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

spam02

Pross wrote:

Anyone feeling the BBC's coverage of this issue has been biased should consider making a complaint.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact_us/making_a_complaint.html

I did after the Oliva article. Needless to say nothing since an automated response. Not on Twitter so can't ask Roan about his 'agenda'

top_bhoy

From the BBC:

Hoy added: "Every organisation has a responsibility to stamp out bullying and discrimination.

"From what I read and understand through various conversations, British Cycling recognise they've fallen short in a number of areas.

"Some may argue it's too little too late, but even for those who did feel let down by British Cycling in the past, it's encouraging to know that it is now engaging with those riders.

"I don't doubt for one second that every single person involved in this process has the interests of our sport at heart."

Whilst Hoy never experienced the bullying or mistreatment himself (and no reason to disbelief this), he does not exonerate the behavioural and cultural failings at BC and indicates there is at least a case for BC to answer and remediate going forward.

Of course, it's a BBC article so feel free to say he is being misquoted. :evil: :evil:

RichN95.

The whole problem with this being played out in the media is that there are no details. We hear 'bullying' and 'culture of fear' but have no specific examples of how these things manifested themselves.
Thus far the allegations seem to be that Sutton says some dumb things and some riders thought they got dropped unfairly.

There's worse stuff about Ellingworth's Academy in Cavendish's book and Ellingworth's own book - but they all follow him to this day

Pross

Top_Bhoy wrote:

From the BBC:

Hoy added: "Every organisation has a responsibility to stamp out bullying and discrimination.

"From what I read and understand through various conversations, British Cycling recognise they've fallen short in a number of areas.

"Some may argue it's too little too late, but even for those who did feel let down by British Cycling in the past, it's encouraging to know that it is now engaging with those riders.

"I don't doubt for one second that every single person involved in this process has the interests of our sport at heart."

Whilst Hoy never experienced the bullying or mistreatment himself (and no reason to disbelief this), he does not exonerate the behavioural and cultural failings at BC and indicates there is at least a case for BC to answer and remediate going forward.

Of course, it's a BBC article so feel free to say he is being misquoted. :evil: :evil:

I don't think anyone has ever said they think everything is perfect there. The problem I have with the BBC's reporting is that it lacks balance. You read an interview with someone talking in generally positive terms and they regurgitate all the allegations but when they report negative comments they don't balance it with a summary of supportive comments (the article linked at the bottom of the previous page is a prime example). I expect that from The Mail but the BBC should be unbiased.

Hoy's statement is balanced. He has als been very diplomatic and is obviously keen not to offend any individuals or be seen to be taking sides.

mfin

Well the BBC aren't perfect, we know that. They also don't get too much time to put to any particular bit of news unless it is headline stuff. Most of the time articles last minutes at most, and they have to regurgitate background to a piece or the vast majority of viewers will not know what they are on about.

Most people aren't in the slightest bit interested in cycling, and hence will pay no attention to news about it anyway unless they hear Bradley Wiggins has murdered someone.

So, at most you could complain about their pre-amble to a piece as not sounding the way you'd like to hear it. Good luck with that by the way.

(That said, if something is reported that is categorically wrong, of course complain).

Pross

Surely an unbiased media outlet should check source information and then see if there are alternative points of view? It's something the BBC usually do to excess. If there's no interest or not enough time to write a well researched piece don't write anything.

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

There's worse stuff about Ellingworth's Academy in Cavendish's book and Ellingworth's own book - but they all follow him to this day

Indeed. Far worse.
But RE's boot camp for turning a group of young lads into winners isn't going to generate such juicy headlines.

blazing_saddles

The latest from the BBC:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39559471

Nothing much beyond BC introducing a code of conduct.

However, I did say we wouldn't be getting the report anytime soon.
I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting upon this latest re-schedule either.

An investigation was launched following accusations of bullying and sexism against top-level cyclists.

A report on its findings is due in May.
Initially, key findings were meant to have been published back in November. But the process has been delayed by legal wrangling, as those criticised have rejected the panel's findings. The process has also been criticised for not seeking a wider range of views.

The criticism doesn't end there, either.

Meanwhile, in the US of A:-

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usa-wom ... complaint/

neonriver

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Meanwhile, in the US of A:-

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usa-wom ... complaint/

That's going to create an interesting dynamic wonder if its the reason Hammer isn't doing TP!

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The latest from the BBC:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39559471

Nothing much beyond BC introducing a code of conduct.

However, I did say we wouldn't be getting the report anytime soon.

Still it's given the Guardian a cycling article for their website. They've not had any cycling stories to write about for a few weeks.

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The latest from the BBC:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39559471

Nothing much beyond BC introducing a code of conduct.

However, I did say we wouldn't be getting the report anytime soon.

Still it's given the Guardian a cycling article for their website. They've lot had any cycling stories to write about for a few weeks.

Slow time of the year on the bike racing front

blazing_saddles

Here we go again. Time for round 111 and of course, it's from those ace reporters on cycling at the Guardian:-

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

So another tick in the naughty boys column but no smoking gun, meanwhile this story sounds a lot better to me.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riders- ... -director/

I'm sure that everyone will view this as excellent news.
Giving the option of choice, is definitely a step forward in catering for individual rider needs and care.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Here we go again. Time for round 111 and of course, it's from those ace reporters on cycling at the Guardian:-

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... are_btn_tw

You can see the inherent bias in the reporting of these things. Fabio Bartolucci is presented as a man who was arrested in an indiscriminate hotel raid in 2001 (along with 80 other people) but not by a more recent role - as Nicole Cooke's personal doctor/coach in 2008. Similarly CNews mention he worked for Phonak (in 2002), but not FdJ (2005-6)

Vino'sGhost

Ive changed my view on this, whilst i believe theres no place for bullying or crass behaviour and that there are better ways to broach difficult topics than others, it doe s look like the front bums are whining a wee bit too much

carbonclem

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Ive changed my view on this, whilst i believe theres no place for bullying or crass behaviour and that there are better ways to broach difficult topics than others, it doe s look like the front bums are whining a wee bit too much

Trolling much?

gweeds

'The front bums....'

Seriously? 1984 called and they'd like Jim Davison back.

sherer

looks like Salazar will be called today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39633954

Still no sign of calling Wiggins or Mo though which kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing

Mad_Malx

^I read it as if Chakraverty is the one who will appear:

Dr Robin Chakraverty carried out the treatment on the instruction of Farah's American coach Alberto Salazar.

He will appear before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at 14:30 BST.

RichN95.

sherer wrote:

looks like Salazar will be called today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39633954

Still no sign of calling Wiggins or Mo though which kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing

They won't ask Salazar to turn up because the chances of him doing so are absolutely zero. They might as well try and call Michele Ferrari.

sherer

RichN95 wrote:

sherer wrote:

looks like Salazar will be called today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39633954

Still no sign of calling Wiggins or Mo though which kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing

They won't ask Salazar to turn up because the chances of him doing so are absolutely zero. They might as well try and call Michele Ferrari.

I read the headline but only skimmed the article. Must learn to read the whole article before posting.

RichN95.

I think the problem with trying to get Wiggins or Farah to appear is that they don't actually receive any public money so they have no accountability to government. Brailsford, Sutton, Cope and Freeman were all paid by British Cycling, Wiggins wasn't (at least not when with Sky)

sherer

RichN95 wrote:

I think the problem with trying to get Wiggins or Farah to appear is that they don't actually receive any public money so they have no accountability to government. Brailsford, Sutton, Cope and Freeman were all paid by British Cycling, Wiggins wasn't (at least not when with Sky)

dont you have to appear if you are a British Citizen ? They've had the bosses of google etc there as well and they are funded by the UK taxpayer either.

NB : I could be totally wrong in the above statement

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

sherer wrote:

looks like Salazar will be called today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39633954

Still no sign of calling Wiggins or Mo though which kind of makes a mockery of the whole thing

They won't ask Salazar to turn up because the chances of him doing so are absolutely zero. They might as well try and call Enzo Ferrari.

FIFY

salsiccia1

Oh, and

RichN95.

How about one of Mr '90 Cortisone Injections'

salsiccia1

Far more appropriate

yourpaceormine

sherer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I think the problem with trying to get Wiggins or Farah to appear is that they don't actually receive any public money so they have no accountability to government. Brailsford, Sutton, Cope and Freeman were all paid by British Cycling, Wiggins wasn't (at least not when with Sky)

dont you have to appear if you are a British Citizen ? They've had the bosses of google etc there as well and they are funded by the UK taxpayer either.

NB : I could be totally wrong in the above statement

Tradition dictates that if asked to appear, you are expected to appear. (A lot of the procedure of Parliament is based upon tradition rather than a solid legal footing.) There is no legal requirement to do so; failure to appear is pretty rare, but does happen. Usually it is in the best interests of those asked to appear to attend, Parliament usually having some leverage over those requested. Think BHS boss, possibly not in his interests to attend, but there was/is a question about his knighthood being revoked. Failure to attend would probably tip the balance in favour of him becoming just a plain 'Mr' again.

RichN95.

sherer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I think the problem with trying to get Wiggins or Farah to appear is that they don't actually receive any public money so they have no accountability to government. Brailsford, Sutton, Cope and Freeman were all paid by British Cycling, Wiggins wasn't (at least not when with Sky)

dont you have to appear if you are a British Citizen ? They've had the bosses of google etc there as well and they are funded by the UK taxpayer either.

NB : I could be totally wrong in the above statement

I was suggesting not so much if they could, more whether they should. Wiggins was a private citizen, working for a private company (and mostly abroad). His jiffy bag & TUEs in themselves are not really in the public interest. If it wasn't for the involvement of people on the BC payroll, it's hard to justify making it a parliamentary matter.

blazing_saddles

yourpaceormine wrote:

sherer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I think the problem with trying to get Wiggins or Farah to appear is that they don't actually receive any public money so they have no accountability to government. Brailsford, Sutton, Cope and Freeman were all paid by British Cycling, Wiggins wasn't (at least not when with Sky)

dont you have to appear if you are a British Citizen ? They've had the bosses of google etc there as well and they are funded by the UK taxpayer either.

NB : I could be totally wrong in the above statement

Tradition dictates that if asked to appear, you are expected to appear. (A lot of the procedure of Parliament is based upon tradition rather than a solid legal footing.) There is no legal requirement to do so; failure to appear is pretty rare, but does happen. Usually it is in the best interests of those asked to appear to attend, Parliament usually having some leverage over those requested. Think BHS boss, possibly not in his interests to attend, but there was/is a question about his knighthood being revoked. Failure to attend would probably tip the balance in favour of him becoming just a plain 'Mr' again.

Isn't it hilarious that a bunch of folks who have made careers out of evading answering our questions can expect you or I to answer theirs.

kingstongraham

Report now delayed until after the election.