UCI Independent Commission on 'Lance-Gate' - Page 3 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-30-12, 12:58
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simo1733 View Post
I am looking fir evudence that it is just a PR stunt but I can't see any.It is hard to imagine that they will not find that the UCI failed on several levels.
Maybe Pat is hoping that Hein will take the brunt.
I think that about hits on the head - Pat i beginning to realise that Hein is toast, and he want's to put some clear blue between himself and verbruggen. Rats, sinking ship and all that.

Wouldn't put it past him to succeed either - he did a fair demolition job on Armstrong eventually, when he worked out he had no alternative.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-30-12, 12:59
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
One MAJOR issue to question is the terms of reference

A major issue is missing - in my view.

Whether the UCI has or had an irreconciable conflict of interests in being both the promoter of the sport (ie conduit for good news and PR and manager of bad news and PR) - and to manage doping in the sport (generator of bad news and PR)

To me that is one of the prime drivers in the Armstrong affair that led to UCI trying to keep the genie in the bottle.

So should there be a separate independent body managing doping, testing and publicity related to both of those

Also ancillary questions -
Result management - settling the jurisdiction issue - Whether the structure of national federations as prosecutor and judge has led to Partisan treatment favourable and unfavourable eg Spanish Defending contador, Danish playing "get Rasmussen" So should a new body act as judge in doping affairs where national federations act only as prosecutor. Should UCI be involved at all as "ratifier" of decisions?


The blacklist. Whether UCI should actively seek to hinder or help the prospects of returning riders from doping. It has clearly helped some return, and actively sought to blacklist others extending bans to life in some cases by the back door. Has blacklisting served to dissuade some from "coming clean" knowing it exists.

I think the comission should look at the structure and scope not just the decisions and role of UCI.

Views?
Agreed. The terms of reference are way too narrow and miss much of the big issues to do with conflict of interest positions and governance structure. Presumably Coates' work and why Pat is smirking.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-30-12, 13:06
frenchfry's Avatar
frenchfry frenchfry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bourgogne
Posts: 1,728
Default

On the one hand, this commission appears to be acceptable. Time will tell.

On the other hand, for me the UCI has already used its "independant commission" joker and this time Verdruggen and the Fat One deserve to be kicked out directly.
__________________
"C'est une triste chose de songer que la nature parle et que le genre humain n'ecoute pas" - Victor Hugo
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-30-12, 13:27
FignonLeGrand's Avatar
FignonLeGrand FignonLeGrand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchfry View Post
On the one hand, this commission appears to be acceptable. Time will tell.

On the other hand, for me the UCI has already used its "independant commission" joker and this time Verdruggen and the Fat One deserve to be kicked out directly.
The panel looks absolutely fine, however thats based on the presumption that they will have full disclourse and access to all records.

After everything else we have seen why would anyone belive that they have not been running round shredding everything in sight for the past few weeks.

Even the press statements attacks those 'attacking' the UCI "Rather than simply attacking the UCI, our critics now have an opportunity to be part of the solution" (McQuaid, 2012). Kimmage, Walsh et al have not been 'attacking' the UCI, they have been hoiding them to account for their percieved lack of action or worse involvement.

Regarding point 2 of the scope does anyone really expect memos to be found stating that they think Lance is doping and maybe we should cover it up?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-30-12, 13:29
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Well the terms of reference seem wide-ranging and reasonably comprehensive.

It's just the real independence & credibility of this chosen panel I don't trust.

Isn't Coates tainted with historic Australian corruption scandals? I seem to remember a lot of discussion from the Oz Clinic fraternity.

How come the UCI are the ones choosing Coates as a suitable person to put together this "independent" commission?

Shouldn't a commission be imposed by a higher authority? (not the IOC).

Dirty Works... help.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-30-12, 14:00
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Just checked back to Nov 7th Velonation report on the setting up of the commission.

They expressed "surprise" that the UCI themselves had decided to contact those chosen for the panel by Coates.

No conflicts there then
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-30-12, 14:18
Deagol Deagol is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,192
Default

waste of time IMO, why not just bypass the UCI entirely and re-build cycling structure from the ground up?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-30-12, 14:53
thehog's Avatar
thehog thehog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,148
Default

The scope is interesting. I need to read it in more detail.

Quote:
A. To DETERMINE:-
1. Whether the allegations against the UCI set out in the Reasoned Decision are well founded.
2. Whether, between 1998 and 2012, the UCI realised that Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team were collaborating to avoid detection in the use, possession, administration and trafficking of performance enhancing drugs and methods, and: (i) if the UCI did realise, whether it failed to respond appropriately; and (ii) if the UCI did not realise, whether it ought to have done so, and what steps (if any) it should have taken to inform itself of the actions of Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team in order to act appropriately.
3. Whether, and if so, to what extent the UCI’s anti-doping policies and procedures between (i) 1998 and 2005 and (ii) 2005 and 2012, were inadequate or were not enforced with sufficient rigour; and if so, whether the UCI was at the time aware, or ought to have been aware, of such inadequacy or lack of enforcement.
4. Whether there was, between 1998 and 2012, any reliable evidence or information in the possession of or known to the UCI regarding allegations or suspicions of doping by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team; and if so, whether there was any failure by the UCI to act appropriately in regard to such information.
5. Whether, when Lance Armstrong returned to racing in 2009, there was a failure by the UCI to detect signs of doping by him, and whether it was appropriate for him to return to and continue racing.
6. Whether payments were made by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team to the UCI, between 1998 and 2012, and if so whether it was appropriate for the UCI to have accepted such payments, or to have accepted them on the basis (explicit or implicit) upon which they were made.
7. Whether the UCI inappropriately discouraged those persons with knowledge of doping by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team from coming forward with such
knowledge, and whether the UCI should have done more to encourage such persons to come forward sooner.
8. Whether the UCI adequately co-operated with, assisted in and reacted to the USADA USPS Team Investigation.
9. Whether any persons previously convicted of doping, or voluntarily admitting to doping, or supporting riders in doping, should be able to work within the world of cycling in the future; and, if not, how such a prohibition could and should be enforced.
10. Whether the UCI had a conflict of interest between its roles in promoting the sport of cycling and in investigating or making adverse findings against Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team.
11. Whether the current doping controls of the UCI are adequate and compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and whether those controls can be improved.

B. To EXAMINE all relevant documents in the control or possession of the UCI or its senior management or employees (or previous employees), including without limitation Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen, Christian Varin, Anne Gripper, Francesca Rossi and Mario Zorzoli, in regard to doping, or suspected doping, by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team, such documents to include, without limitation:-
1. all external letters, emails, faxes, notes of telephone conversations, spreadsheets, presentations, instant messages, or other external documents whether physical
or electronic; and
2. all internal records (including financial records, scientific data and laboratory test results), emails, faxes, diary entries, notes of telephone conversations, records of internal meetings, memoranda, bank and computer records, spreadsheets, presentations, instant messages, or other internal documents whether physical or electronic, and to draw conclusions from such documents.

C. AND to make RECOMMENDATIONS.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-30-12, 14:57
Cloxxki Cloxxki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,936
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deagol View Post
waste of time IMO, why not just bypass the UCI entirely and re-build cycling structure from the ground up?
So the UCI are paying an independant panel to investigate them?
Might have had a decentrally elected ethical committee and save yourself the licence holder moneys.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-30-12, 15:10
Deagol Deagol is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloxxki View Post
So the UCI are paying an independant panel to investigate them?
Might have had a decentrally elected ethical committee and save yourself the licence holder moneys.
good point. If license holders would rebel and not renew this year, that would put pressure on the top brass at UCI. Also, save that money for something that could replace the flawed organization.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.