British Cycling has signed a long-term partnership that will bring wide-ranging support and investment from Shell UK as a new Official Partner. The ag ...
By stwhannah
Get the full story on our front page at:
);min-height:50px">
We need your support - Find out how you can help by clicking the button below.
Is this story an April Fool's joke?
Is this story an April Fool’s joke?
I thought similar. Apparently, in 2005 Shell were the most ethical oil company in the world. And we all know the huge strides they are making towards net-zero because they keep telling us.
I think they should see if Lance is available to lead this marvelous initiative
Does stw not want to make a statement on this one? No?
I mean, yes, Shell are a business and we live in a capitalist society, so there's that. But come on British Cycling, read the room, eh?
And as for being 'the most ethical oil company in the world'... pretty low bar, surely?
Finally, I own and drive a car. I'm aware of my own hypocrisy.
Blimey, desperate or what !
Are we still not allowed to cycle on the same day as funerals for people we've never met?
BC are trying to outdo the Tories for great PR...
I saw this and have requested to cancel my membership, this was the straw that broke the camel's back after the queen's funeral mess..A shame after 10+ years but they seem to making so many missteps, CyclingUk seem to meet my needs.
Do CyclingUk offer accident/legal cover akin to BC (Leigh day)? That's the main reason I have/had BC membership, the CUK website mentions a legal advice line but is a little inconclusive.
Good grief.
Grim.
apply Shell’s world-leading lubricant technology to support the Great Britain Cycling Team in their quest for gold
Well I found this. Maybe they thing British Cycling means motor-bicycling?
https://www.carandbikecare.com/product/shell-chain-lube-bike-care-200-ml/
I think it's quite funny - it's just so completely stupid and inappropriate you couldn't make this up in a David Brent sitcom....
If ever there was a time when they have completely failed to 'read the room' this is it.
Of all the hundreds of companies they could partner with, ones who actually benefit from people cycling, they chose one of the few companies that benefits from people taking the car. The company that is making record profits on fuel while many people are paying through the nose to stay warm.
British cycling - GTFO
I wonder who else they considered as suitable sponsors - GSK?
Do CyclingUk offer accident/legal cover akin to BC (Leigh day)?
Yes: https://www.cycle-sos.co.uk/cycling-uk-incident-line/
They also have a very active campaign team - many full-time and a fully supported local advocacy network (of which I am one).
Oh BC.
Really odd move. I want to read a little before making the decision but strongly suspect I'll be cancelling my membership and joining CyclingUK instead.
And as for being ‘the most ethical oil company in the world’… pretty low bar, surely?
I should have made my tongue-in-cheekness more obvious. 😀
Do CyclingUk offer accident/legal cover akin to BC (Leigh day)? That’s the main reason I have/had BC membership, the CUK website mentions a legal advice line but is a little inconclusive.
Yes - but with a caution. There was a thread about this a while back, and I realised I had got the wrong end of the stick previously about what you got with both BC and CUK - both is effectively a no win no fee injury service. i.e. if you have an accident and it's only your bike that gets squished they are not interested in assisting you. They make their money from their cut of your injury pay out so with no injury there is no fee so they can't help. Both offer you 3rd party liability which is worth it imo.
But yes, I think that seals it for me. Cycling is a funny old thing - part sport, part mode of travel (be that commute or recreational). It gets blurred by people interested in the former also doing or being passionate about the latter. I guess there is no particular reason why cycling the sport should be any more ethically aware than any other sport whilst cycling the mode of transport has a very positive ethical/sustainable angle to its purpose and messaging. And with this sponsorship deal, British Cycling are confirmed as completely in the sport camp with very little interest in the broader context. Which is fine if that's what they think they are for.
But that's not me anymore, and not most people too in reality. They just need to keep their heads down and not pretend in any way they speak for the everyday cyclist. CUK need the support, space and voice to do the real work and being the true voice of the cyclist on the streets and the trails and BC can be a rather elitist niche irrelevance in the bigger picture.
That's the sane response. What I really wanted to type was - you ****ing stupid tossers.
British Cycling are confirmed as completely in the sport camp with very little interest in the broader context
Exactly. This is not a surprise at all based on their previous not-even-half-baked attempts at advocacy related work.
Talk about out of touch..... Talk about just taking the money... Surely STW can comment?
Absolute classic sportswashing. "ooooo, look how green we are. We sponsor cycling."
maybe it was this or loose BC? on the flip side im guessing they will be able to utilise all the BC members as carbon offset so it makes them extra green?
I’d be interested to know where all the people on this thread get the fuel for their cars from.
The multi choice answer really needs
"No. This reinforces why I am a member of CUK instead".
Greenwashing!
I don't own a car.
The multi choice answer really needs
“No. This reinforces why I am a member of CUK instead”.
+1
I’d be interested to know where all the people on this thread get the fuel for their cars from.
Pretty sure mine comes from Grangemouth. Courtesy of Ineos?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177
So the BBC report record profits for Shell and BP - in fact its that much they wont disclose the figures, but its ok they support British Cycling so they must be ok.
I’d be interested to know where all the people on this thread get the fuel for their cars from.
I really don't see the relevance...
A cycling organisation taking money from big oil is still just daft and *hopefully* commercial suicide (once the Shell money runs out).
tjagain
Full Member
Greenwashing!I don’t own a car.
I agree with TJ, in a recently car-free again sanctimonious way.
I’d be interested to know where all the people on this thread get the fuel for their cars from.
Asda its consistently the cheapest.
Im not bothered by this, I dont really see Shell as any better or worse then HSBC. Both parties are only in it for the PR and cash so lets not climb too far up our high horses. There is no such thing as green big business, its all marketing. Im sure HSBC and other banks lend money to a wide range of ecologically unsound businesses so what difference does it really make. It’s not as if cycling is a green sport. All that carbon fibre, all the emissions from travel not to mention the vast number of vehicles that follow any peloton round the country.
Im sure HSBC and other banks lend money to a wide range of ecologically unsound businesses so what difference does it really make.
It is possible to make a stand at some point. To say, hold on, we've had the dubious HSBC but now you're going even further with the frankly appalling Shell. Or should we just shrug and allow them to do whatever they want. Sometimes small actions can develop into bigger things. A lot of people cancelling BC memberships might just make them think about what they are doing.
Cycling is a funny old thing – part sport, part mode of travel (be that commute or recreational). It gets blurred by people interested in the former also doing or being passionate about the latter. I guess there is no particular reason why cycling the sport should be any more ethically aware than any other sport whilst cycling the mode of transport has a very positive ethical/sustainable angle to its purpose and messaging. And with this sponsorship deal, British Cycling are confirmed as completely in the sport camp with very little interest in the broader context. Which is fine if that’s what they think they are for.
Well put. It's why I'm a Cycling UK member, although I do believe that people who discover bikes through sport are likely to become transport cyclists. I didn't start out as a transport cyclist either. I was engaged in the first place by the sport side of it.
And with this sponsorship deal, British Cycling are confirmed as completely in the sport camp with very little interest in the broader context. Which is fine if that’s what they think they are for.
I would disagree that it's fine. Cycling as a sport needs roads to train on without car drivers putting riders' lives at risk 'making progress', clean air to breathe...
If people take a breath for a moment, it might be worth looking at what the deal actually offers BC. If it's significant investment, opportunities to improve cycling in the UK from an Elite and amateur level along with infrastructure etc, then great. Nobody moaned about having a deal with HSBC with all of their suspect money laundering scandals/involvement in people losing their homes during 2008.
Like it or not, we live in a capitalist world where not every company has the budget to invest massive chucks of cash in charities. I'm sure if BC signed a deal with Facebook everyone would be squealing 'data theft etc.' Unfortunately, most 'green' companies won't have the budget or the balance sheet for big sponsorship deals. I'd rather see millions of Shells profits going to British Cycling than fund managers.
As for the lube claims - Shell's tech labs in NL are huge. If they can come up with a synthetic fuel that'll power a Ferrari F1 car, sure they'll be able to make a chain lube that'll save 0.5 watts.
Regardless of your personal circumstances (FYI - fossil fuels are still needed to build both Tesla's and wind turbines, and let's not get started on the mess colbalt and lithium mining makes), fossil fuels are going to be in the energy mix for a while until we find other raw materials and embrace nuclear, is if that's the case, why is it so unacceptable for the companies to try and do some good? I'd add that Shell/BP etc don't set the price of gas or oil, that's traded on the spot markets. Most oil companies are hedged at c. $70 bbl and <100p/therm. The people making the killings are the traders...
Incredible.
Did no one at BC sense check what that would do to their brand?
I think that will kill them off, i dont think it will stand.
A lot of people cancelling BC memberships might just make them think about what they are doing.
I doubt thats a contract they can wriggle out of after the fact.
Did no one at BC sense check what that would do to their brand?
And after the Queenie crap, you'd really think they'd be on the look out for own goals!
I guess the cheque was quite large....
This is going to hit BC sooner than they realise. I have been a race commissaire with them for some years, and at the regional & national level all of BC's commissaires and accredited marshals are unpaid volunteers (other than basic expenses to cover mileage etc.). There is no way I will be giving up my time to wear oil company branding while officiating at races, and I suspect many others will feel the same. They may have just inadvertently killed grassroots racing in the UK.
Well, they've won me round. Maybe it's time to take a fresh look... at Shell.
Everything is shades of green.
I have a copy of our work publications, written by one of our founders a certain Sir David Attenborough, one sponsored by an oil company and another by a plastic packaging company...but this was back in 1980's. EDIT: I also have two forwarded by Chris Packham and Michaela Strachan, both paid for by the plastic packaging company....
However, at some point a line must be drawn and ethical concerns addressed. As an environmental education organisation, my own employer decided to make a stand. We now have a clear policy around this - and have actioned it about 3 years ago.
We ended some sponsorships we had for a few/many years. We could not ethically or morally, and would have been attacked in the press, by continuing working with obviously un-ethical or non-environmentally positive companies who were so opposed to our values. Two were energy/oil & gas companies, one a chemical company (with a strong advertising aimed at 'eco' and 'sustainable' and 'kids outdoors'), one has some dodgy practices in developing nations. We also ended an arrangement from one our founding sponsors and trustees for free meeting room space in central London - because taking people to Shell's(!) office was not appropriate. We are not perfect, and we work in shades of green - but we decided such blatant hypocrisy was not appropriate.
We still work with two gambling organisations. Postcode Lottery and National Lottery. Shades of grey now.
Interestingly, one of our competitors 'stepped in' to work with one of the oil and gas companies, announced it in the press. Cue much protest and the CEO stepping down and the arrangement being cancelled....
I cannot see how BC are able to make this one stick in the current climate. It seems incredible and the most crass of decisions. I am amazed it has got through the management team and trustees.
Isn't the best partnership when you put both names together, but money is required and if (and it is a big if) it is invested to help all (competitive cyclists at all levels across the whole country) then it'll be ok...it will be a huge amount of money though and you don't get that by being a small company. BC have no interest in noncompetitive cycling so for those not involved in that arena then they are unlikely to see any real benefits.
As said, it is needed despite not being overly impressed with it, I'm thinking it hopefully will work for the best.
Can we add to the poll?
5 - I was a member, but have already left disillusioned.
6 - I am a member, but plan on resigning it now.
Team Ineos: Behold our spectacularly unethical and antithetical to cycling sponsor!
BC: Hold my oil barrel.
My personal 2p (not The Voice of STW, I’m actually supposed to be off sick today!)… I’m not sure that there are many/any corporate sponsors with the kind of cash that BC will need who would pass an ethics test. Corporate sponsors are always going to be problematic, though there are certainly degrees. Cycle racing has plenty of questionable sponsors though, so it’s not really a huge surprise that this should get the OK at a corporate level.
I’ve long since thought the Cycling UK does more to further the interests of ‘active travel’ type cycling, the normalisation of riding bikes, and defending/increasing the rights of access that is so important to mountain bikers. It’s them that are pursuing points of principle and policy through the courts to further the interests of people on bikes. But, if you want to do the ‘sport’ side of things at a certain level, BC is your only option. I wonder how badly BC needs all those memberships of non-racers, but I can’t really see them reneging on the deal now it’s done. I don’t see how race organisers, clubs etc can dis-affiliate without losing access to points/support/insurance etc?
They may have just inadvertently killed grassroots racing in the UK.
It seems like quite a lot of grassroots racing in the UK has been happening in spite of BC for a while (see Jason’s column in Issue 125!). I hope it doesn’t kill it off, but maybe finds some other way to make it happen?
You don't really need to not drive to see that this feels a bit "off". I mean I sometimes have to take medicine and I eat pretty regularly but I'm more than aware that Pharma and Agri businesses have a pretty poor track record for both pollution and unethical business practices, and i'd want neither anywhere near anything that needed sponsorship. You can't help but feel Shell have got the better deal from this, you can only hope the money is good, eh?
Coming hot off the heels of "Queenie ride-gate", you'd have hoped they'd be less cloth eared. However, It's their business, I don't race and I'm not (and am unlikely to be now) a member.
British Cycling have gone and done a Truss, cue drop in popularity and membership before a statement is released regarding a U turn.
I think Matt's put it very well. It's the shades of grey/green and sense checking where the line is that feels so wide of the mark here. Of course there'll be the black/white obtuse brigade that will come up with the "well how do you lot drive if you don't buy fuel" comments in the same way that they also love to criticise the vegan diet not being free of sin and consequence. No sponsor (or diet) will be beyond reproach - just some are a shade or ten less preferential. But for me this Shell deal is just a stark indication that the 'shadometer' at British Cycling is blind to anything other than the commercial priorities of running an expensive competitive sport infrastructure.
Absolutely staggered by this, not happy in the extreme. But as my MTB coaching and leadership tickets are through them I don’t have an option to not be a member unless I take my badges again through another provider, which would cost me a fortune. Shame on British Cycling for even thinking about this as an appropriate partnership in this day and age.
the british cycling is a joke 8 year with crap what bellends they are and they off they want is the money and run away the plaent needs more help then some shit like some of the people who are top in british cycling do not know what they are doing for me i wood love to race but do the bc bike race in bc do any one agree with me on that.
I wonder how badly BC needs all those memberships of non-racers
My suspicion would be that BC does need them more than they need BC, but maybe only in a numerical way?
Contrast to the FA can claim to represent grass roots football, but their budget is nowhere near the premier leagues. Which means the FA gets access to government, council and wider sponsorship opportunities as well as influence in government.
Do BC need to be able to say "we have a X-million active members" to get a seat at the table otherwise they lose it to CUK?
Whether Shell are looking at this as being a shirt sponsor or whether they have wider plans HSBC/Sky doing the Go-Ride stuff for example.
the british cycling is a joke 8 year with crap what bellends they are and they off they want is the money and run away the plaent needs more help then some shit like some of the people who are top in british cycling do not know what they are doing for me i wood love to race but do the bc bike race in bc do any one agree with me on that.
Those are mostly words.
I know that this looks bad, but really - most of you move yourselves around using oil, and pretty much everything you buy, eat or drink was delivered and/or made with oil at some point. So, sad as it is, we all depend on oil companies. There's no point demonising them.
You should compare oil companies against each other. Which ones are greener than others?
Maybe Shell were prepared to throw far more money at BC (which is a sports body after all) than any other company, and if you want your sport promoted you do need money, don't you?
If BC are happy, then I'm happy.
I'm off to put a couple of gallon of Shell V-Power in the 'ol Carrera Vulcan and get me some of that Helix Ultra sports drink down me gizzard.
And I'll be cycling around the Niger Delta for me holidays, too. If I don't die of toxic oil poisoning, like the locals do.
Molgrips +1 too.
If you want to stop oil companies being oil companies, stop buying oil.
"I know that this looks bad, but really – most of you move yourselves around using oil, and pretty much everything you buy, eat or drink was delivered and/or made with oil at some point. So, sad as it is, we all depend on oil companies. There’s no point demonising them.
You should compare oil companies against each other. Which ones are greener than others?
Maybe Shell were prepared to throw far more money at BC (which is a sports body after all) than any other company, and if you want your sport promoted you do need money, don’t you?"
Its utterly at odds with this.
Does the BC pr team also work for Liz truss? How tone deaf do you have to be to think that this won't back fire on you.
Why not? It's a mutually agreeable agreement.
I'll accept the environmental moan from anyone here not using the petrochemical industry in any way. Other wise stop being a hypocrit.
I don't see that BC has a role of advocacy. Their role is to promote cycle sport.
Moaning and campaigningis the role of CUK who are loosing members to BC because they have lost the plot and care koreabout campaigning than their original brief, touring.
Molgrips+1billion.
If all oil companies had a moral epiphany tomorrow and stopped production forthwith, we would all be dead in a month. No food, water, power, sanitation, drugs etc.
I'm just going to leave this here in the hope that some folks might read it:
https://cognitive-liberty.online/tu-quoque-fallacy-appeal-to-hypocrisy/
If you want to stop oil companies being oil companies, stop buying oil.
I also have concerns about the agricultural industry.
Should I stop eating as well?
I'm tickled at the thought of an organisation so risk averse it won't sanction Enduro races getting into bed with a corporation whose business plan is basically "Cause irreversible man-made climate change, throw up hands, profit". If anyone hasn't seen it then the Joe Lycett versus Shell documentary is excellent viewing: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/joe-lycett-vs-the-oil-giant
It's no worse than ineos sponsoring a cycling team and mercedes F1 though is it?
Until you all give up cars, electric gas, plastic etc no one has the moral high ground
Plus if oil and gas were mega cheap right now I doubt anyone would give a toss
The main problem with oil companies is not so much that they produce hydrocarbons. As others have said, we need them.
It's the years of lies, followed by a lot of, 'OK, we promise to tell the truth from now on!' followed by years of lies, followed by 'OK, we promise to tell the truth from now on!', followed by years of lies...
BC is just helping them with their current round of lies and should just **** off and die, as far as I'm concerned.
And this is said as someone who spent 15 years in offshore drilling. I can tell you that if you knew even a tiny fraction of the shit they get up to even in a supposedly safe and regulated place like the North Sea you wouldn't be painting them as our quirky misunderstood friend.
These companies are scum.
Nobody moaned about having a deal with HSBC with all of their suspect money laundering scandals/involvement in people losing their homes during 2008.
They absolutely did, on a thread just like this
I also have concerns about the agricultural industry.
Should I stop eating as well?
Do you have a problem with food production in general?
If so then yes absolutely.
Alternatively if you're being melodramatic to make a point and don't think starvation is the only alternative to the worst aspects of agribusiness, just cut out the bad bits and go vegan and locally sourced organic foods.
It’s no worse than ineos sponsoring a cycling team and mercedes F1 though is it?
That has no relevance to this discussion. Neither does all the other 'whataboutery' that's being bandied about.
Although, to play devil's advocate, perhaps it IS worse, after all...
BC is, for want of a better term, am umbrella organisation that many folk have to subscribe to - and hence implicitly endorse - if they want to keep racing. The same cannot be said of Ineos and Mercedes...
Double posted...
The fuss about HSBC is part of the reason that this is so shocking (but not surprising).
And to answer a few comments above:
- they won't U-turn
- this was clearly tied up before Royalfuneralgate anyway
- this makes absolutely clear that anything they do apart from sport is purely window dressing
Alternatively if you’re being melodramatic to make a point and don’t think starvation is the only alternative to the worst aspects of agribusiness, just cut out the bad bits and go vegan and locally sourced organic foods.
OK, how do I ensure that I don't use hydrocarbons, either directly on indirectly.
Oh yeah, that's right. I can't. The use of hydrocarbons is so interwoven with the fabric of our society that you use hydrocarbons or you die.
So what you're saying is that if I'm alive then my argument is invalid because Iam a hypocrite. Good to know.
Personally, I don't blame the oil companies. It would be like getting angry at the flu virus that was coursing through your system. Oil companies are just behaving the way they are always going to behave.
What allows them to behave like this is organisations like BC that act as a spokesperson for their lies and helps them greenwash their actions.
BC and others like it are the problem.
If all oil companies had a moral epiphany tomorrow and stopped production forthwith, we would all be dead in a month. No food, water, power, sanitation, drugs etc.
Do you not think it's just a bit inappropriate for the UK body responsible for the most efficient and eco means of transport to be sponsored by a company spending millions lobbying to maintain the status quo and destroy the planet through fossil fuels? Not even a little bit?
We are supposed to be transitioning away from fossil fuels not providing cover for companies diametrically opposed to that transition.
(Cough) greenwashing, next they’ll be punting shell broadband and all the rest with the BC membership e mails.
Gave up my BC when they stopped the young ones earning points at BMX
OK, how do I ensure that I don’t use hydrocarbons, either directly on indirectly.
Oh yeah, that’s right. I can’t. The use of hydrocarbons is so interwoven with the fabric of our society that you use hydrocarbons or you die.
No, you're just being daft.
Yes an infinitesimally small amount of hydrocarbons goes into making medical products or some such worthy cause. But back in the real world you probably use more every time you fill your car up than a lifetimes supply of paracetamol, cannulas wiring insulation, etc, etc. Sure your food will still have arrived at the supermarket in a truck, but it's probably less CO2 in a year than a single trip to a trail center with a bike in the car.
Stop bleating "but what can I do?" and just do it.
No, you’re just being daft.
I'm not the one (or one of the ones) who started bleating that people who *gasp* use hydrocarbons are complaining that an oil company is now sponsoring BC.
It was you guys who decided to create this impossible barrier to clear before you're even allowed to say anything.
Sorry, but if you're going to introduce ridiculous arguments then you should expect things to get a bit stupid.
And by the way, the majority of hydrocarbons aren't burned in personal vehicles so unless pixies steal the rest I think you'll find that you're using hydrocarbons in pretty much every facet of your life.
That has no relevance to this discussion
Sure ineos are saintly white & the grenadiers have nowt to do with British Cycling 😆
Cycling tips nails them to the mast...
I don’t see that BC has a role of advocacy. Their role is to promote cycle sport.
Moaning and campaigningis the role of CUK who are loosing members to BC because they have lost the plot and care koreabout campaigning than their original brief, touring.
I'll accept your first and second sentences but the rest? Source please.
I've never seen a thread moaning about CUK, I have seen plenty with folk saying they're going to ditch BC or switch to CUK.
This is like free gym membership from Imperial Tobacco.