international federation structures. Triathlon’s global participation base ensures that developmental, coaching, and governance challenges observed in this context are potentially comparable to those encountered in other NSOs. 2.3. Reflective, analytical, and evaluative processes Auto-ethnography enabled systematic examination of coaching experiences and decision-making processes, providing a rich, reflective narrative, incorporating an iterative approach integrating experience, theory, and dialogue. To enhance methodological rigor and trustworthiness, a multi-method bricolage approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) was employed. This included auto-ethnographic reflection from the lead author’s 2
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026) athlete and coach perspectives, document analysis of Swiss Triathlon policies (e.g. testing and selection) from 2020-2024, and discussions with two external international coaches and two internal Swiss Triathlon staff. The reflective and analytical process followed Slade et al.’s (2020) practitioner auto-ethnography continuum, comprising three stages to enhance the qualitative research’s credibility, confirmability, and analytical transparency: 1. Life-history biography or reflective journaling (Angier, 2010), documenting (30,000 words) 25 years of experiences (from 2020-2024), as an elite athlete and coach. 2. Identifying transformative career stages (Ellis, 2012), highlighting critical incidents and recurring themes informing the LEAD framework
3. Analytical ethnography (Anderson, 2006), triangulating personal insights with scholarly literature, archival documents, and practitioner perspectives. This process facilitated progression from descriptive reflection (in Stage 1), to identifying key themes (in Stage 2), to triangulation, analytical interpretation, and evaluative judgment (in Stage 3), allowing assumptions (by the lead author) to be challenged (by co-authors, external coaches, and internal staff) and refined. Reflective data from the lead author’s doctoral thesis (Lamont, 2025), documented three phases, (1) athletic development and high-performance pathway (2000-2009), (2) coach development (2010-2019), and (3) high-performance coach pathway (2020-2024). Figures 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the emergent research process and reflective analysis and evaluation process.
Figure 1: An emergent research process.
Figure 2: An emergent evolving model of auto-ethnographic narrative (Slade et al., 2020). JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
3
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026) 2.4. Practitioner perspectives and theoretical positioning The research is underpinned by an ‘athlete-centred’ coaching philosophy, which empowers athletes to take responsibility for their sporting behaviours and decision-making (Kidman & Lombardo, 2010). Vinson and Bell (2019, p. 40) note that “at its simplest level, the term means putting the needs of the athlete at the forefront of the coaching process.” Kidman and Lombardo (2010) highlight that mentoring and delegating responsibility enables athletes to assume greater ownership, thereby maximizing development, performance, and overall enjoyment. This approach aligns with contemporary critiques of dominant athlete development models such as LTAD and FTEM, which have been challenged for their linearity and limited responsiveness to individual, contextual, and welfare-related considerations (Bjørndal et al., 2018; Sieghartsleitner et al., 2019). While auto-ethnography inherently involves subjectivity, potential limitations such as confirmation bias were mitigated through systematic triangulation, peer dialogue, and theoretical critique, as suggested by Onwuegbuzie et al. (2024). Prior to undertaking the research, the project was evaluated by the University’s research ethics committee and judged to be low risk. 3.
Discussion
2.
3.
Example: Supporting athletes through periods of injury or de-selection. Recognizing athlete’s education, mental health, and self-development. Fostering team culture and leadership. 3.3. Coach education The framework adopts a “person-first, athlete-second” philosophy, recognizing that coaching fundamentally involves guiding people through change. For meaningful changes, coaches must act as catalysts for positive purposeful transformation. Their responsibilities extend beyond preparing athletes for competition and testing, as well as helping them deal with other stresses in their lives. However, robust support structures are essential.
3.1. The LEAD Framework The study resulted in the Lamont Emergent Athlete Development (LEAD) Framework (Figure 3), a practitioner-informed model designed to operate alongside the Foundations, Talent, Elite, and Mastery (FTEM) framework commonly mandated by National Sport Organizations (NSOs). While FTEM provides a structural classification of athlete stages, the LEAD framework addresses limitations relating to athlete welfare, selection processes, coaching practice, and system adaptability. Drawing on practitioner experience within Swiss Triathlon, the LEAD framework integrates selected elements of LTAD and FTEM while challenging their linear assumptions and limited responsiveness to individual and contextual factors. The findings highlight how athlete development is shaped not only by performance metrics, but by coaching philosophy, leadership practices, and institutional constraints. As an emergent framework, LEAD is cognizant of a coach’s duty of care for athletes’ physical, psychological, and emotional development (Bouchard et al., 1994), offering practical guidance for policy and practice within Swiss Triathlon and similar high-performance systems. 3.2. Athlete-centred philosophy The LEAD framework is grounded on an athlete-centred coaching philosophy, which although developed within the context of triathlon is potentially applicable to other sports. Its core principles are: 1.
‘Comfort the troubled and trouble the comfortable’: A commitment to athlete-centred care, prioritizing physical and mental well-being, whilst applying best practice.
JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
‘Create an environment where individuals can grow, as an athlete and a person.’ A shift from, “We create a place where champions grow.” Reflects a commitment to long-term personal and holistic growth. Transformational leadership. Demonstrating ethical coaching practice, strong work-ethic, whilst having fun, to empower athletes to exceed expectations. Bass and Anolio (1994) argue that such leaders and followers advance together toward a higher level of morale and motivation.
Example: Integrating education on managing athlete emotions and stakeholder relationships during selection processes at all coaching qualification levels. Over time, this approach evolves into a caring team culture, grounded by an athlete-centred coaching philosophy, comprising the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Effective use of guided learning (Billett, 2000): Encouraging athletes to take primary responsibility for their development. Support infrastructure: Providing consistent communication, encouragement, and resources for athletes. Role modelling and mentoring: Adapting coaching styles to suit individual athletes and groups. Transformational and situational leadership: Building personal connection and contextual understanding. Scientific coaching influence: Designing effective training plans informed by evidence-based practice rather than tradition. Deliberate, meaningful practice (Ericsson et al., 1993): Establishing a high-performance culture which becomes self-regulating over time. Leading and managing change: Being a catalyst for purposeful system improvement. Mind management (Hermansson, 2011): Teaching athletes’ coping strategies to develop psychological resilience. Example: Athletes respond positively to clear, consistent guidance with improvement evident, reinforcing confidence in both athlete decision-making and coach judgement. 4
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026)
Giftedness/TID
Athlete-Centred Focus
National Coach Junior involved with TID and athlete development. Helps in the transition from different race series and when moving into Elite. Supports the TID process and a constant person as athletes move forward in the system.
National Coach U23 / Elite works mainly with the Elite athletes, but also starts to work with Juniors to become familiar with them and help guide development to have athletes ready for transitions.
Assistant Coaches Area of Responsibility
National Coach Junior Area of Responsibility
All coaches directly responsible for clear, open communication, care and for their athletes’ wellbeing.
As many athletes come into the early stage of Nachwuchs system. Assistant and National Coach Junior looking at TID and long-Term development.
Assistant coaches help with TID and the early stages of Youth development. Very important to help support National Coach Junior with the athlete development and camps.
Nachwuchs Kader to become a place for development and the main focus for National Coach Junior
Total athletes attending Kader tests and Racing
FOUNDATION (FTEM) Active Start; FUNdamentals; Learning to Train (LTAD)
National, Regional, Local: Levels of Nachwuchs (Youth) Kader Note: National & Regional have talent cards and are limited by Swiss Olympic. Local talents do not have a talent card and therefore are not limited in number of athletes in this group.
TALENT (FTEM) Training to Train (LTAD)
Managing Staff Resources
Managing Athlete Resources
The transition from Junior to U23 is a major step and Total number of A, B and C Kader athletes remain requires time for the athlete to adjust. This is a difficult and similar, with more attention from National Coach challenging time. Having support for the athlete is important U23 and Elite. to allow them develop to this level. As the number of places in C, B and A Kader are limited, in the past de-selection and non-selection National Coach U23 / Elite have been high here. With D Kader this number could be reduced. Also, any athletes de-selected or nonArea of Responsibility selected given clear pathways back into the system.
MASTERY (FTEM) Training to Win; Active for Life (LTAD) A, B & C Levels Elite Kader
Elite D Squad
Elite D squad to allow transfer between C and D, some athletes may not hit limits for C, but are still in National system, which helps the total squad and gives more time to develop.
Talent Transfer Creating a robust Talent Transfer System would be important, offering time with a highly qualified coach, to harness athletes from other sports.
Selection Protocols: De-selection, Non-selection Clear selection criteria for National & Regional. Deselection, non-selection protocols and support. Local can be more holistic as not controlled by Swiss Olympic. More athletes can be selected and developed using Local in this way.
Coach Education Talent Transfer System
ELITE (FTEM) Training to Compete (LTAD)
Coach education is designed to meet the requirements of athletes and the sport of triathlon. Coaches understand the systems in place and the ramifications on athletes and other stakeholders of selection, de-selection and non-selection
LEAD Framework: Swiss Triathlon
Figure 3: Swiss Triathlon LEAD framework (Lamont, 2025). JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
5
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026) 3.4. Selection, de-selection, and non-selection protocols Reflections from the lead author highlight several key insights regarding athlete selection: 1. 2.
3.
Junior performance is not a reliable predictor of senior success: Early results often fail to indicate long-term potential. Selection should not be based on physical testing alone: Triathlon is a dynamic sport, and athletes may perform differently in controlled tests compared to race conditions. Talent identification requires a holistic approach: Personal attributes such as attitude and resilience should be considered alongside physical metrics to support long-term development. Example: Providing structured feedback and clearly defined re-selection pathways to retain motivated athletes within the system.
Current practices around deselection and non-selection vary significantly between countries, with many athletes receiving little or no feedback on why they were not selected or what steps they could take to re-enter the pathway. This lack of communication potentially leads to disengagement and attrition from the sport. Addressing these issues requires systemic change, which is inherently a long-term process demanding careful planning and management. As the lead author reflected: My professional cycling experiences taught me selection is not always fair nor understandable. I had always wanted to wear the NZ silver fern as an athlete and have subsequently been in both NZ Duathlon and Triathlon age group teams, but not as a professional cyclist. The desire to achieve selection in teams can be a powerful motivator but should not be the only one. Continual improvement of yourself as an athlete is more important than any selection or non-selection. The lead author’s experiences as an athlete development coach underscored the importance of designing robust selection, nonselection, and de-selection processes linked to TID and athlete pathways. Based on these reflections, key characteristics which contribute to athlete success are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Appreciating sport as a source of personal development: Providing social capital (Bourdieu, 1984), where status and position influence opportunities (Claridge, 2015). Foundational values: Understanding the importance of work ethic, honesty, and integrity. Self-motivation, self-improvement, self-accountability, and self-reliance: Fostering independence and responsibility. Resilience and well-being: The ability to learn from mistakes and strive for continuous improvement. Perseverance and mental health awareness: Recognizing and managing challenges such as stress and depression.
JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
These characteristics reinforce the LEAD framework’s emphasis on an athlete-centred philosophy and the need for development systems that prioritize holistic growth over shortterm outcomes. The findings have also highlighted that there is a need for much greater training and education of coaches and administrators around impacts of de-selection and non-selection. As Edwards and Brannagan (2023) highlight, de-selection can negatively affect an athletes' self-esteem and personal status, as well as leading to distrust of coaches and organizations. It is important to highlight clear reasons and answer questions about the athlete's de-selection. Wrang (2023) suggest questions like “why didn’t they choose me”, and “why am I no longer part of the team?” and others are common after a youth selection process. Roles of parents and coaches need to be considered within the selection and de-selection process, as these have social implications for youth athletes (Wrang, 2023). Incorporating greater support for athletes during and after de-selection and nonselection is an important addition to the LEAD framework. This includes ensuring selection-related procedures are clearly documented and understood by athletes, coaches, and administrators, thereby promoting transparency and athlete welfare. 3.5. Giftedness, talent Identification, and talent transfer Historically, Swiss Triathlon has relied on clubs and coaches to identify and develop gifted athletes. The LEAD framework proposes that talent identification and development (TID) become part of national coaching roles responsibilities. Gagné (2020) emphasized the distinction between giftedness (natural abilities) and talent, noting that giftedness evolves into talent through structured training and development. Example: National Junior Coaches actively assessing giftedness at sanctioned events and guiding athletes into supportive club environments. Within the FTEM framework, Swiss Triathlon highlights talent transfer and a potential pathway for athletes entering the development system. Yet, if an athlete does transfer across from another sport they appear to be expected to immediately meet the same requirements as all other athletes. As a result, within the current Swiss Triathlon system, athlete transfer is very difficult, and is mainly reliant on the clubs assessing an athlete’s potential to be converted, and then taking athletes to races, hoping they can perform. A good example of how a talent transfer system could work is from the USA (Newland & Kellet, 2012) where USA Triathlon actively recruits possible athletes to transfer, and then offers them a year of training with an experienced coach to evaluate their development potential. Talent transfer should therefore play a greater role and be actively supported by Swiss Olympic, and Swiss Triathlon. Both organizations need to promote talent transfer and implement systems that facilitate their success. 3.6. Managing athlete and staff resources: Structural constraints & system alignment
6
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026) A major finding concerns the tension between funding priorities and development needs. Swiss Olympic funding is closely tied to international performance outcomes, incentivising short-term success. While effective in securing immediate results, this focus risks undermining long-term talent development if pathways are not strategically supported. Sustainable success requires alignment across systems, from national policy to club environments, ensuring clubs are supported to develop athletes holistically rather than prioritising early results. Findings indicate that Swiss Triathlon requires greater investment at the club level, not solely when athletes reach national junior squads. Coach education is central to this process, emphasising:
Practical applications of the LEAD framework can potentially be transferred to clubs, teams, and other NSOs. It has been accepted by Swiss Olympic and positively received due to its alignment with the FTEM framework. It is suggested that this compatibility makes the LEAD framework appealing to any sport that needs a structure to support coaches and athletes. Wider research possibilities include examining how the LEAD framework is implemented by different sport organizations, and how the framework is adapted to meet the needs of the athletes, coaches, clubs, and NSOs. This approach could lead to further evolutions of the LEAD framework ensuring its adaptability and scalability for broader application to other organizations.
1. 2. 3.
Implications
Athlete welfare and transition management De-selection and non-selection support Long-term, incremental development strategies Example: Supporting clubs to reduce burnout risk by emphasizing long-term progression rather than early specialisation or short-term podium outcomes.
Conclusions This study bridges the gap between policy and practice, introducing the Lamont Emergent Athlete Development (LEAD) framework as a practitioner-informed contribution to coach education, NSO governance, and athlete development scholarship. Conceptually, LEAD extends existing athlete development models (e.g., FTEM, LTAD) by repositioning coaching practice, athlete welfare, and system adaptability as central mechanisms through which development pathways function effectively. Rather than proposing an alternative pathway structure, LEAD provides a practice-oriented framework that guides how coaches and organizations work within mandated models while responding to individual, contextual, and ethical demands. The LEAD framework emphasizes the importance of an athlete-centred mentoring approach to sport coaching, as advocated by Jones et al. (2009). Such approaches recognize and respond to athlete’s physical, psychological, and personal development needs, particularly during critical transition periods such as de-selection and non-selection. These moments were identified as important in shaping athlete experience, motivation, and long-term retention. Clear, transparent protocols are essential, not only for optimising performance but safeguarding athlete welfare. The LEAD framework reinforces the philosophy of ensuring athletes grow as people first, which is central to long-term success. From the lead author’s experiences, athletes who grow holistically will become more resilient and more likely to progress to elite levels. If they do not make the elite level, they acquire transferable life skills, applicable to other sports, business, or future employment. This process needs to be under continual review to ensure effective implementation (Astle et al., 2018). Athlete pathways are socially-mediated processes shaped by leadership practice, effective communication, and institutional systems. The LEAD framework demonstrates that short-term performance outcomes must be balanced with long-term development responsibility, to allow re-entry and athlete retention. JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
Methodologically, this applied research demonstrates the value of practitioner auto-ethnography combined with case study. The lead author integrated unique insights gained from multiple roles, as an athlete, an individual coach, a team coach, and then, more recently, a national coach, including writing sport policy for Swiss Triathlon/Duathlon. These extensive experiences provided a strong foundation to build a credible, rich narrative of athlete development from a practitioner’s perspective, and a contribution to sport coaching research methodology. This multi-method approach enhanced qualitative trustworthiness by combining, case study (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2009), auto-ethnography (Ellis, 2012; Ellis et al., 2011), and literature review, enabling triangulation (Slade et al., 2020). This approach leveraged the lead author’s coaching role experiences, as an insider researcher (Onwuegbuzie, 2024), to capture realtime examples and drive change in the form of an emergent athlete development framework. Slade et al. (2020) highlighted that practitioner auto-ethnography provides sport coaching scholars with an approach to frame and discuss issues while enhancing problem-solving capability. This approach also addresses Lyle’s (2018) questioning of the transferability of sport coaching research for practitioners and it not being incorporated into coach education. An overarching finding of this research is the importance of being a ‘reflective practitioner.’ Schön (1983) points out that through reflective practice and questioning professionals become more aware of shortcomings, subsequently adapting and/or changing their subsequent behaviours and decision-making processes. This self-reflective iterative process informed the creation of the LEAD framework, supported by literature review and dialogue with other coaches, to further support athlete development. Recommendations 1.
2.
Embed athlete-centred mentoring within coach education: Coach education programs should extend beyond technical and planning competencies to include mentoring, welfare awareness, communication skills, and managing selection-related conversations at all pathway stages. Formalise selection, non-selection, and de-selection protocols: NSOs should ensure that criteria, decisionmaking processes, and re-selection pathways are clearly 7
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026)
3.
4.
5.
documented, transparent, and communicated consistently. Structured feedback should be mandatory following non-selection and de-selection. Strengthen club, NSO alignment: Clubs require targeted support to implement athlete-centred practices aligned with national development objectives. Early investment at club level expands the developmental pool and improves long-term system sustainability. Integrate welfare and mental health considerations into development frameworks: Athlete welfare should be treated as a core performance enabler rather than a parallel concern, particularly during transitions and periods of uncertainty. Recognize coaches as change agents: Coaches should be supported and empowered to lead adaptive change within evolving systems, underpinned by reflective practice and continuous professional learning.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interests. Acknowledgment The authors have no acknowledgments to declare. Cameron Lamont is a National Coach of Swiss Duathlon, Swiss Triathlon and Doctoral Graduate, Massey University, New Zealand. Andrew Martin is a Professor of Sport and Physical Education at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Geoff Watson is an Associate Professor in History at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. References Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic auto-ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449 Angier, C. (2010). Reflections. In S. Cline & C. Angier (Eds.), The Arvon book of life writing: Writing biography, autobiography and memoir (pp. 5–21). Methuen Drama. Astle, A., Leberman, S., & Watson, G. (2018). Sport development in action: Plan, programme and practice. Routledge. Australian Institute of Sport. (n.d.). FTEM framework. https://www.ais.gov.au/ftem Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (2004). Long-term athlete development: Trainability in childhood and adolescence. National Coaching Institute British Columbia. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Learning to share the vision: Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage. Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12(7), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010355570 Bjørndal, C. T., Andersen, S. S., & Ronglan, L. T. (2018). ‘It takes two to tango’: Exploring the role of the coach-athlete relationship in the transition from junior to senior elite sport. Sport, Education and Society, 23(8), 774–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2017.1320752 JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
Bouchard, C., Shephard, R. J., & Stephens, T. (Eds.). (1994). Physical activity, fitness, and health: International proceedings and consensus statement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Stanford University Press. Brown, G., Webb, T., Robinson, M. A., & Cotgreave, R. (2018). Athletes’ experiences of social support during their transition out of elite sport: An interpretive phenomenological analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.02.003 Campbell, N., Brady, A., & Tincknell-Smith, A. (2021). Developing and supporting athlete well-being: Person first, athlete second. Routledge. Claridge, T. (2015). Bourdieu on social capital: Theory of capital. https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/bourdieu-on-socialcapital-theory-of-capital/ Collins, D., & MacNamara, Á. (2012). The rocky road to the top: Why talent needs trauma. Sports Medicine, 42(11), 907–914. https://doi.org/10.2165/11635110-000000000-00000 Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Youth involvement in sport. In P. R. E. Crocker (Ed.), Sport psychology: A Canadian perspective (pp. 266–294). Pearson. Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1260/174795409789623892 Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage. Edwards, D., & Brannagan, P. M. (2023). Dealing with deselection from youth international football: A case study of English Premier League academies. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541231216873 Ellis, C. (2012). The procrastinating auto-ethnographer: Reflections of self on a blank screen. The International Review of Qualitative Research, 5(3), 331–337. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273–290. Ford, P., De Ste Croix, M., Lloyd, R., Meyers, R., Moosavi, M., Oliver, J., Till, K., & Williams, C. (2011). The long-term athlete development model: Physiological evidence and application. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(4), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.536849 Gagné, F. (2020). Differentiating giftedness from talent. Routledge. Gale, L. A., Ives, B. A., Mitchell, T., Nichol, A. J., Stamp, D., Maskrey, C., Potrac, P. A., & Nelson, L. J. (2025). The enactment of political skills in community sport coaching. Sports Coaching Review, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2025.2520110 Gulbin, J., Croser, M., Morley, E., & Weissensteiner, J. (2013). An integrated framework for the optimisation of sport and athlete development: A practitioner approach. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(12), 1319–1331. 8
Lamont et al. / The Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, Journal Vol. 10, Issue 2, 1-9 (2026) Gulbin, J., Croser, M., Morley, E., & Weissensteiner, J. (2014). A closer look at the FTEM framework. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(8), 796–800. Henriksen, K., Storm, L. K., & Larsen, C. H. (2018). Organizational culture and influence on developing athletes. In C. Knight, C. Harwood, and D. Gould (Eds.). Sport psychology for young athletes (pp. 216-228). Routledge. Hermansson, G. L. (2011). Going mental in sport. Inside-Out Books. Howe, K. R. (2003). Closing methodological divides: Towards democratic educational research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ives, B., Penney, D., O’Gorman, J., Nichol, A. J., Potrac, P., & Nelson, L. (2023). Investigating policy enactment in community sport coaching: Directions for future research. Sports Coaching Review, 15(1), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2023.2291253 Jones, R. L., Harris, R., & Miles, A. (2009). Mentoring in sports coaching: A review of the literature. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 267–284. Kidman, L. (2005). Athlete-centred coaching: Developing inspired and inspiring people. IPC. Kidman, L., & Lombardo, B. J. (2010). Athlete-centred coaching: Developing decision-makers (2nd ed.). IPC. Lamont, C. (2025). An emergent athlete development framework: Examining the case of Swiss Triathlon from a coach’s perspective Unpublished doctoral thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Lascu, A., Wood, M. A., Moulds, K., & Davids, K. (2024). Coach education as ‘leading out with an experienced other.’ Sports Coaching Review, 13(2), 277–292. Lyle, J. (2018). The transferability of sport coaching research: A critical commentary. Quest, 70(4), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2018.1453846 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Newland, B., & Kellet, P. (2012). Exploring new models of elite sport delivery: The case of triathlon in USA & Australia. Managing Leisure, 17(2-3), 170–181. O’Gorman, J., Ives, B., Nichol, A., Potrac, P., & Nelson, L. (2021). Policy enactment and emotional labour in community sport coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 26(9), 1011–1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1886354 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Abrams, S. S., & Abrams, M. L. (2024). Blending voices and methods: Exploring the frontier of (integrated) mixed methods autoethnography. Journal of Mixed Methods Studies, 9(1), 130–147. Pill, S. (2018). Perspectives on athlete-centred coaching. Taylor & Francis. Reeves, M. J., MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2018). The role of talent identification in the development of expertise: Comparing the processes of two national governing bodies.
JSES | https://doi.org/10.36905/jses.2026.02.01
European Journal of Sport Science, 18(6), 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1444098 Rew, Q. (2025). Good sport: Developing a policy to safeguard high-performance athletes from psychosocial hazards. New Zealand Journal of Health and Safety Practice, 2(2), 45–58. Roberts, S., Boddy, P., & Fairclough, S. (2021). Talent identification and athlete welfare: Rethinking best practice. European Physical Education Review, 27(3), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20984138 Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Sieghartsleitner, R., Zuber, C., Zibung, M., & Conzelmann, A. (2019). ‘The early specialised bird catches the worm!’ A specialised sampling model in the development of football talents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 188. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00188 Slade, D. G., Martin, A. J., & Watson, G. (2020). Practitioner auto-ethnography: Developing game centred learning. Curriculum Studies Health and Physical Education, 11(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2020.1778496 Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative Research Methods in sport, exercise and health. Routledge. Stolz, S. A., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x13496001 Vinson, D., & Bell, J. (2019). Athlete-centred coaching. In E. Cope & M. Partington (Eds.), Sports Coaching: A Theoretical and Practical Guide (pp. 40–51). Routledge. Taylor, J., & Collins, D. (2020). “Shoulda, coulda, didnae”: Why don’t high-potential players make it? The Sport Psychologist, 34(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2018-0090 Till, K., & Baker, J. (2020). Challenges and [possible] solutions to optimizing talent identification and development in sport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664 Walinga, J., Obee, P., Cunningham, B., & Cyr, D. (2021). The role of leadership and team culture in enhancing sport performance outcomes. The International Journal of Sport and Society, 12(2), 81–104. Winther, T., de Terte, I., Wood, W., Beable, S., Wilson, K., & Hamilton, B. (2025). It was the best of times, it was the worst of times: Daily hassles and depressive symptoms in New Zealand elite athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.20240008 Wrang, C. M. (2023). Selection and de-selection in youth sport. In S. Agergaard & D. Karen (Eds.), Social Issues in Sport, Leisure, And Health (pp. 146–159). Routledge. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design methods (4th ed.). Sage.
9