Varnish finally sues BC/UK Sport

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Please tell me the law experts here. The funding covers everything involved in running British Cycling does it not? So why then are the coaches, mechanics, physiotherapists, and all the rest of the staff employees but not the Athletes who at a crazy wild guess is what it is all about? The Athletes. Why can't the athletes be employees instead of having to receive separate grants away from the funding structure? Isn't it a bit old and archaic and isn't it time to change things? We drive cars today not horse and buggy.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re:

Craigee said:
Please tell me the law experts here. The funding covers everything involved in running British Cycling does it not? So why then are the coaches, mechanics, physiotherapists, and all the rest of the staff employees but not the Athletes who at a crazy wild guess is what it is all about? The Athletes. Why can't the athletes be employees instead of having to receive separate grants away from the funding structure? Isn't it a bit old and archaic and isn't it time to change things? We drive cars today not horse and buggy.
Gig economy innit. UK government making it easier for bosses to shaft workers every year. UK Sport/BC just going with the flow. Loadsa publicly funded bodies finding ways to pay less tax. A dark irony of neoliberalism. Athletes will be on zero hours contracts soon enough. Sports Direct indeed...
 
Re:

Craigee said:
Please tell me the law experts here. The funding covers everything involved in running British Cycling does it not? So why then are the coaches, mechanics, physiotherapists, and all the rest of the staff employees but not the Athletes who at a crazy wild guess is what it is all about? The Athletes. Why can't the athletes be employees instead of having to receive separate grants away from the funding structure? Isn't it a bit old and archaic and isn't it time to change things? We drive cars today not horse and buggy.
It’s so guys like Sutton can maintain control over his minions and keep his antiquated views of the world in place :rolleyes:
 
Re:

Craigee said:
Please tell me the law experts here. The funding covers everything involved in running British Cycling does it not? So why then are the coaches, mechanics, physiotherapists, and all the rest of the staff employees but not the Athletes who at a crazy wild guess is what it is all about? The Athletes. Why can't the athletes be employees instead of having to receive separate grants away from the funding structure? Isn't it a bit old and archaic and isn't it time to change things? We drive cars today not horse and buggy.
The staff are usually freelance contractors. Athletes are not employed, simply because you want the fastest riders in your team, not those there because employment rights say they should be there. It's a bit like golf basically.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Craigee said:
Please tell me the law experts here. The funding covers everything involved in running British Cycling does it not? So why then are the coaches, mechanics, physiotherapists, and all the rest of the staff employees but not the Athletes who at a crazy wild guess is what it is all about? The Athletes. Why can't the athletes be employees instead of having to receive separate grants away from the funding structure? Isn't it a bit old and archaic and isn't it time to change things? We drive cars today not horse and buggy.
The staff are usually freelance contractors. Athletes are not employed, simply because you want the fastest riders in your team, not those there because employment rights say they should be there. It's a bit like golf basically.
What’s wrong with a contracted pool of riders that is renewed every 12 months? Cricket Australia has done this for a long time, with around 25 players holding contracts that are reviewed every 1 to 3 years, guaranteeing financial stability and the ability to focus on training and results without distraction.

A small core of riders on guaranteed contracts with BC would be the smartest way to keep riders happy and onside.
 
Golf? Is golf a public funded sport in Great Britain? I can't believe that. There are almost zero similarities between public funded cycling with it's bureaucratic domination with the top guys, the staff, paying themselves huge salaries from the funding and Golf where each golfer plays for prize money for income as an individual and not funded by tax payers and who don't have 30 people on more money than them telling them what to do or else.

You're having me on aren't you samhocking?
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Craigee said:
Please tell me the law experts here. The funding covers everything involved in running British Cycling does it not? So why then are the coaches, mechanics, physiotherapists, and all the rest of the staff employees but not the Athletes who at a crazy wild guess is what it is all about? The Athletes. Why can't the athletes be employees instead of having to receive separate grants away from the funding structure? Isn't it a bit old and archaic and isn't it time to change things? We drive cars today not horse and buggy.
It’s so guys like Sutton can maintain control over his minions and keep his antiquated views of the world in place :rolleyes:
Seems much more accurate and honest than Samhocking's account of it.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
samhocking said:
Craigee said:
Please tell me the law experts here. The funding covers everything involved in running British Cycling does it not? So why then are the coaches, mechanics, physiotherapists, and all the rest of the staff employees but not the Athletes who at a crazy wild guess is what it is all about? The Athletes. Why can't the athletes be employees instead of having to receive separate grants away from the funding structure? Isn't it a bit old and archaic and isn't it time to change things? We drive cars today not horse and buggy.
The staff are usually freelance contractors. Athletes are not employed, simply because you want the fastest riders in your team, not those there because employment rights say they should be there. It's a bit like golf basically.
What’s wrong with a contracted pool of riders that is renewed every 12 months? Cricket Australia has done this for a long time, with around 25 players holding contracts that are reviewed every 1 to 3 years, guaranteeing financial stability and the ability to focus on training and results without distraction.

A small core of riders on guaranteed contracts with BC would be the smartest way to keep riders happy and onside.
Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. Happy riders in secure, or more secure, positions can focus more on training and achieving long-term goals, recovering from injury/fatigue, balancing work and life etc.
 
Re:

Craigee said:
Golf? Is golf a public funded sport in Great Britain? I can't believe that. There are almost zero similarities between public funded cycling with it's bureaucratic domination with the top guys, the staff, paying themselves huge salaries from the funding and Golf where each golfer plays for prize money for income as an individual and not funded by tax payers and who don't have 30 people on more money than them telling them what to do or else.

You're having me on aren't you samhocking?
I'm talking about the BC Olympic Podium Programme Varnish was in, then removed from. BC don't have a large pool of riders in the podium program to select Olympic squad out of, the OPP is the Olympic squad pretty much. Once dropped out of it, you are no longer going to Olympics unless you earn yourself back in independently.
 
the riders, athletes are contracted each year anyway to get their tax funded grants usually based on their results at the worlds each year so they could easily be employees contracted annually. The thing is as has been said by a few here, is that they have less rights than employees under the law. Pretty nasty really when one thinks about it.

I see New Zealand Cycling has had a big tidy up with a big clean out of coaches and sport directors similar to British Cycling. All based on bullying. Making the athletes employees with employees rights would stop the bullying or at least go a long way to stopping it.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/varnish-calls-former-british-cycling-doctor-freeman-as-witness-in-sex-discrimination-case/
Jess Varnish will call on controversial former British Cycling doctor Richard Freeman to provide evidence on Wednesday to the Manchester Employment Tribunal as part of her sex discrimination case against British Cycling and UK Sport.
That should prove interesting. I'm guessing a lot of "I don't recall", "to the best of my recollection", "if memory serves me right", etc etc.
 
Re: Re:

Robert5091 said:
fmk_RoI said:
Freeman no show.
What's the excuse this time? :confused:
BC sent his discovery statement to the GMC which allegedly contradicts his statements to the GMC. Dirty move thus he had to withdraw to save his own ass.

BC have a Queens Counsel so they clearly have spent a fortune on their defense. Tax money well spent :cry:
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
BC sent his discovery statement to the GMC which allegedly contradicts his statements to the GMC. Dirty move thus he had to withdraw to save his own ***.
A source for this allegation would be really useful. It's you, yes? Trustworthy outlets with personnel at the hearing are merely reporting he was advised to avoid cross-examination, they make no reference to your allegation of contradictory statements.
 
Freeman, apparently, was due to talk about some of the "perks' provided by BC, which he has already outlined in his book, such as the dentistry (riders had their fillings upgraded) and the odd unnecessary MRI.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
BC sent his discovery statement to the GMC which allegedly contradicts his statements to the GMC. Dirty move thus he had to withdraw to save his own ***.
A source for this allegation would be really useful. It's you, yes? Trustworthy outlets with personnel at the hearing are merely reporting he was advised to avoid cross-examination, they make no reference to your allegation of contradictory statements.
That's not how it's been reported from what i've read Hog? It sounds like BC & UK Sport sent GMC, Freemans written Witness Statement, Judge said yesterday their legal team would be allowed cross-examination of Freeman's statement and when GMC found out, then decided to attend Varnish case today in order to witness Freeman's cross-examination for use in February. I'm not surprised Freeman stayed at home, it sounds a bit underhand by GMC or, very clever by BC Lawyers to simply remove Freeman as witness and weaken Varnish's defence by 1/3rd.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
I'm not surprised Freeman stayed at home, it sounds a bit underhand by GMC or, very clever by BC Lawyers to simply remove Freeman as witness and weaken Varnish's defence by 1/3rd.
Underhand? FFS, it's a public hearing. Why rely on incomplete and possibly inaccurate reports when they can observe themselves? Next you'll be calling them rotters for reading his book. And the DCMS report. It seems that being professional is a bad thing when it might show your heroes in a poor light.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
I'm not surprised Freeman stayed at home, it sounds a bit underhand by GMC or, very clever by BC Lawyers to simply remove Freeman as witness and weaken Varnish's defence by 1/3rd.
Underhand? FFS, it's a public hearing. Why rely on incomplete and possibly inaccurate reports when they can observe themselves? Next you'll be calling them rotters for reading his book. And the DCMS report. It seems that being professional is a bad thing when it might show your heroes in a poor light.
That makes no sense.

Employment Tribunels do not compel witnesses to present testimony. Hence why Freeman was advised to withdraw as anything he said could be used against him in his upcoming GMC hearing. BC having tipped off the GMC.

Read son, read.
 
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/46542615
(Varnish's lawyer David) Reade said that Freeman's witness statement had been provided to the GMC as part of its investigation and they were due to attend the tribunal because "Dr Freeman would be cross-examined to establish his probity".

"When we informed him of that, he was advised by his legal team that he should not give evidence," he said.

Thomas Linden QC, representing British Cycling, said he did not accept that argument, stating that Freeman did not have "the courage to be cross-examined or for me to point out to him that his statements are false".
So there's a written statement by the doc floating around somewhere? With "false statements"?
 
I have no idea if Freeman's statement is false, but Freeman's lawyer, wouldn't have expected him to be cross-examined at the Varnish hearing with GMC invited to witness that. By underhand, I just think it's unusual for one legal team to inform another legal team and effectively use that to nullify the opposition's witness, knowing he would be advised to not attend once he knew GMC would be there.
I get that it's loosely related, but I'm not sure how Varnishes employment status relates to Freeman's GMC medical tribunal in any direct need for GMC to attend, but then we don't know what Freeman's witness statement defending Varnish contains. I don't see why he would need to inclide medical malpractice to witness of Varnish was employed or not though??
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Invicituz The Clinic 6
Similar threads
Doping Quotes - All Sports

ASK THE COMMUNITY