THREE young men and a woman lie on their backs clutching a medicine ball between their raised knees while repeatedly straining to touch their toes. It may look like a boot camp scene from a reality TV show, but for these elite athletes it is part of a normal day’s training at the Australian Institute of Sport.

The institute in Canberra was modelled on the former East German athlete factories to spot and develop talent — but “without the drugs”, says one observer — and it helped to produce 49 medallists, including 17 gold, at the 2004 Athens Olympics.

That tally placed Australia fourth, which, given its relatively small population of 20 million alongside its many professional sports champions, arguably makes it the most successful sporting nation on earth.

But coaches, sports scientists and top officials fear that Australia’s dominance is being challenged by emerging sports powers such as Britain. As a result, the institute has said that it will be more “selfish” when it comes to sharing its know-how with potential rivals.

Peter Fricker, a respected sports medicine practitioner and head of the institute, says: “Over the last decade or so we have really been giving away an awful lot of our expertise, our intelligence if you like . . . basically giving up a lot of our secrets to success.”

Professor Fricker has decided on this new approach as part of a review coinciding with the institute’s 25th anniversary this month. “I’m really saying ‘no’ to the one-way traffic, where we’re giving it all away for nothing and I’m saying ‘yes’ to 50-50 co-operative efforts in science, medicine, coaching, administration, training methodology, etc,” he says.

He cites the example of Rod Marsh, the institute’s former head cricket coach who left in 2001 to overhaul England’s cricket programme, a move that many believe contributed to Australia’s Ashes defeat last year.

Professor Fricker says if English cricket officials want to study at the institute, he would now stop them unless they could offer some know-how in return. “I know it sounds a bit selfish but I think the institute has to be a bit selfish. We are being threatened,” he adds.

Yet with the supply of Australian sporting expertise exceeding local demand, the institute is powerless to stop the exodus of professionals abroad. After the 2000 Sydney Olympics, for instance, 33 key positions in English sport went to Australians, including several AIS alumni. There are at least two dozen Australians now working at top levels of British sport.

Of course, Australia has not been shy about poaching foreign coaches. The institute’s head gymnastics coach is from Belarus, its boxing coach once taught East Germany how to punch and its new archery coach is South Korean.

However, such expertise costs large amounts of public money because many Olympic sports rarely attract large numbers of new recruits or spectators. So the institute, through the Government’s Sports Commission, gets part of a national sports budget of about A$183 million (£78 million).

Local economists have criticised state funding of elite sports, saying that professional athletes, some whose earnings soar into millions, should repay the costs of their free tuition.

But Mark Peters, chief executive officer of the Sports Commission, says most athletic careers involve a brief struggle between intense competition and injury. He adds that the public’s investment in elite sport boosts Australia's international reputation, while winning medals creates a “feel-good factor” that helps to stem antisocial behaviour.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• The Japanese Prime Minister is doomed: or is he?
• Brighton company 'involved in cyber attack'
• The art of survival: it's all in the mind