THE lead author of the much-anticipated report into an alleged “culture of fear” within the Great Britain cycling team has denied it is a “whitewash”, saying it is a “strong report with very strong criticisms”.

Written by a five-strong panel led by British Rowing chair Annamarie Phelps, the review was commissioned 14 months ago by governing body British Cycling and elite funding agency UK Sport after allegations made by ex-GB track sprinter Jess Varnish and several other former riders.

Published on Wednesday, the 69-page report is highly critical of British Cycling’s culture, leadership and treatment of Varnish, as well as claiming ex-technical director Shane Sutton – the subject of Varnish’s complaint – was unsuitable for the top coaching job.

However, the report’s language, and some of its conclusions, are significantly diluted from a more damning draft written in February.

That version was leaked in March and accused British Cycling’s board of being “dysfunctional”, “inept” and of effectively covering up an internal investigation into Varnish’s claims last year.

That section in the final report is much altered – and the whole report is seven pages shorter – but the central message is still that the panel believes the board mishandled the case.

“I don’t believe it’s a whitewash,” Phelps told a press conference in London. “I think it’s quite a strong report with very strong recommendations and very strong criticisms.

“I don’t think there’s a shift in tone. The panel collectively looked at the wording very carefully before we decided on a final version.”

Based on more than 100 contributions from current and former riders and staff, the report says many staff members referred to the “culture of fear”, “good governance was lacking” and Sutton operated within a “power pocket” without real oversight.

What is missing, though, compared to the February draft, are direct references to bullying and discrimination.

In fact, Phelps said there was no evidence of bias or favouritism based on gender or anything else, although there was plenty of “discriminatory language” and rifts because of “different funding levels”.

Overall, however, the panel believes Sutton, his predecessor Sir Dave Brailsford and all the coaches were focused on medal potential. But that does not mean there were not big problems within the camp, and by 2016 success was achieved despite a system that appears to have been in danger of unravelling amid fracturing relationships.

For this, the panel laid most of the blame with British Cycling’s ineffectual board and UK Sport for not being nearly curious enough about how tens of millions of Exchequer and Lottery funding were being spent.

Perhaps the most damning document released was not the independent panel’s report but a secret review of the GB set-up conducted in 2012 by former British Cycling boss Peter King for his successor Ian Drake.

That report, which was only seen in its entirety by Brailsford, former British Cycling chief Brian Cookson and Drake, reads like an abridged version of Phelps’ review, minus Varnish’s acrimonious exit.

The warning signs about “autocratic management”, bullying, favouritism, low staff morale, secrecy and Sutton’s unsuitability to replace Brailsford were all reported five years ago, but British Cycling’s inner circle failed to share it or act on it.

UK Sport boss Liz Nicholl admits the turmoil of the last year may have been avoided if she had made sure Drake was giving her the full report and not a very abridged summary.

“It’s a missed opportunity,” she said. “We were unsighted on a full copy of the King report. We should’ve pursued that and acquired a copy of it.

“I trusted that was the full and frank disclosure.”

Meanwhile, Varnish will be greatly disappointed that 14 months after her abrupt exit from the team, she is still none the wiser as to how the decision was reached, who made it and why.

Now 26, she has already started legal action to get the performance data British Cycling still claim was why her racing career ended and it is understood a more general claim may soon be heading its way.

Overall, the final report is undoubtedly the result of a strong lobbying effort from senior figures within cycling. Cookson, for example, who is now International Cycling Union president, felt the initial assessment was far too harsh.

There are also more references to the pressure British Cycling was under because of UK Sport’s “no compromise” approach, which links funding to medal potential, although Nicholl denied it has a win-at-all-costs mentality.

And having already implemented all of the panel’s recommendations, including proposals to restructure the board, British Cycling can probably begin to move on now, albeit under much closer scrutiny and with funding now conditional on staying on the straight and narrow.

As new chairman Jonathan Browning put it: “We’ve identified 39 areas for immediate action, covering governance, leadership and management, culture, athlete whole-life development and welfare and best practice in operational delivery and performance management.

“We are determined to learn the lessons and move forward, ensuring effective and accountable leadership that fosters a transparent and inclusive culture.”

There is also the small matter that nearly everybody responsible for what happened in 2016 and before has gone or is already heading to the exit.

ends