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.