Investigators confident they have ‘full facts’ as probe allegations of bullying at British Cycling

Investigators looking into allegations of bullying at British Cycling are confident they were given full access to past claims against the governing body.

On Tuesday, UK Sport chief executive Liz Nicholl accused the governing body of “a complete lack of transparency” over an internal review conducted after London 2012 which she says covered up claims of bullying in the organisation.

That report was carried out by former British Cycling chief executive Peter King at the behest of his successor Ian Drake, who left the organisation earlier than anticipated last month.

King interviewed 40 riders and staff but the report was not published and UK Sport was only given a summary, which Nicholl said “didn’t raise any alarm bells at all”.

That report, though, has been made available to the latest investigation into British Cycling, set up at the insistence of UK Sport, which will fund British Cycling to the tune of £26million leading up to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

Standard Sport understands that Annamarie Phelps, the chair of the review, and fellow panel members including former England rugby union head coach Stuart Lancaster, were given the King report in its entirety.

A source close to the investigation said there were no concerns about a lack of transparency with regards to past claims of bullying.

The latest report is now not expected to be published until April in a much redacted format, in part to protect the statements of witnesses who came forward in the bullying row, which was launched after Jess Varnish accused former technical director Shane Sutton of bullying and sexism. He denied the allegations, and the inquiry upheld only one of the nine charges against him.

But Nicholl made no secret of a fractious relationship between UK Sport and British Cycling. She said of the King report: “We would have expected to receive the full report at the time.

“That’s a complete lack of transparency and that’s a relationship that is not acceptable in terms of what was shared with us as opposed to what the actual facts of that report were.”