For all its successes on the track in 2016, British Cycling continues to lurch unsteadily through a series of public-relations mishaps off it – many of them of its own making.
Yet even by its standards, contriving to upset Jess Varnish and Shane Sutton in an internal review designed to find the inner truth of their dispute – while also generating more fears about its lack of openness – is not a good look.
Varnish is understood to have been stunned when she opened the letter from British Cycling on Wednesday morning giving more detail about its internal investigation with Sutton. Five weeks ago that investigation had appeared to vindicate her, deciding that Sutton had used “inappropriate and discriminatory language”.
Now most of her allegations were rejected by the same pithy, two-word answer: Not upheld.
Sutton had every right to feel angry too, given British Cycling’s damning statement against him in October. It had given the impression that all Varnish’s allegations, including her insistence that he had told her to “get on with having a baby” had been vindicated. In fact, only one of them – that he had used the word “bitches” – had been.
British Cycling is yet to comment on the leak, or to say whether it will release the full report. Yet without understanding how it came to the decisions, everyone is left in a curious and unsatisfactory limbo. Varnish has no grounds of appeal, while the rest of us are none the wiser as to why its original statement hung out Sutton to dry. Clearly parties have their supporters: publishing the report in full would reveal the weight of testimony the panel received, how it judged it, and why it reached the decisions it did.
These things need context and precision, not a misleading press release followed by a vow of silence. There is a worrying pattern here: a lack of openness and transparency in British Cycling.
We still do not know, for instance, what was in the package one of its staff delivered to Team Sky for Bradley Wiggins on the day he won the Critérium du Dauphiné in 2011 – an issue that blew up in September – or whether British Cycling keeps a record of what its staff carry, particularly with regard to medicines.
There are questions too about the use and possible misuse of therapeutic medical exemptions (TUEs) within British Cycling and Team Sky.
Sutton is yet to comment but speaking to the Guardian yesterday Varnish’s lawyer, Simon Fenton, said his client has nothing to hide and reiterated his desire for the ruling body to release the full report. “British Cycling is supported by taxpayers via the National Lottery and because of that they have a duty not only to be fair but to be seen to be fair,” he said.
“And they are failing in that. If you are taking a GCSE maths exam you have to show your workings, because just coming up with an answer would fail. British Cycling need to come up with their workings because as it stands it looks like they have failed Jess.
“She is angry and she feels betrayed by the process,” he added. “She wants the full workings to be out there because she believes she will be vindicated.”
We might have to wait for a separate independent review into British Cycling, which is being carried out after other riders, including Victoria Pendleton and Nicole Cooke, claimed there was a culture of sexism and bullying in the organisation while Sutton was in charge. That was due to be released last month but it is understood it will not now be published until the new year.
The impression of British Cycling as an organisation that is being buffeted by crosswinds and responding by curling up in a ball only deepens, meanwhile. It maintains that 2016 has been a hugely successful year, and of course it has been, with Olympic and Paralympic success and a new commercial partnership with HSBC.
But it seemed appropriate that as it was refusing to talk publicly yesterday an email arrived from the culture, media and sport committee, confirming that it would be questioning Bob Howden, the president and chair of British Cycling, Dr George Gilbert, the chair of the British Cycling ethics commission as well as Sutton and Sir Dave Brailsford on 19 December.
Perhaps it will have more luck in getting answers.
