Cookson is worse for cycling than McQuaid

[fmk_RoI]

An internal audit will highlight deficiencies within.

Tell that to RCS, whose internal audit team missed a multi-million hole in the accounts.

You seem to be confusing reality with the ideal, practice with theory.

You are also mixing up statutory audit and audit. An audit of UCI procedures is not a statutory audit. It's just an audit.

 

[Catwhoorg]

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:



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.

To be fair the 8 sports for 7 spots include 2 versions of football, only 1 of which is likely to selected

The risk of missing out is minimal, but this is an embarassing ****-up to be sure.

 

[thehog]

Tell that to RCS, whose internal audit team missed a multi-million hole in the accounts.

You seem to be confusing reality with the ideal, practice with theory.

You are also mixing up statutory audit and audit. And audit of UCI procedures is not a statutory audit. It's just an audit.

Reality is that these three entities exist and is how compliance is structured. Period. Whether its effective or not is a subjective matter. The bottom line is there is transparency and you know what controls are in place.

In relation to RCS, it was "internal checks" that found the issue - i.e. internal controls/audit.

Catano resigned as CEO and moved to a different role within parent company RCS Media Group after internal checks had revealed the gap in the RCS Sport finances.

Last week an external auditor was appointed to control the accounts and Ricardo Taranto was appointed as the new CEO.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/acquarone-given-precautionary-suspension-by-rcs-sport

 

[fmk_RoI]

In relation to RCS, it was "internal checks" that found the issue - i.e. internal controls/audit.

Having overlooked it for many years. But better late than never and in your book it would seem eventually is good enough, while everyone else knows it needs to be got right every single time.

We are, after following your trail of waffle, further and further away from the real point. You can call something independent. Proving it is no easy task. And that is why I say sod the pointless and wasteful definitions and judge by actions.

 

[Benotti69]

Tell that to RCS, whose internal audit team missed a multi-million hole in the accounts.

You seem to be confusing reality with the ideal, practice with theory.

You are also mixing up statutory audit and audit. An audit of UCI procedures is not a statutory audit. It's just an audit.

Italian accountancy is an art form.

 

[thehog]

We are, after following your trail of waffle, further and further away from the real point. You can call something independent. Proving it is no easy task. And that is why I say sod the pointless and wasteful definitions and judge by actions.

Agreed, its your opinion. But by having such "compliance" at least in some small part demonstrates the "independence".

At this point all we have is Cookson's words... not much to go on to be honest. He's hardly experienced in such matters. Appears more interested in taking "selfies" and posting them on Twitter.

Considering his mandate was to bring respectability and trust back the UCI, I believe he has failed on that component.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Agreed, its your opinion. But by having such "compliance" at least in some small part demonstrates the "independence".

I've got more sense talking to walls. I surrender. You are so determined on missing the point that, at this stage, I really CGAS.

 

[thehog]

I've got more sense talking to walls. I surrender. You are so determined on missing the point that, at this stage, I really CGAS.

That's because you don't listen. And to be honest with regards to your point about RCS you really don't understand what compliance constitutes.

Cheers though.

 

[the sceptic]

I've got more sense talking to walls. I surrender. You are so determined on missing the point that, at this stage, I really CGAS.

perhaps you should write a book about it.

 

[thehog]

perhaps you should write a book about it.

McQuaid used to publish the EY auditor reports on the UCI website.

Cookson, no.

Transparency, zilcho.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...in-investment-in-top-flight-mens-cycling.aspx

Cookson did publish the following in the annual report:

 

[RownhamHill]

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.

No, I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with you to be honest, just questioning the metric you suggested (disagreeing with the wishes of the paymaster as proof of independence) as a great criteria for judging. I think in the abstract you're talking a lot of sense - that independence should ultimately be judged by actions. So I guess that leads to a question as to what are the actions you'd expect to see from an independent CADF, and how is it measuring up against that expectation. And to bring this back to topic, what else should Cookson specifically be doing to facilitate that? (Should he insist that CADF moves offices, for example, or would that compromise CADF's independence? (Based on the criteria of disagreeing with the paymaster.))

 

[DirtyWorks]

McQuaid used to publish the EY auditor reports on the UCI website.

Cookson, no.

Transparency, zilcho.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...in-investment-in-top-flight-mens-cycling.aspx

Cookson did publish the following in the annual report:

Somewhere pat McQuaid is laughing his @ss off right now.

 

[thehog]

Somewhere pat McQuaid is laughing his @ss off right now.

"The UCI is thus acting transparently".

Reads like the output from a first year consultant at Deloittes. "I don't need experience or need to understand how it works, we just need to define a new process and have it written down somewhere".

 

[heart_attack_man]

(Based on the criteria of disagreeing with the paymaster.))

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read it in that the CADF must disagree with the paymaster to prove independence, just that it has the ability to do so if necessary. Slight, but important difference in my view.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read it in that the CADF must disagree with the paymaster to prove independence, just that it has the ability to do so if necessary. Slight, but important difference in my view.

To suggest that agreeing with Cookson to move offices is an indication that they are not independent due to the agreeing is idiotic.

 

[heart_attack_man]

To suggest that agreeing with Cookson to move offices is an indication that they are not independent due to the agreeing is idiotic.

If you're insinuating that I'm an idiot, then you may be correct, as I have absolutely no idea what you're banging on about here...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If you're insinuating that I'm an idiot, then you may be correct, as I have absolutely no idea what you're banging on about here...

The post you quoted.

That's what Rownhamhill is suggesting. Did you read his post?

 

[heart_attack_man]

The post you quoted.

That's what Rownhamhill is suggesting. Did you read his post?

Ah - I finally just comprehended your post. Don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying either.

I was more just pointing out that from earlier when speaking about the independence of CADF, them having the ability to disagree with their paymasters proves their independence, not that they must disagree. The context I quoted in was confusing and poor. I apologise for that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ah - I finally just comprehended your post. Don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying either.

I was more just pointing out that from earlier when speaking about the independence of CADF, them having the ability to disagree with their paymasters proves their independence, not that they must disagree. The context I quoted in was confusing and poor. I apologise for that.

Yeah and I responded to the post you were quoting, although it's confusing when the quoting removes previously quoted posts.

I guess I was kinda bamboozled that RH would go down that path and added to what you were saying without clarifying. Apology accepted and reciprocated.

 

[RownhamHill]

Yeah and I responded to the post you were quoting, although it's confusing when the quoting removes previously quoted posts.

I guess I was kinda bamboozled that RH would go down that path and added to what you were saying without clarifying. Apology accepted and reciprocated.

So it's just me who's an idiot it seems. . .

Only of course, I'm not.

So, to clarify. fmk_Rol is suggesting that independence is a difficult thing to define, and is best proved by actions. I agree with that suggestion, and I suspect you two both do as well.

But fmk_Rol (probably slightly loosely to be honest) seemed to suggest that the actions you'd want to see from an independent body is disagreeing with your paymaster. I don't agree that is a great criteria in and of itself: as heart attack man points out what is needed is the ability to disagree with your paymaster, not necessarily to do so all the time. This I agree with entirely, and was kind of the point I was making with the (hypothetical) example of Cookson trying to insist they moved offices: obviously if that eventuated it would be idiotic to suggest the CADF digging their heels in and saying 'we're staying here' would be any proof of independence (in fact it would be proof of incompetence in my view).

I don't for a minute think that fmk_Rol, or anyone else would suggest otherwise - I certainly wasn't in the post that Dear_Wiggo felt fit to wade in on. I put the (clearly absurd) suggestion out to illustrate an example when an independent organisation might act entirely in accordance with the wishes of its paymaster; because the wishes of the paymaster made sense, and were clearly the right thing to do (ie moving offices).

So with that in mind (that independent actions might be a mix of agreement/disagreement) I'm asking what are the practical actions, today, that people criticising the independence of CADF would like to see it or Cookson take to prove independence through action? (Over and above moving offices, which would be a really good thing I think.)

 

[RownhamHill]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't read it in that the CADF must disagree with the paymaster to prove independence, just that it has the ability to do so if necessary. Slight, but important difference in my view.

And just on this, I agree with your view, but how do you display the ability to disagree if necessary through action? What, specifically, are the things that CADF should be disagreeing with right now? (These aren't hypothetical questions by the way, I'm genuinely interested in how independent CADF is or could be, but I'm not sure I really understand the basis of the criticisms coming at them right now)

((And not to get fixated on the office, but the stated wish of Cookson was they moved, but that didn't happen for 'practical' reasons (presumably the marginal cost of moving/higher rent). Who made the decision about these practical reasons - was it the UCI or the new independent CADF board/organisation? And if the latter what does that say about its lack of independence?))

 

[fmk_RoI]

Disagreeing all the time? Of course that would be stupid. But they would have to disagree sometime, do something sometime which clearly goes against the wishes of the UCI, because it would only be then that you would be able to see them actually acting independent. What could that something be? It could be something as simple as retro-testing, which historically the UCI has been against and refused to do (yes, they promise, but - apart from a couple of isolated, individual examples - they don't do it). So the CADF coming out and saying, "We've a new, more sensitive EPO test, and we're going to apply it to all samples in storage," that might help prove independence, give a lot of people comfort that the CADF really was an independent body, and not merely there to do the UCI's bidding. Defining that something in advance, it's not simple. To get like Martial Saugy on this, it's one of those things which you'll know when you see it. Not a very good definition, but it is what it is. An objective judgement of independence is just too easy to game.

 

[LaFlorecita]

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.

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

Hoggy!! Love your avatar

 

[RownhamHill]

Disagreeing all the time? Of course that would be stupid. But they would have to disagree sometime, do something sometime which clearly goes against the wishes of the UCI, because it would only be then that you would be able to see them actually acting independent. What could that something be? It could be something as simple as retro-testing, which historically the UCI has been against and refused to do (yes, they promise, but - apart from a couple of isolated, individual examples - they don't do it). So the CADF coming out and saying, "We've a new, more sensitive EPO test, and we're going to apply it to all samples in storage," that might help prove independence, give a lot of people comfort that the CADF really was an independent body, and not merely there to do the UCI's bidding. Defining that something in advance, it's not simple. To get like Martial Saugy on this, it's one of those things which you'll know when you see it. Not a very good definition, but it is what it is. An objective judgement of independence is just too easy to game.

All fair enough - I completely agree with this.

To take it a step further, I guess that if you'll know independence when you see it, the opposite might also be true: you might be able to know corruption/nepotism when you see it (as long a you do actually get to see it!). So do you think there is there anything since the CADF was reformulated that suggests that, or are we just in a holding pattern waiting to judge CADF's actions over time?

 

[fmk_RoI]

So do you think there is there anything since the CADF was reformulated that suggests that, or are we just in a holding pattern waiting to judge CADF's actions over time?

Immediately I would be tempted to say no, it's only been a matter of months and nothing much has happened. Except for one minor matter: the lack of transparency. None of the old CADF docs + testing stats are any longer available, the CADF annual report is not being made public (and old editions have been withdrawn). Under Cookson, anti-doping has been redefined as Clean Sport and bad news is being buried five layers deep. For the apparently independent CADF to have seemingly decided on a similar policy ... I dunno, it's not independence as I know it.