The repetition of the line slowly sees Will break down, finally facing up to the fact that it was unfair of him to shoulder the blame for the experience he suffered and ultimately what the report details. None of it was his fault.

The scene came to mind when watching the Australian Olympic Committee’s press conference, via the assistance of a live stream, earlier this week. A key difference though was that for the 30 minutes or so the conference lasted, the central character was effectively saying "it’s not my fault".

Having been presented with a 64-page report by The Ethics Centre, detailing the dysfunction at the AOC, its President John Coates refused to shoulder any responsibility of how the organisation found itself in such a state.

The report found evidence of open hostility between senior staff members, as well as instances of favouritism, poor communication and a lack of transparency in decision making. The AOC, it ruled, was "out of step with both their ideals and the minimum expectations for a modern organisation".

The review was brought about following complaints of bullying against the AOC's media director Mike Tancred, which he denies. A separate verdict on his case is expected on August 31. 

The workplace review called upon the AOC to acknowledge the "significant challenges" they face following an assessment of its workplace culture. The AOC have promised they will put in place all 17 recommendations made by the report. 

Its chief executive Matt Carroll claimed that the senior leaders had to "lead by example and set the standard."

Well, why didn’t Coates?

"Why should I resign?" Coates said. "There has been no confirmation of bullying. There has been some criticism of senior leaders - I'm the President, I'm not the senior leader that is being criticised. There has been no treatment of the staff by me that is objectionable."

Frankly, this is extremely selective from Coates.

For a start, he apologised in April for making the comment "sheltered workshop" in an email when discussing an employee suffering from cancer. He seemed to acknowledge back then that was objectionable behaviour, given that he felt the need to apologise.

Coates himself appears to have only deemed references to "The President" as directly concerning him. The term "senior leader", it seems, does not include him. 

While, Coates might view it that way, there will be an awful lot of people who would consider the President to be a senior leader within the organisation.

Regardless, the report even outlines the staff view of the President.

"The President is perceived to exercise overriding influence or control over the AOC," it stated. "Members of the Executive expressed an appetite for greater opportunities for participation in decision making through greater consultation and formal discussion."

Given this statement, the reference that "there is also a widespread perception, amongst stakeholders, that the Executive has historically either not been able or allowed to exercise strategic control of the organisation," appears to make it clear who has been in charge of this organisation.

In the build-up to the AOC elections earlier this year, Tancred, prior to being suspended, claimed the AOC was Coates' "baby".

"He lives it, he eats it," he said.

But he refuses to take any responsibility for it when it goes astray.

Coates, AOC President for 27-years, opted to instead divert blame on to organisation’s former chief executives. 

The "dysfunctional leaders" referred to in the review, Coates states, did not report to him. Instead, they reported to the chief executives. He contended "that was the hand I was dealt in terms of those CEOs". 

When asked about the most recent chief executive Fiona de Jong he replied: "She wasn't the only one. We've had other CEOs."

If Coates is deemed to be correct and the former chief executives are to blame, does he not take responsibility for them being hired, given that he so quickly took responsibility for the appointment of Carroll?

De Jong was hardly a new face at the AOC when appointed as chief executive in 2014, having joined the organisation a decade earlier. Her suitability to the chief executive position would surely have been obvious. 

If, de Jong is as much to blame as we are led to believe, why did Coates refer to her as "one of Australia’s great sports administrators" as recently as October last year.

If de Jong’s predecessor Craig Phillips is seen to be to blame by Coates, why did AOC President not intervene during Phillips nine-year spell in the post.

Coates claimed at the press conference that there had been "no public shaming by me". 

But by placing the blame at the floor of the former chief executives, by naming de Jong and inferring Phillips, has he not effectively just publicly shamed the pair?

De Jong called it right when responding to the press conference when she opined that it was "disappointing and difficult to accept that the President denies any responsibility for the culture of the organisation".

She stated that Coates is "chair of the Executive, for whom he hires and fires chief executives, hires and fires members of senior management, makes key appointments to the team and as an Executive President who spends time in the office and has used that to defend his in excess of AUD$700,000 (£428,000/$534,000/€494,000) annual remuneration.

"You can't claim you're being remunerated for doing the job as Executive President and then claim you're not responsible for anything that goes on under your Presidency."

Obviously, it would be equally unfair to place the blame fully at Coates door. The report does indeed focus on the role of senior leaders in general. It found that staff deemed the AOC’s senior leadership team to be falling short when it tolerates or exhibits "inappropriate behaviour, petty politics, poor communication, perceived favouritism and partiality in decision making".

A shambles in other words.

No-one is calling for Coates to take the sole responsibility for its failures, but even the merest acknowledgement that he had made mistakes would have been better than nothing. It is unacceptable for Coates to point out the praise of his achievements offered by staff, but then engage in mass denial of responsibility for any issues in the organisation.

It would hardly have been an encouraging watch for staff to have watched the press conference. When a report that 93 per cent of them contributed to, lays out the heart of the culture at the organisation, its President absolves himself of any responsibility. It also does not exactly paint the AOC in a good light that only 12 of 45 Australia's Federations bothered to contribute to the the review dealing their relationship with the organisation.

What was it that Carroll said? "Lead by example and set the standard."

Why should the staff believe that the AOC will make changes, when one of its senior leaders - sorry, the President – does not take any blame for the culture of an organisation he has presided over.

The review did acknowledge there was cautious optimism within the organisation about its future, highlighting that staff continue to be inspired by the AOC’s goals.

It might be less cautious if Coates held his hands up and acknowledged that maybe there was some fault on his part.

Liam Morgan's blog will appear tomorrow