“INSULTED” former Halesowen cyclist Jess Varnish may take legal action after a much-delayed report into why she was cut from team GB criticised British Cycling’s handling of her case.

Varnish, who used to ride for Halesowen Athletic and Cycling Club, was dropped shortly after failing to qualify for the Rio Olympics in the women’s team sprint at the World Track Championships in March 2016.

Ex-technical director Shane Sutton said the decision was performance-related but Bromsgrove's Varnish, now 26 – and others – hit back accusing him of bullying and sexism.

A draft report into the claims, leaked in March, delivered a scathing verdict on British Cycling’s handling of her case.

It accused their board of being “dysfunctional”, “inept” and effectively covering up an internal investigation into Varnish’s claims last year.

Yet in a diluted final report published on Wednesday - 14 months after it was commissioned by British Cycling and UK Sport - all of that and the term “bullying” had been removed following a legal process giving those criticised the right to reply.

It instead found a “culture of fear” existed within the team, Sutton operated within a “power pocket”, and “good governance was lacking” at British Cycling.

The panel still believes the board mishandled the case and failed to follow “contractual due process”, however Varnish was singled out as the “ring-leader” for criticism of coaches.

This will greatly disappoint Varnish’s camp, which has already started legal action to obtain more information about why she was dramatically cut from the GB squad last April.

In an interview with The Times, Varnish said: “I am insulted. In a way I’m glad they have used this language because it shows what the people are like in there (British Cycling).

“Anyone who knows me knows I am not a troublemaker or ringleader. No one has ever been removed from the programme the way I was.”

British Rowing chair Annamarie Phelps, who led the five-strong panel who wrote the report, said at a press conference: “The panel carefully reviewed the draft in the light of new information provided to it.

“It’s important to reiterate that the panel’s findings and recommendations were unanimous and wholly independent.”