Chloe Dygert apology for social media conduct “not sufficient” says Rapha

And the apparent racist tweets she liked are ok because...?

Well, insofar as they're quoted: 

It's perfectly possible to believe white privilege doesn't exist and also that black people are/have been victims of structural racism. 
 

It's perfectly possible to believe that Kapaernick is cashing in, and also that black people are/have been victims of structural racism. 
 

FWlittleIW, I don't think white privilege is a particularly useful concept, don't think Kapaernick is on the make (any more than any other short-careered pro athlete is entitled to be), and do think black people are/have been victims of structural racism. 

Isn't "white privilege" a kind of shorthand (and perhaps flawed because of that) for that structural racism? Because whatever challenges people face, it's usually (i.e. not always, but the bulk of the time) harder to succeed if you're not white.

So even if you are the disadvantaged working class white male youth, statistically shown to be over-represented in the lowest rungs of educational achievement, you may (I don't know the stats) find the rest of your life easier than others with the same level of achievement because you do not face discrimination because of your race.

However badly I've put that, the _average_ life is harder if you're black and easier if you're white. And that needs to change.

Some people use it as that kind of shorthand, yes. I don't know the stats on that, but I agree it's plausible that the worst-off white people have things easier in some ways than the worst-off black people. 
Others use it to argue that all white people benefit from their whiteness, and therefore owe something or have something to answer to black people in general for. That's evidently bollocks, and is grist to the mill of those who want to foster a sense of grievance in white people at the bottom of the heap who don't feel that they need to feel guilty because someone else's ancestors were involved in the slave trade 300 years ago. 
Anyway. What does anyone think about helmets?

As Rapha sponsors her, they have every right to speak out if they think that she's damaging their image. If she's not happy with having to live with their influence, then she doesn't have to accept their sponsorship.

The way I see it, sponsored athletes are essentially 'employed' by the companies' marketing arm and need to consider what they post on social media.

And this happened before she had signed for Canyon-Sram; it isn't really Rapha's business. 

However, maybe Rapha should have expressed their views in private to her/ or her new team.

they sponsor the team she has since joined (some might question how much of a sponsor to the team they are, given how little effort they seem to put in to promoting the team, but thats probably another debate entirely) she wasnt sponsored by them when she "liked" these tweets, so are we saying an athlete has to bear in mind all potential future commercial relationships and conduct rules whilst expressing their opinions ? you might well say yes but I doubt every single athlete in the world has had their social media history checked in great detail to make sure they conform to that standard.

I think we forget in the UK the US, and its no coincidence both the cyclists called out for this kind of social media faux pas recently have been American, is very much of the view the 1st amendment protects their right to free speech. You can totally disagree with what they say or said or expressed a like for once, but its perceived in the US its their absolute right to say it and not, and this is crucial part, suffer any negative consequences for it.

I don't think your understanding of the 1st amendment is quite right - as I understand it, it's rather narrower and about government censorship, whereas individuals and corporations can take umbrage as they please.

absolutely, technically the 1st amendment simply says the US government cant take action against what you say, which equals "free speech", but I can assure you a great chunk of America, & remember 73.9million of them voted for the other guy, is it gives them the right to free speech without fear of censure from anyone and theyll cite the 1st amendment for that right, and thats critically important to understand in this context, its not just what they believe to be the case, they believe its backed up by the constitution & that influences their behaviour & especially so when those opinions can be broadcast worldwide at the click of a button.

I think Compact Corned Beef put it quite well.

It is a problem that social meda posts can survive and haunt the future person and that means that people should take care with posting divisive views when their career involves being a public face of companies.

Publicity cuts both ways - you get more exposure to what you want to say, but you also have to live with the consequences of what you said.

I agree with your last sentence, publicity does cut both ways, in more ways than one & there will no doubt be consequences of it all around.

but as Rapha are committed to equality which is great, so Im sure there will be as many Canyon SRAM goodies for sale in their shop as EF Pro Cycling next season then.

You go wrong in your last sentence.

Yes freedom of speech is important and protected by the first amendment. Nowhere in that amendment (or anywhere else) however does it say you are free from consequences. If I go on Twitter and rant about how the shop where I work has a shitty range of products and they are way too expensive and people shouldn't buy there, you bet my employee will make me suffer the consequences. And rightly so. I have the right to say it, they have the right to not like it and take measures accordingly.

I wouldnt disagree on that kind of example, but the situation here isnt quite the same, youve got a sponsor to your new employer who is complaining that things you did on social media when you werent an employee of theirs, werent then dealt with to their satisfaction, even though you publically then accepted with your employer it was wrong and issued joint statements apologising for it and willingness to learn from it

No comparison is ever 'the same'. That doesn't matter though, as I am not comparing the two situations (or claiming they are the same), but the principle behind it. I am just illustrating that it is not true that just because people are free tos say what they want, they are free of the consequences from what they say, by giving an example that shows that.

There's a difference between free speech and consequence free speech. Dygert is free to say pretty much what she wants, but if she works for an organisation (or sponsor) that says they champion diversity and inclusion and she openly espouses the opposite view there will be consequences. 
 

Would it not have made sense to look into this before signing the rider for the team? Either that or admit they made a mistake signing someone who isn't the right fit, tear up the contract and find another former World TT champion to sign up

I have an opinion about this affair but I'm keeping quiet.

As is your right. In other news, I have the exact mug you have on your bio pic 😀

Waleskun wrote:

As is your right. In other news, I have the exact mug you have on your bio pic 😀

You will be sorry to hear it is now used for washing paintbrushes after the small dog broke the handle.

( I know, I know, I should give the dog her drinks in a bowl )

Wise move. And don't you dare "like" any of the comments here or there might be hell to pay. You might even get fired five years from now when your woke human resources department discovers the "like".

I agree, I would make total sense to check that a person is a good fit with your organisational ethos before hiring them. However that's not Rapha's problem cos they didn't sign her and they can't fire her, they don't run the team. 
Rapha's problem is they are going to be associated with someone who holds opposite views on inclusion and diversity to the ones they publicly advertise. Makes them look hypocritical.  

Have to disagree here. If Rapha had kept their traps shut few if anyone would have taken any notice. Those that did would in all probability had no effect on Rpahs sales anyway. Most of the world don't give a toss about Rapha. 

Someone somewhere has had the opportunity to put their own selfish views over common sense. Views that are usually professed to be kind, considerate and equal to all yet are usually the opposite. Ever noticed how those preaching being lovely to everyone of evry view are actually the least tolerant of dissent? 

Er.... no. I think you'll find totalitarian autocrats the least tolerant of dissent.

Msiv wrote:

Rapha are obnoxious in their attempts to limit individual liberties using an athletes livelihood as a stick to beat them with.

So you're saying that Rapha, her team's sponsor, can't express an opinion on what they consider unacceptable behaviour in a sponsored athlete?

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed an opinion or that they shouldn't make it public? You can have an opinion on it so why can't they?

What liberties are they infringing? Do you even know what that means?

If Rapha do nothing they could be seen as silently endorsing racist or prejudiced views. Perhaps you're OK with that, it's how things have been for far too long.

I'd argue that Rapha are 100% entitled to have an opinion and express it publicly. If it was my company's name on the team jersey I'd be extremely keen to know whether my riders, employees etc were honest or had views or behaved in a way that so strongly contradicted my own beliefs.

If a team claiming to be clean takes on a rider who they knew had been doping before would you be OK if they didn't care about that rider's attitude to doping and whether that rider may cheat again?

Perhaps people on here also think that the BC was too harsh on the coach that was sacked this week for inappropriate behaviour (Guardian) and he should be allowed to carry on as before and BC, their sponsors and supporters keep their mouths shut.

Simon E wrote:

I'd argue that Rapha are 100% entitled to have an opinion and express it publicly. If it was my company's name on the team jersey I'd be extremely keen to know whether my riders, employees etc were honest or had views or behaved in a way that so strongly contradicted my own beliefs  

They are entitled to their views, and if they are going to pin their tasteful colours to a mast which cheats female cyclists out of fair competition and denies vulnerable women single-sex spaces that they need I hope their potential customers pay attention to those views. 
 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the politics, it's nothing like someone using drugs or abusing their position of power at work. If one of my colleagues has racist or "transphobic" views, it is neither my nor my employer's business as long as they keep those views to themself at work and don't allow them to affect their performance. Everyone, even well-paid athletes, is entitled to their views and to express them (within the law) without fear of getting the sack  

Would you support the rights of a team which decided to discipline/fire a rider for supporting BLM? What's sauce for the racist goose has to be sauce for the liberal gander.

sadly there is no money in women's pro cycling. if Rapha is paying her millions and demands an apology that is one thing, they are paying her pennies

That's true, I'm afraid, and will only get worse if characters like Rachel McKinnon (or whatever they go by now) are allowed to make a mockery of the sport and deny girls the chance to see women succeeding in women's cycling and think "I could do that if I trained hard enough". 

Brauchsel wrote:

What's sauce for the racist goose has to be sauce for the liberal gander.

Are you saying that it's OK to be racist because other people - you call them 'liberals' as if it's some kind of slur - have a very different view?

And you are happy to work with people who are racists provided they don't talk about it in front of you? Is that the kind of behaviour you're happy to tolerate in the name of free speech?

If you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I disagree that Rapha are exposing women to danger by their stance and I'd be very surprised if they intended anyone make that interpretation. That seems like whataboutery to me.