[Closed] Jess Varnish

I'm not up on track stuff - is there anyone in the team that's better at her events?

bottom line is we should always try and gain qualification by using the best team at every opportunity and fill the quota with the fastest riders in the country each of whom whould be either funded or have the option to self fund if considered "less good". To do anything else is ridiculous.

This only aiming for gold is bull. Just look at the mess they've made of BMX and that letter that's just appeared on the front page.

Clock's ticking BC - get your house in order.

BC have made some odd choices about entering races - and not just on the road / track.

So we reached 2007 and a home World Championships at Fort William. BC did not select any senior women for the race, while selecting various male riders based on both domestic and international results. One rider had not even raced outside the UK that year. I was told that I had been selected to ride the relay on the Thursday. When I discovered that the UCI had a rule stating that all riders in the relay must also be racing in their own races (in other words, you could not bring a relay-specific squad), I thought BC would relent. Instead Dave Brailsford, then Head of Performance alongside Shane Sutton, emailed me back to answer this query. Yes, he said, that was indeed the rule and BC would enter me into the World Championship Senior Women’s race. However, they would withdraw me from the race after the relay on the grounds of being unwell or injured. I found this unbelievable. Not only did BC not want any women to race at their home World Championships, they were prepared to break UCI rules to prevent that from happening.

[quote=curiousyellow]From the whole of this debacle, I'm pretty tempted to not renew my BC membership when it lapses. [b]Any alternatives?[/b] 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.

I'd be interested in answers to this, I've just decided not to renew my membership next month either.

Who is BC accountable to? Domestic of course - the UCI are equally as ******* so no use on that front.

she deflects the discussion away from the bigger issue of whether BC were correct to terminate her contract.

The alleged institutional sexism[i] is [/i]the bigger issue here though.

Yeah, I've pretty much decided not to renew next month.

Definitely not renewing my license again. If there was a cancel membership button on their website I would have done it already.

Is there an actual objective measure? I thought the qualification points fell short...? Is there more to it than that?

Those on the podium programme are there because of their potential for Olympic medals. If they dont qualify for the Olympics it is hard to justify that funding for another cycle - unless they were progressing significantly and looked like they were on a path to medals at a future games - which i'm not sure would apply to Jess Varnish, she seems to have stagnated a bit.

I dont think anyone has ever gone from podium to the level below (senior academy) you either progress up the ladder or you are out. Harsh but just the way it is. The riders are not funded because they are the best the UK has to offer but because they either are or have the potential to be the best in the world.

I'm not up on track stuff - is there anyone in the team that's better at her events?

bottom line is we should always try and gain qualification by using the best team at every opportunity and fill the quota with the fastest riders in the country each of whom whould be either funded or have the option to self fund if considered "less good". To do anything else is ridiculous.

At the moment no, but in 4 years probably

The team has had issues for a while partly due to Becky James being injured who is their top sprinter but they've struggled more than that. Katy Marchant has transitioned from Hepthathlon and made good progress and looks a good prospect for the future, Victoria Williamson had a really bad crash at a 6 day race over the winter, Shanaze Reade seems to be targetting Tokyo in 2020. Jess Varnish was (and is still) the best 'man 1' out of that group, but that team isn't good enough.

The mens team sprint actually had similar issues in the lead up to the London games - they were misfiring and went through a lot of options and riders ended up losing their funding too - they eventually managed to get Philip Hindes in from Germany and things clicked. The pool of sprint talent for UK women is not great at the moment, there are some juniors who will hopefully make the step up in the next couple of years but there is no-one in the senior academy (the level below podium). The lack of females there (there are 4 men at that level) might seem like the result of sexism favouring male athletes but the truth is the riders are just not good enough.

Totally agree with you on fielding the best team to get the points required for qualification, there are plenty of other opportunities to bring in new blood but first you've got to be at the games to have a chance of winning a medal!

i'm not sure would apply to Jess Varnish, she seems to have stagnated a bit.

+1

We spend a lot of money on funding sport in this country so rightly the people paying the bills expect results.

We spend a lot of money on funding sport in this country so rightly the people paying the bills expect results.

We do?

Why are some people discussing money and results?

They're utterly irrelevant.

I guess for legal cover the rebranded ctc is an option? As for supporting racing, I gave the Racing Chance Foundation the money I would have spent on a BC race licence. Road focused, but they've done more for women's cycling in a year as BC have done in its lifetime.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2016/04/pro-xc-racer-jenny-copnall-speaks-out-at-british-cycling/ ]The plot thickens.[/url]

Which is why I support women like Nicole Cooke who speak out about

Bang on Ransos!

I am not well enough informed on the current performance levels of the track squads including Jess to comment on her ability to get a medal in Rio. So maybe Jess has stagnated and the belief is she will not improve in the next four years in Tokyo and lottery funding is best spent elsewhere. I understand that and that difficult decisions have to be made

What I find a bit odd is that her contract is up now. I would have expected it to cover the Olympic cycle and finish on say, 1st September not just a few months before Rio.

is she really saying she is good enough? Her statement doesn't appear to use any obvious evidence that she is.

[i]During the 2 year Olympic qualifying process, I gained more qualifying points than any other British female sprint rider. I was consistently performing in the top 5 in the World for Lap 1 times in the Team Sprint, and I have also qualified Olympic places in the individual Sprint and Keirin. Since 2012 I have won medals at the World & European Championships and Commonwealth Games.[/i]

erm...

British "skinny wheels and lycra" Cycling... Anything else and they aren't interested..

MTB and BMX would be better to ditch them and set something else up instead.

erm...

yes but is that the criteria used to determine Rio selection?
It sounds good, of course, but if the criteria is something else, some other measure, then it doesn't matter how good it sounds.

Since 2012 I have won medals at the World & European Championships and Commonwealth Games.

In the last 4 years she's medalled (sorry) at all these events. Under any selection process that's a winning athlete, no?

but if the criteria is something else, some other measure

It would appear that all she needed was a smaller arse... 🙄

From the whole of this debacle, I'm pretty tempted to not renew my BC membership when it lapses. Any alternatives?

CTC or Cycling UK as they are now known.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/36145949 ]British Cycling to form independent review after claims of sexism[/url]

Be interested to see how independent and open it is...

In the last 4 years she's medalled (sorry) at all these events. Under any selection process that's a winning athlete, no?

It's a little misleading and sounds more impressive than it is.

The stand out results in the last couple of years are in events where the field was weak. Eg, Commonwealth games - a small field with a huge variation in ability then more recently the Hong Kong round of the world cup. The top nations sent their B teams because they had already qualified for the Olympics (which is of course what GB should have been doing and where her criticism has a lot of merit - although the team did have ample opportunity to right things before it came to a head in London, however they were just not good enough when it mattered.)

That has been the big problem - in the big events where the opposition is of the standard expected at the Olympics then the results have been pretty poor. Both in team sprint and individual events - struggling to make quarter finals and so on. The BC track squad is the most well funded and resourced team about so those sorts of performances have not been acceptable. When the team sprint team didnt make the Olympics then her role in the squad was redundant. It is harsh but that is the nature of elite sport particularly when nearly all of the funding is based on medal return.

Sutton suspended says BBC

It's not really about Sutton though is it? It obviously goes much deeper than that.

Lets hope that review has some decent insight and teeth.

Aye.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/36147120 ]Sutton suspended, says the BBC[/url]

Only met him once and he seemed an utterly straight-up guy. Let's hope there's a investigation to sort things one way or another.

Hmmm, it's going to be trial by media and lots of "he said, she said" in the news... I am not sure what sort of conclusions people are looking for, that Sutton is a bit of a bigot? Maybe, or should the organisations culture be examined a bit more closely to consider how such behaviour has (apparently) gone unchallenged...

Quite apart from Varnish's experience I have to admit that I'm a bit uncomfortable with the implications for women's (and other minority groups) cycling. People tend not to thrive in an environment where they don't feel valued or encouraged, it's a bit chicken and egg, knock someone enough and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, certain "incremental gains" happen in an athletes head...
I accept that is all a bit speculative though TBH...

Beyond all of this is BC still the organisation the majority of its membership still want it to be?
It was touched on earlier, it's becoming seen as an Olympic medal machine. That's not all it is but there is a big focus on competition, and Olympic success is visible and does drive cycling in general and BC's profile to a far greater extent than it did at the turn of the century...

From the BBC article:

In the Mail report, Darren Kenny, one of Britain's most decorated para-cyclists, claims he heard members of the British disability team referred to in highly derogatory terms by Sutton.

"The attitude towards them was abysmal," said Kenny. "We were tolerated at best. The term used to refer to us was generally 'gimps', with another word in front of that.

There is a fine line between success and failure, I would never what Brad, Chris et all have to say about both Shane and the culture ..

I fear my comments that it was Jess with sour grapes may well prove to be entirely inaccurate here, my bad.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out, there is no doubt that BC is a brutal and cutthroat environment, that is what you need to get the success it has done. In the wider world, seen out of context, that may not come across very well at all. However, that is no excuse for bullying and for what looks like some pretty nasty discrimination too, the question is how deep in the organisation it runs.

Interestingly, in some Oz circles, I think they're welcoming the discord in BC. They haven't written Varnish off as a competitor yet.

I think there should be a separation of the selection and coaching bodies. Not all athletes fit a particular method of coaching (Graeme Obree being a good example), so if there were alternative bodies or self coaching it would be better.

The selection body could dictate what events were acceptable for qualification and ensure that entries were open to suitably qualified people, ie ensure that it was open.

It was touched on earlier, it's becoming seen as an Olympic medal machine. That's not all it is but there is a big focus on competition, and Olympic success is visible and does drive cycling in general and BC's profile to a far greater extent than it did at the turn of the century...

That's a function of lottery money, though; if the majority of funding rides on potential medal winners, then winning medals becomes all important. Didn't swimming lose a lot of funding after a poor olympics?

@lunge does it need to be a cutthroat environment? I'm not even sure it is. You only have to look at the successes of people outside of it to for proof.

It sounds more like it's being run like an old boys club and is very "cliquey". Every story trashing BC has a common element of them trying to save face by pretty much banning athletes who are outside their system from competing. Why are they so insistent on not allowing self funded athletes to compete if it's not to save face?

Sport should be about the best athletes having a shot. Ideally with no detriment to the other athletes. BC seem to only want their athletes to have a shot. And even then, only the ones who toe their line.

You don't get funding if you are'nt a potential olympic medal winner.
But you can't develop to become an olympic medal winner without funding.
Mmmm.

TBH, it feels like gobshite Aussie coach didn't like what happened after chippy track rider felt she'd been badly done by in the run up to Olympics and then decided to boot her out (sorry, not renew the contract). She'd have kept it zipped after the booting had Sutton not done a piece for a paper in direct contradiction of his verbal agreement with Jess Varnish. If you were Varnish you'd be concerned that any private funding you might have been banking on to get could dry up if the papers are full of how you're not good enough.

Had it been performance based she'd have had warning I'm sure though. Once you've got to a few months out of the Olympics, she's already hoovered up most of the cash from the lottery for that cycle (pardon the pun) so there's no reason she couldn't have gone given she's qualified for certain other track disciplines.

Problem with having a pissed off employee with access to the press is all the other shit you didn't want aired in public tends to flood out. At the very least Sutton needs a slap for his managing of the situation but if all (or even half) of the allegations are true he needs to be fired.

Considering the reaction from most of the pro/ex pro women who have dealt with BC it's looking more and more like a shambles and a who you know set up. Most are very happy to see this all come out.

This

""The attitude towards them was abysmal," said Kenny. "We were tolerated at best. The term used to refer to us was generally 'gimps', with another word in front of that."

Would be instant dismissal in any normal company / institution .

What a vile man he is turning out to be .

Considering the reaction from most of the pro/ex pro women who have dealt with BC it's looking more and more like a shambles and a who you know set up.

Yes, there does seem to be a pattern in the comments made by them. Given that we're talking about multi-gold medallists, I doubt it's sour grapes.

I think there should be a separation of the selection and coaching bodies.

This. The discretionary nature of selection stinks. If you're not on their program you've got no chance, even more so if you start beating riders who are on their program!

"I fear my comments that it was Jess with sour grapes may well prove to be entirely inaccurate here, my bad."

You and several others appear to have gone down the route of assuming it was just one female athlete feeling hard done by and lashing out. Now appears you were wrong. But at least you've accepted that. I think quite a few others need to do similar.

Sutton has now refuted claims made by Varnish, but he does seem to be on the back foot; if he truly had done nothing wrong, surely he'd not be saying anything and leaving it to BC. Speaking out now makes him look like he's got something to hide imo.

And rather embarrassingly, he's actually unwittingly done himself more harm than good, with this statement:

"Jess is a wonderful girl, a beautiful person"

Seems he's actually totally unaware of just how patronising and sexist he is! 'Girl'? Jess is an adult woman ffs. 'Beautiful person'? What does that mean? Would he say that about a male athlete? I doubt it.

Many on here seemed keen to just brush aside any notion that sexism exists in BC. I wonder how they'd feel if it were racism that was the issue? Just shows the extent of the problem that is Sexism in our society, and just how much work (sadly) still needs to be done.

suspect Sutton is just the (rather unpleasant) tip of a rather large Iceberg here 🙁

Sadly, I suspect you're probably right, Iainc.

You and several others appear to have gone down the route of assuming it was just one female athlete feeling hard done by and lashing out

Didn't swimming lose a lot of funding after a poor olympics?

hmmm, and didn't they employ an Aussie Coach with "limited" interpersonal skills to coach the team with decidedly mixed results!

seems a well trod path...

I can see how, from even a successful competitor position it would be difficult to sound alarm bells when a team (BC) is on the face of it "a good news story"...

The Americans run a very simple Olymlic selection system, they have a trial.

Lottery money provides a lot of benefits but imho it raises the "temperature" as aside from coaching and facilities it provides athletes with the money they live on.

This incident and the suspension is not going to help us at Rio, if we don't perform as a cycling team overall funding could be cut potentially dramatically