CMS hearings into the alleged culture of doping and bullying at British Cycling

DeVlaeminck

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

Don't agree that the criticisms have all come from riders who didn't quite make it - probably the biggest three names in womens cycling over the last couple of decades have been critical.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

Don't agree that the criticisms have all come from riders who didn't quite make it - probably the biggest three names in womens cycling over the last couple of decades have been critical.

I can't remember Laura Trott saying anything - and she's the biggest name of the lot. And Cooke was a road cyclist - her contact with the national federation should be minimal. The fact that is wasn't is because they actually did a lot for her.

I would also suggest (with little knowledge it must be said) that one of the cyclists was actually transposing issues with her father onto her coaches.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

Don't agree that the criticisms have all come from riders who didn't quite make it - probably the biggest three names in womens cycling over the last couple of decades have been critical.

I can't recall Lizzie Deignan being critical :?

blazing_saddles

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

True, but a standard e mail asking for contributions from interested parties is only going to attract those with a negative viewpoint. Never mind one that is loaded.

"Ours" wasn't even deemed worthy of an e mail. Go figure.

Dorset_Boy

And it was sent 2 months before Rio so would hardly have featured highly in the 'Must do' column....

DeVlaeminck

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

True, but a standard e mail asking for contributions from interested parties is only going to attract those with a negative viewpoint. Never mind one that is loaded.

"Ours" wasn't even deemed worthy of an e mail. Go figure.

I don't see why an email should only attract those with negative views - it could be argued that some with criticisms would be reluctant to put their head above the parapet. Yes it could be that those who are satisfied say nothing but the truth is we don't know that it's created a bias one way or the other.

Still it seems that the media are happy to publish opinions both positive and critical of BC so if riders past or present have something to say they have a means of doing so.

sherer

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

True, but a standard e mail asking for contributions from interested parties is only going to attract those with a negative viewpoint. Never mind one that is loaded.

"Ours" wasn't even deemed worthy of an e mail. Go figure.

I don't see why an email should only attract those with negative views - it could be argued that some with criticisms would be reluctant to put their head above the parapet. Yes it could be that those who are satisfied say nothing but the truth is we don't know that it's created a bias one way or the other.

Still it seems that the media are happy to publish opinions both positive and critical of BC so if riders past or present have something to say they have a means of doing so.

You only need to look at review websites to see that when people have an axe to grind they are far more vocal about it. i've left more hotel reviews for places that are bad, than for the decent ones i've stayed in.

cruff

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

True, but a standard e mail asking for contributions from interested parties is only going to attract those with a negative viewpoint. Never mind one that is loaded.

"Ours" wasn't even deemed worthy of an e mail. Go figure.

I don't see why an email should only attract those with negative views - it could be argued that some with criticisms would be reluctant to put their head above the parapet. Yes it could be that those who are satisfied say nothing but the truth is we don't know that it's created a bias one way or the other.

Still it seems that the media are happy to publish opinions both positive and critical of BC so if riders past or present have something to say they have a means of doing so.

In a perfect world, yes. In reality, hardly anyone bothers to spend their time writing nice stuff about things/people/places.

chuuurles

Cruff wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

True, but a standard e mail asking for contributions from interested parties is only going to attract those with a negative viewpoint. Never mind one that is loaded.

"Ours" wasn't even deemed worthy of an e mail. Go figure.

I don't see why an email should only attract those with negative views - it could be argued that some with criticisms would be reluctant to put their head above the parapet. Yes it could be that those who are satisfied say nothing but the truth is we don't know that it's created a bias one way or the other.

Still it seems that the media are happy to publish opinions both positive and critical of BC so if riders past or present have something to say they have a means of doing so.

In a perfect world, yes. In reality, hardly anyone bothers to spend their time writing nice stuff about things/people/places.

Disagree, random example; 2630 excellent reviews and 44 terrible ones https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Hotel_Review-g186338-d187591-Reviews-The_Ritz_London-London_England.html

spam02

chuuurles wrote:

Cruff wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

True, but a standard e mail asking for contributions from interested parties is only going to attract those with a negative viewpoint. Never mind one that is loaded.

"Ours" wasn't even deemed worthy of an e mail. Go figure.

I don't see why an email should only attract those with negative views - it could be argued that some with criticisms would be reluctant to put their head above the parapet. Yes it could be that those who are satisfied say nothing but the truth is we don't know that it's created a bias one way or the other.

Still it seems that the media are happy to publish opinions both positive and critical of BC so if riders past or present have something to say they have a means of doing so.

In a perfect world, yes. In reality, hardly anyone bothers to spend their time writing nice stuff about things/people/places.

Disagree, random example; 2630 excellent reviews and 44 terrible ones https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Hotel_Review-g186338-d187591-Reviews-The_Ritz_London-London_England.html

Don't believe everything you read. Terrible place, full of riff-raff!

awavey

Pross wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

She does say in that article that she was given an opportunity to take part in the review but didn't respond to the email.

Don't agree that the criticisms have all come from riders who didn't quite make it - probably the biggest three names in womens cycling over the last couple of decades have been critical.

I can't recall Lizzie Deignan being critical :?

maybe she'll cover it in her book, out in a few weeks that Im sure youve all pre-ordered on Amazon I dont think Lizzie has ever hidden the fact she sought a path out on the road, and one that largely avoided British Cycling except for the people she implicitly trusted, because of her experience from the track programme. of course had she just quit the sport completely and faded away, no doubt she'd have been accused of not being able to hack it :roll:

but I do remember there was a sponsor event the day after it all went stupid in the papers over it, that Lizzie & Jo were presenting at and the obvious question was asked, and Lizzie made a joke that Jo always rings up her to moan about British Cycling because she (ie Lizzie) knows what its like...a joke maybe or maybe many a true word is said in jest...who knows

tbh nothing I think pro or con anyone says now will change anyones mind on it, everyones made their mind up already, I saw today on road.cc that Brian Cookson also wasnt asked for evidence in the BC independent review either...so he simply went and spoke to them and gave it to them instead, which is reminiscent of that thing about people who see a closed door thats shut, rather than a door they simply have to open.

RichN95.

awavey wrote:

maybe she'll cover it in her book, out in a few weeks that Im sure youve all pre-ordered on Amazon I dont think Lizzie has ever hidden the fact she sought a path out on the road, and one that largely avoided British Cycling except for the people she implicitly trusted, because of her experience from the track programme. of course had she just quit the sport completely and faded away, no doubt she'd have been accused of not being able to hack it :roll:

but I do remember there was a sponsor event the day after it all went stupid in the papers over it, that Lizzie & Jo were presenting at and the obvious question was asked, and Lizzie made a joke that Jo always rings up her to moan about British Cycling because she (ie Lizzie) knows what its like...a joke maybe or maybe many a true word is said in jest...who knows

Didn't Armitstead leave BC because she just didn't really like track and had a good team with Cervelo, so didn't really need them.

As for complaining about BC, that could be anything. Certainly the ratio of racing to training is really low on the track and a certain about of cabin fever is bound to set in.

spam02

Not sure if this should go in this thread, but partly relevant:

Athletics Boss believes GB focuses too much on marginal medals such as track cycling.

"We need a grown-up debate about the value of one extra marginal medal, out of the many Britain wins, versus the ability to fund an aspirant sport like basketball, which is hugely important internationally and could have enormous participation value," said Warner, who is stepping down this year after a decade in charge at UK Athletics."

Completely missing the point that cycling has inspired thousands of the public off their a*ses and doing exercise (since BC Olympic success in 2008).

I'm sure that Basketball will have the same affect!



However, speaking at the same conference British Olympic Association chief executive Bill Sweeney said any debate should not lose sight of the importance of winning medals.

"The last thing we want is you go through all the various governance issues, and tick all the boxes, and end up with such a squeaky clean system that people are afraid to challenge an athlete and we come away from Tokyo ninth in the medal table," he said.

I think ninth might be wishful thinking!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/39453640

kingstongraham

SPaM02 wrote:

Not sure if this should go in this thread, but partly relevant:

Athletics Boss believes GB focuses too much on marginal medals such as track cycling.

"We need a grown-up debate about the value of one extra marginal medal, out of the many Britain wins, versus the ability to fund an aspirant sport like basketball, which is hugely important internationally and could have enormous participation value," said Warner, who is stepping down this year after a decade in charge at UK Athletics."

Completely missing the point that cycling has inspired thousands of the public off their a*ses and doing exercise (since BC Olympic success in 2008).

I'm sure that Basketball will have the same affect!

One more cycling medal isn't worth defunding basketball completely, just because there's only two gold medals available in basketball and we are unlikely to win it. In my opinion.

blazing_saddles

SPaM02 wrote:

Not sure if this should go in this thread, but partly relevant:

Athletics Boss believes GB focuses too much on marginal medals such as track cycling.

"We need a grown-up debate about the value of one extra marginal medal, out of the many Britain wins, versus the ability to fund an aspirant sport like basketball, which is hugely important internationally and could have enormous participation value," said Warner, who is stepping down this year after a decade in charge at UK Athletics."

Completely missing the point that cycling has inspired thousands of the public off their a*ses and doing exercise (since BC Olympic success in 2008).

I'm sure that Basketball will have the same affect!

However, speaking at the same conference British Olympic Association chief executive Bill Sweeney said any debate should not lose sight of the importance of winning medals.

"The last thing we want is you go through all the various governance issues, and tick all the boxes, and end up with such a squeaky clean system that people are afraid to challenge an athlete and we come away from Tokyo ninth in the medal table," he said.

I think ninth might be wishful thinking!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/39453640

Ah, it looks like another piece from cycling's best mate, Mr Roan.
He's having a busy morning, what with this a couple of hours earlier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/canoeing/39450595

GB Canoeing coach suspended after welfare complaint and yes, another independent investigation underway.

Dan gets the canoeing bit out the way pretty sharpish, skips fleetingly over the swimming situation and donates the majority of space to yet another re-hashed trash of BC.

Mad_Malx

So Lizzie wasn't happy either.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

And apparently BC are responsible for what goes on at Cervelo too

carbonclem

Mad_Malx wrote:

So Lizzie wasn't happy either.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

And apparently BC are responsible for what goes on at Cervelo too

So not just BC, but cycling, scratch that sport in general, if not life.

Of course the sport is sexist, just look at the races, the coverage, the money. The team with Sarah Storey and Jo Rowsell-Shand couldn't even get enough funding to continue ... tell us something we dont know. But! actually look at what BC (track wise) provide and acheive and its hard to say they dont buck the trend in providing opportunities. The full interview may be better but that article is a stinker. Headlines to plug a book.

carbonclem

Sorry, quoted own post.

carbonclem

Again!

RichN95.

Mad_Malx wrote:

So Lizzie wasn't happy either.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

And apparently BC are responsible for what goes on at Cervelo too

Also, if you've spent years saying how you're coaching yourself and don't need anything from BC, don't be surprised when they give their attention to other people.

She tried to blame her missed tests on BC too.

blazing_saddles

Mad_Malx wrote:

So Lizzie wasn't happy either.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

And apparently BC are responsible for what goes on at Cervelo too

The Daily Mail editor will look at that headline, it's lead bullet point and think "If only...."
I mean, what the flip are the Guardian playing at?

spam02

CarbonClem wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

So Lizzie wasn't happy either.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

And apparently BC are responsible for what goes on at Cervelo too

So not just BC, but cycling, scratch that sport in general, if not life.

Of course the sport is sexist, just look at the races, the coverage, the money. The team with Sarah Storey and Jo Rowsell-Shand couldn't even get enough funding to continue ... tell us something we dont know. But! actually look at what BC (track wise) provide and acheive and its hard to say they dont buck the trend in providing opportunities. The full interview may be better but that article is a stinker. Headlines to plug a book.

Yep, good way to plug her book. Though I wonder what William Fotheringham will think of the sensationalist headline, being a 'proper' cycling jouno and not a scandal monger like Lawton or Roan

RichN95.

SPaM02 wrote:

Yep, good way to plug her book. Though I wonder what William Fotheringham will think of the sensationalist headline, being a 'proper' cycling jouno and not a scandal monger like Lawton or Roan

Fortheringham is one journalist that has thrown his lot in with Lawton and Roan (most likely in a cowardly arse covering move as he ghost wrote Wiggins's book)

spam02

RichN95 wrote:

SPaM02 wrote:

Yep, good way to plug her book. Though I wonder what William Fotheringham will think of the sensationalist headline, being a 'proper' cycling jouno and not a scandal monger like Lawton or Roan

Fortheringham is one journalist that has thrown his lot in with Lawton and Roan (most likely in a cowardly ars* covering move as he ghost wrote Wiggins's book)

opps, I thought it was Ingle that had been writing a lot of the recent 'anti' articles in the Guardian. Just looked back through Fotheringham's pieces - :shock: Jeez! I take back my previous comment - correction, he must love the headline to the Deignan article.

DeVlaeminck

SPaM02 wrote:

Not sure if this should go in this thread, but partly relevant:

Athletics Boss believes GB focuses too much on marginal medals such as track cycling.

"We need a grown-up debate about the value of one extra marginal medal, out of the many Britain wins, versus the ability to fund an aspirant sport like basketball, which is hugely important internationally and could have enormous participation value," said Warner, who is stepping down this year after a decade in charge at UK Athletics."

Completely missing the point that cycling has inspired thousands of the public off their a*ses and doing exercise (since BC Olympic success in 2008).

I'm sure that Basketball will have the same affect!



However, speaking at the same conference British Olympic Association chief executive Bill Sweeney said any debate should not lose sight of the importance of winning medals.

"The last thing we want is you go through all the various governance issues, and tick all the boxes, and end up with such a squeaky clean system that people are afraid to challenge an athlete and we come away from Tokyo ninth in the medal table," he said.

I think ninth might be wishful thinking!

I think the athletics boss is correct. If Olympic medals contribute to increased participation in sport (and I think the extent to which it does can be over estimated) then surely just having a team at the Olympics might do the same - if a bronze medal gets people off the sofa how would a 4th, 5th or 15th not do the same at least to some extent ?

Also we need to look at the potential different sports have to engage people. I don't know anyone who has gone out and bought a gun, horse and pair of trainers after watching modern pentathlon, I'd hazard a guess that virtually the only people who take up that sport do so with an eye on becoming internationals. Basketball however has potential to engage a lot of people, both sexes and I suspect in some more disadvantaged communities where asking daddy for a pony might not be common.

All that said I've just come back from walking the dogs on the playing fields my daughter is due to play on tomorrow - they are more akin to a sheep field than a football pitch - without decent affordable facilities what is the point.

Mad_Malx

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

So Lizzie wasn't happy either.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

And apparently BC are responsible for what goes on at Cervelo too

The Daily Mail editor will look at that headline, it's lead bullet point and think "If only...."
I mean, what the flip are the Guardian playing at?

I really think that BC should be asking for an apology over that header. It's very difficult to read that without thinking that BC made her dance.

RichN95.

Mad_Malx wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

So Lizzie wasn't happy either.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

And apparently BC are responsible for what goes on at Cervelo too

The Daily Mail editor will look at that headline, it's lead bullet point and think "If only...."
I mean, what the flip are the Guardian playing at?

I really think that BC should be asking for an apology over that header. It's very difficult to read that without thinking that BC made her dance.

The same with the bit about women being made to borrow helmets from men - riders riding for their country bring their trade team helmets. Even in the Olympics they wear a plain coloured version of their team issue.

blazing_saddles

As if things couldn't get any worse. The whole track team go to the World's next month with antique bikes:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... ships.html

Becky broke a frame in Newport. The derney braked and of course she couldn't. 50 grand down the swanny.
Still, this story makes a change for the DM.
At least there's no bikeism at BC. :P

RichN95.

While British Cycling are getting the blame for all Cervelo's shortcomings today maybe someone could tell Dan Roan who Bjarne Riis is.

kingstongraham

Nice little tit for tat dig at Wiggins in there.