I guess Sutton's suggesting that, in the end, shellacced something ?
The "go and have a baby" comment is not good but we don't know the context and as has been mentioned above, if her plan was to do Rio and then have a family then saying to her "you're not going to Rio so go and have a baby" is not that unreasonable, not overly tactful but not as bad as it could be.
How could it have been worse? I'm intrigued.
Nicole was a pain to those dismissive of women's cycling.
And team-mates, by all accounts.
How could it have been worse? I'm intrigued
Like I say - context. It's whataboutery but if she'd always suggested she'd work towards Rio and then retire and start a family, to tell her she wasn't going so she should 'go and have a baby' like she'd planned might be tactless but no more.
Say she'd for example said "Well, I think you're wrong and I'm going to go away, work extra hard and prove you wrong" and his retort to that was 'I don't think so love, be a good little girl and go and have a baby'
Might that be worse?
UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT WAS SAID AND IN WHAT CONTEXT, WE ONLY HAVE ONE SIDE AND NO CONTEXT SO WHILE IT MIGHT APPEAR BAD, WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
To be honest BC's whole selection 'strategy' seems to be a bit of a shambles in so many areas.
And as for women's cycling... it really does feel as though the initiatives outside BC are better and more effective for getting women racing. MTB and CX just seem easier to do as a woman than road. The best scheme for getting women to road race is run by a woman who just thought she'd do it because no one else was - she has been filling up race start lines in the north west (to the incredulity of BC staff).
They've got form so I'm afraid I find someone saying they cocked up the strategy to get riders selected and they're sexist pretty credible.
Given the known performance benefits of early stage pregnancy in elite athletes, then perhaps it was a training tip 😉
If he'd said to a male cyclist " look it's over your not quite good enough. Time to get on with your life maybe marry that girl your with, start a family" would that be sexist, would we be having this debate, I very much doubt it.
ratherbeintobago, have you read NCs' autobiography?
Looks to me like Varnish is trying to get Sutton sacked, by going to the press with a sexism charge on Sutton. Which he has denied, according to CN, and we don't have any proof of (that I've seen).
From the Cycling News:
“I wholeheartedly deny that I said or did anything other than act with complete professionalism in my dealings with Jess,” said Sutton.
Whether or not Sutton did say something is, currently, unprovable. What is clear however is that Varnish is going after Sutton in the press, and I can only assume that would be to get him sacked. Not a good thing to do Jess, I suggest.
ratherbeintobago, have you read NCs' autobiography?
No, is it any good?
@ghostely, right you are of course I remembered the wrong athlete
Re Nicole top level sport isnt't a personality contest, if she had the work ethic and produced the goods then that's what counts. If the coaches found her difficult then its up to them to sort themselves out. Unkess she's disrupting a team ornthe whole project who cares if she's difficult to work with.
No, is it any good?
@ ratherbeintobago - yes but you'll probably end up with a sense of anger at the injustice she endured. Here you go and free delivery too:
https://wordery.com/the-breakaway-nicole-cooke-9781471130359
C_G
agreed 🙂
Yes it is good
Whether or not Sutton did say something is, currently, unprovable. What is clear however is that Varnish is going after Sutton in the press, and I can only assume that would be to get him sacked. Not a good thing to do Jess, I suggest.
Unprovable by us but who knows, perhaps not unprovable by Varnish and/or Sutton.
As for her trying to get him sacked, it's a tough one. If you genuinely feel that someone is damaging your workplace and have tried the correct lines of complaint, sometimes an alternative route is your only option. We can debate the morality of that but it tends to be based on your perspective at that time.
I find the fact that Sutton has not directly denied making the statements Varnish is accusing him of, very telling. All he is doing, is expressing his own opinion of how he conducted himself, claiming he 'acted professionally'. It's this definition that is under scrutiny here. Having seen Sutton in action at events, it wouldn't surprise me if the claims are true. Sutton was an average pro without any globally significant major wins, now surrounded by athletes who are the very best in the world, so it is highly possible his ego needs an outlet for his frustrations and insecurities at times. A bit like the frustrated dad projecting his insecurities through his kids. I suspect BC is full of men like him.
The fact that some commentators on here don't seem to recognise or appreciate the depth of sexism that women in all fields have to endure, shows the extent of the issue. Saying 'oh it's not that bad' or 'it's not really sexist is it' seems to be a way of dismissing what to many men, is a very uncomfortable issue that they are unwilling/unable to engage with. You don't get to decide what sexism is or isn't. That's why it's the subject of debate and discussion. If you aren't able to engage with that discourse , then that speaks about you as an individual, not the issue itself.
The fact that some commentators on here don't seem to recognise or appreciate the depth of sexism that women in all fields have to endure, shows the extent of the issue
What I'm trying to do is separate the 2 issues. Is there sexism in sport and indeed in the world at large? Well sadly, yes, yes there is.
But, what I said above is that we have no idea of the context of some of the remarks made to Jess, the "go and have babies" comment on the surface is pretty ropey, but with context it may not have been made in the way a lot of people are suggesting. My view in the surface is that you have an athlete who is raging that she is not been taken forward and is airing her dirty washing in public and the odd person here is questioning the wisdom of that. They're not doing that because she's female, they're doing that because they don't like how she's handling it.
And in the subject if Sutton being an failed pro, well that may be true but then most coaches are, in fact very few elite athletes make great coaches as they have little sympathy with how to motive people who are less good than they were. In fact, much go the BC and Sky tpmanagement team are failed athletes, Tim Kerrison for one.
"My view in the surface is that you have an athlete who is raging that she is not been taken forward and is airing her dirty washing in public and the odd person here is questioning the wisdom of that."
Or you could take the alternative view, that Sutton has indeed been sexist, Varnish has been treated unfairly, and some commentators are either failing to recognise that, or acting as apologists for sexism.
I think it's pretty fair to say that female athletes are generally victims of sexism; we only have to look at rates of pay and media treatment of athletes to see just how deeply entrenched this is. And to immediately suggest that an athlete is only making statements because they're 'pissed off', is taking a pretty narrow-minded view, in my opinion.
Or you could take the alternative view, that Sutton has indeed been sexist, Varnish has been treated unfairly, and some commentators are either failing to recognise that, or acting as apologists for sexism.
You could also take a middle view that while she's been treated badly by a sexist coaching team, not renewing her contract was a reasonable decision on performance grounds?
Succesful elite level athletes are almost by definition single minded and as such don't make good coaches. They also feel they've been there done that. Team sportspeople tend to be a bit different but imho by and large they are the same. "Giving something back" via talks or individual sessions is a bit different than the full time grind of coaching
putting the sexism issue aside just for a bit, I think there is just as big questions people have to ask about how BC and have handled the whole thing.
1, If Jess was not getting better times quicker, why wasn't she told before hand and review her training etc.
2, (I might be wrong) As Jess is on BC program surely BC is coaching her and setting her training etc, so you could say BC are the ones who failed by not setting the right training/program?
3, after been told, Jess tried to get her training data etc but was told no "They couldn’t give it to her" Which to me if that what they using to not renewing her contract, then why can't she have it, look at it and see where she is not performing and for them to back up what they are saying?
All very odd. I'm surprised that people are rushing to take sides based on one side of a story and their own preconceived ideas of the people involved.
I'd say Victoria Pendleton can hardly be a case of 'sour grapes':[url= http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/04/25/jess-varnish-is-right--there-is-sexism-at-the-top-of-british-cyc/?utm_campaign=Contact+SNS+For+More+Referrer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=snsanalytics ]Here[/url]
And the BC comment on Nicole Cooke's [url= http://http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/25/nicole-cooke-cycling-sexism-jess-varnish-shane-sutton?CMP=share_btn_tw ]piece[/url] sums up the problem. In summary 'yes we like it when the women win medals but they can hop in the back of the team car for the really big races'.
And the BC comment on Nicole Cooke's piece sums up the problem. In summary 'yes we like it when the women win medals but they can hop in the back of the team car for the really big races'.
No, the summary was that the fact that there was Womens race to compete in was down to the IOC & local organisers, nothing to do with BC, which seems entirely fair. I don't think BC are coming across very well in this whole thing generally, but you're twisting their comments in this case.
Wait what?
So they wear the BC jersey but aren't funded by the same bodies?
BC's treatment of women having read Nicole Cooke's biography does not look good. It doesn't look good if even half of what she's saying is true. Some examples:
- Men with DNFs in the road race given kit and funding while women don't even get to field a full team.
- Not being allowed to race in the juniors with the men's field. The plot about her having to hide in a van so a certain race organiser wouldn't take umbrage at her being involved in a race was particularly frustrating. Where do these people come from?
- Sutton's attitude towards training the women didn't seem great either according to the biography.
@clodhopper makes a great argument about sexism. Good to read that.
Cooke is very scathing of Cookson's broken promise re women's racing as well. It will be interesting to see what he makes of it. I'd firmly discourage any women I know from racing bikes for a living, or setting it as a dream. Far better to be a triathlete/duathlete where women and men seem to get equal billing.
"These people" are where most of the problem lies. They are the old guys who run most grass roots races, the old guys who run BC's [i]volunteer[/i] structure, they are the old guys who run for elected and quite often unpaid posts in BC.Where do these people come from?
I'd reckon that of the entire "BC" structure in the UK, from go ride/schools stuff, all the way up to the Olympic plan. Less than 1% are actually employed by BC.
It's the same across europe, probably not quite as bad as the UK as some (few) of the guys involved until recently are still upset about the old BLRC/RTTC/NCU/BCF shit storm.
So from the sounds of it, as per the article, Jess having been dropped from the program went back to the Velodrome to pick up her BF's kit and saw Shane where they then had a 'discussion' during which Shane told her to move on and have a baby...
so basically two people who used to work together met outside of work and had an argument, some bad things were said.
Two different issues here surely is Sutton sexist, almost certainly. Is Jess Varnish good enough, no.
I wouldn't listen to much Nicole Cooke says as she has a massive axe to grind. She better than anyone should know a road race isn't comparable to a marathon, so the analogy in her article is duff from the outset. Then later she has a go at Brian Cookson, failing to realise he isn't some dictator at the top of the UCI, he can't push through everything he wants, that's not how it works.
he can't push through everything he wants, that's not how it works.
Well, if the UCI could participate in an industry wide cover up of certain "issues", then surely championing equal pay and coverage for women is just a question of putting their minds to it? 😛
if the UCI could participate in an industry wide cover up of certain "issues"
You what?
Armstrong, Verbruggen, McQuaid.
And TBH, with Verbruggen and McQuaid in charge, it pretty much was a dictatorship.
Nicole is a pain to deal with, i know a few people who've worked with her. Other than her work ethic and performance, there isn't much nice they have to say about her. She might be fine off the bike and away from the racing. But when she's got her bike head on. It's a different matter.
I've read similar comments about Wiggins, including from his wife. So what?
Two different issues here surely is Sutton sexist, almost certainly. Is Jess Varnish good enough, no.
The third issue is should someone who is sexist be making decisions about the women's track team?
I'm no fan of Cookson, but to blame him for what went on before is a bit much.
I don't think Sutton makes the sole decision on the womens track team, I'm sure it is discussed with others.
Give a has-been a blazer and a clipboard and shit happens.
[quote="ransos"]I've read similar comments about Wiggins, including from his wife. So what?I don't think i know anyone who has worked with both Wiggins and Cooke, so it wouldn't really be a worthwhile comparison to make.
I don't think Sutton makes the sole decision on the womens track team, I'm sure it is discussed with others.
Aye, but then he communicates the decision...
Jess has released a statment
reggiegasket - Member
Not a good thing to do Jess, I suggest.
What else is she to do? It's the only form of redress she has. they're th eonly game in town. She's just been made redundant from a whole carreer not a job and I'm not surprised she's lashing out.
BC's pure concentration on the pointy end to the exclusion of all others is really screwing up the sport.
To extrapolate & paraphrase
should someone who is sexist be making decisions about women
welcome to the real world 🙄 I think it goes on quite a lot
I don't think i know anyone who has worked with both Wiggins and Cooke, so it wouldn't really be a worthwhile comparison to make.
Some people who know them say they're difficult to work with when their minds are focussed on racing. My only surprise is that anyone would be surprised.
welcome to the real world I think it goes on quite a lot
Which is why I support women like Nicole Cooke who speak out about it.
From the whole of this debacle, I'm pretty tempted to not renew my BC membership when it lapses. Any alternatives? I only use it for the legal cover these days anyway. The CRC discount is a bonus, but one I've only used once in my years of membership.
She's just been made redundant from a whole career not a job and I'm not surprised she's lashing out.
It's unsurprising, I'll give you that.
But there are two elements to this. One is whether Varnish is good enough. And second is how to handle the situation if she is judged by BC not to be.
Varnish seems to me to be focusing on the second part, rather than the first.
Is she really saying she is good enough? Her statement doesn't appear to use any obvious evidence that she is.
Sexism or no sexism... by focusing on the [i]process[/i] of terminating her contract and the things said (or not said) she deflects the discussion away from the bigger issue of whether BC were correct to terminate her contract.
In other words, this has become [i]how[/i] it was done, not [i]why[/i] it was done. Such is news these days...
She has said she's good enough if you read the FB statement. She mentions her lap times for her position as justification.
She also says BC refused to discuss her data and she was not put on review at any point. So she's probably pretty surprised at why this has happened too.
Presumably the criteria for deciding if she is good enough is more than just Varnish thinking she is 8)
Is there an actual objective measure? I thought the qualification points fell short...? Is there more to it than that?
You have to race to gain points to qualify. BC have made some odd choices about entering races - and not just on the road / track.
