- 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
news
Dr Richard Freeman (picture credit Team Sky)Dr Richard Freeman tells Jess Varnish tribunal that British Cycling coaches had 'complete' control over riders
Dr Richard Freeman, the doctor at the centre of the Team Sky Jiffy bag controversy, has told the Jess Varnish employment tribunal that cyclists on British Cycling’s podium programme were “very firmly controlled” by coaches. Varnish, who was dropped from the national squad in April 2016 and claims she was unfairly discriminated against, is seeking to establish that she was an employee of British Cycling and UK Sport when she received funding, rather than being an independent contractor.
Freeman had been due to testify on behalf of Varnish in person, but is due to face a General Medical Council (GMC) tribunal in February regarding testosterone patches delivered to the National Cycling Centre in 2011. After hearing that representatives of the GMC planned to attend the tribunal, he decided not to appear on the advice of his lawyers.
The BBC reports that Judge Ross did however accept a written statement.
"The control by the coaches over the athletes was complete – cycling is a coach-led sport," wrote Freeman. "The coach would decide everything. The athletes were very firmly controlled."
He went on to say that "non-compliance was not acceptable" because coaches decided whether or not riders stayed on the programme.
“Such matters were supposedly decided by reference to the selection criteria but these were so vague as to be like ‘scotch mist’ … The coaches held such power over an athlete’s selection for competitions that they assumed – rightly in the vast majority of cases – that what they said went – in all circumstances, always.”
British Cycling's lawyer Thomas Linden QC, who had previously noted that Freeman “had form for pulling out" – a reference to his non-appearance before a House of Commons select committee on health grounds last year – highlighted that the evidence was unsigned and said it could give Freeman "plausible deniability" if he were to change his view.
Judge Ross stated that employment tribunals were "less formal" than courts, but said she would give Freeman’s words "very little weight" in her deliberations.
British Cycling head coach Iain Dyer and programme director Andy Harrison were then questioned by Varnish's barrister, David Reade QC, on the level of control British Cycling had over athletes in terms of training, free time, what they wore and personal sponsorship deals.
Earlier this week, Varnish’s partner Liam Phillips, the former BMX world champion, claimed that coaches were “jealous” of the earning power of cyclists after the Beijing 2008 Olympics and had sometimes blocked riders’ sponsorship opportunities.
A verdict is expected on Monday.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 6 min 47 sec ago
Yep! The badly-spelled NIMBY-ism variant.
- wtjs 11 min 51 sec ago
If you're exercising in the heat you need to drink more, who knew? ...
- S.E. 3 hours 46 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 4 hours 11 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 3 hours 18 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 4 hours 21 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 5 hours 22 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 5 hours 47 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 6 hours 1 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 6 hours 32 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
17 comments
Headline doesn’t match story - Dr Freeman’s statement was admitted into evidence, but the good Doctor did not attend to “tell” his side of the case. Expect it to be rubbished by Counsel for BC and almost ignored in the Judge’s decision.
Of course there are limits and how you can treat people but the elite sports programme has massive differentials to the work place, it's not remotely like a normal working environment, going into it thinking it's going to be sweetness and light is ludicrous.
Also what one person sees as unfair other employees/people won't, it's up to some others to decide if what occured, demonstrably so (not conjecture/personal opinion by the accuers spouse/partner) was unfair/unreasonable.
Having a baby has got nothing to do with this case so not sure why you are bringing that up?
Its what is claimed Shane Sutton told her when she was dropped, so is crucial to the discrimination part of the case.
Nobody expects elite sport environments to be cosy & friendly,but there are standards of treating people as human beings,its that aspect which is under scrutiny
I thought there was an actual context to Sutton's 'go and have a baby'? Something along the lines Varnish complained about having to keep putting her life on hold in order to pursue a career as an elite sportswoman and wanting to have a family at some point to which Sutton replied with the 'go and have a baby' comment. I would see this as equally applicable to an elite sportsman making the same complaint about having to put having a family on hold due to the demands of life of an elite sportsperson i.e. training workload, travel, employment insecurity etc.
That's not to say it was delivered in the correct manner (I wasn't there so can't confirm) and happy to be corrected if this isn't accurate as I can't actully find the source where I got it fromm as it was going back a bit.
Even if I where to agree with you (I don't). Varnsih was on the program at 14 years of age; are you suggesting that she understood the implications of following thsi route at that stage in her life?
Are you suggesting/do you have proof that JV was treated like an adult in exactly the same way as others at the age of 14 and the rigourous programme that an elite adult goes through? Do you have evidence of how she was treated at any stage in her career, what was said to her in respect to expectations, targets and when at any point from the age of 14 upwards?
You are making out that BC said nothing to JV at any point between her joining and being told that she wasn't up to scratch, where is your proof of this, you also infer that she was asked to perform as an adult when a child, again where is you proof of that?
Do you think her parents were told what was going to happen at age of 14 or completely left out in the cold, did her parents not ask questions at any point of BC and/or of their daughter, you know because she's a minor and in a very unusual situation compared to most other kids??
Do you not think that if it was too harsh/too demanding on a fragile/impressionable young mind her parents would have gotten her out of there?
Keep cracking on with your fantasy made up situations because you've got zip and no knowledge of what's happened and when and who has said what at any point.
let's wait for those involved and professional arbitors to decide who said what and how that impacts people incl the accuser/plaintif as opposed to total conjecture as you are doing.
Doesn't this hinge on whether they justified her exclusion sufficiently (ie. whether, when requested, they produced the performance data)? Does that fundamentally differ if she was a contractor (and if she was being told what to do and when, surely it's a straightforward argument that she isn't)?
Next time the 'life's hard, get a fucking helmet' [let's not go there] brigade are demoted, or passed over for a payrise or promotion, and ask for justification, and your boss tells you to go and have a baby (struggling to think of something as snide for a male equivalent) remember, nobody's making you do that job. Stop causing a fuss, heat, kitchen, then cliché no. 3387, but before you go, put the kettle on and stick your arse out. Woof!
If any of you manage people in an actual industry, you'll realise that attitude just doesn't fly - it hasn't for all the time I've been managing (getting on for 20 years, engineering and banking). A professional sport that espouses marginal gains and uses big data so much should be able to fall back on stats and remove the subjectivity.
Whichever way this goes, it's more amateur antics from BC.
So if the jealousy was from earning power that was clearly as a sole trader because it certainly wasn't monies through BC. And how can Philips even prove that, it's his opinion, opinion means jack shit and he's hardly unbias is he!
People going into the programme and recieving grants/living monies know full well the situation beforehand. They are not forced to go into it, if they wanted a job being paid by an employer in the normal accepted sense then they should go work elsewhere and see how putting themselves to work for £8/hr compares to the lifestyle they have within an Elite sporting programme.
Do these people think being an elite athlete is going to be a nice easy experience without sacrifice and harsh realities when you're not cutting the mustard? Do they think evey person is going to behave perfectly 100% of the time, fairyland thinking because that never happens in real life and whilst some unfair situations do crop up and need dealing with the level of what some people think is unfair isn't seen that way by others.
Varnish had better have a water tight case because it's on her to prove without any doubt that BC acted unfairly/unreasonably. As for the being an employer, it's going to be extremely tough to prove that and to change how what are in effect bursaries is in fact being paid to do a 'job' in an employee/employer format.
BC can hopefully tighten up how they take people on and make it even more clear (if it wasn't already patently clear enough) that a bursary does not equal salary and clear up and define (again if not already clearly obvious) how many chances you get to meet the performance marks before being told you're not up to scratch.
In that I think the way these programmes are run, it's nothing like what people experience in a normally accepted employee/employer scenario, it's vastly different.
And that is why it is unacceptable; all the norms of acceptable behaviour are thrown out of the window in the chase for glory. By the very fact BC made a number of changes following this kicking off they accepted Varnish was teling the truth and something neeeded to be done.
I would say that it’s just like a normal employee/employer scenario. The full-time coaching/training plan/nutrition/physio nature of the BC cycling plan is exactly like being employed. You are required to be in specific places at specific times in order to do your job. In this case you should be entitled to normal employment rights - you know the basic things like being able to do your job without discrimination, bullying and harassment. Protected from retaliation sacking etc.
Yep, I think this is the point about 'control'.
I'm not an expert, haven't worked in HR, but that won't stop me digging into my memory about contractors I've employed and IR35 coming in, when some of those contractors wanted to challenge their new 'you are not a business' status, and launching into total speculation...
IIRC there were (are?) 3 basic tests:
- could they send a substitute in their place (least relevant here?)
- did the hirer control the work (what they did, when, where, how they did it)
- was the work obligation mutual (was the hirer obliged to offer work and the hiree obliged to do it).
Those tests are good enough for case law and the HMRC... so shouldn't they apply here?
I think the crux of it is that BC say as freelancers the athletes are not as protected by employment law, so Varnish's first defence is that she was an employee. However, even if it is established that they are freelancers, they still have legal rights (eg. not to be discriminated against or just dismissed - but the latter would depend on contract clauses etc), so I think that's her 'backstop' [eurgh].
It's all a bit messy, we're only reading the headlines and it's cases like this that make me appreciate HR.
But it's not a good look for BC.
I'm assuming all those who are commenting on her contractor status as being the same as employed because they are 'managed' don't know or work with contractors? Many companies have contractors working for them in all sorts of roles i.e. office, engineering roles etc. They are interviewed, they agree a contract inc. t's & c's etc, they are contracted on their ability to fill the role, they are told what work is expected from them, they have targets, they are managed in their work just as athletes are coached and if they don't meet the targets or follow the company rules they are released or replaced.
They are NOT full time employees and differ in many ways some of which benefit them and some of which benefit the company that contracts them but they weight that up and decide either to take the contract or look for a full time job.
I would say they should receive the same professional treatment as employees(no bullying, harrassment, sexism, racism etc etc_ and whether Varnish did or did not I don't know.
I think the point here is that although many companies do have contractors working for them in the exact way you describe if you brought their cases before a court using the tests prescribed by HMRC etc. They would actually most likely be classed as employees thus landing the employer liable for tax, national insurance, holiday pay etc. There have been a number of notable cases around this exact issue recently. It’s far from clear cut but the guidelines above provide a useful starting point. A useful question to ask is how different is being part of the BC program to being part of a “Professional” cycling team?
But you can say that at what ever level you like. Heat and kitchen spring to mind.
1st duty of BC in that context is to produce the best riders possible. Ideally by being nice but thats secondary to preformance and results. No one makes a sportsman compete.
Self interest wrapped up to look good.
Coaches coached. Who'd have thought it.
I don't think coaching was the issue; control and unreasonable beahviour is.
I don't think coaching was the issue; control and unreasonable beahviour is.