Damning report covered up by cycling chiefs, claim UK Sport
BRITISH Cycling’s battered reputation has been dealt another blow after it was alleged the organisation covered up the contents of a post-London 2012 report which suggested serious bullying and discrimination problems. UK Sport, the body which gave British Cycling £ 30million of funding in the last Olympic cycle, claim to have been led astray by a heavily diluted version of the internal report.
Riders and staff who contributed to the report told Sportsmail their warnings of bullying, discrimination and misappropriation of public money at British Cycling were ignored.
‘We were aware of the report but had no knowledge of the significance of it,’ said UK Sport chief executive Liz Nicholl. ‘What we received from British Cycling was a summary and did not raise any alarm bells at all.’
When asked if she thought British Cycling had conducted a cover- up, Nicholl nodded vigorously .‘ It wasn’ t representative,’ she said. ‘That’s a complete lack of transparency. That’s a relationship that is not acceptable, in terms of what was shared with us as opposed to what the facts of that report were. We would have expected to receive the full report.’
The suggestion UK Sport did not get complete information will raise questions for the old British Cycling regime, including former chief executive Ian Drake, who was charged with providing an accurate summary of the report.
Sir Dave Brailsford was performance director and Brian Cookson was president of British Cycling at the time the report was conducted, although it is not known if they knew what was in the summary.
UK Sport have been accused of failing to hold British Cycling to account in the past. The organisations jointly commissioned an independent review into the culture of British Cycling after allegations of sexism, disability discrimination and misappropriation of public funds were made to
Sportsmail last April. The claims led to the resignation of technical director Shane Sutton just 100 days before the Rio Olympics, although only one of nine charges against him was later upheld. UK Sport chair Rod Carr said some of the issues could have been addressed earlier had they been told of the full contents of a post-2012 review compiled by Peter King, who had been British Cycling chief executive until 2008.
Three people who contributed to the report told Sportsmail they raised concerns with King about then head coach Sutton’s conduct during interviews given anonymously in the autumn of 2012. King handed his report to British Cycling chief executive Drake in November 2012. But it was only in July 2016 the top brass at UK Sport got their hands on the report.
Nicholl has shared concerns about UK Sport being subjected to a cover-up with an independent review led by Annamarie Phelps. That review began 11 months ago and its publication has been delayed to give those criticised time to respond.
It may now only be released in April. Sportsmail understands the review in its raw state was ‘explosive’ but it is undergoing a process known as Maxwellisation, a confidential procedure where individuals criticised are given the chance to read relevant sections and object to findings before a final version is published. That could see the report’s findings watered down or names redacted as UK Sport seek to avoid legal action by anyone accused of wrongdoing and protect whistleblowers.
Carr said: ‘Looking back in 10 years, whether it’s in November or March isn’t going to make any difference. Get it wrong, it’ll make a big difference. We have to get it right.’
King said he was not aware only a summary of his findings were shared with UK Sport.
In a statement, British Cycling said: ‘Contributions were made with a guarantee of anonymity, so key findings and recommendations were shared in briefings with UK Sport and the British Cycling board. The full report was also made available to the 2016 independent review, which was jointly commissioned by UK Sport and British Cycling in April last year, of the worldclass programme.’