Halesowen cyclist Jess Varnish ‘has put self-interest first’, tribunal told

Varnish is trying to persuade the tribunal she was effectively employed by British Cycling and the elite funding agency UK Sport so she can then sue cycling’s governing body for wrongful dismissal, sex discrimination and detriment to a whistle-blower.

If the former European and World Cup team sprint champion succeeds in being treated as an employee, it could have far-reaching implications for how all British Olympic and Paralympic athletes are funded.

But in his final submission to Judge Ross, British Cycling’s barrister Thomas Linden QC said Varnish and her witnesses have told “half-truths” and “gravely misrepresented” her coaches at British Cycling.

“Tribunals are usually decided on the documentation alone, and not on moments of sound and fury, but it was necessary for me to use sound and fury during cross-examination because of the way the claimant’s evidence was presented,” said Linden.

“This is a case of the highest public interest and extremely important to athletes, sport and the funding bodies, so it is vital a true and fair picture is presented,” said Mr Linden.

“What we have witnessed here is the difference between self interest and the public interest. For good or ill we have presented the facts – I am not sure I am able to say the same of the claimant,” Mr Linden said.

Mr Linden said it was “very unfortunate” he had been forced to cross-examine Varnish and her witnesses - former GB BMX star Liam Phillips, now her partner, and her agent James Harper - so aggressively but he had no choice.

In a submission that lasted nearly two hours, Mr Linden tried to rubbish Varnish’s evidence about the amount of control British Cycling coaches had over their riders in terms of what they wear, when they train, what they do in their spare time and what personal sponsors they can have.

He accused Varnish’s barrister David Reade QC of a “tactical error” in basing his argument on recent high-profile ‘gig economy’ cases - employment rows involving workers at Addison Lee, Pimlico Plumbers and Uber - and said his opposite number had “scored a hat-trick of own goals” by drawing attention to examples when British Cycling coaches had treated young athletes “like they were school children - they were school children”.

Grants

But this case will hinge on whether Judge Ross believes the agreements that funded athletes sign with their respective governing bodies and UK Sport are “contracts of employment” or not.

In an explanation that ranged from concrete mixers to lap dancers, Mr Linden said the agreements athletes sign “are highly restrictive but not contracts of employment”.

He argued that they are “tax-free, means-tested grants” and the terms and conditions are all there in the small print.

“They’re trying to drive a round peg into a square hole,” said Mr Linden.

“I’m not saying this is an education case but we all went to school, we wore school uniform, we were disciplined if we broke the rules and our results affected the school’s funding.

“But nobody would say they worked for their school or, as they progressed through the system, for their university.”

UK Sport’s barrister Jane Mulcahy QC made similar points but less stridently, although she did make it clear that the funding agency believes Varnish’s case is entirely without merit.

Varnish’s side made their closing arguments yesterday afternoon.

The verdict in the case will not be revealed until mid-January at the earliest, the tribunal was told.

After four days of cagey, complex and, at times, confrontational argument, Judge Ross told the tribunal on Friday she will now retire to deliberate but would be reserving her judgement. This means she will not reveal her decision on Monday, as scheduled, but “will strive” to publish a written verdict within 28 working days, which she hoped would be “by mid-January”.