Varnish finally sues BC/UK Sport

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

samhocking said:
Freeman's lawyer, wouldn't have expected him to be cross-examined at the Varnish hearing
Are you suggesting it came totes out of the blue when Philips was cross-examined? That when he's told it's his turn to cross BC's witnesses he'll sit there slack-jawed and stutter that he wasn't expecting that? Are you eally suggesting the man is professionally incompetent?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
Freeman's lawyer, wouldn't have expected him to be cross-examined at the Varnish hearing
Are you suggesting it came totes out of the blue when Philips was cross-examined? That when he's told it's his turn to cross BC's witnesses he'll sit there slack-jawed and stutter that he wasn't expecting that? Are you eally suggesting the man is professionally incompetent?
Of course not, but Phillips' Witness Statement didn't get sent to GMC, or GMC attending his cross-examination. I just think it was a tactic of BC & UK Sport as a way to remove Freeman as a witness. I understand the details in the book about reserving MRI slots for BC and the medical perks etc. I just don't see how the book relates to medical malpractice unless you know what claims Freeman's witness statement makes.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
samhocking said:
Freeman's lawyer, wouldn't have expected him to be cross-examined at the Varnish hearing
Are you suggesting it came totes out of the blue when Philips was cross-examined? That when he's told it's his turn to cross BC's witnesses he'll sit there slack-jawed and stutter that he wasn't expecting that? Are you eally suggesting the man is professionally incompetent?
Cherry picked that quote nicely to make a snarky point, again.

The full quote is rather different

Freeman's lawyer, wouldn't have expected him to be cross-examined at the Varnish hearing with GMC invited to witness that
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/jess-varnish-british-cycling-dr-richard-freeman-a8682491.html
Jess Varnish’s employment case against British Cycling and UK Sport received a boost on Thursday when the judge agreed to accept Dr Richard Freeman’s written witness statement despite the respondents’ protests.

The former British Cycling and Team Sky doctor was one of three witnesses Varnish had hoped would appear at the Manchester Employment Tribunal on her behalf but he failed to show up on Wednesday, placing huge question marks over the admissibility of his evidence.
 
Varnish loses.

Details
In a short statement, her management team said: "Judgement was received at 1700 today and it has been found that Jess Varnish was neither an employee or a worker of either British Cycling or UK Sport."

The statement concluded by saying the 28-year-old, who is due to give birth to her first child this week, and her legal team will digest the 43-page judgement before issuing further comment.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Varnish loses.

Details
In a short statement, her management team said: "Judgement was received at 1700 today and it has been found that Jess Varnish was neither an employee or a worker of either British Cycling or UK Sport."

The statement concluded by saying the 28-year-old, who is due to give birth to her first child this week, and her legal team will digest the 43-page judgement before issuing further comment.
Just big wigs looking out for fellow big wigs. How it is even possible in 2019 for taxes being used to be paid to an athlete as their income without them having any employment protection or any rights at all is corruption. Nothing else. So the sackings of all the coaches was just in reply to the perception BC was coming across with. They never had to sack anyone because the athletes have no rights? Maybe they should sue BC for unfair dismissals. Democracy huh. What a joke.
 
Sep 26, 2018
6
1
1,535
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
fmk_RoI said:
Varnish loses.

Details
In a short statement, her management team said: "Judgement was received at 1700 today and it has been found that Jess Varnish was neither an employee or a worker of either British Cycling or UK Sport."

The statement concluded by saying the 28-year-old, who is due to give birth to her first child this week, and her legal team will digest the 43-page judgement before issuing further comment.
Just big wigs looking out for fellow big wigs. How it is even possible in 2019 for taxes being used to be paid to an athlete as their income without them having any employment protection or any rights at all is corruption. Nothing else. So the sackings of all the coaches was just in reply to the perception BC was coming across with. They never had to sack anyone because the athletes have no rights? Maybe they should sue BC for unfair dismissals. Democracy huh. What a joke.
What are you talking about? I fundamentally disagree with you. *Edited by King Boonen*

If you are fortunate to be top level at a sport then if governing bodies want the best results it is reasonable that you should get given a grant of money to enable you to maximise your training by not having to work. That's it. You're not employed. They don't owe you anything. You turn up, perform, the best people get picked for the squad and given a grant, the even better people get picked for the team on the day. If you are no longer good enough to be picked you don't get to be in the squad and you don't get a grant to enable you to train without working.

Otherwise we just revert back to amateur status, where you have a job and try and train around that.

But that it, two options. And even in football which is more like a business, you can't sue if a team drops you for being no good anymore.
 
Re: Re:

tuckandgo said:
Craigee said:
fmk_RoI said:
Varnish loses.

Details
In a short statement, her management team said: "Judgement was received at 1700 today and it has been found that Jess Varnish was neither an employee or a worker of either British Cycling or UK Sport."

The statement concluded by saying the 28-year-old, who is due to give birth to her first child this week, and her legal team will digest the 43-page judgement before issuing further comment.
Just big wigs looking out for fellow big wigs. How it is even possible in 2019 for taxes being used to be paid to an athlete as their income without them having any employment protection or any rights at all is corruption. Nothing else. So the sackings of all the coaches was just in reply to the perception BC was coming across with. They never had to sack anyone because the athletes have no rights? Maybe they should sue BC for unfair dismissals. Democracy huh. What a joke.
What are you talking about? I fundamentally disagree with you. *Edited by King Boonen*

If you are fortunate to be top level at a sport then if governing bodies want the best results it is reasonable that you should get given a grant of money to enable you to maximise your training by not having to work. That's it. You're not employed. They don't owe you anything. You turn up, perform, the best people get picked for the squad and given a grant, the even better people get picked for the team on the day. If you are no longer good enough to be picked you don't get to be in the squad and you don't get a grant to enable you to train without working.

Otherwise we just revert back to amateur status, where you have a job and try and train around that.

But that it, two options. And even in football which is more like a business, you can't sue if a team drops you for being no good anymore.
Disagree. All other public servants paid by the tax payer has an employment contract with rights. It's archaic that a paid individual has no employee rights in 2019. I can't believe that they think the original system they went with is still the best one? Everything else evolves and changes, everything but not the way an athlete is treated and funded? Stupid.

In football many players get dropped all the time by clubs but get picked up by another club. They could go from Liverpool to Man United down the road. You can't do that in track cycling can you? You can't just go and ride for another country. You have to have citizenship. Different altogether.
 
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
tuckandgo said:
Craigee said:
fmk_RoI said:
Varnish loses.

Details
In a short statement, her management team said: "Judgement was received at 1700 today and it has been found that Jess Varnish was neither an employee or a worker of either British Cycling or UK Sport."

The statement concluded by saying the 28-year-old, who is due to give birth to her first child this week, and her legal team will digest the 43-page judgement before issuing further comment.
Just big wigs looking out for fellow big wigs. How it is even possible in 2019 for taxes being used to be paid to an athlete as their income without them having any employment protection or any rights at all is corruption. Nothing else. So the sackings of all the coaches was just in reply to the perception BC was coming across with. They never had to sack anyone because the athletes have no rights? Maybe they should sue BC for unfair dismissals. Democracy huh. What a joke.
What are you talking about? I fundamentally disagree with you. *Edited by King Boonen*

If you are fortunate to be top level at a sport then if governing bodies want the best results it is reasonable that you should get given a grant of money to enable you to maximise your training by not having to work. That's it. You're not employed. They don't owe you anything. You turn up, perform, the best people get picked for the squad and given a grant, the even better people get picked for the team on the day. If you are no longer good enough to be picked you don't get to be in the squad and you don't get a grant to enable you to train without working.

Otherwise we just revert back to amateur status, where you have a job and try and train around that.

But that it, two options. And even in football which is more like a business, you can't sue if a team drops you for being no good anymore.
Disagree. All other public servants paid by the tax payer has an employment contract with rights. It's archaic that a paid individual has no employee rights in 2019. I can't believe that they think the original system they went with is still the best one? Everything else evolves and changes, everything but not the way an athlete is treated and funded? Stupid.

In football many players get dropped all the time by clubs but get picked up by another club. They could go from Liverpool to Man United down the road. You can't do that in track cycling can you? You can't just go and ride for another country. You have to have citizenship. Different altogether.
Australian track rider Shane Perkins has switched from Australia to Russia for the 2020 Olympics.
 
Green light for appeal: https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/50825263

NB - the appeal was filed months ago, before Freeman tribunal, and is on a point of law: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/cycling/47576513
Varnish's legal team believe their client has grounds to appeal on a point of law. Varnish's lawyer Simon Fenton, of Constantine Law, said: "The appeal tribunal has been asked to overturn the original judgment and to decide that Ms Varnish was an employee."

He said the tribunal was wrong on a number of counts, including in how it found the services and benefits she received from British Cycling were not remuneration; and how it "failed to explain how the work performed by a professional football player is different from the work performed by Jess for British Cycling".
Statement from Varnish: View: https://twitter.com/danroan/status/1206940454513721344?s=19
 
There were women in British Cycling's operational side lol? Can't say I didn't skim this book pretty quick at a mates one night, but lack of women interviewed wasn't my immediate complaint. Seemed to be written more from an observational level through the operational staff was my impression of it rather than the riders as such.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Invicituz The Clinic 0
Similar threads
Doping Quotes - All Sports

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts