CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling
Comments
-
I think having separate standards in anti-doping makes the sport look dafter than having 17 bottom bracket standards.
The MPCC standards are stricter than WADA but are only used by teams as PR because they can just choose to quit as and when it suits them.0 -
I agree completely. The MPCC should get rid of their rules and membership and act as an inclusive lobby group on behalf of all teams. They could have had tramadol and OOC cortisone banned across the board by now. They could also audit the performance on CADF.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:I think having separate standards in anti-doping makes the sport look dafter than having 17 bottom bracket standards.
The MPCC standards are stricter than WADA but are only used by teams as PR because they can just choose to quit as and when it suits them.
Instead it's veterans of the turn of the millennium years awarding themselves badges of cleanliness.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.0 -
Pross wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.
Couldn't agree more. It's political correctness gone mad, where you end up employing someone less suitable for a role base on outside factors.0 -
sherer wrote:Pross wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.
Couldn't agree more. It's political correctness gone mad, where you end up employing someone less suitable for a role base on outside factors.
Dead right. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. The best person for the job.0 -
says 3 men... :roll:0
-
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:sherer wrote:Pross wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.
Couldn't agree more. It's political correctness gone mad, where you end up employing someone less suitable for a role base on outside factors.
Dead right. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. The best person for the job.
You guys aren't very experienced in this topic, are you?
Feel free to take it to cake stop - this isn't the thread for it, but the body of evidence from the private and public sector suggests you guys are on the wrong side of the argument.
(some of us live with these delicate questions professionally, and rules around discrimination can have profound impacts on the way some of us make a living)0 -
FFS lads, just wait till I tell you about the glass ceiling, it'll blow your minds0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:
Feel free to take it to cake stop - this isn't the thread for it, but the body of evidence from the private and public sector suggests you guys are on the wrong side of the argument.
(some of us live with these delicate questions professionally, and rules around discrimination can have profound impacts on the way some of us make a living)
Indeed - it's been shown that companies with a more balanced senior leadership are shown to have better profit margins than those with all-male boards...0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:FFS lads, just wait till I tell you about the glass ceiling, it'll blow your minds
*like*
Since the forum doesn't have a 'like' button.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
http://inrng.com/2017/03/sky-tue-episte ... -unknowns/
Inrng's take. Didn't know where to post this as there seems to be a lot of threads now...Like it or not we’re stuck on questions of image, faith and trust. If you think the Jiffy Bag contained a banned substance then there’s currently no evidence to make you change your mind. If you think the Jiffy Bag contained a legal substance then there’s currently no evidence to make you change your mind. The absence of conclusive proof leaves people to judge for themselves and argue the toss. This alone is problematic for Sky, both the team entity and the corporate sponsor, as they’ve lost control of the story.0 -
You know it occurs to me that the Fancy Bears, whichever branch of the KGB that actually is, must be so delighted at what they've achieved. When did you last see anything about systematic state-sponsored Russian doping in the news?0
-
Most cycling observers didn't notice Ekimov being made head of the Russian Federation.bompington wrote:You know it occurs to me that the Fancy Bears, whichever branch of the KGB that actually is, must be so delighted at what they've achieved. When did you last see anything about systematic state-sponsored Russian doping in the news?Twitter: @RichN950 -
bompington wrote:You know it occurs to me that the Fancy Bears, whichever branch of the KGB that actually is, must be so delighted at what they've achieved. When did you last see anything about systematic state-sponsored Russian doping in the news?
I just heard about it on 5live. Apparently things are moving in the right direction, but not very quickly.0 -
sherer wrote:Pross wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.
Couldn't agree more. It's political correctness gone mad, where you end up employing someone less suitable for a role base on outside factors.
Sport is problematic because while some sports are dominated by women in terms of participation lots are dominated by men. I know this is the bleedin' obvious but you would then expect the governance structures of that sport to be governed by the same sex - so my football club is dominated by boys teams (with 3 girls sides, no senior women), nearly all the coaches are men (possibly all) and all the people that sit on the club committee are men (I think). The only real way to get many women higher up the sport is to make it easier for them to be promoted or parachute them in from outside.
At the same time though the upshot of that is the decisions made by those governance structures are not getting a female perspective. The football team I coach is female, I'm pretty sure we tend to get given smaller pitches than the boys sides and it's something I'm keeping an eye on with a view to making a complaint. It wouldn't surprise me if the groundsman simply thinks female youth players are less physical and so should play on smaller pitches than boys - it's a point of view but not one shared by me or my players. It's anecdotal but similar bias played out on a national level does help perpetuate the imbalance in participation.
As far as netball being dominated by females goes though it's an awful sport and the women are welcome to it - watched my daughter play a fair bit and you can't get near an opponent without being blown up for contact, much to my daughter's chagrin, they tend not to take kindly to her haranguing the ref either.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Welsh Cycling have a hockey player on their board. Every board should have a hockey player on it.Pross wrote:Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Welsh Cycling have a hockey player on their board. Every board should have a hockey player on it.Pross wrote:Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.
I have a dart board going free....................................."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
If anyone wants some facts about discrimination I can provide terabytes of research.
Ive come to believe that there is a lot of discrimination in the job market still. it's not all about equality there's also a lot of subtle social engineering going on. So called liberal views and globalisation.
When tech companies talk about diversity they're thinking of their customers . They talk about diversity and really mean women and millenials. Go hire them.0 -
The BBC have carried out a number of alterations to that article.
Nothing to do with the majority of the 400+ comments underneath, mind."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Rodrego Hernandez wrote:sherer wrote:Pross wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.
Couldn't agree more. It's political correctness gone mad, where you end up employing someone less suitable for a role base on outside factors.
Dead right. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. The best person for the job.
You guys aren't very experienced in this topic, are you?
Feel free to take it to cake stop - this isn't the thread for it, but the body of evidence from the private and public sector suggests you guys are on the wrong side of the argument.
(some of us live with these delicate questions professionally, and rules around discrimination can have profound impacts on the way some of us make a living)
How is it not on topic? The OP was listing the BC 'sexism scandal' as one of the topics his is about. I'm more than happy for cycling to be run by an entirely female board if they are the best people who apply but I don't see the benefit to anyone if an exceptional male candidate is overlooked in favour of a less suitable woman because the quota requires a female to be appointed. I've seen your previous comments on these issues about redressing the balance and how white men don't need assistance as they aren't discriminated against and understand the point but I still don't see how appointing an inferior candidate based on sex / colour is anything other than demeaning to them. If either of my daughters or four sisters got a job on the basis of them being the best female candidate rather than the best candidate I suspect they'd be disappointed. Also, if you are the best candidate there'll be that possibility you'd wonder if you really were the best available or you just fitted a quota requirement.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:sherer wrote:Pross wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Women quotas not being met:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Key findings - the bad
Of the 68 governing bodies, just under half (33) do not currently meet the 30% target in terms of women on the board
For 2016 these included British Cycling, Rugby Football League, England and Wales Cricket Board, Rugby Football Union and the Football Association.
However, the article also states............
The good
England Netball's board is 90% women, 60% of its senior leadership positions are filled by women and of all its leadership positions, 80% are female.
Aside from the obvious double standards alluded to here am I the only person who thinks the people running sport should be those best suited to the role? If a sport is best run by a 100% male board, 100% female board or somewhere in between shouldn't be an issue as long as it can be demonstrated appointments are made based on the candidate having the best credentials. Having quotas is absurd.
Couldn't agree more. It's political correctness gone mad, where you end up employing someone less suitable for a role base on outside factors.
Sport is problematic because while some sports are dominated by women in terms of participation lots are dominated by men. I know this is the bleedin' obvious but you would then expect the governance structures of that sport to be governed by the same sex - so my football club is dominated by boys teams (with 3 girls sides, no senior women), nearly all the coaches are men (possibly all) and all the people that sit on the club committee are men (I think). The only real way to get many women higher up the sport is to make it easier for them to be promoted or parachute them in from outside.
BC's main problem isn't so much with the board, but lower down. It has three appointed directors - including two women, and the rest are elected from the regional boards and the home country federations at the AGM. Votes are allocated based on a region's percentage share of the membership base, so several regions actually have a larger proportion of the membership than the home countries - a lot of Scottish nationalists won't join BC because it is British, for example. If they don't need a racing licence they'll join the CTC. The regional boards are mainly male, and they appoint national councillors who will vote at the AGM, and again, these are mainly men. Out of just over a hundred votes, there are only maybe ten women. The vast majority of regional boards are also from a road or track background and as BMX, MTB and cyclocross feel disenfranchised because of this, they aren't really represented at the AGM either.
As a result, the AGM is very male dominated, and very old - the average age is around 59 years old, with several councillors in their eighties. Although they'll debate women's issues, especially when it comes to racing, and the few women who are there do make themselves heard (two in the SE region are especially good, extremely knowledgeable about the sport, and would be really good on the board) people aren't willing to disrupt the status quo, fall on their sword, and, especially in the case of the larger regions, would rather have a bloke from their region on the board than a woman from another region, so it's still very parochial. Several regions have mandate meetings the night before, and vote en bloc, and as it's not a secret vote it is soon noticed if someone votes against the regional mandate.
BC has a lot of female staff, both upstairs in the main federation office and downstairs within the performance team, but until the regions decide to change things their hands are tied. However, UK Sport's new Code of Governance may change things and force the organisation to change things otherwise there will be a loss of funding.Commute: Chadderton - Sportcity0 -
Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
You guys aren't very experienced in this topic, are you?
Feel free to take it to cake stop - this isn't the thread for it, but the body of evidence from the private and public sector suggests you guys are on the wrong side of the argument.
(some of us live with these delicate questions professionally, and rules around discrimination can have profound impacts on the way some of us make a living)
How is it not on topic? The OP was listing the BC 'sexism scandal' as one of the topics his is about. I'm more than happy for cycling to be run by an entirely female board if they are the best people who apply but I don't see the benefit to anyone if an exceptional male candidate is overlooked in favour of a less suitable woman because the quota requires a female to be appointed. I've seen your previous comments on these issues about redressing the balance and how white men don't need assistance as they aren't discriminated against and understand the point but I still don't see how appointing an inferior candidate based on sex / colour is anything other than demeaning to them. If either of my daughters or four sisters got a job on the basis of them being the best female candidate rather than the best candidate I suspect they'd be disappointed. Also, if you are the best candidate there'll be that possibility you'd wonder if you really were the best available or you just fitted a quota requirement.
Alright.
Let's do this.entirely female board if they are the best people who apply but I don't see the benefit to anyone if an exceptional male candidate is overlooked in favour of a less suitable woman because the quota requires a female to be appointed.
Why are you assuming 'less suitable women' are being appointed as result of forcing gender diversity on leadership?
It's that kind of assumption that they precisely try to work against.
Let's be clear on what the law in the UK says. The law says the only time gender, race, or any other minority 'diversity' criteria can be considered is when there are two or more equally qualified candidates for the role.
Now, the thinking behind that, is that the current situation is biased, structurally, or unconsciously, whatever, towards the SPM candidates (stale pale male). That bears out in the statistics.
That's all fine.
However, a lot of studies, have since found out beyond much reasonable doubt that diverse leadership, boards, excos, etc, are more likely to perform better; put it simply, by any usual measure of a company's success, diverse boards and Excos do better.
Some of those studies have looked at the example of Norway, which, since 2006, has forced all company boards to be at least 40% women. The findings from looking at Norway have been that it's been extremely successful, particularly for 2 main reasons. 1) company performance, and 2) companies who did not have to adhere to the rules, started voluntarily making more diverse leadership hires.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest as well, that more diverse leadership, beyond providing better quality governance (on average) than homogenous leadership, are more open to innovation, and are, believe it or not, more likely to install a more genuinely meritocratic culture within the business.
So for all those reasons, virtually all senior level hiring at UK corporates will specifically include and demand a focus on improving the diversity of their leadership through their hiring process.
There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that people are naturally biased against women with regard to promotions etc. I can testify to this myself. I spend my day collective confidential references on senior corporate leaders, and while men will be called 'strong, decisive, doesn't take any BS', women will be described as 'pushy and domineering'. This is a daily occurrence.
Lots of Excos and big corporate leaders, as well as exec search firms, are exploring things like unconscious bias training in order to avoid this kind of stuff, because they realise the advantages.
So, in short, the idea that somehow a 100% male leadership of something like British cycling is going to be the most effective leadership possible, to me anyway, (and I deal with this every day), sounds unlikely enough that the chances are, it's b0llocks. And if, in the rare instance that is actually the case, you would need to question what structural problems are present within the organisation that meant it did not produce any effective female leaders.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Alright.
Let's do this.entirely female board if they are the best people who apply but I don't see the benefit to anyone if an exceptional male candidate is overlooked in favour of a less suitable woman because the quota requires a female to be appointed.
Why are you assuming 'less suitable women' are being appointed as result of forcing gender diversity on leadership?
It's that kind of assumption that they precisely try to work against.
And there we have it, you're suggesting I'm saying something I'm not saying presumably because that's what you expected me to say. What I'm saying is that if you set a quota and organisations get criticised for failing to meet it there's a chance that a lesser candidate will get selected. In an 'all other things being equal' situation I have absolutely no issue with diversity being the determining factor.
I would suggest that to get equality you need to work from the bottom up (although can also see that 'role models' at the top are important in achieving that). As an example, I work in Civil Engineering which is traditionally a male dominated industry. As a result, if you were appointing a Board Director at a FTSE Consulting Engineer you would probably have a ratio of maybe 1 woman to 10 men with the level of experience whereas there are proprtiionately far more female graduates entering the industry now than when I started 28 years ago so the same position in 20 years might have a ratio of 1:3. Likewise, it's not a surprise that the netball board is female dominated as not many men are involved in the sport at any level playing, coaching or officiating.
Take South African sport in the 90s for example. Post apartheid they took the laudable step of introducing quotas to get black representation in their national teams to a more balanced level. The problem was the black players hadn't had the opportunity to develop at first class level due to the apartheid restrictions and there just weren't enough able to compete at that level. Quotas got dropped but now the balance is happening naturally.
Just to be 100% clear I'm not suggesting there aren't women out there with the relevant experience and qualifications to fill these positions and I'm not opposed to some 'positive discrimination' to ensure diversity but the reports I have heard have just stated the organisations in question have been criticised for not meeting quotas with no mention of whether suitable candidates have applied and been overlooked.
Edited to add, I feel cycling is one sport where it should be easy to get a balanced Board but as someone pointed out the structure is mainly down to regionally elected members. Welsh Cycling has (had?) a female CEO but there is definitely still the remnants of the old blazer brigade at local level.0 -
Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alright.
Let's do this.entirely female board if they are the best people who apply but I don't see the benefit to anyone if an exceptional male candidate is overlooked in favour of a less suitable woman because the quota requires a female to be appointed.
Why are you assuming 'less suitable women' are being appointed as result of forcing gender diversity on leadership?
It's that kind of assumption that they precisely try to work against.
And there we have it, you're suggesting I'm saying something I'm not saying presumably because that's what you expected me to say. What I'm saying is that if you set a quota and organisations get criticised for failing to meet it there's a chance that a lesser candidate will get selected. In an 'all other things being equal' situation I have absolutely no issue with diversity being the determining factor.
I would suggest that to get equality you need to work from the bottom up (although can also see that 'role models' at the top are important in achieving that). As an example, I work in Civil Engineering which is traditionally a male dominated industry. As a result, if you were appointing a Board Director at a FTSE Consulting Engineer you would probably have a ratio of maybe 1 woman to 10 men with the level of experience whereas there are proprtiionately far more female graduates entering the industry now than when I started 28 years ago so the same position in 20 years might have a ratio of 1:3. Likewise, it's not a surprise that the netball board is female dominated as not many men are involved in the sport at any level playing, coaching or officiating.
Take South African sport in the 90s for example. Post apartheid they took the laudable step of introducing quotas to get black representation in their national teams to a more balanced level. The problem was the black players hadn't had the opportunity to develop at first class level due to the apartheid restrictions and there just weren't enough able to compete at that level. Quotas got dropped but now the balance is happening naturally.
Just to be 100% clear I'm not suggesting there aren't women out there with the relevant experience and qualifications to fill these positions and I'm not opposed to some 'positive discrimination' to ensure diversity but the reports I have heard have just stated the organisations in question have been criticised for not meeting quotas with no mention of whether suitable candidates have applied and been overlooked.
Edited to add, I feel cycling is one sport where it should be easy to get a balanced Board but as someone pointed out the structure is mainly down to regionally elected members. Welsh Cycling has (had?) a female CEO but there is definitely still the remnants of the old blazer brigade at local level.
I mainly found it odd you immediately went to the "exceptional male being overlooked at the expense of a less suitable woman" example. As if that happens a lot. Given the cards are already staked in favour of the male, and then the fact it's not allowed.
And yeah, time lag is an issue. If you heavily discriminate at grad level, in 20 years time you'e not gonna have many from that discriminated intake coming through. Doesn't change any of the above points.
More diverse leadership however, will accelerate the changes, and if we're all agreed that those changes are good and should happen more quickly, then we can agree more diverse leadership is what we want.
There aren't many nations that have quotas for gender diversity in leadership, but as I've already pointed out, those that have implemented them well have seen surprisingly large benefits.
FWIW, the SA argument is a much more difficult one, given that the disparity in things like education etc was so extreme that more pain needed to be had in order to get to a more equal situation.
That's not the case in places like the UK, where the quality of education is fairly similar between the different groups.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pross wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Alright.
Let's do this.entirely female board if they are the best people who apply but I don't see the benefit to anyone if an exceptional male candidate is overlooked in favour of a less suitable woman because the quota requires a female to be appointed.
Why are you assuming 'less suitable women' are being appointed as result of forcing gender diversity on leadership?
It's that kind of assumption that they precisely try to work against.
And there we have it, you're suggesting I'm saying something I'm not saying presumably because that's what you expected me to say. What I'm saying is that if you set a quota and organisations get criticised for failing to meet it there's a chance that a lesser candidate will get selected. In an 'all other things being equal' situation I have absolutely no issue with diversity being the determining factor.
I would suggest that to get equality you need to work from the bottom up (although can also see that 'role models' at the top are important in achieving that). As an example, I work in Civil Engineering which is traditionally a male dominated industry. As a result, if you were appointing a Board Director at a FTSE Consulting Engineer you would probably have a ratio of maybe 1 woman to 10 men with the level of experience whereas there are proprtiionately far more female graduates entering the industry now than when I started 28 years ago so the same position in 20 years might have a ratio of 1:3. Likewise, it's not a surprise that the netball board is female dominated as not many men are involved in the sport at any level playing, coaching or officiating.
Take South African sport in the 90s for example. Post apartheid they took the laudable step of introducing quotas to get black representation in their national teams to a more balanced level. The problem was the black players hadn't had the opportunity to develop at first class level due to the apartheid restrictions and there just weren't enough able to compete at that level. Quotas got dropped but now the balance is happening naturally.
Just to be 100% clear I'm not suggesting there aren't women out there with the relevant experience and qualifications to fill these positions and I'm not opposed to some 'positive discrimination' to ensure diversity but the reports I have heard have just stated the organisations in question have been criticised for not meeting quotas with no mention of whether suitable candidates have applied and been overlooked.
Edited to add, I feel cycling is one sport where it should be easy to get a balanced Board but as someone pointed out the structure is mainly down to regionally elected members. Welsh Cycling has (had?) a female CEO but there is definitely still the remnants of the old blazer brigade at local level.
I mainly found it odd you immediately went to the "exceptional male being overlooked at the expense of a less suitable woman" example. As if that happens a lot. Given the cards are already staked in favour of the male, and then the fact it's not allowed.
And yeah, time lag is an issue. If you heavily discriminate at grad level, in 20 years time you'e not gonna have many from that discriminated intake coming through. Doesn't change any of the above points.
More diverse leadership however, will accelerate the changes, and if we're all agreed that those changes are good and should happen more quickly, then we can agree more diverse leadership is what we want.
There aren't many nations that have quotas for gender diversity in leadership, but as I've already pointed out, those that have implemented them well have seen surprisingly large benefits.
FWIW, the SA argument is a much more difficult one, given that the disparity in things like education etc was so extreme that more pain needed to be had in order to get to a more equal situation.
That's not the case in places like the UK, where the quality of education is fairly similar between the different groups.
Bites tongue0 -
Back to the culture of BC - there was a fair bit of I told you so on here when Jess Varnish's accusations were largely dismissed - the papers today suggest that may have been premature and that the findings of the report which looked at her allegations may have been a whitewash which did not reflect what came out of the investigation.
If that's true then it just compounds the initial offences and points to a clear cultural problem within the organisation. We shall have to wait and see when the latest report is published.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Yep, they've been doing a lot of thatDeVlaeminck wrote:the papers today suggest0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:We shall have to wait and see when the latest report is published.
No need for that, we have Lawtons spin to inform us ...2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner0 -
I'm quite amazed that high pressure environments that need performance may not be very nice places. And that people who rise up the ranks may not be super pleasant.
I mean, I'd be amazed if I lived in a cave and had never had a job in my life.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I'm quite amazed that high pressure environments that need performance may not be very nice places. And that people who rise up the ranks may not be super pleasant.
I mean, I'd be amazed if I lived in a cave and had never had a job in my life.
Absolutely, lets go back to being lovely to one another and shite.0
