- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Dave Brailsford CBESir Dave Brailsford says British Cycling is 'medallist' not sexist
In an article penned for The Times this weekend, Sir Dave Brailsford reflected on his time at British Cycling. The now-Team Sky boss also defends the culture he helped develop that has produced a generation of Olympic champions amid claims of bullying and sexism.
The piece goes into depth about the organisation's methods of handling relationships with coaches and athletes, the ruthless decisions that had to be made in the pursuit of world-best results, and reinforces claims that the organisation is not sexist.
>Read more: British Cycling suspends Shane Sutton over sexism claims
The article comes ahead of an independent review into British Cycling later this month after allegations made in 2016 from several female riders suggested that there is a culture of sexism and bullying within British Cycling.
Brailsford makes it clear in the article that he fears the review has the potential to "over-correct" British Cycling's culture and damage the country's continued cycling success.
Throughout the article, though, Brailsford highlights the high standards the organisation was trying to maintain, and how the decisions that were necessary to keep those standards high "put some people's noses out of joint."
But he insists that British Cycling isn't sexist, and that during his time the organisation constantly pursued equality, whether that was in pushing for equal numbers of events for men and women, or creating a female cycling team.
"We were not sexist, but we were definitely 'medallist,'" Brailsford said.
"That is why we pushed for equal number of male and female events so our elite female athletes could have the same maximum chance of success as their male counterparts.
"It is why British Cycling has won as many female medals as male ones since 2008."
Brailsford claimed that today we take our Olympic and Paralympic successes for granted, and that "20 years ago Britain was largely an Olympic nation of gallant losers."
>Read more: Sir Dave Brailsford defends the way he managed GB Cycling Team
The moment of change came when British Cycling introduced its Podium Only programme. Brailsford says that the organisation stopped investing in cyclists that would place 4th to 8th, and instead it only focused on cyclists who could appear on the world podium.
"If the gap for the British national champion to the world podium was too great they would not be selected for the World Championships. Simple as that"
There is a degree of understanding of the repercussions the ruthlessness of an elite policy like this in Brailsford's writing. He wrote that he knew "all this was hard for some to accept and it resulted in disappointment and resentment."
>Read more: Dave Brailsford tried to kill Wiggins Dauphiné package story
The current Team Sky general manager specifically cited the necessity of the organisation's commitment to troublesome personalities in its bid to maximise the collective athletic abilities of its athletes.
"People are not machines and exceptional people often come with challenging personalities.
"In a winning environment, problematic behaviour can be exacerbated — but you either remove the talent, reducing the chances of winning, or try your best dispassionately to manage it and the conflict it can create. I always went for the latter, and still do.
"I know this put some people’s noses out of joint but my remit was to help make us the best in the world not simply support the best in Britain.
>Read more: Sir Dave Brailsford accused of presiding over culture of fear
"Elite sport is by definition not sport for all. It is edgy and it is difficult. There are fine lines between success and failure. Only the very few can make it.
"We dealt with the really tough, the totally selfish, victims, aggressors, the violent tempered, those with low self-esteem, those who changed with success in what could be a highly charged cocktail — especially when you are pushing performance to the limit.
"I think we did that while striving always to help, support and protect riders and staff equally."
Brailsford says that he stands by the work that British Cycling did during his tenure and that he is "proud of the success" the organisation achieved in helping 1.7 million more people enjoy cycling.
He does seem to be wary of the impending inquirey, though. But welcomes that more voices will finally be part of the discourse.
"Like any organisation we inevitably got some things wrong, but I believe we got much, much more right." Brailsford concludes.
"Post facto scrutiny is to be welcomed but, equally, we should avoid applying a completely different set of standards and judgments to the events of the past.
"So by all means let’s have the debate in the coming weeks. There is always more that all of sport, beyond cycling, can learn and areas that can be improved.
"We should not shy away from it but in doing so let’s be careful not to over-correct."
"Elite sport is tough. You play by the rules. You play clean. You play with the right values. You treat people with respect. But you must also never forget you are playing to win."
Latest Comments
- bensynnock 12 min 51 sec ago
Stick it in the road.
- kingleo 50 min 47 sec ago
If motorists cannot see a cyclist because they are not wearing a hi-vis bib then they cannot see pedestrians on a crossing, also drunk/ drugged...
- Hirsute 1 hour 11 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 29 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 1 hour 58 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 2 hours 4 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- quiff 6 hours 8 min ago
Fair point - I was restricting myself to pedal bikes. As I've never spent that kind of money on anything though (mortgage doesn't count), it's kind...
- brooksby 7 hours 11 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
- Doug_D 8 hours 47 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
Add new comment
12 comments
Pro races exist to sell bikes. I'd suggest selling bikes to women is a bigger growth industry than selling bikes to men. Makes financial sense to manufacturers to put more money in.
Besides, Women's cyclocross is brilliant. The Elite Women's and U23 Women's were the best races at the Worlds. Women's races can be just as entertaining as Men's. Or, as Unconstituted said, if you don't care about any of that then perhaps looking at 100 women's rears might tempt you.
Folks, how much do you people actually know about bike racing?
Pro races aren't put on just for the fun of it. Businesses (event sponsors) give other businesses (event organisers) money so that bike races get put on. If event sponsors don't want to support women's races because it is not good economic sense to do so, that's the way it goes. Describing such a dynamic as 'unequal' is silly.
Sport is sport. Girls and boys race bikes. It is unequal and there are hugh commercial differences, but it need not be that way if 'we' the viewing, paying public continue to support watch and pay to see girls ride bikes. I'd pay to see more good cycing races on TV be that womens or mens.
As has already been pointed out, in terms of sporting product, there's probably not a lot between an offering that has a peloton rattling along at 27mph or 24mph. There're probably some advantages to a race that lasts 3 1/2 hours as opposed to 5. There's probably a lot in the argument that the types of companies that want to sponsor this type of thing are appealing to male more than female pounds and pennies.
But, imagine a British Cycling with a management made up solely of women, with a professional women's road team set up alongside it with senior (female) bods flitting between the two, that has amazing success at track, and road, but pretty regular complaints from male cyclists and cyclists from other disciplines.
Maybe, just maybe, that might shove women's cycling to the fore and generate some valid complaints from men that there's a bit of bias going on at an organisation meant to represent both sexes across all disciplines.
sorry - what I really meant was 'workers of the world unite' etc.
@valbrona
Racing looks slow on TV regardless of it being men's or women's races and that's how the vast majority of people watch racing.
If you're watching it in real life, you'll brick yourself at how fast they whizz past, and that's for both men's and women's events. Discovered that at the Commonwealth Games road race in Glasgow.
I just don't think the 'men's average speeds are faster' argument holds any water when it comes to sponsorship. (Look at how pathetic some TdF stages were in 2016, speed-wise).
Anyway, the women at more attractive generally, and that also is easy to sell to the public though should be done with tact (not that cycling advertising seems to have much of that).
The problem is circular - without exposure, people won't follow and know women's races. And if people aren't following and knowing women's races, then Advertisers aren't likely to sponsor them.
It's a problem solved by throwing cash at it. Hype up some women riders and races until it snowballs.
But to suggest women racers are second rate. I disagree. Cycling is many things and key among them is overcoming adversity - it's an endurance sport primarily, which is basically a personal war of attrition. And women have greater struggles than men due their body cycles and physiology. I can't see how that makes them 'second rate' unless you cherry pick one aspect, such as average speed, and base the entire complicated sport of racing from that blinkered viewpoint.
Anyway, I never took much interest in women's cycling until Canyon//SRAM came along. Started knowing the women and finding out when they were racing. After that, I follow the team more than any single mens team. They're far more interesting and fun, than DiData (my personal mens team).
That interest came along because they got marketed and I got hooked by it. That's all that's needed.
Also maybe because I like women.
Created??
You're not surprised that someone spouting Valbrona's shit would believe in sky fairies and the earth being made in a week a few thousand years ago?
He also wouldn't know a Marxist if one smacked him in the gob with his hammer or sickle.
This is the 'alternative facts' version, according to Brailsford.
The truth is there are still not equal events or opportunities available to women.
He was largely responsible for the inequality. He wasn't proactive in challenging it, he promoted it.
He certainly didn't manage the more 'difficult' personalities. Why did someone as talented as Nicole Cooke leave the sport?
If the intention was for medals, why not plough more resources into the women's side, where finances could stretch further and therefore there would be a greater chance of success?
No. He's trying to rewrite history.
Ooh.
When women can ride bikes as hard and as fast and as long as men can, and can attract the big sponsors like men's cycling can ... then things might be a little different. You see, Joe/Joanne Public mostly likes to see a premium, as opposed to a second-rate, product.
It's not the fault of people like Dave Brailsford that Mother Nature created men and women so inequal from one another. That the Marxist cannot accept the fact that men and women were not created equal is their own problem to deal with, and no-one elses.
What a pile of ignorant crap...been reading too many 'alternative facts' ?
Hard or fast ? - well, for a start it's all relative.
Second rate ? One of the most exciting bits of racing I've seen on TV was the women's road race in the 2012 Olympics. TBH most cycle racing isn't exactly exciting to watch IMO, the best bits are usually the 'will-they-won't-they 'of a breakaway'.
As long ? - there's some evidence to indicate that women are actually more suited to endurance sports than men, but they've been treated as too fragile (eg marathon running) or that some sports are unsuitable (Football Assocaition, 1920s) or unladylike.
Sponsors are attracted to events where they get publicity.
Currently the womens side of the sport suffers from lack of coverage (hence sponsors), wage levels (ie sponsors, and thats where wages exist at all), number of competitors and events - competing costs money, and that if you have no funding, somewhere you've also got to hold down a part/full-time job will have some impact on training/racing, limiting the numbers than can do so and hampering those with potential.
And that has a knock-on effect on number of events.
Small-scale events aren't likely to get much coverage...and we're back at sponsors again.
Whereas the male cycle of the sport has been well-publicised to at least some degree for over 100 yrs and as a result has grown to the level it is now.
Football is much the same - it was very popular up to the 20's but women's teams were banned playing from FA grounds in 1921, the ban only being lifted in 1971. Whilst it's popularity/level of support has gradually improved, it's still the poorer cousin(e), having 50 or 70s years to catch up with.
Do you understand what catch-22 means ?
It's one big fucking version of that.
Whilst it's true that women aren't as physiologically strong as men past puberty. It's very narrow minded to think that's anything to do with the commercial reason's why womens cycling isn't as high profile as mens. Sporting prowess is sporting prowess, a good bike race is a good race regardless, take last years Olympic road races or indeed 2012 where our lizzie got beat by vos right up to the line.. both excellent examples of great bike racing!
I would love to see womens racing on better more equal footings as the mens, in particular i'd like to see some of the more attritional races replicated, such as the spring classics.. I do get why womens races sometimes should be shorter (smaller fields), but I also think the 'classics' would be a good place to challenge that thinking somewhat.
The reality of womens cycling is that it does have 100years of history to catch-up with (it's a fair point) and a proportion of narrow minded people (see above) to convince.
Although in juxtoposition to this thinking I will say that 'some' sports don't transpose genders in my eyes too well, I throw the example of womens football in the air as a prime example (and don my Brodie helmet for the expected hail)..
Yes indeed, and it's not just women riders who seem to have been sidelined within BC. Why were Tre White and Quillan Isidore not allowed to ride at the Worlds? Tre in particular could've had the sponsorship for the Worlds and then could have ridden at the Olympics.