'Damning' verdict expected from independent review into British Cycling

I'm curious what will be revealed about the BMX riders. Tre White and Quillan Isidore have not had the full backing of BC it seems. At the worlds, Tre had financial backing to go on his own but was blocked by BC. The BMX community has not had adequate answers to this. As a result, he was not able to go to the Olympics in Brazil. Again, his sponsors were willing to support him to go to the Olympics. As it happens, BC only allowed two UK male riders to go to compete in the Olympics, despite having additional places, as well as talented riders with the backing necessary. Why was this?

Looking at the ethnic mix of the riders in BC, you do have to ask similar questions as to why certain female riders were blocked from competing.

Don't know about anyone else - but I'm keeping my ire and indignation on ice untill the report has actually been released (and probbly kicked about a bit to see how well it holds water).

However can someone remind me - what is the exact scope of the investigation? Is this about sexisium in BC, TUEs & dodgy packagages at Sky or UKAD not following up on leads??? These are three seprate issues right?

If everything said is true and detailed in the report. There are 2 things, in my personal opinion, that should be done.

First,
In my opinion, British Cycling has hired the "global advisory firm" to mainly protect the reputation of those involved and those who didn't act while they're the ones, that damaged the British Cycling reputation. And they do so with British tax payers' money, which is outrageous. Not only it sould stop, but they should sue them for damaging British Cycling's reputation.

Second,
Not a single article as ever mentioned or reminded that Brian Cookson, the current UCI President, previously served as president of British Cycling from 1997 to 2013. In my opinion, he is ultimately the one responsible for having put in place this faulty system and/or maintained it during that period.
No later than a week ago, Brian Cookson commented on some aspect of the affair ¹.
In my opinion, Brian Cookson should, if he had some judgment ...
a) have waited for the results of the inquiry to comment.
b) have shown and show some sort of judicial self-restraint since he is in direct conflict of interests as former President of British Cycling.
c) have restraint from supporting
Sutton, showing a total disrespect, to those who complained about Sutton's behavior. Especially, without knowing the conclusion of the report.
d) have kept is mouth shut because, by showing support to Sutton, Brian Cookson is indirectly proving that he would'nt have acted upon sexism and discrimination allegations against Sutton under his Presidency.

In my opiniom, these four (4) points prove that Brian Cooking is not qualified to serve as UCI President.
Therefore, I believe that Brian Cookson should resign as UCI President.

¹ http://road.cc/content/news/215952-cookson-frustrated-over-wiggins-contr...

I'm at a loss as to why we are doing this to ourselves.  As far as I can see, they've had a 'gripper' in Shane Sutton who arguably gripped more than he should, but we can't even make our minds up about that. 

As far as couriering something over is concerned, well, if Sky knew that something was suitable and not on the list, only a negligent maniac would pick something off the local pharmacy shelves that looked to be about the same.  So we're left with would it have been better to entrust it to DHL or stick someone on a plane?  Given the sports plan, the latter wins hands down if you've got the money.

In my book, a TUE is a TUE, and there's a line drawn.  It might not be  avery good line, but there it is.  I wholly expect other teams to be using them, because that's the right side of the line.   If you take the view that no-one should compete with any sort of medication, fine, but that's just a line in a different place, and a really vague line to boot - take cafeine, for example, and assess which side of the line that would sit.  Would you be allowed coffee in training but not competition? 

The pessimist in me thinks that whatever meat comes out in the report will be picked to the bone, pumped full of speculative conspirational theory such that the facts will be lost in a pit of effluent, so much of which will be thrown at the fan that some must stick. No wonder they're recruiting a reputation management expert! Not wishing to downplay any potential wrong-doing but it's going to be a real maelstrom when the report is released (which no doubt will be after many leaked excerpts). 

The optimist in me hopes that the reputation management firm will help them do the right thing in response as that it a critical part of managing the reputational damage. I do fear there will be more spin than that though...

I sincerely hope that if British Cycling has hired a reputation management expert they haven't used their funding from UK Sport and Sport England for this purpose!

This article is only speculation but I do hope that it is wrong.

Otherwise we have a scenario where British Cycling's response to criticism is to hire a reputation management expert rather than embracing the review's findings and making the necessary improvements.

"use of TUEs in professional cycling was used to try and mask an organised doping programme."

One can only hope this shames that clown wiggins into returning his yellow jerseys.