• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Could the UCI be catching on?

Feb 14, 2010
2,189
0
0
They started mending fences when Bordry left early. But if the do it right, the AFLD will be testing for the French races, and when guys are training in country, and if they take it seriously, there could be positives. There's even more of a chance if the continue to share information with Customs and police agencies. Will the UCI want there to be traditional positives caught by someone else at a time when the Biological Passport is up for grabs in CAS? Will the ASO want there to be positives and bans, when sponsors and TV coverage are online?

At least it would give us a chance to see if the AFLD is as good as they were a few years ago. Any anti-doping that's beyond the control of the UCI is a good thing.
 
The UCI could be learning from this past year's Tour.

If they strike an agreement with the AFLD that even goes as far as the WADA Independent Observers, the UCI would be very happy.

'Ok, I know that these are the priority Passport riders. We thank you for pointing that out for us. But, we don't need to take any urine sample from them because, well, they didn't take any EPO. There is no EPO in cycling.

Also, it is ok to test Alberto for Clenbuterol because unless he had some in his blood bag, he probably didn't take it during the Tour.

In the future, we promise to offer up one high profile rider - so long as they are not native English speakers, or if there first name isn't Andy, or, well we will let you know.'


Dave.
 
Aug 4, 2009
1,041
0
0
Lets face facts we are suposed to be the UCI its our union we pay the "elected" officers big $$$$ to represent us.
So what happened???
The real facts are so many people join UCI clubs just to ride bike races and they dont care so its left to a few to complain.
just so long as there is a bike race every week that is all they want. so then we get to the situation we are in now where they elect them selves. so untill all that changes we are stuck with these people.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
brianf7 said:
Lets face facts we are suposed to be the UCI its our union
I would argue the structure of the UCI does not work like a Democracy. At minimum it is not transparent, nor does a UCI member have the privilege of requesting any information/action from the federation and actually get it. Look at FLandis' attempt to get his pay from a broke UCI team as an example.

If you are American, USAC is similarly non-transparent and non-Democratic with demonstrated widespread corruption.

In both cases there is the appearance of a legislative body, but in reality, their only job is to approve the decisions of a few.

brianf7 said:
we pay the "elected" officers big $$$$ to represent us.
In the U.S. the rank and file USAC reps are not getting rich, nor do they have the luxury of being able to please everyone. At the top of the organization, it's more like a goose laying golden eggs for the few associated with Tailwind Sports. The UCI appears similar in this regard.

Finally, the UCI is not catching on. At best, they have set up another process where they seem to be a primary broker in an intentionally complicated game of telephone. The sooner they are entirely out of doping enforcement, the better.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
Is it a consensus that now that Bordry is out of the AFLD (and it is hard to argue that he was corruptible), his replacement may be a little more flexible in his dealings with the UCI? Flexible, as in able to grab his ankles?

I'm hoping the AFLD can continue to hold the UCI to account for their ineffective doping protocol at the TdF, and that this 'kiss-and-make-up' isn't just PR...
 
I don't think there's systemic corruption in the UCI or that it's as bad as some people make it sound. We can all admit that the UCI has a goal of globalizing cycling, and increasing the economic viability of the sport. That can conflict theoretically with implementing the most unforgiving anti-doping regime in that if the tests are so effective and frequent that they catch-out a top rider who is a big star and draws serious $$$ towards the sport...that could affect the first goal.

I certainly don't think that the only response is to dissolve the UCI, however. Is anyone really working within the existing power structure to effect change, or just talking about how that's not possible?
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
joe_papp said:
I don't think there's systemic corruption in the UCI or that it's as bad as some people make it sound. We can all admit that the UCI has a goal of globalizing cycling, and increasing the economic viability of the sport. That can conflict theoretically with implementing the most unforgiving anti-doping regime in that if the tests are so effective and frequent that they catch-out a top rider who is a big star and draws serious $$$ towards the sport...that could affect the first goal.

I certainly don't think that the only response is to dissolve the UCI, however. Is anyone really working within the existing power structure to effect change, or just talking about how that's not possible?
Joe, I'm not sure how in-tune you may have been when Weisel was doing his power-grab. I know you were riding then, but were you watching (then) with the same kind of perspective you have now?

At least on this side of the Atlantic, we'd need to do a grass-roots effort to take back USAC. Then, once that's done, we'd need to unify with other like-minded (and uncompromised) NGBs in other nations to then reform the UCI.

If you can't see how "impossible" that is, it's only because you haven't sat down and actually tried to plot a strategy.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
joe_papp said:
I don't think there's systemic corruption in the UCI or that it's as bad as some people make it sound.
I don't agree with this. If the discussion is a binary yes/no, then the answer is yes. If we are talking about the shades of gray between yes/no, then the public behavior at the top of UCI STILL puts it clearly into the yes area. There are numerous riders no longer in the UCI peloton who would argue against your position.


joe_papp said:
We can all admit that the UCI has a goal of globalizing cycling, and increasing the economic viability of the sport. That can conflict theoretically with implementing the most unforgiving anti-doping regime in that if the tests are so effective and frequent that they catch-out a top rider who is a big star and draws serious $$$ towards the sport...that could affect the first goal.
It obviously does affect the first goal. This conflict has generated lots of evidence suggesting the UCI is corrupt.

My dog in this fight is in Pat/Hein's efforts to increase the economic viability of the sport has meant they discourage grassroots participation of most kinds. This is certainly the case in the U.S.

joe_papp said:
I certainly don't think that the only response is to dissolve the UCI, however. Is anyone really working within the existing power structure to effect change, or just talking about how that's not possible?
Anyone that attempts to change it from within leaves the organization. Ms. Schenk (sp?) is an excellent example. Until these individuals agenda is welcomed, then the UCI is not changing.
 
BotanyBay said:
Joe, I'm not sure how in-tune you may have been when Weisel was doing his power-grab. I know you were riding then, but were you watching (then) with the same kind of perspective you have now?

At least on this side of the Atlantic, we'd need to do a grass-roots effort to take back USAC. Then, once that's done, we'd need to unify with other like-minded (and uncompromised) NGBs in other nations to then reform the UCI.

If you can't see how "impossible" that is, it's only because you haven't sat down and actually tried to plot a strategy.
All I'm saying is that I don't believe that there is systemic corruption in the UCI such that it's really some putrefied rogue organization that's secretly facilitating doping around the world as a matter of organizational policy.

As for Weisel - my mentor of 10 years was twice the president of the USCF, which was merged into USA Cycling, so I'm well aware of what happened when Lisa Voight ascended to a position of near-absolute power.

I guess we're parsing here because again, I'm saying I don't think that corruption is policy at the organizational level in the UCI. If that was the case, there would be no fight against doping.

As for asking about what's happening w/in the UCI, that was a genuine question as to whether or not there are working groups dedicated to issues other than banning race radios.

Lastly, as for taking back a federation, I think Les Earnest would have a lot to say about that...
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
joe_papp said:
All I'm saying is that I don't believe that there is systemic corruption in the UCI such that it's really some putrefied rogue organization that's secretly facilitating doping around the world as a matter of organizational policy.

As for Weisel - my mentor of 10 years was twice the president of the USCF, which was merged into USA Cycling, so I'm well aware of what happened when Lisa Voight ascended to a position of near-absolute power.

I guess we're parsing here because again, I'm saying I don't think that corruption is policy at the organizational level in the UCI. If that was the case, there would be no fight against doping.

As for asking about what's happening w/in the UCI, that was a genuine question as to whether or not there are working groups dedicated to issues other than banning race radios.

Lastly, as for taking back a federation, I think Les Earnest would have a lot to say about that...
And (today) I think Les (I know Les) would tell you to not bother trying to reform the UCI... But as you point out, you'd both need to first share a frame of reference that it is corrupt.

I'm not saying that the UCI is organizationally corrupt in a manner where every action is a payoff or a shakedown. I think they are an organization with rules and even with some well-meaning people working there. But it has been taken hostage by people who have no problem doing the Jekyll and Hyde thing where they are rule-followers one minute and dirty, rotten extortionists the next. And I think that scizophrenic duality is culturally branded upon the organization's psyche.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
BotanyBay said:
And (today) I think Les (I know Les) would tell you to not bother trying to reform the UCI... But as you point out, you'd both need to first share a frame of reference that it is corrupt.

I'm not saying that the UCI is organizationally corrupt in a manner where every action is a payoff or a shakedown. I think they are an organization with rules and even with some well-meaning people working there. But it has been taken hostage by people who have no problem doing the Jekyll and Hyde thing where they are rule-followers one minute and dirty, rotten extortionists the next. And I think that scizophrenic duality is culturally branded upon the organization's psyche.
They are not systemically corrupt, only at the very top.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
joe_papp said:
All I'm saying is that I don't believe that there is systemic corruption in the UCI such that it's really some putrefied rogue organization that's secretly facilitating doping around the world as a matter of organizational policy.
I think any reasonable person agrees with you. I do too. I would say the same about USAC. At the lower levels, the detail work is done honestly. But you selectively frame the discussion in a manner such that it excludes the obvious bad behavior and egregious conflicts of interest and self-dealing at the top of the UCI/USAC.

joe_papp said:
As for asking about what's happening w/in the UCI, that was a genuine question as to whether or not there are working groups dedicated to issues other than banning race radios. ...
What is the point of bringing up race radios? It's a distraction. The UCI is not a Democratic organization. Even if every UCI delegate advocated turning over doping enforcement entirely to WADA, Pat and Hein would ignore the delegates and the UCI would continue as it has with Bio Passports only defining non mortal limits to doping.
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
Hugh Januss said:
They are not systemically corrupt, only at the very top.
Agreed. But unfortunately, it's the top that matters 97% of the time.

And those top people are (literally) impossible to unseat. Hence my suggestion that people abandon thought that pertains to reform, and instead start wrapping their heads around the idea of leaving them behind to shake down some other aspect of cycling. Perhaps the BMXers.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Agreed. But unfortunately, it's the top that matters 97% of the time.

And those top people are (literally) impossible to unseat. Hence my suggestion that people abandon thought that pertains to reform, and instead start wrapping their heads around the idea of leaving them behind to shake down some other aspect of cycling. Perhaps the BMXers.
I didn't say it wasn't a very bad thing. Problem is McQuack is accountable to only one person, Verbruggen. Everyone underneath has learned to look straight ahead, do their job and every thing will be fine.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
joe_papp said:
All I'm saying is that I don't believe that there is systemic corruption in the UCI such that it's really some putrefied rogue organization that's secretly facilitating doping around the world as a matter of organizational policy.
I guess it depends how you define systemic corruption, but I disagree with your statement above.

No, I don't believe there's a secret cabal of guys in a back room plotting to facilitate doping, but I do think the organization is structured in a way which discourages thorough investigation and sanction, and encourages portraying a clean sport above truth. There's a mountain of evidence to support this position: the Vrijman report, the lack of follow-up on the Astana transfusion kits, the Postal garbarge hunts, the current silence over the plasticizer test results (not just for Contador, but for everybody).

The bottom line is that the organization is structured to both promote and regulate the sport, and where doping is concerned this is going to result in a governing body with competing interests; hence corruption becomes almost impossible to avoid. So, I'd would say that it is, indeed, "organizational".

My basic thoughts on how to change this are to do the following:

-incorporate the UCI in a country where it would actually be accountable to the rule of law. I don't know where, but Switzerland is not that country

-remove the federations and the UCI completely from testing, results management and sanctions

-completely re-do the testing punishment structure to include all parties involved (directors, staff, sponsors, national federations), not just riders.

Until these steps are taken, I'll only view the corruption within the sport's governing body as "organizational".
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
131313 said:
I guess it depends how you define systemic corruption, but I disagree with your statement above.

No, I don't believe there's a secret cabal of guys in a back room plotting to facilitate doping, but I do think the organization is structured in a way which discourages thorough investigation and sanction, and encourages portraying a clean sport above truth. There's a mountain of evidence to support this position: the Vrijman report, the lack of follow-up on the Astana transfusion kits, the Postal garbarge hunts, the current silence over the plasticizer test results (not just for Contador, but for everybody).

The bottom line is that the organization is structured to both promote and regulate the sport, and where doping is concerned this is going to result in a governing body with competing interests; hence corruption becomes almost impossible to avoid. So, I'd would say that it is, indeed, "organizational".

My basic thoughts on how to change this are to do the following:

-incorporate the UCI in a country where it would actually be accountable to the rule of law. I don't know where, but Switzerland is not that country

-remove the federations and the UCI completely from testing, results management and sanctions

-completely re-do the testing punishment structure to include all parties involved (directors, staff, sponsors, national federations), not just riders.

Until these steps are taken, I'll only view the corruption within the sport's governing body as "organizational".
+1. This is the discussion the OP was geared towards. Nicely stated.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
+1. This is the discussion the OP was geared towards. Nicely stated.
This is it!
As for the OP
Hmmm... The UCI seems to be mending fences with the AFLD in terms of TdF testing. Does this buy them a bit more credibility?
I am afraid the correct answer is it buys AFLD less credibility.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
This is it!
As for the OP I am afraid the correct answer is it buys AFLD less credibility.
Yeah... that's why I was a little vague with OP. Once Bordry got the hell out of Dodge, I could only imagine his replacement being a little better at the bureaucratic greasy hand-shake.

Where are Schenk and Gripper when you need them?
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,189
0
0
Pardon me for taking this a tad off topic, but I just woke up from a nap and caught Enrico Carpani lying his bum off, contradicting what he had said in his own press release. Sorry for the copy and paste of an e-mail I sent to AS.com, I'm trying to get eyes on this.

The Swiss journalist wanted to excuse your body for the late reply on the report that he sent the Committee Copetición. "We sent over 600 pages in Castilian, full of technical reports that had to be translated. And, as sent by regular mail, arrived in Switzerland not until 10 January," so did not arrive until the 24th.
http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/uci-ciclismo-quiere-ver-contador/20110211dasdascic_2/Tes

I just read the online article by Juan Gutierrez. "UCI: "El ciclismo no quiere ver a Contador crucificado". The UCI spokesman lied about the dates and the circumstances. He contradicted his own official press release from January 10. The RFEC sent documents on December 10. In the press release, he said they received them December 20 & on that date agreed to a January 24 response. He also claimed they had been sent 600 pages. In reality, the UCI had been the ones to send 600 pages. The RFEC would only have sent the 95 from Contador. Besides that, Contador had stated in January that they had submitted copies of the documents to the UCI a the same time they gave them to the Competition Committee. Here is the link to the January 10 press release:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NzE4Mg&MenuId=MTI2Mjc&LangId=1&BackLink=/templates/UCI/UCI7/layout.asp?MenuId=MTI2Mjc&LangId=1
 
May 12, 2010
1,728
0
0
131313 said:
I guess it depends how you define systemic corruption, but I disagree with your statement above.

No, I don't believe there's a secret cabal of guys in a back room plotting to facilitate doping, but I do think the organization is structured in a way which discourages thorough investigation and sanction, and encourages portraying a clean sport above truth. There's a mountain of evidence to support this position: the Vrijman report, the lack of follow-up on the Astana transfusion kits, the Postal garbarge hunts, the current silence over the plasticizer test results (not just for Contador, but for everybody).
What does the UCI have to do with the Astana transfusion kits and the Postal garbage hunts? Shouldn't you blame the French gendarmes if they don't make any progress?

I don't get your point about the plasticizer test? What silence are you referring to, what could they say about that?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts