Lizzie Deignan latest to speak about experiences of sexism in cycling

BC receives a lot of funding from UK Sport and Sport England to promote "inspiration to participation" through success at elite level. This funding comes with caveats and is driven by winning Olympic medals. Therefore, the organisation has, possibly unwittingly, focussed efforts where success is most likely. Hence the huge success on the track which translated to the road. Without the medals gained in Sydney (2000), Athens (2004), Beijing (2008) and London 2012 BC would have not recieved the increasing amount of funds from the government. Some of this has been employed to promote other parts of cycle sport and BC is endeavouring to be an all encompassing governing body but cannot loose focus on what it's paymasters expect.

When talking about what BC does or does not do, the motivations behind this are partially formed by the organisation meeting the criteria necessary for the state funding it receives. Therefore, it has a dilemma - do something for all areas of cyclesport but not get the expected number of medals or concentrate on getting medals and then get more funds. There are other factors that affect how sport is shaped in the UK.

It isn't just women's cycling.

There might not be a campaign of discrimination - but it's the flipside of biases. It's men interested in road and track prioritising men's road and track. Oceandweller mentioned MTB; there're examples of relatively shoddy treatment of BMX too.

Your points about popularity and market forces only go so far with BC because it takes public money and has a mission to extend and support all forms of cycling for all. It can't justify biases because it isn't a commercial enterprise and has allowed its relationship with Sky to get way too muddy (see the recent difficulty in unpicking roles and remits for the Commons evidence).

I'm not really a fan of 'positive discrimination' but maybe if BC wasn't full of men who liked road and track and there was a clear distinction between people doing paid work for BC and those doing the same for Sky... (of course it's possible that this is all being straightened out now, but the recent changes in BC 'leadership' seem to be marketing wonks).

Speaking as a (male) BC member, yes, the organisation's attitudes need updating. In addition to the rather evident male chauvinism, I'd say the organisation appears to have a narrow road 'n' track centred worldview.

For one thing, there seems little understanding of, or enthusiasm for, mountain biking.

OK, BC has a historic & public focus on road & track racing, but it's also seen by the UCI as the national body for mountain biking, a role it very largely ignores. That was brought home only too clearly before the Rio Olympics, when it was only through the UCI that we saw any GB riders in the XC race at all, not from any efforts by BC. If BC can't (or doesn't feel inclined to) treat mountain biking fairly it should ask some other organisation to take over liason with the UCI.

The attitude to mountain biking is bad enough but the fact BC appears to ignore utility cycling altogether is inexcusable. Why isn't BC joining Cycling UK in campaigning for better cycling infrastructure?

I believe in BC & certainly don't want to see the organisation damaged. But I'd also like to see it change & grow to be more inclusive.

Let's all jump on Rowsell for not having anything juicy to say about how terrible BC is and pick a couple of words without any context to prove she's part of the cabal

There is no denying that there are things that need addressing at BC but they are not responsible for all of the problems in cycling. Mentioning the prize money at world championships in an article about BC is somewhat unfair. It is the UCI not BC who set these. At the moment the media seem to hold BC responsible for everything that isn't right in cycling. The sport is changing and we are going forwards. There will be situations that come to light and highlight what needs to be changed. This is always going to happen. The options are to make the change and know that we have made things better for future participants of our sport or constantly use the media to knock our sport and deter future participants. Cycling is progressing and improving - comparison with the way it was shows this as confirmed in this article.

I heard Rowsell interviewed once, where she described herself as a "native briton", which made me wonder a bit about her...

Joanna Rowsell Shand managed to slip a sly little dig in there:  "I accepted the commitment that was needed... and dedicated a decade of my life to it."   Sort of taints the rest of what she says as bitter and unreliable.