The Maladministration of cycling in Australia - 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 12-01-12, 00:18
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
Cycling news article today on the NSW Grand Prix next week.

"Defending NSW Grand Prix champion Chris 'CJ' Sutton (Sky) believes he will face stiff opposition in claiming a third title when the two-race series gets underway next Saturday December 8 at Cronulla. The event continues the following day at Wollongong."

Event organizer = Phil Bates, father in law, St George cycling club president, and also on UCI disciplinary committee.

Wonder what the doping control process will be for this event.
No Australians dope anymore, so no need for drug testing.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-04-12, 05:29
Tok1960's Avatar
Tok1960 Tok1960 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10
Default

Cycling is a mess because of the union and federation management teams. These people have led a disinformation campaign for years to cover up their incompetence or dare I say wrong doings. They have held onto their positions through a comprehensive program of lies and denials.

Cycling Australia and AIS executives, board members and employees are expected to maintain higher standards of integrity than the rest of us: this is because they want us to trust what they tell us. This trust is more abstract than that we share with others. Why? We do not know these public figures and we rely on their integrity because they are asking us to make commitments on the basis of their advice. These commitments include access to public funds for salaries and expenses at mostly the public expense. When significant facts come to light about their behaviour, past or present, the public are entitled to undertake vigorous due diligence, ask questions or to rely on the media to do it for us. Cycling Australia and AIS don't seem to get this. In the recent troubling matters which have arisen at Cycling Australia and within cycling management in Australia (which includes the AIS) a full and transparent explanation is necessary but in each case these officials seem to believe that, because they may not be personally guilty of wrong doing, no detailed explanation is necessary.

In the case of Cycling Australia CEO and President their disclosures and statements are wavering and shallow. None of their statements to my knowledge point to their involvement in any wrongdoing. But then nobody knows how many skeletons lie in the closet. Rather they infer Cycling Australia CEO and management was duped by wrongdoers with whom they admit having close personal relationships with (i.e. CA President Mueller statement said Hodge is a close friend). Not only does this suggest a degree of nepotism at Cycling Australia but it shows ethical and professional misconduct. The President of Cycling Australia, a solicitor, has however, decided to mount a pedantic defence that his board and executives has no case to answer based on employment law. But obtaining benefit by deceit, be it monetary or position or whatever, is undoubtedly wrong and the accused should be dealt with accordingly.

The public should be furious with Cycling Australia President Mueller statement: http://soundcloud.com/cycling-centra...ia-president-2 . Here we have Mueller evangelising Cycling Australia VP (Hodge) who obtained his position and athletic pedigree by deceit. Weeks before we had the exposure of fellow CA member Matt White. Both these individuals exposure was a direct result of a foreign investigation into cycling: the LA case by USADA. The very investigation which Cycling Australia President Mueller peddled publicly a flawed argument about jurisdiction followed by CEO Graham Fredericks seeking out the public airwaves to in essence campaign for LA's legal defense team. So here we have the Cycling Australia President, himself a lawyer, making flawed statements along with the CEO. One would think as a legal practitioner he would had been aware of the legality of Court ruling? But then by his very own admission on SBS Central he admitted as a solicitor he neither understands Australian employment law. Where is CEO Graham Fredericks, recipient of a Australian Sporting Hall of Fame award for sports administration, in recent weeks? He is silent.

Cycling Australia CEO and Chairman have pivotal roles which requires them both to understand the bigger picture. Both must have strong focus on its members, akin to shareholders of a company, and up hold their value. The CEO and President positions demand leadership in establishing vision and setting the tone in such areas as integrity and ethics. But the positions have differences. CEO Graham Fredericks is more 24/7 whereas President Mueller is part-time. Consequently, CEO Fredericks 'should' be more abreast with the details of business, human resource development, succession planning and overall general management. So why is CEO Fredericks suddenly silenced and President Mueller, a lawyer, going live on SBS Central http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral...ing-discussion to answer questions from the interview panel members including Michael Ashenden? During the course of the interview President Mueller was evasive about crucial matters. On questions about Allan Davis files from Ashenden President Mueller said "I don't know the answer to that ....... In what year are we speaking about ....... You got to understand I am the honorary President of the organisation. I don't receive those files. The administration do. And their protocol is to hand over whatever they get ahhh and I am confident that if they received those files they would've been handed on". How convenient Graham Fredericks didn't appear to answer questions which as the chief administrator he must have the answers!

Or is the structuring of the ASC and AIS high performance teams and funding mechanisms intentionally at arms length from the government. I raise this point because Cycling Australia sole quasi shareholder (financier) is in reality the ASC. Without ASC annual funding Cycling Australia would be insolvent. Now we have the ASC, which I argue is the single most powerful controlling shareholder of Cycling Australia, conducting an allegedly independent investigation of Cycling Australia (itself) under the auspices of the Minister. It will be a hard slog for any independent investigation team to discover the underlying truth. There would no paper trail and no way to verify much wrong doing because rogues don't keep records or either destroy them. The terms of reference speak for themselves (see here: http://www.katelundy.com.au/2012/11/...ycling-review/ ). Its a administrative process review only NOT a investigation. A judge doesn't investigate.

Until a investigation is conducted then little will change. The flawed system begins with the administration process and funding mechanisms set by the Government itself, the ASC. The ASC, AIS and CA are again reviewing oneself! Reads like the Del Monte affair 8 years later! Until the financial affairs, contracts, awards and business dealings of these bodies are fully investigated and the management are compelled to answer questions the skeletons remain in the closet.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-04-12, 05:46
Tok1960's Avatar
Tok1960 Tok1960 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterst6906 View Post
Sorry, but while I admire your attempt to justify your position, your argument demonstrates that you have no real knowledge or experience with cycling in Australia.

You've invented connections that aren't backed up by the evidence you can go and see for yourself every weekend.
Firstly, there is no connection between weekend events, mostly run by good-willed volunteers. I am writing about maladministration at the top.

Finally, if you take the time to read Cycling Australia annual reports you will notice something - they are shallow, self promoting and lack financial detail and substance. Considering this organisation is near fully government funded, and the Government has decided to 'review' the administrative and management processes of a beneficiary to the tune of 8M per year of public funds, albeit too late, something is wrong. My analogy is corruption does occur, even at the very top echelons of power, and all too frequent at government funded non profit organisations.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-04-12, 05:51
hughmoore hughmoore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 527
Default

I would have thought Cycling in Australia is booming sport.

More and more cyclists out riding every weekend
Great results by Anna Meares in Olympics and some of the young riders.
Cadel Evans won the TDF last year
We have our own Pro Team in GreenEdge
TDU getting bigger every year and contract with SA Govt exteneded another 5 years or so

What more do you want?

Hugh
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-04-12, 06:32
Tok1960's Avatar
Tok1960 Tok1960 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10
Default

Its all very obvious isn't it? Ever wondered why the UCI became so protective when they have allowed the USADA to prosecute in the past. Do they have something to hide? Why has Cycling Australia and Turtur been so publicly vocal with disinformation to the local media. When Armstrong goes down, I am talking about lawsuits in Texas from his former sponsors, then I think the UCI will be pulled to pieces and exposed. For example, TDU and South Australian government attendance fees will be exposed and much more.

As I see it the UCI has moved heaven and hell to protect themselves and as such protected Armstrong. I'm speculating but it should make you think. Remembering former Cycling Australia President Godkin became the VP at UCI! Fellow board member Bates also holds positions at the UCI! Turtur, once a member at CA, resides on the UCI Committee! The former ASC Chairman and CA President Peter Bartels held marketing roles with the UCI! Michael Flynn, Charlie Walsh and the list goes on.

I smell a rat. Conflicts of interests are everywhere. Cycling Australia is a franchise of whom?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-04-12, 06:43
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,484
Default

Ethical conduct from those in power?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-04-12, 08:51
Tok1960's Avatar
Tok1960 Tok1960 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferminal View Post
Ethical conduct from those in power?
Ethics - whats that
The people ruling cycling must accept their conduct is subject to challenge. Good leaders open themselves up to scrutiny rather than cocooning themselves behind media representatives, lawyers and press statements. Real leaders, including sports administrators, have the privilege of being able to affect policies, determine strategies and make decisions, great leaders understand that they owe a 'duty of care' to those their actions affect. This is something Cycling Australia and AIS appear to fail to comprehend.
In my opinion Cycling Australia and AIS have been recklessly self regulating themselves. The disinformationists (new word ) have wreaked havoc in the sport and in doing so there are real victims. No matter how many standards and codes are in place, without oversight and forensic scrutiny of the past, there is little benefit, and ethics becomes a policy not an action. Ethical conduct can be written, but it cannot be forced into practice! A quality administrator, board and executive does not need to rely on standards, codes and enforcement. Rather, they innately know that their role includes an implied 'duty of care' - in this case a responsibility to the public and athletes they serve!
So Cycling Australia, administered by the same CEO and chief administrator for 16 years, is being reviewed to 'to ensure the confidence and trust of the Australian public is restored in cycling’s governing body' says a Politician - an organisation which under the reigns of the current administrators lost all credibility and needs government resuscitation. Ergh.

Last edited by Tok1960; 12-04-12 at 08:53.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-07-12, 05:12
Peroni71 Peroni71 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1
Default

A friend sent me a link to this forum. Had to join up. Does the investigation of CA by the judge have website and drop box for sending information?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-07-12, 05:41
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peroni71 View Post
A friend sent me a link to this forum. Had to join up. Does the investigation of CA by the judge have website and drop box for sending information?
If your enquiry is in relation to doping, then the best place to go to is through the ASADA investigation into doping in cycling:

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/cyclin...stigation.html

However, if related to adminstration of the sport and the CA review, there isn't a direct page that I am aware of. In that case, the best option may be to email directly to Kate Lundy as the review is being conducted for the Government:

http://www.katelundy.com.au/contact/

Terms of reference for the review are here:

http://www.katelundy.com.au/2012/11/...ycling-review/

If it involves any criminal action, then the best option would be to go directly to the police in your State/Territory.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-07-12, 11:54
blackcat's Avatar
blackcat blackcat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,703
Default

in Australia, when they fund sports, generally they use a whiteboard and a texta/whiteboard-marker.

I see something similar to what Lundy will underwrite.

If anyone knows Oz polotix, I would get Jackie Kelly's dentist husband to chair this thing.
__________________
ricky riccio - family shot
see lance tell kik and anna we can do it too
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 13:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.