Jess Varnish case against British Cycling handed boost as Dr Richard Freeman evidence is accepted

Richard Freeman’s evidence supports her view that riders do as their told at British Cycling, in the same way that employees do at companies elsewhere

Jess Varnish is seeking to sue British Cycling (Getty Images)

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.

Dr Freeman was advised by his own lawyer not to attend the tribunal when it became apparent that representatives of the General Medical Council (GMC) wanted to hear him be cross-examined by British Cycling’s barrister Thomas Linden QC.

That would have been a bruising experience as Linden, in his own words, would have “challenged his probity” and tried to portray Dr Freeman as someone “with an axe to grind”.

This is because Dr Freeman, who has been suffering from depression, was allowed to resign from British Cycling earlier this year instead of face a disciplinary process over allegations related to his time at the National Cycling Centre – matters that will be examined in a GMC tribunal in February.

Varnish’s camp, however, believe his GMC situation has nothing to do with his ability to give evidence on the nature of athletes’ status within the Great Britain cycling team.

So, despite Dr Freeman’s evidence also being unsigned, her barrister David Reade QC asked Judge Ross to include it in the bundle of witness statements. Reade said Dr Freeman had confirmed its contents by email.

Linden “completely objected” to this request, saying the “circumstances of Dr Freeman’s non-appearance were murky, to say the least” and putting an unsigned statement into the public record would be a mistake because it would give the doctor “plausible deniability” if he had to row back on it.

Judge Ross, however, said employment tribunals were “less formal” than courts so she would admit it but give it “very little weight” in her deliberations.

Very little weight is better than no weight, though, which will cheer the former European and World Cup team sprint champion Varnish, as Dr Freeman’s evidence supports her view that riders do as their told at British Cycling, in the same way that employees do at companies elsewhere.

“The control by the coaches over the athletes was complete – cycling is a coach-led sport,” wrote Dr Freeman. “The coach would decide everything. The athletes were very firmly controlled.”

In his statement, he claimed that “non-compliance was not acceptable” as only the coaches decided who would stay on the programme or not.

British Cycling has been dogged with controversy (NurPhoto via Getty)

“Such matters were supposedly decided by reference to the selection criteria but these were so vague as to be like ‘scotch mist’.”

He also claimed that his job as her doctor and “advocate” was to “protect her from the excesses of the coaches”, a reference to the risk of over-training. And he described Varnish as “a little bit more assertive than other female cyclists”.

Varnish, who was dropped from the Olympic programme in March 2016, has to persuade Judge Ross that she was effectively employed by British Cycling and the funding agency UK Sport before she can sue British Cycling for wrongful dismissal, sex discrimination and detriment to a whistle-blower.

The rest of Thursday’s session was taken up by Reade cross-examining British Cycling’s head coach Iain Dyer and programme director Andy Harrison, as well as UK Sport chief executive Liz Nicholl.

Both Dyer and Harrison were challenged on several points related to the level of control British Cycling had over athletes in terms of when they trained, what they did in their free time, what they wore and what personal sponsorship deals they made.

Final submissions in the case, which could transform how British athletes are funded, are on Friday, with a verdict expected on Monday.

PA