Picnic PostNL versus the media investigation on culture of fear: 'It’s a kind of diversionary tactic'

The pressure on Picnic PostNL has intensified significantly over the past week. The revelations by In de Waaier and NOS about a culture of fear within the team have caused quite a stir, but there were also voices that contradicted the stories. In his podcast In de Waaier, Thijs Zonneveld responded to the accounts of John Degenkolb, Rudi Kemna, and others who spoke out in favour of the team.

Kemna had previously stated that he only “partially” recognised the accounts of riders speaking about a culture of fear at the team. Degenkolb vehemently denied them.

“In my sixteen years as a professional with Picnic PostNL, I have never experienced a ‘culture of fear.’ Neither before nor after my deliberate return to the team in 2022.”’ He then addressed Zonneveld and NOS journalist Nando Boers. ‘Why were voices like mine and many others omitted from the investigation?’

Zonneveld then explains in the podcast why those statements are incorrect. Because they didn’t just speak with people who had complaints.

“99% of the responses I’ve received from those directly involved have been along the lines of, ‘Finally, we all knew this already, we recognise this, and I’ve got about ten stories of my own,’” the Dutch journalist explains.

So there were indeed some positive comments among the 71 people surveyed. “We also saw two or three current riders who said, ‘I’m riding here now, and I think it’s a really great team.’” That’s certainly possible. But in the initial survey, we spoke with 71 sources, and of those, exactly 2 were positive about the team. The other 69 were not.”

Picnic PostNL also regretted that the other side’s perspective had not been heard. Zonneveld questions why Degenkolb is therefore directing his criticism at the investigators regarding the lack of a narrative from both sides.

“I find that hard to understand, given that you’ve spoken to so many sources. We also gave the current management the opportunity to respond.”

The Dutch team claimed that the NOS had failed to adhere to journalistic standards by refusing to speak with them, but Zonneveld defends his colleagues. “In my opinion, they conducted that investigation very thoroughly, following the same journalistic guidelines that we follow—namely, speaking with as many sources as possible, verifying everything, and seeking both sides of the story.”

Zonneveld confirms that an interview was ultimately declined. But that had to do with the intent behind the interview. “It had nothing to do with this investigation. You can hear it in Rudi Kemna’s response as well: it’s a story that goes in all directions, but he was referring to the use of doping in the peloton. That has nothing to do with the investigation into Picnic PostNL; it’s a kind of diversionary tactic.”

"I think they really do believe deep down that this [other teams doping] is the reason they aren’t performing well in the peloton," he continues. "Of course, you can’t rule it out either; it could very well be a factor in their poor performance. But if you have proof, I’d love to see it. Then we’ll get to work on it. Kemna, for all intents and purposes, admitted himself that he had used doping because he was pressured by Nando Boers at the time.”

Zonneveld thinks it’s weak of Picnic PostNL to try to shift the focus away from its own problems like that. “They’re putting other teams in a questionable light without any basis for it. Then they can say, ‘They turned a blind eye to that.’” But I really think that’s a bit below the belt. It makes no sense to me. If you’re riding a bike that came out years ago and your nutrition isn’t in order...”