Changes Cookson has implemented at UCI

[Tonton]

As this is the de facto official Cookson thread:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...doping-commission-cycling-tour-de-france-2014

My favorite part

“We’ve got a rule that says if you’ve got a major anti-doping violation you can’t be involved with a team, but our advice is that it’s difficult to employ that retroactively. So what I want to try to do is find ways in which we can reassure people that the people who are involved in the sport who may have had a history have renounced that and given a commitment to work with us in a way that respects the rules, and is clean.

“What I want to do is say: ‘Such and such a guy may have done wrong things but he was penalised for that, served his sanction and he’s also spoken to the commission and told them about what happened.’ You have to have some possibility for redemption in any judicial system.

“It’s unrealistic to say we have to wipe out those people for ever and ever. There are teams that have tried that – my friends at Sky – and they have tied themselves in knots. Other teams have tried other ways and found other complications.”

Same old, same old

 

[TourOfSardinia]

My favorite part
[...]
“It’s unrealistic to say we have to wipe out those people for ever and ever. There are teams that have tried that – my friends at Sky – and they have tied themselves in knots. Other teams have tried other ways and found other complications.”

Same old, same old

The bold bit is new though - nice op'ed by Cookson!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just FYI, was discussed here also: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22590&page=18

 

[fmk_RoI]

As they have in previous years, the UCI once again have quietly ushered the Annual Report out the door, this one detailing events during the last year of the McQuaid/Verbruggen era. See the deets in Tweets here https://twitter.com/fmk_RoI/status/494429518955040768

 

[fmk_RoI]

As they have in previous years, the UCI once again have quietly ushered the Annual Report out the door, this one detailing events during the last year of the McQuaid/Verbruggen era. See the deets in Tweets here https://twitter.com/fmk_RoI/status/494429518955040768

Ooops! That report has now been unpublished: UCI site now says "The 2013 UCI Annual Report will be available shortly"

 

[DirtyWorks]

Commitment to time frame of handing over anti-doping controls to independent body (Dated 11/10/2013)

Just a reminder that this doesn't mean the UCI is relenquishing control of sanctions. The UCI retains their authority to sanction athletes. (or not)

The new department will be as well-regarded as the compliance department at a financial institution.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Man Co members are now required to disclose their interests. Read Cookson's here: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=OTU1NDk&LangId=1

Makarov, Plant, the others (apart from Azzam) either have no interests or haven't disclosed them.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Last year Brian Cookson (on the now deleted briancookson.org website) wrote the following:

transparency on financial and business matters is clearly an area where substantial improvements can be made at the UCI just by meeting minimum standards of good practice.

Part of this will only require a change of attitude and culture and will pay significant dividends in credibility and show National Federations exactly what the UCI is doing. For example, the last financial statements available on the UCI website relate to the period to end 2011. That's coming up to 21 months ago. The accounts ending 31st December, 2012 were signed off in May this year but the UCI has not released them to the public. Although they've gone to national federations, they will not be posted online until after Congress. Widely accepted good practice is that accounts should be made public within six months of the year end.

It is now seven months since the UCI's year end and while the accounts were briefly published, they have since been unpublished and the last accounts available on the UCI site are for the year ended Dec 2012 - 19 months ago. Widely accepted good practice is that accounts should be made public within six months of the year end. Yet it would appear that the New UCI doesn't wish to comply with that.

 

[Swifty's Cakes]

Last year Brian Cookson (on the now deleted briancookson.org website) wrote the following:



It is now seven months since the UCI's year end and while the accounts were briefly published, they have since been unpublished and the last accounts available on the UCI site are for the year ended Dec 2012 - 19 months ago. Widely accepted good practice is that accounts should be made public within six months of the year end. Yet it would appear that the New UCI doesn't wish to comply with that.

I've no idea what it is in Switzerland but its 9 months in the UK between year-end and the deadline for filing accounts.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I've no idea what it is in Switzerland but its 9 months in the UK between year-end and the deadline for filing accounts.

There's a difference between, "good practice" and, "deadline".

 

[thehog]

There's a difference between, "good practice" and, "deadline".

The difference between 'deadline' and 'cameras on bikes.'

 

[melkemugg]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson-passport-cases-can-now-be-treated-as-positive-tests

Well uh.. *carefully applauds*

 

[nomapnocompass]

Tinkoff -Saxo's statement

http://www.tinkoffsaxo.com/news/open-letter-uci-president-mr-brian-cookson/

Cookson is a joke, I am not saying he is corrupt, but he is incapable of fulfilling the demands of being UCI president.

 

[argyllflyer]

Tinkoff -Saxo's statement

http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=ec3e8e1740086f503f9ba786b&id=a313aa09e0&e=e6195c16d2

Cookson is a joke, I am not saying he is corrupt, but he is incapable of fulfilling the demands of UCI president.

With such an apt observation as that, can you perhaps share a little bit more of your insight?

 

[IndianCyclist]

Tinkoff -Saxo's statement

http://www.tinkoffsaxo.com/news/open-letter-uci-president-mr-brian-cookson/

Cookson is a joke, I am not saying he is corrupt, but he is incapable of fulfilling the demands of being UCI president.

They literally ripped his statements to shreds. All this is doing is that UCI is looking like a foolish bully with Cookson as the great dictator and TS & Roman are coming out like victims. Why can't he go the usual way? Get Roman banned in due process ( already took >2 years what is 6 months more) and implement a new amendment for bio cases.

 

[mrhender]

http://inrng.com/2014/07/2013-uci-financial-accounts/

This is the anti-doping unit that is increasingly being moved out of the UCI, witness the move last September when Pat McQuaid stood down as a director to make way for independent experts. But there’s a long way to go before anti-doping becomes truly independent from the UCI, on a small level its offices are down the corridor from President Cookson’s office, more fundamentally it is funded by the teams, race organisers, riders and the UCI itself meaning it’s dependent on, rather than independent from, the UCI.[/B]

Excellent Cookson...

 

[melkemugg]

http://inrng.com/2014/07/2013-uci-financial-accounts/

This is the anti-doping unit that is increasingly being moved out of the UCI, witness the move last September when Pat McQuaid stood down as a director to make way for independent experts. But there’s a long way to go before anti-doping becomes truly independent from the UCI, on a small level its offices are down the corridor from President Cookson’s office, more fundamentally it is funded by the teams, race organisers, riders and the UCI itself meaning it’s dependent on, rather than independent from, the UCI.[/B]

Excellent Cookson...

well duh... i dont think anyone can change it fast enough for the clinic cynic i guess. But isnt it too hasty to judge Cookson too hard before he had any chance to get anything done? I mean, this is politics just as much as clean cycling. You can be sure the teams and people involved that wants status quo within UCI and anti doping, will fight for it. And the dirtier the people involved is, the more they will challenge it. Just like Saxo now is doing with their fancy statements and Tinkov bullying his way on twitter, being all hard and threatening to sue.

 

[oldcrank]

https://twitter.com/healthycyclist/status/493510368355160064/photo/1

 

[mrhender]

well duh... i dont think anyone can change it fast enough for the clinic cynic i guess. But isnt it too hasty to judge Cookson too hard before he had any chance to get anything done? I mean, this is politics just as much as clean cycling. You can be sure the teams and people involved that wants status quo within UCI and anti doping, will fight for it. And the dirtier the people involved is, the more they will challenge it. Just like Saxo now is doing with their fancy statements and Tinkov bullying his way on twitter, being all hard and threatening to sue.

Just because Tinkov threw his moderators aboard long time ago it doesn't make him less right... I agree that beeing drunk and taking the battle to twitter most likely is not the best approach.. How can he think that insulting UCI and Cookson will keep his team and riders protected from retaliation.. However it serves the purpose of drawing attention to the shady operation and proceedings of the great UCI and it's savior Mr. Cookson... And yes this is very much politics, and therein lies a problem..
We do not need a politician like cookson who's abilities are limited to spokesman.. We need a guy with no strings attached, from outside cycling environment...

 

[DirtyWorks]

http://inrng.com/2014/07/2013-uci-financial-accounts/

This is the anti-doping unit that is increasingly being moved out of the UCI, witness the move last September when Pat McQuaid stood down as a director to make way for independent experts. But there’s a long way to go before anti-doping becomes truly independent from the UCI, on a small level its offices are down the corridor from President Cookson’s office, more fundamentally it is funded by the teams, race organisers, riders and the UCI itself meaning it’s dependent on, rather than independent from, the UCI.[/B]

Excellent Cookson...

You are missing the forest by looking at the tree. The UCI retains total sanction authority for cycling with this so-called independent doping office. The UCI will stay on course with their "1-2% dope in the cleanest peloton ever." And guess what? Miraculously, it is always 1-2% regardless of the year stretching back 20 or so years.

If Cookson/UCI were actually interested in a cleaner peloton, they would let NADO/WADA open cases on their own. Period. It's that simple.

Except, no one can control anti-doping controversy that way and the UCI loses a very effective way to control the sport. Nevermind every other IOC sport (FINA/IAAF/FIFA) would absolutely panic. As it was they were furious USADA passed sanctions without the UCI.

 

[mrhender]

You are missing the forest by looking at the tree. The UCI retains total sanction authority for cycling with this so-called independent doping office. The UCI will stay on course with their "1-2% dope in the cleanest peloton ever." And guess what? Miraculously, it is always 1-2% regardless of the year stretching back 20 or so years.

If Cookson/UCI were actually interested in a cleaner peloton, they would let NADO/WADA open cases on their own. Period. It's that simple.

Except, no one can control anti-doping controversy that way and the UCI loses a very effective way to control the sport. Nevermind every other IOC sport (FINA/IAAF/FIFA) would absolutely panic. As it was they were furious USADA passed sanctions without the UCI.

Hmm I was quoting the article... My only words where "excellent Cookson"...
Forgot the "tags" though, which would have been helpful of course..

And yes it is funny how this percentage keeps to be stable over such a long time span.. And i agree on your bolded point very much...

What do you make of the CIRC.. I find it troublesome that they are only looking backwards.. The day Cookson took office he copied all servers to them letting them investigate what went on and not what's going on.. This action speaks of a guy who obviously thinks all problems are solved by his very appointment.. That is very naive if not very worrying.. He should have given them unlimited access to current and future material if this was to mean anything other than pointing out the flaws of the previous Head of UCI...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Hmm I was quoting the article... My only words where "excellent Cookson"...

My point is it isn't excellent.

It's saying one thing that sure sounds good, but the reality is governance is unchanged. It operates exactly as it always has, except maybe Cookson is less involved on a daily basis.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What do you make of the CIRC..

Members of the CIRC have already clearly stated Armstrong's ban should be reduced. That's all I need to know. Their intent is not to protect the integrity of the sport, so whatever is published will be mostly junk.

 

[mrhender]

My point is it isn't excellent.

It's saying one thing that sure sounds good, but the reality is governance is unchanged. It operates exactly as it always has, except maybe Cookson is less involved on a daily basis.

The two words where meant to be ironic.....

I do not find it excellent at all... The fact that they are working side by side on a daily basis is not a very independent invorinment...

 

[fmk_RoI]

The LADS

Doping violations are now being dealt with by the LADS

The Legal Anti-Doping Service was established in October 2013. Essentially composed of legal experts, this body intervenes when a case of an apparent breach of the anti-doping rules is reported to it, in particular by the CADF, and takes responsibility for the procedure that will result in the sanction – or not – of the rider (or other licence holder) in question.
uci.ch