Explosive report has blown wheels clean off British Cycling
BRITISH Cycling’s credibility has sunk to a new low with the organisation’s board accused of ‘sanitising’ the report into Jess Varnish’s allegations of discrimination against Shane Sutton — even ‘reversing’ the findings of their own grievance officer.
Sportsmail has seen a draft copy of the unpublished independent review into the ‘climate and culture’ inside British Cycling’s World Class Performance programme, and it is explosive. It states:
There is a ‘culture of fear’ at the governing body.
Appropriate leadership and good governance is lacking at board level and on the world-class performance programme.
Weak leadership at board level enabled first Sir dave Brailsford and then Sutton to run the organisation without supervision from their employers, creating a ‘dysfunctional leadership structure’.
Hard-hitting conclusions from a november 2012 internal report on the culture and climate of the performance programme were not acted upon.
The pursuit of medals and derived national lottery funding from UK Sport has had ‘a blinding effect, causing clear behavioural and cultural issues’ to be ‘ignored’.
Most damning is British Cycling’s ‘inept’ handling of Varnish’s allegations against Sutton that were first aired in this newspaper last april.
Varnish claimed the former technical director told her to ‘get on with having a baby’ after she was axed just months before the Olympic games in Rio. Sutton has always denied that allegation.
While an internal investigation upheld Varnish’s claim that Sutton had used ‘inappropriate and discriminatory language’, it concluded that only one of the nine charges Varnish made against Sutton had been proven.
But the five-strong independent panel, led by British Rowing chair annamarie Phelps, found the internal investigation was then ‘sanitised’ by the British Cycling board. The grievance officer had originally found ‘considerably more’ of Varnish’s claims had been proven, but these ‘harder-hitting investigative findings’ were not included in the final version.
‘as a result,’ the panel say, ‘it appears that not only did the British Cycling Board not accept the findings of its grievance officer, it reversed them.’
The independent review’s remit did not include investigating Varnish’s allegations, and therefore makes no attempt to establish if they were indeed true. But its conclusions are nevertheless startling.
not least that the Board appeared to reverse the findings in order to see Sutton return because of his ‘innate ability to coach riders to medal-winning performances’.
Sutton had resigned after being suspended pending the outcome of the investigation.
‘The apparently deliberate reversal of the grievance officer’s draft outcome by the British Cycling Board gives the impression of it trying to achieve that aim,’ says the report. ‘The actions of the British Cycling Board in that regard are shocking and inexcusable. They also call into serious question whether the composition of the British Cycling Board is fit to govern a national sporting body.’
The panel is also critical of the way the investigation was conducted, saying the ‘approach was inappropriate and indicative of vested interests within the British Cycling Board who wished to control the grievance outcome’.
‘The Panel is also aware that, rather than authorising its appointed grievance officer to come to conclusions following their investigations into the former technical director (Sutton), the conclusions were to be decided upon by the British Cycling Board collectively,’ says the draft copy of the review.
The review is also critical of the way Varnish was axed, even if it recognises that the process applied to the selection of riders is generally ‘robust and good’.
THE decision to dismiss Varnish, Sportsmail understands, was made by Sutton and three members of coaching staff, with Sutton initially supporting Varnish only to be presented with evidence of her decline in performance over four years.
But the panel have written: ‘In the situation involving Jess Varnish, the panel did not find explanations convincing from coaching staff that she could go from being a borderline Olympian (in fact, potentially an Olympic medallist) to not being good enough… within a week.
‘an athlete would have to have been given a warning and also a reasonable period to improve before removal. Varnish was not given a warning or any period of time to improve. She was removed.’
The panel was told an interview Varnish and Katy Marchant gave after the World Championships in March 2016, when they responded to their failure to qualify for the team sprint at the Rio Olympics by blaming their coaches, had been a factor in the decision.
But it noted that the interview did not cost Marchant an Olympic place when she was more critical because, the panel were told, Varnish was ‘perceived as the “ring-leader”.’
‘In a number of coaches’ minds, Varnish was also viewed as a trouble-maker,’ the draft report says. ‘The panel did not view her removal as an act of discrimination but, in the panel’s view it was on balance an act of retribution and also not contractual due process.’
as Sportsmail revealed this week, the independent review into British Cycling has been undermined by the fact that so many marquee riders have not been interviewed. But dozens of interviews were conducted and the draft report certainly makes grim reading for British Cycling bosses, UK Sport, Brailsford and Sutton in particular.
‘Since the late 2000s, cracks in terms of the climate and culture have been present,’ says the draft report. ‘Instead of being repaired as they should have been, those cracks were ignored in pursuit of medal success.’
The panel condemns the board for failing to even offer Sutton any form of management training when he was promoted in 2014.
It says British Cycling hierarchy knew Sutton had a ‘blunt and aggressive coaching style’ but, having moved him away from British Cycling into a position at Team Sky after the Beijing Olympics in 2008 in response to his ‘allegedly unacceptable behaviour’, he was recalled to head up the coaching operation at the governing body for the london 2012 Olympics because of a dip in performances.
THIS decision was made by Brailsford after the European Track Championships in Holland in October 2011, with the then-performance director informing staff and riders that Sutton was in charge.
during Sutton’s tenure the panel concluded that in ‘coaching, equipment, or selection, there was no discrimination on the grounds of gender’, but it did describe his resignation as ‘a sham’.
The panel note Sutton was ‘on garden-leave at a level of salary which was higher than had he remained’. It is also alleged he remained heavily involved in the preparations for the Rio Olympics, with staff and riders contacting him for advice and guidance.
The report says Sutton has never denied calling women ‘sheilas’ and he has admitted to referring to Paralympic riders as ‘Wobblies’. This, along with the word ‘gimps’, was among the allegations levelled at Sutton last year.
The draft report reveals that this was commonly used language at the national Cycling Centre. It adds: ‘The panel was informed that para-athletes in fact referred to themselves by such terms, even setting up a Whatsapp group labelled “Wobblies & gimps”.’
The panel observe that British Cycling and UK Sport, the body responsible for distributing funds for elite sport in great Britain, may find the report makes for ‘uncomfortable reading’.
In the last few weeks, a new chairman and chief executive have been appointed, with a 39-point plan for improving the organisation. Brailsford, Sutton and others will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations before the final draft of the report is published.
Part of the problem with the management structure, the panel concludes, is a lack of respect for the board among those leading the World Class Performance Programme.
The board were kept at ‘arm’s length’, it says, staff were ‘treated like children’ and problems were exacerbated by the ‘blurring of the boundaries’ between the Olympic programme and Team Sky’.
Brailsford ran both the World Class Programme and Team Sky until 2014, with British Cycling staff paid ‘considerably less’ and made to feel ‘like second-class citizens’.