BC- Abuse of process?

For those who like going round in circles
User avatar
OffTheBackAdam
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 16:34 pm

BC- Abuse of process?

Postby OffTheBackAdam » Thu May 24, 2012 21:12 pm

Future of Manchester Regional Track League in doubt as British Cycling suspend organiser
The future of the Friday night First Division of Manchester Regional Track League is in doubt today following the suspension of the organiser Peter Lickfold by a British Cycling Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Lickfold was involved in a dispute with the parents of a youth rider who accused him of sexism when their daughter was moved to a different racing group at a Track League event in October 2011. The policy of moving riders to accommodate the track limits at the Manchester Velodrome was clearly stated on the event programme and emphasised that it was based only on the necessity to equalise the number of riders in each group and was not a reflection of the affected rider(s) or their ability.
The matter was referred to the BC Compliance Officer by the parents and it was concluded that Mr Lickfold had no case to answer. At no time did the parents make their grievance known to the Committee of the Manchester Regional Track League.
In spite of this, the complainants persisted and the matter was eventually referred to the newly instigated British Cycling Disciplinary Officer who immediately issued a judgement against Mr Lickfold without a hearing being held. Mr Lickfold was required to accept a sanction indefinitely suspending him from organising events and requiring him to attend a Safeguarding Children workshop.
When Mr Lickfold refused to accept this sanction the case was referred to a Disciplinary Committee hearing to be held in the south of the country on a Bank Holiday weekend. Mr Lickfold’s legal advisor was unable to attend on the scheduled day and British Cycling refused to rearrange the hearing to a time or location at which he could.
In Mr Lickfold’s absence the Disciplinary Committee upheld the sanction and awarded costs against him. They further suspended Mr Lickfold for questioning the actions of the BC Compliance Officer in reversing his original assertion that Mr Lickfold had no case to answer.
The Committee of Manchester Regional Track League condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions of British Cycling and its Disciplinary Committee in dealing with this case and will be referring the matter to the British Cycling North West Region Board for urgent action.
Peter Lickfold, a former member of the British Cycling Executive Board and a dedicated volunteer event organiser for over 40 years, was a founder of the Manchester Regional Track League when Manchester Velodrome opened in 1994 and has organised and administered the Friday night league ever since. It is among the most popular track events in the country and is regularly oversubscribed. No complaint had ever been made regarding his conduct as organiser prior to this case.
In reaching the judgement against Mr Lickfold, the BC Disciplinary Committee appear to have had scant regard for his many years of dedicated service to the sport. The Committee of the Manchester Regional Track League believe that the actions of the British Cycling Disciplinary Committee sets an extremely dangerous precedent and will inevitably cause other event organisers to consider their position very carefully for fear that they will be subjected to a similar fate.
Issued by The Manchester Regional Track League Committee, 23rd May 2012

neonriver
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 18:58 pm

Re: BC- Abuse of process?

Postby neonriver » Fri May 25, 2012 09:37 am

Very strange situation i think. If you read the judgement on BC website its completely different to the MRTL statement :? http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/disciplinary/DisciplinaryComplaint_0003_Lickfold_Judgment.pdf

(Edited to correct spelling

appy
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:19 am

Re: BC- Abuse of process?

Postby appy » Fri May 25, 2012 11:16 am

two vastly differing stories there

User avatar
Daz555
Posts: 3931
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 14:59 pm

Re: BC- Abuse of process?

Postby Daz555 » Wed May 30, 2012 16:00 pm

appy wrote:two vastly differing stories there

This.
You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.


Return to “Track”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest