- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Jess Varnish and Victoria Pendleton (pic copyright Britishcycling.org.uk)Jess Varnish's lawyer asks British Cycling for all data about her
Track sprinter Jess Varnish’s lawyer has asked British Cycling to provide it with her personal records including text messages and emails between Shane Sutton and other coaches that mention her name.
The request comes a week after it was revealed that British Cycling upheld just one of nine allegations against former technical director Sutton – that he referred to female cyclists as “bitches” – in its investigation into Varnish’s claims against him of bullying and discrimination.
> Varnish "shocked and upset" at learning British Cycling cleared Sutton on 8 of 9 charges
In October, British Cycling announced it had “upheld an allegation made by Jess Varnish that former technical director Shane Sutton had used inappropriate and discriminatory language,” adding that “the board wishes to put on record its sincere regret that this happened.”
> British Cycling upholds Varnish’s allegation of discrimination against Sutton
Varnish, 26, who competed in the team sprint at London 2012 alongside Victoria Pendleton – the pair finished out of the medals after being relegated for an illegal change – said she was “shocked and upset” at the news, which she has described as “heart breaking.”
She said last week that she planned to appeal that decision and her lawyer, Simon Fenton, has now demanded that British Cycling hand over records relating to Varnish under the Data Protection Act, reports The Guardian.
The newspaper says that Fenton wrote to British Cycling president Bob Howden to set out a “general request that relates to any data processed on behalf of British Cycling”.
Examples of such data, he wrote, included training and competition data, emails and other correspondence mentioning her name, personnel and medical records, as well as the investigation and report relating to her allegations against Sutton.
The letter also asked for data relating to “The decision to remove her from the Olympic Podium Programme and to terminate her relationship with British Cycling”, which happened between the World Championships in London in March, and Varnish making her claims against the technical director.
Sutton resigned as technical director in April after further claims were made against him, including one by six-time Paralympic champion Darren Kenny that he had referred to para-cyclists as “gimps” and “wobblies.”
Those allegations, and Varnish’s, form part of a wider independent investigation into the culture of British Cycling by UK Sport, the government agency that provides most of its funding.
During the past eight months, Sutton has vigorously defended himself against Varnish’s allegations. The New South Wales-born coach was recently revealed to be on the shortlist for the vacant position of high performance director at Cycling Australia.
> Sutton shortlisted for Australian performance director role
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mdavidford 5 min 49 sec ago
All that money spent on special lanes for improbability drives, and the bastards are still always appearing out of nowhere in front of you.
- brooksby 26 min 51 sec ago
Thank you! I was about to post, to ask whether or not the canal path in question is or is not 'pedestrians only'…
- Paul J 53 min 40 sec ago
Well, it can't be that bad that it's an ethical issue - the CO rebreathing method is a very standard technique, used in pretty much every sports...
- Steve K 1 hour 2 min ago
I broke two on the same wheel on a multi day trip from London to Sunderland in 2016 - I think the repair on the first was probably botched hence...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 10 min ago
Citation needed - or could it be that it's actually because they are regularly associating with criminals (the ones you point out - perhaps at the...
- PRSboy 1 hour 14 min ago
Indeed. Its a virtual cycling platform at the end of the day, so there is a limit to what can be done without losing the 'game' feel. As it...
- Another_MAMIL 2 hours 23 min ago
Could Polartec please provide more clarity on the differences between these new materials? Which is more breathable? Which is more water resistant?...
- the little onion 2 hours 30 min ago
Unexpected item in the bagging area
- chrisonabike 3 hours 43 min ago
Well, first the British came, now there aren't any Thylacines or indeed original Tasmanians in one sense...
Add new comment
18 comments
I'm surprised her lawyers didn't do a data protection trawl at the outset rather than for the appeal.
I did wonder about this but they seem to have only asked for it once they were told that they couldn't have a copy of the detailed investigation and evidential paperwork and they would only be getting the conclusions. Her legal team at least has the right to the full report and copies of the evidence given, although possibly under a confidentiality agreement that they won't leak it to the press if there is other confidential or commerical material enclosed.
As the conclusions are very specific about which words he is claimed to have used or not, the exact content of his text messages (if he used a BC company mobile to send them) are now relevant because the report was so particular about what terms he did and didn't use. If they had been generic about his behaviour it would have been difficult to justify, but now (as I see it) she has a legitimate claim that if he did use those specific terms in text messages she could challenge the full investigation as a cover-up.
Also, looking at her full request (BBC have published a screenshot), she has actually asked for a lot of data about her deselection and her performance data which could (probably will given her results) show that she was capable of performing at medal level, but also will prove useful for her should she pursue a career into sports development. What exact criteria BC are measuring in their athletes is generally kept pretty secrure so just a list of the data fields they are measuring would be of value to competitors.
Can't see why she'd let this go.
She feels that she was:
a) a victim of inappropriate sexist behaviour and language from the coach
b) treated unfairly in terms of selection and deselection by the same abusive coach
Whether or not this is true it is clear that she beleives it to be so and therefore she feels the need for vindication and to get her career back. Can't blame her for any of that.
BC, and the coach by his act of resignation, already accepted that she was a victim of (a) above so that gives her even more reason to beleive that she is right about (b) so she wants full access to all of the available information - seems perfectly sensible.
I have done some stupid things at work, held my hands up, admitted my mistakes and accepted the consequences. I learned. I had no power and very little resposibility. You are a professional and should perform in a professional manner. You have to be prepared to justify everything you do and say and any decision that you make.
My bosses, that's a slightly different matter, if they do something and it's one word against another, they would be believed. That's power. Even if I had managed to get something done about it, come the next performance review and I'm done for. You don't make waves.
There was one woman, not one of my bosses, who destroyed someones career, I was pressured into giving evidence at the hearing, but I felt that I couldn't, the anonymity offered was laughable. If she remained she would have made my life hell and tried everything in her power to get me sacked. She had form in this one. The decision was constructive dismissal, she was sacked and compensation was paid to the worker. I felt so weak and guilty.
And I'm not a professional sportsperson, just someone wanting to get by. I don't get paid a large amount, I will never pay the higher rate of tax, nowhere near, but I do want to do what I am good at and that I occasionally enjoy.
So I'm with Jess on this one.
I had a similar thing happen to me with a colleague. Total lies, and lies taint your career, even if they are disproved. I sat down with another manager and went through emails and documents which contradicted every single assertion the other woman had made. (Luckily, I had emailed her to confirm my understanding of her instructions.)
Ten days later, my appraisal with the same manager contained the same assertions. Because that impression had been made, and what this colleague said had permeated the manager's thinking, whether it was true or not. I knew I couldn't win, so I got out of there. Unfortunately, my health had already suffered. (I found out a short time later that this woman had previous for causing the same problems wherever she went.)
It seems Varnish was, rightly or wrongly, identified as a weak link. Even (it appears) as far back as 2012. Once that impression had been made, she had an uphill struggle to reverse it. An almost-impossible, frustrating battle. So, it will be very interesting whether her results were interpreted neutrally, or with a perceivable bias. Maybe this is contained in the DPA documents requested, maybe there will be other discoveries. Maybe this is a last, desperate roll of the dice. IMO, she has the right - it's her life.
EDIT: shay cycles has just said ^ what I was typing better than I could have.
She is getting boring now, you got your bully sacked, you have just lost your career and now I guess your legal team what a pay day or do you want to drag BC through the mud to prove you are under achiving?
Because there may have been a conspiracy and a cover up. And he resigned, wasn't sacked. Probably got a pay off and can continue his career somewhere else.
There is a lot of stuff coming out about football coaches at the moment. How did they get away with it for so long. The catholic church, care homes public figures. Power.
But as said, there's fine margins. The british men's pursuit excluded champions for Brad who wasn't riding track whereas Cav got no medal as they didn't put him in "for the hell of it".
Didn't Jess' replacement win gold and is younger?
And comparing it to how your boss treats you in a day to day job is where this case will massively fall down. My boss at work can't shout at me to go quicker but you'd expect a sports coach to...
What replacement?
Jess was woman 1 for the Women's Team Sprint, and the team didn't get to the Rio start line.
What gold?
Katy Marchant was Team Sprint woman 2 - got bronze in individual sprint.
Becky James got silver in individual sprint and kierin.
it appears it's not that he shouted, but that he told her to "go have babies" when he 'fired' her. If Sutton had been more professional, then there would be no story here. He could have pushed her out (when her results were not quite as good as previously seen), but had done it professionally, she'd just be like many other athletes who've just started to go down after peaking and were pushed out a little quickly
Just noticed this result ''1st British National Team Sprint Championships (with Katy Marchant)''
It's hardly like she was slowing down much.
She's 26, and was pushed out half way through her career. With her previous record, it just makes no sense. I just would have expected BC to keep her on, and work with her to get her back to top form (assuming that her form had fallen, and not that everyone else's forms had improved). Her recent results seem to put her close to the podium, some training improvements and she'd be back on the podium. I guess Shane Sutton felt she was only going to get slower, but communicated it to her so poorly. Can you imagine if your boss decided you'd gotten a little slower at work and dismissed you in the same manner?
What I'm confused about now though, is what she does now. From her Instagram, she's still training, but not part of BC. If she were a road rider, she could ride another 6 or 7 years in a womens pro team (maybe a lower level one that doesnt pay much, but still keeps you racing), but what does a world class track cyclist do if they can't make their national team at 26?
Hey Jess, move to New Zealand, we just got a second indoor velodrome, and in another couple of years you could ride for New Zealand at the Olympics.
I do agree with stoopid though Davel and Dotti i think it depends on the reasons why she isn't letting go...
There has already been much debate about the sporting world versus corporate hr and there's some very muddy waters here. Can a coach in the future tell a Brad / Hoy their lap time ain't good enough or will they have to give 48hrs notice and have a minuted review?
There are very fine lines in elite level sport, people may end up being selected based on many factors both in terms of hard numbers and perception, especially in team events. How can you prove beyond doubt that this is fair or unfair?
British Cycling deciding to delete any data after this request would be a criminal offence. Depends how embarassing it is, I suppose...
British Cycling about now
So even if they find evidence that Sutton doesn't like her, what does that prove? Surely she's only really got any case for all this if she was dropped but performance-wise she should have been there. By the sound of it the bottom line is that she wasn't good enough so there's a very real likelihood that Sutton and others may have said she's shit.
Her argument will probably be that his attitude was detrimental to that performance but he probably chose correctly.
She messed up the chance of a gold medal in 2012 then wasn't good enough to qualify for 2016 - at no point did she complain while she was actually on the programme - is this right?
can we also have an interview with the rider who replaced her? Maybe ask her how she feels regarding having legal action that could replace her on the team after legitimately beating jess in the first place? Maybe ask the dozens of cyclists who have been removed from the programme over the years to ask if they were affected by these allegations too?
She might well be bitter. She might well have been prepared to swallow her pride while she was in with a chance of championships and medals via BC. That would make her a bitter hypocrite.
That doesn't mean she's lying about the allegations.
Pendleton herself, who publicly had a pop at Varnish in blaming her for the mistake for them failing to qualify, backed her up - to the press. By that time she'd won 9 world and 2 Olympic golds, and was into her new horsey career.
If there's nothing in the allegations, why would Pendleton and others lie in public to support them?
If the request is fulfilled, there could be a few red faces at BC HQ.
I'm liking that she's not letting this go.