Log in:  

Register

Varnish finally sues BC/UK Sport

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

11 Nov 2017 20:22

yaco wrote:
thehog wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:I dont know what I'm talking about YET in the initial court hearings to determine whether Varnish could take her case further ( BC's legals went for the jugular in asking for the full range of court costs if Varnish lost ) - So there was no backing down from BC's legal eagles - And as your last sentence states if Varnish passes the Employee Tribunal to start civil proceedings and loses she is up for costs - And BC's legal teams will be as pedantic as possible which leads to an increase in total costs.
With all due respect yaco, you really don't appear to have a clue here:
The Telegraph has learnt British Cycling also had the option of submitting costs and deposit order applications against Varnish but did not do so.


Exactly. It’s very likely, even if Varnish fails in her attempt for compensation that a judge will not issue a costs order against her. Any sensible claim a judge would not expect an individual to consume the costs of both sides, British Cycling are alone on this one and will likely settle before it gets to the stage of document discovery.


So in effect your thought's are similar to Wiggo's Package in that there will be a mutually agreed settlement - We'll have to wait and see what happens but I suppose the devil will be in the detail.


The very nature of civil procedure encourages and expects both parties to come to a settlement, court is only for those who ultimately cannot agree. Maximum payout from the court will only occur if there is evidence of attempts to settle. So it’s in Varnish’s counsels interest to at least speak with UK Sport and British Cycling. That is the law rather than anyone’s point of view.
User avatar thehog
Veteran
 
Posts: 20,371
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 20:00

Re: Re:

14 Nov 2017 14:45

Varnish allowed back to race for organisation she's suing? Seems unlikely

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/lawyers-will-green-light-jess-varnish-return-358618

More likely this is BC's tactical response to Varnish saying she's taking the litigation all the way on principle

BC hinting at a place back on the team if she plays nice...
Wiggo's Package
New Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

14 Nov 2017 15:05

As above, i expect her to get an out of court settlement and a spot back on the Olympic Program....it should be enough to buy her silence, her press release sounds very principled but she's still young (26) and a load of money and her career back will be very tempting.
Her profile is now higher than ever in the British media and i'd expect a return to cycling to come with lucrative endorsement deals for her...hard to turn that down at her age, buy a house, make herself financially secure and make use of her world class talent/body while she's still young enough.
Job done for BC.
deviant
Junior Member
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 18 Dec 2013 19:31

15 Nov 2017 12:34

Couple of things to add here. Firstly, not all staff members at BC (and certainly a large number outside the WCPP) or other sporting organisations earn more than the non-taxable grant that athletes receive. Of course, there are different levels of grant depending on your expected medal prospects, so some athletes are granted more than others. These athletes also do not have to pay for coaching, travel, medical/physio bills and in some cases smaller things like free phone contracts as these are all covered by the sports governing body mostly via funding from UK Sport and partly from income generated by the sporting body.

If Jess does go onto win this case, Olympic sport funding in the UK will likely cease to exist and it would also likely see the end of what we see now, whereby the athletes do not have to pay for the coaching and access to the training ground/velodrome/courts. This would reduce sport in the UK back to an amateur level similar to what was happening prior to the National Lottery as UK Sport would likely just decide to end funding except for travel costs to the Olympics at the detriment to the performance of the athletes. This would mean these athletes needing to self fund their sporting endeavours via work leaving less time for training and recovery which they do not have to do at this moment.

It could easily be said that the phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face would very much come to mind over this case.

Personally, I don't see athletes as employees in the UK. The State provides funding to allow the individual to perform at the best of their ability on a tax free basis, and then allows the individual to earn an income through prize money and other personal sponsorship deals which is then taxed on. It would be interesting to see how well the performances and therefore the sponsorship levels will hold out if all of what is received now is stopped.
User avatar Big_Blue_Dave
Member
 
Posts: 314
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 10:28
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re:

15 Nov 2017 14:40

Big_Blue_Dave wrote:Couple of things to add here. Firstly, not all staff members at BC (and certainly a large number outside the WCPP) or other sporting organisations earn more than the non-taxable grant that athletes receive. Of course, there are different levels of grant depending on your expected medal prospects, so some athletes are granted more than others. These athletes also do not have to pay for coaching, travel, medical/physio bills and in some cases smaller things like free phone contracts as these are all covered by the sports governing body mostly via funding from UK Sport and partly from income generated by the sporting body.

If Jess does go onto win this case, Olympic sport funding in the UK will likely cease to exist and it would also likely see the end of what we see now, whereby the athletes do not have to pay for the coaching and access to the training ground/velodrome/courts. This would reduce sport in the UK back to an amateur level similar to what was happening prior to the National Lottery as UK Sport would likely just decide to end funding except for travel costs to the Olympics at the detriment to the performance of the athletes. This would mean these athletes needing to self fund their sporting endeavours via work leaving less time for training and recovery which they do not have to do at this moment.

It could easily be said that the phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face would very much come to mind over this case.

Personally, I don't see athletes as employees in the UK. The State provides funding to allow the individual to perform at the best of their ability on a tax free basis, and then allows the individual to earn an income through prize money and other personal sponsorship deals which is then taxed on. It would be interesting to see how well the performances and therefore the sponsorship levels will hold out if all of what is received now is stopped.


If Team GB's athletes are deemed to be employees as a result of the Varnish case Olympic funding won't drop off a cliff - it will just have to be structured differently

The grant money that currently goes direct to the athletes, etc would have to go to the governing bodies instead who would then pay them salaries

An important consequence would be that income tax and national insurance would have to be paid on those salaries (roughly 20% on top) and the question would be how that additional cost is funded - more money from the Lottery/central government? Reduction in take home pay for athletes? Less athletes on the Olympic programme? IMO the last option is most likely to happen

But a 20% increase in salary costs is not such a big deal in the wider context of all the other areas where money is spent. And all those other costs (permanently employed governing body managers/coaches, equipment, travel, rent for premises, medical bills, etc) would be unchanged

UK Sport's Olympic funding model (not just the no employment rights for athletes thing but also the whole win medals or lose funding thing) has led to unethical practices and unsavoury behaviour becoming the norm in many Olympic sports - the scandals just keep coming

Time to clean house - and if Team GB wins a few less Olympic medals a a result then personally I would have no problem with that
Wiggo's Package
New Member
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DanielSong39, dusty red roads, wansteadimp and 19 guests

Back to top