Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[Benotti69]

UCI failed to submit paperwork for 2020 para cycling Olympic inclusion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/disability-sport/29488873

Too busy cleaning up the drugs in the sport..............

 

[Catwhoorg]

UCI failed to submit paperwork for 2020 para cycling Olympic inclusion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/disability-sport/29488873

That's simply awful, and incompetence of the worst kind.

 

[RownhamHill]

Cookson making it clear:



What he was saying before he got elected:

I think I've been missing something along the way with this CADF stuff - those two quotes from Cookson look to me to be broadly similar, with the exception that the new CADF is still physically in the same building as the UCI (I'm not familiar with its offices to know what across the velodrome means in terms of separation).

Now great, that is a difference to what was promised, and probably not one to be hand-waved, as I suspect the politics and psychology of being physically adjacent to one another is non-trivial, if sometimes quite subtle.

But the rest - an independent organisation, with an independent board, the UCI not having any operational influence - all looks pretty independent to me, and significantly different to what came before.

I've asked this before (and don't think anyone responded) but what exactly would a 'truly' independent CADF have looked like in your perfect world? It can't really just be renting some separate office space on the other side of town, can it?

 

[sniper]

I think I've been missing something along the way with this CADF stuff - those two quotes from Cookson look to me to be broadly similar, with the exception that the new CADF is still physically in the same building as the UCI (I'm not familiar with its offices to know what across the velodrome means in terms of separation).

Now great, that is a difference to what was promised, and probably not one to be hand-waved, as I suspect the politics and psychology of being physically adjacent to one another is non-trivial, if sometimes quite subtle.

But the rest - an independent organisation, with an independent board, the UCI not having any operational influence - all looks pretty independent to me, and significantly different to what came before.

I've asked this before (and don't think anyone responded) but what exactly would a 'truly' independent CADF have looked like in your perfect world? It can't really just be renting some separate office space on the other side of town, can it?

ask cookson, the separate office was a firm part of his mission statement.

 

[DirtyWorks]

..I've asked this before (and don't think anyone responded) but what exactly would a 'truly' independent CADF have looked like in your perfect world? It can't really just be renting some separate office space on the other side of town, can it?

Give WADA/NADOs the authority to open cases. That's what it looks like. But, that's not going to happen. Every other IOC sport would absolutely panic along with the IOC.

Instead:
so it's still all but independent.
cookson is their boss.
cookson funds them, they report back to cookson.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1584413&postcount=371

The people working there are going to be busier than Captain Renault in Casablanca.

 

[fmk_RoI]

what exactly would a 'truly' independent CADF have looked like in your perfect world? It can't really just be renting some separate office space on the other side of town, can it?

The issue of geographical distance between the two organisations was raised by Cookson - he was very firm in stating that the lack of that distance compromised the proclaimed independence of the CADF (and it was proclaimed independent even then). For him, separate office space on the other side of town - or even in another town - was (when he was seeking election) critical. Now, not so much so.

What a truly independent CADF would look like will be dependent upon how you define independence. Is WADA independent of national governments, given it relies on them for funding? Really, the definition of independent comes down more to actions than words, the organisation visibly doing things which clearly go against the wishes of its paymasters. Is there any sign of the CADF doing that? (Actually, is there any sign of the new independent CADF doing anything? It has been wiped from the UCI website, displays nothing on its own site and is not replying to emails.)

 

[thehog]

I think I've been missing something along the way with this CADF stuff - those two quotes from Cookson look to me to be broadly similar, with the exception that the new CADF is still physically in the same building as the UCI (I'm not familiar with its offices to know what across the velodrome means in terms of separation).

Now great, that is a difference to what was promised, and probably not one to be hand-waved, as I suspect the politics and psychology of being physically adjacent to one another is non-trivial, if sometimes quite subtle.

But the rest - an independent organisation, with an independent board, the UCI not having any operational influence - all looks pretty independent to me, and significantly different to what came before.

I've asked this before (and don't think anyone responded) but what exactly would a 'truly' independent CADF have looked like in your perfect world? It can't really just be renting some separate office space on the other side of town, can it?

Although EY conducts the audit on the UCI, Cookson misses the obvious. Those familiar in accounting and finance understand the concept and practical implementation of segregation of duties or SoD as its commonly know. It extends not just from personnel but into information system whereby there is a “true” separation of powers and influence. That has not occurred.

Removing the President of the board really isn’t implementing SoD, Cookson can just as easily insert his own confidant into the position. Cookson already as we’ve seen in the Kreuziger case had influence and exerted it. Not only was he aware of the “serious anomalies” and made public comment to that effect but the UCI attempted to bully the Czech Olympic committee into giving the result they wanted. That’s a long way from independence and probably worse than McQuaid ever attempted.

The Rogers case you saw the opposite whereby there was direct collaboration between ASADA and the UCI to provide a mutually agreed verdict. And again you can see that because the Tour of Beijing was part of GCP (UCI) it would not be advantageous to have a rider testing positive for a substance which the country is well known for having in its meat. Other riders have not been so lucky with similar “influence” – Agostini most recently comes to mind.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Hoggy welcome back!

(Now please get rid of that horrid avatar)

 

[DirtyWorks]

...Removing the President of the board really isn’t implementing SoD, Cookson can just as easily insert his own confidant into the position. Cookson already as we’ve seen in the Kreuziger case had influence and exerted it. Not only was he aware of the “serious anomalies” and made public comment to that effect but the UCI attempted to bully the Czech Olympic committee into giving the result they wanted. That’s a long way from independence and probably than worse than McQuaid ever attempted.

Also worth mentioning there still appears to be a very beneficial relationship with Marital Saugy running the bio-passport systems. Another theoretical relationship where there is supposed to be independence but it turns out Saugy has assisted at least the UCI to never test positive.

 

[thehog]

Hoggy welcome back!

(Now please get rid of that horrid avatar)

Oh and let’s just add the Menchov “arrangement” to all of this. If there really was true “separation” then there wouldn't be an issue in showing transparency in how that decision was derived.

 

[thehog]

Also worth mentioning there still appears to be a very beneficial relationship with Marital Saugy running the bio-passport systems.

Oh and let’s just add the Menchov “arrangement” to all of this. If there really was true “separation” then there wouldn't be an issue in showing transparency in how that decision was derived.

...and the TUE committee deriving of one person reporting directly into Cookson.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Oh and let’s just add the Menchov “arrangement” to all of this. If there really was true “separation” then there wouldn't be an issue in showing transparency in how that decision was derived.

Menchov raises an important point about the new Star Chamber the UCI intends to assemble to take doping cases away from NFs/NADOs: while you can count on someone like UKAD or SAIDS to actually publish a reasoned decision - as UKAD did for JTL and SAIDS will be doing for Impey - the UCI does not disclose such things to the public and you will only find out how a decision was reached if the rider appeals to the CAS. As with several other steps taken by the UCI recently, this may actually result in even less transparency in the sport.

 

[parisroubaix18]

I think this video accurately shows the boom cycling is having on the UK.

http://vimeo.com/108120315

 

[thehog]

I think this video accurately shows the boom cycling is having on the UK.

http://vimeo.com/108120315

More to the point:

Cycling's national governing body British Cycling has passed 100,000 members for the first time in its history, the organisation has announced today — and half of those members joined since the 2012 London Olympic Games.

http://road.cc/content/news/132624-british-cycling-hits-100000-members-doubles-two-years

Licence Age Category (2014) Price of Full Race Licence*

UCI Registered Team Rider £81.00

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/me...ing-Licence-Prices-0-Need-a-Racing-Licence--0


Now that's a lot of money for the UCI and British Cycling. That's why it makes sense to "build" cycling into new franchises.

(and have riders like Wiggins and Froome with hockey stick curves in their improvement graphs to promote the franchises).

 

[RownhamHill]

Give WADA/NADOs the authority to open cases. That's what it looks like. But, that's not going to happen. Every other IOC sport would absolutely panic along with the IOC.

Instead:
so it's still all but independent.
cookson is their boss.
cookson funds them, they report back to cookson.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1584413&postcount=371

The people working there are going to be busier than Captain Renault in Casablanca.

I'm not as up on this as you, but don't NADO's have some ability to open cases as it is - I'm thinking of the USADA case as the poster boy, but didn't the UK ADA investigate that Roubaix pills as well recently (though that didn't result in an actual case of course)? But more to the point, would that do as the sole responsible body, as you'd rely on WADA having to police that the NADO's were acting responsibly with regards to Cycling, even though it may not be resourced or well placed to do that. Surely you would also need a specific independent cycling doping authority as well? And if it did, wouldn't that need to be contracted by the UCI?

I don't have a particular view on this, so interested in what a perfect system would look like.

 

[RownhamHill]

ask cookson, the separate office was a firm part of his mission statement.

No. I'm asking you.

What would you like to see the independent anti-doping regulatory look like over and above a new office.

 

[RownhamHill]

The issue of geographical distance between the two organisations was raised by Cookson - he was very firm in stating that the lack of that distance compromised the proclaimed independence of the CADF (and it was proclaimed independent even then). For him, separate office space on the other side of town - or even in another town - was (when he was seeking election) critical. Now, not so much so.

What a truly independent CADF would look like will be dependent upon how you define independence. Is WADA independent of national governments, given it relies on them for funding? Really, the definition of independent comes down more to actions than words, the organisation visibly doing things which clearly go against the wishes of its paymasters. Is there any sign of the CADF doing that? (Actually, is there any sign of the new independent CADF doing anything? It has been wiped from the UCI website, displays nothing on its own site and is not replying to emails.)

No doubt Cookson is right that physical distance is a good thing, and it's a shame it hasn't happened.

But your second paragraph gets to the nub of what I'm asking. How do you define independence. And specifically how would you make the CADF more independent of the UCI?

I don't really agree though that the definition of independence is an organisation visibly going against the wishes of its paymasters - presumably the stated terms of reference from the UCI to CADF is to administer drug testing results management in an independent and fair way. If it stopped doing that I don't think it would be a good thing, would it? Surely it depends on what the wishes of the paymasters are before you can assess whether going against them is the thing to do?

 

[RownhamHill]

. . . more dubious verbiage quickly culled from Wikipedia in order to frame some dubious trolling without backing anything up with links or evidence. . .

Great, a month has passed already.

 

[thehog]

Great, a month has passed already.

Good for you.

SoD is well established and defined within many industries bar the UCI appears.

Cookson is well versed in this area considering an audit was conducted on his watch per public funding into British Cycling and the setting up of Sky - ie same personnel working in a public and professional context.

The report was modified with its release being delayed.

I wonder why....

 

[fmk_RoI]

But your second paragraph gets to the nub of what I'm asking. How do you define independence. And specifically how would you make the CADF more independent of the UCI?

I've answered that, telling you independence cannot really be defined, has to be judged by actions. You've chosen to disagree.

My point in raising the independence of the CADF was not because the CADF needs to be independent, or seen to be independent or whatever, but because Cookson chose to challenge its ability to do its job properly by virtue of its geographical proximity. All that has changed is that Cookson no longer thinks proximity is a problem.

 

[thehog]

I've answered that, telling you independence cannot really be defined, has to be judged by actions. You've chosen to disagree.

My point in raising the independence of the CADF was not because the CADF needs to be independent, or seen to be independent or whatever, but because Cookson chose to challenge its ability to do its job properly by virtue of its geographical proximity. All that has changed is that Cookson no longer things proximity is a problem.

Slightly disagree here; independence is defined by audit and compliance. Both internal and external reviews.

If the supposed independent enity is within the same building/complex then controls need to be place. ie security doors on the building so you can record who comes in and out. Separated email systems stored in alternate loctions with separated authentication methods. Budgetory approval etc. requires oversight and review by alternate body etc.

That's how independence is defined in industry. Demonstrative controls that are in place to avoid conflict and fraud.

It's very straightforward but Cookson in my opinion is more about "perception" than reality.

All this should be in a report that he can publish on the UCI website.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Responding to the news that the UCI missed a July 28th deadline for the Paralympics by two months the men in Aigle had this to say:

The UCI remains fully committed to the promotion of para-cycling and looks forward to a positive dialogue with the IPC over the next few months to ensure that cycling continues to play its part in helping the Paralympic Games go from strength to strength.

Parcycling is another of those pillars from Cookson's manifesto in which what has been achieved has fallen far short of what was promised. Going backwards - risking being dropped from the Paralympics - is hardly progress.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Slightly disagree here; independence is defined by audit and compliance. Both internal and external reviews.

Who audits the auditors? History has ample evidence that auditors have been known to be less than independent when conducting their work. So would a piece of paper with an auditor's signature on it prove independence? Of course it would not. Which is why I - as an ex auditor - say judge independence by actions, not by words.

 

[thehog]

Who audits the auditors? History has ample evidence that auditors have been known to be less than independent when conducting their work. So would a piece of paper with an auditor's signature on it prove independence? Of course it would not. Which is why I - as an ex auditor - say judge independence by actions, not by words.

Agreed. History is littered with examples of the auditors "over looking" and/or not reporting. Much better these days since GFC.

However that's why you have "internal audit" and "external audit" and then independent regulators. An internal audit will highlight deficiencies within. An external audit is a publicly available report on your overall “compliance performance”. Regulators have the power to shut you down or fine you.

In the UCI's example an internal audit would highlight areas for concern and remediation. An external audit will rate you and the report presented to the board and to the public for reasons of confidence/trust etc. The regulators who in theory should be WADA would have the ability to fine you or demand that you rectify an open issue with your internal practises.

In this instance if the CADF is to be in the same building and the UCI can openly demonstrate that they have all the security measures in place to avoid conflicts of interests and/or fraud then it would be fine. The athlete also knows that if there was every an issue with say “influence” (if relevant) they could ask to see this data.

Anti-doping is a million years behind in this aspect. The rest of the world and government moved on, the UCI didn’t. Pretending that because McQuaid no longer sits as president on the CADF board as a reason why there could be no “conflict”, “influence” or otherwise is simply laughable.

The mind of a landscape gardener, I guess.

 

[thehog]

Who audits the auditors? History has ample evidence that auditors have been known to be less than independent when conducting their work. So would a piece of paper with an auditor's signature on it prove independence? Of course it would not. Which is why I - as an ex auditor - say judge independence by actions, not by words.

Agreed. History is littered with examples of the auditors "over looking" and/or not reporting. Much better these days since GFC.

However that's why you have "internal audit" and "external audit" and then independent regulators. An internal audit will highlight deficiencies within. An external audit is a publicly available report on your overall “compliance performance”. Regulators have the power to shut you down or fine you.

In the UCI's example an internal audit would highlight areas for concern and remediation. An external audit will rate you and the report presented to the board and to the public for reasons of confidence/trust etc. The regulators who in theory should be WADA would have the ability to fine you or demand that you rectify an open issue with your internal practices.

In this instance if the CADF is to be in the same building and the UCI can openly demonstrate that they have all the security measures in place to avoid conflicts of interests and/or fraud then it would be fine. The athlete also knows that if there was ever an issue with say “influence” (if relevant) they could ask to see this data.

Anti-doping is a million years behind in this aspect. The rest of the world and government moved on, the UCI didn’t. Pretending that because McQuaid no longer sits as president on the CADF board as a reason why there could be no “conflict”, “influence” or otherwise is simply laughable.

The mind of a landscape gardener, I guess.