Page 1 of 4

Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 9:10pm
by landsurfer
So she was dropped for being too slow .... and now she will destroy the incomes of all semi professional cyclists .... discuss.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 9:43pm
by 1982john
Image

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 10 Dec 2018, 11:47pm
by PH
landsurfer wrote:now she will destroy the incomes of all cyclists

I don't think she's going to destroy my income, I hope not anyway, maybe you know something we don't? Though maybe not, you seem to be spouting the line BC are spending thousands spinning. Whatever the outcome of the tribunal, she shouldn't of had to endure the bullying she alleges and I applaud her for fighting back when it would probably have been easier not to.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 7:02am
by landsurfer
You've hit it on the nail .... "the bullying she alleges", we lost a superb coach, and threw a team into disarray because "snowflake' Varnish could not accept that she was not good enough for the team ... bottom line ... not fast enough.
Think her lawyers scent high fees and are keeping this gravey train running full pelt.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 8:24am
by Tangled Metal
Or the coach was an obnoxious, bullying tawt that nobody was willing to call out because of his role in helping talented cyclists achieve their full potential.

Take your pick according to your own prejudices and beliefs.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 9:37am
by thirdcrank
AIUI, the current case is restricted to deciding JV's employment status as the recipient of élite athlete funding. Again AIUI, all governing bodies have assumed that funded athletes are self employed. If that turns out to be wrong, then there will have to be a lot of changes to the way it's all administered such as National Insurance contributions. If the status quo is upheld, then self-employed status means fewer employment rights (and most of JV's wider case will be weaker.)

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 10:11am
by reohn2
thirdcrank wrote:AIUI, the current case is restricted to deciding JV's employment status as the recipient of élite athlete funding. Again AIUI, all governing bodies have assumed that funded athletes are self employed. If that turns out to be wrong, then there will have to be a lot of changes to the way it's all administered such as National Insurance contributions. If the status quo is upheld, then self-employed status means fewer employment rights (and most of JV's wider case will be weaker.)

Ah!

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 11:08am
by PH
landsurfer wrote:You've hit it on the nail .... "the bullying she alleges",

Indeed, I'm commenting on the basis that we're unlikely to know all the facts, you're doing so on the basis that you do. Instead of the name calling, why not share them?
Think her lawyers scent high fees and are keeping this gravey train running full pelt.

My limited experience of lawyers is that they aren't cheap. Wherever the funding for this is coming from, someone has to believe there's a case to answer and is prepared to fund it. That should be enough for us to not reach conclusions till at least the end of the legal process.
thirdcrank's description of this preliminary hearing is correct, unless it's considered she was employed it seems she has no case against the alleged discrimination. I find that appalling in itself and it has much wider implications in an employment world where quasi self employment is becoming more common.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 2:16pm
by geocycle
This does sound like a seminal moment and I agree that it will have major implications for how we employ people in all sports. This is the BBC's Dan Roan's take:

'If the tribunal finds in Varnish's favour, not only could she be awarded compensation for lost earnings - it may have major repercussions for hundreds of other athletes. UK Sport may become liable for backdated pensions and tax contributions of other athletes - and then have to cut the numbers who receive support. UK Sport currently treats athlete funds as if they are student grants - with no tax having to be paid. But all that could change if Varnish prevails.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46430844

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 2:44pm
by Norman H
geocycle wrote:This does sound like a seminal moment and I agree that it will have major implications for how we employ people in all sports. This is the BBC's Dan Roan's take:

'If the tribunal finds in Varnish's favour, not only could she be awarded compensation for lost earnings - it may have major repercussions for hundreds of other athletes. UK Sport may become liable for backdated pensions and tax contributions of other athletes - and then have to cut the numbers who receive support. UK Sport currently treats athlete funds as if they are student grants - with no tax having to be paid. But all that could change if Varnish prevails.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/46430844



That may well be the outcome but it's hardly the fault of Jess Varnish. If BC had dealt with her original grievance in the appropriate manner she wouldn't be pursuing her present action.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 2:46pm
by Vorpal
I think that it is long past time that the difference between grants and employment status was clarified. It's not only in sports, but also in some other areas, such as artistic endeavors where people are effectively employed, but contractually considered to be self-employed.

I don't have a problem with grants for athletes. In fact, I think they are generally a good way of funding athletes. But perhaps not at the elite level. Also, I can imagine that in some cases, it is a somewhat difficult distinction to make. But an athlete who is competing on behalf of her country at an elite level should certainly be considered an employee.

On the other hand, it's a step up from some years ago, when British cyclists weren't always provided with more than the kit they wore.

p.s. the allegations against Shane Sutton were discussed here, and here, as well as in the 'podium girls' thread. I don't think that we need to rehash it again on this thread.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 4:08pm
by Tangled Metal
Vorpal wrote:p.s. the allegations against Shane Sutton were discussed here, and here, as well as in the 'podium girls' thread. I don't think that we need to rehash it again on this thread.


Unfortunately I suspect the op has opened that topic again perhaps . You can't leave comments like that unanswered, can you?
landsurfer wrote:So she was dropped for being too slow .... and now she will destroy the incomes of all semi professional cyclists .... discuss.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 4:23pm
by De Sisti
landsurfer wrote:So she was dropped for being too slow .... and now she will destroy the incomes of all semi professional cyclists .... discuss.

Me thinks the OP has a vested inerest in this. :roll:

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 4:39pm
by landsurfer
De Sisti wrote:
landsurfer wrote:So she was dropped for being too slow .... and now she will destroy the incomes of all semi professional cyclists .... discuss.

Me thinks the OP has a vested inerest in this. :roll:


No ... just read the article in the Grauniad ... often wondered what her issue was .... discrimination, bullying, rude Aussies .... but Laura Kenny grew during the coach's tenure .... and went fast enough ...... JV didn't. Her funding was removed because she did not meet performance standards, i believe, feel free to put me right.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 11 Dec 2018, 6:10pm
by mjr
landsurfer wrote:No ... just read the article in the Grauniad ... often wondered what her issue was .... discrimination, bullying, rude Aussies .... but Laura Kenny grew during the coach's tenure .... and went fast enough ...... JV didn't. Her funding was removed because she did not meet performance standards, i believe, feel free to put me right.

Let's leave that to the hearings. It wouldn't be the first time BC was accused of removing funding from a woman for other reasons.