Truth & Reconciliation

Seems a good idea to separate our discussion on this issue in a new thread.

What will the commission do?
What time-limits will be on it?
What carrots for attending & sticks for not?
How can the process be squared with national law?

As I mentioned in a different thread, I think the experience in South Africa was very mixed, with some powerful people barely giving it the time of day. Will cycling be any different?
 
Jan 3, 2013
84
0
0
In the other thread I set out my thoughts on how a Truth & Reconciliation (T&R) process could work.

1. The T&R process needs to be run by a commission that is independent from the UCI (ideally appointed by WADA).

2. The commission needs to set a deadline by which people involved in cycling (riders, DS’s etc) register to take part in the T&R hearing process.

3. People that take part in the T&R hearings and provide information about their doping activities will be given a much shorter sanction (e.g. a 6 month ban) that would normally be applied. This would be conditional on them providing full disclosure on their activities (whether doping was approved by their team, information on suppliers etc). This would obviously need sign off from WADA, UCI and national organisations before any hearings take place.

4. People that don’t take part in the T&R process and who are subsequently have found to have doped / been involved in doping (either through evidence presented to the T&R commission or subsequent revelations) will be banned for a much longer period than is currently normal (e.g. 8 years). This also applies to people that took part in the T&R process but are subsequently found to have lied.

5. Existing bans still apply (e.g. Armstrong, Ricco, Ferrari). However, people who are not serving lifetime bans should have the opportunity to testify at the hearings without additional sanctions being applied (or perhaps just a 6 month extension). If people are feeling generous then you could allow lifetime bans to be reduced to 8 years in the event of a full confession (still a career ban ending in most cases).

6. People who have been previously banned should have the opportunity to testify at the hearings without receiving lifetime ban for a second offence. An admission of a new doping offence would result in a shortened ban (e.g. 6 months), while an admission in relation to their previous offence (e.g. someone admitting that their positive test was not actually the result of ingesting a contaminated product or someone providing additional information on who supplied them) would not result in an additional sanction.

7. All teams must agree (prior to the hearings) to honour the contracts of anyone that takes part in the T&R process (even if they are subject to a ban).

8. All race organisers must agree (prior to the hearings) not to try and reclaim winnings from anyone that takes part in the T&R process. Results lost to doping should not be reallocated.

9. Bans for doping offences are increased significantly (e.g. to 8 years) following the end of the T&R process. The aim being to demonstrate that while the slate may have been wiped clean, new infractions will not be tolerated.

Again, I should point out that the above was just the result of 5 minutes thought. There are probably huge issues that I have missed or not thought about properly.
 
Jul 19, 2010
110
0
8,830
@weeniebeenie

The UCI need to be in front of the commission not behind the desk. They should have no part in setting it up. We saw with the previous commission that if it looks like getting hot for them the UCI will pull the plug.

Also, I see very little reconciliation, just the threat of sanctions.
 
Feb 17, 2012
2,762
0
0
"UCI will establish TRC..." "UCI will launch TRC..."

There are your keys words. As long as UCI are the initiator f'uck all will happen as they, in fact, aren't initiating anything afterall.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
SINCE Cycling Fans have ignored the opportunity to express their support for " Amnesty For Athletes ", why are they surprised when the "phat tag team of Aigle " , cancel their creation , " the Independent Commission "?

Only by showing the UCI Management Committee , that they are in IMMINENT DANGER , of being " Ousted " from their place at the "trough " , will they , WHEN they meet on Friday 1st Feb 2013 , decide to remove phat & heinous , from the management of UCI ! Should they not do this , Members of the UCI Management Committee deserve to be individually held to account by their memberships !

VOTE TODAY :

http://www.change.org/petitions/wada-create-an-amnesty-in-all-sports
&
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/office-of-the-governor-general-of-australia-create-the-means-for-a-sports-amnesty-in-australia#invite

Show some backbone OR create a better place where " Cycling Fans " can RALLY , and get a result !
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Surely the most important element of any recommendations/findings made by the commission is how those recommendations/findings will be put into the framework of Professional Cycling in the future.

I simply dont believe that the UCI will make necessary changes unless they are forced to to do. On the face of it they can do whatever they like!

Three issues the TRC will not cover is:

1.The situation with the Puerto & Contador cases (politicising sport to protect the financial/sporting interests of a Country over and above the rules which govern sport).

2. How sports governing bodies are run, administered and officials elected/selected (why are members of national federations powerless in the case of the UCI to effect any change through their federations? why are all the governing bodies based in Switzerland?) Skippy as mentioned this above!

3. How sports "rules" are integrated into the laws in the country in which the offence has taken place (many of these cases are alleged to include a criminal element but few countries take this up against the athlete)
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
weeniebeenie said:
In the other thread I set out my thoughts on how a Truth & Reconciliation (T&R) process could work...
I like your proposal as a starting point. As you say, it might not be perfect, but it contains specific proposals that can be debated and refined. No propgress can be made until their are specific proposals as to what happens when we find the truth. You also highlight that WADA, national bodies etc. need to be signed up to the proposals before the confessions start.

There are two major stumbling blocks as far as I can see:

1) Legally, the UCI is part of the process/solution. Nothing can happen re sanctions (be they reduced or increased) without their agreement. The strong assumption is that the UCI (or at least two prominent individuals therein) is actually part of the problem. Ideally, the T&R proposals should include officials (off any sort) and disbarment from subsequent office if they fess up to assisting doping or are shown to have assisted doping.

2) Longer bans than 2 years for first time offences might fall foul of normal laws, for being unduly harsh, accounting for non-cycling issues as well. The ban was reduced from 4 years to 2 years a few years ago for this reason. However, the courts may take the view that longer bans are now justified given recent revelations.

I also wonder what would happen to other sports. It would be a field day for lawyers, one would imagine, if a cyclist was banned for 8 years for the same offence as an athlete who got the standard 2 year ban. I can't see - for example - football or tennis agreeing to increase bans to 8 years for a first offence.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
I like your proposal as a starting point. As you say, it might not be perfect, but it contains specific proposals that can be debated and refined. No propgress can be made until their are specific proposals as to what happens when we find the truth. You also highlight that WADA, national bodies etc. need to be signed up to the proposals before the confessions start.

There are two major stumbling blocks as far as I can see:

1) Legally, the UCI is part of the process/solution. Nothing can happen re sanctions (be they reduced or increased) without their agreement. The strong assumption is that the UCI (or at least two prominent individuals therein) is actually part of the problem. Ideally, the T&R proposals should include officials (off any sort) and disbarment from subsequent office if they fess up to assisting doping or are shown to have assisted doping.

2) Longer bans than 2 years for first time offences might fall foul of normal laws, for being unduly harsh, accounting for non-cycling issues as well. The ban was reduced from 4 years to 2 years a few years ago for this reason. However, the courts may take the view that longer bans are now justified given recent revelations.

I also wonder what would happen to other sports. It would be a field day for lawyers, one would imagine, if a cyclist was banned for 8 years for the same offence as an athlete who got the standard 2 year ban. I can't see - for example - football or tennis agreeing to increase bans to 8 years for a first offence.
With regard to point 1) I don't see how the threat of disbarment etc is going to encourage any official to fess up. Have I missed something here?

WR to point 2) The longer bans WB referred to were not for the offences per se, but for the foregoing of the chance offered by the T&R process to accept a lesser sanction, and then subsequently being rumbled. Again I may have missed something here, so apologies if I have - not trying to pointscore or anything.
 
Jan 3, 2013
84
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
I like your proposal as a starting point. As you say, it might not be perfect, but it contains specific proposals that can be debated and refined. No propgress can be made until their are specific proposals as to what happens when we find the truth. You also highlight that WADA, national bodies etc. need to be signed up to the proposals before the confessions start.

There are two major stumbling blocks as far as I can see:

1) Legally, the UCI is part of the process/solution. Nothing can happen re sanctions (be they reduced or increased) without their agreement. The strong assumption is that the UCI (or at least two prominent individuals therein) is actually part of the problem. Ideally, the T&R proposals should include officials (off any sort) and disbarment from subsequent office if they fess up to assisting doping or are shown to have assisted doping.

2) Longer bans than 2 years for first time offences might fall foul of normal laws, for being unduly harsh, accounting for non-cycling issues as well. The ban was reduced from 4 years to 2 years a few years ago for this reason. However, the courts may take the view that longer bans are now justified given recent revelations.

I also wonder what would happen to other sports. It would be a field day for lawyers, one would imagine, if a cyclist was banned for 8 years for the same offence as an athlete who got the standard 2 year ban. I can't see - for example - football or tennis agreeing to increase bans to 8 years for a first offence.
Thanks. The list was always intended as a jump off point for a discussion.

As stated by Grand Illusion I was trying to create a situation where people who come forward and admit their past sins now will receive a short ban, but those who do not and are subsequently found out receive much longer bans.

I also suggested that the standard ban is increased significantly after the T&R is complete. The intention was that the T&R acts almost a reset button and that after it is completed much tougher sanctions are imposed. However, I wasn't aware that bans had recently been decreased and hadn't considered that they would seem unfair in comparison to other sports. I guess maybe it would be be best to leave them as they are for first time offenders.
 
Aug 8, 2009
142
0
0
Letting people who destroyed a sport off the hook and using words like "truth" and "reconciliation" to describe it is hilarious.

How about a "Crime and Punishment" committee?
 
Jan 3, 2013
84
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
1) Legally, the UCI is part of the process/solution. Nothing can happen re sanctions (be they reduced or increased) without their agreement. The strong assumption is that the UCI (or at least two prominent individuals therein) is actually part of the problem. Ideally, the T&R proposals should include officials (off any sort) and disbarment from subsequent office if they fess up to assisting doping or are shown to have assisted doping.
Is there any way in which WADA (or someone else) can force the UCI into accepting an independent T&R commission? For example, do the UCI need to be approved by WADA in order for cycling to be in the Olympics?
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Grandillusion said:
With regard to point 1) I don't see how the threat of disbarment etc is going to encourage any official to fess up. Have I missed something here?

WR to point 2) The longer bans WB referred to were not for the offences per se, but for the foregoing of the chance offered by the T&R process to accept a lesser sanction, and then subsequently being rumbled. Again I may have missed something here, so apologies if I have - not trying to pointscore or anything.
Re 1) I guess there would be a lesser sanction for an official who fesses up than there would be for an official who didn't participate who was subsequently busted for corruption/malpractice on the evidence of others who contribute. Just trying to bring the UCI folk into the process on a similar footing to the riders.

Re 2) I was envisaging a rider who decides not to participate and then gets busted and given an 8 year ban for a first offence. How would this sit with a first offender from another sport that did not participate in the T&R process and thus in possession of a two year ban? Rhetorical question. I doubt there are easy answers!
 
I am having trouble following what is happening here, but it appears that a WADA, USADA and CCN request to provide amnesty (limited?) for those who were willing to speak out to the UCIIC has somehow been transformed into a proposed full blown T&R process. To me these aren't the same thing. The first was to encourage those who wished to speak out about doping and UCI cover-ups while limiting the consequences, while the second is a very complicated and risky process involving the entire sport.

The first and obvious question is what organisation(s) are capable of managing the process - especially given that virtually all those involved are quasi-political or are structurally incapable of the task.

The next question is whether or not such a process could actually be beneficial. Personally I doubt that a T&R process will lead to the desired revolution. After all, we already know much about who did what and how - yet we remain stuck in a never-ending cycle of scandals, corruption, and incapability to slay the dragon. So what if we learn that Ferrari, Fuentes, Leinders, De Moral, etc. supplied and administered doping products. We know this already, yet they continue to do their damage almost unhindered. We know that Festina, t-mobile, USPS, Rabobank, etc. had team doping programs, yet this knowledge doesn't appear to stop Katusha, Astana, etc. from doing what they are doing.

What will a T&R commission really change?

Not to mention that it appears to be a pretext by the UCI to disband the "independent" commission that was intended to investigate their shady business. It now looks like this is a maneuver to avoid the truth from coming out, and maybe as a bonus to allow their financial backer Armstrong to latch onto an amnesty plan so he can continue to seduce his speedo clad groupies.
 
Sep 22, 2012
542
0
0
Truth, I would like to see that, but I think I am more likely to see a flock of flying pigs tomorrow.

Cycling is a facade of sport held up by lies and deceit.
 
Jan 3, 2013
84
0
0
B_Ugli said:
Surely the most important element of any recommendations/findings made by the commission is how those recommendations/findings will be put into the framework of Professional Cycling in the future.

I simply dont believe that the UCI will make necessary changes unless they are forced to to do. On the face of it they can do whatever they like!

Three issues the TRC will not cover is:

1.The situation with the Puerto & Contador cases (politicising sport to protect the financial/sporting interests of a Country over and above the rules which govern sport).

2. How sports governing bodies are run, administered and officials elected/selected (why are members of national federations powerless in the case of the UCI to effect any change through their federations? why are all the governing bodies based in Switzerland?) Skippy as mentioned this above!

3. How sports "rules" are integrated into the laws in the country in which the offence has taken place (many of these cases are alleged to include a criminal element but few countries take this up against the athlete)
I agree that the most important element of any T&R commission would be the recommendations on how Professional Cycling should be run in the future.

In relation to 1) is there any way in which decisions on doping sanctions can be taken away from the national federations and passed to a body that is unrelated to cycling (i.e. WADA)?
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
frenchfry said:
I am having trouble following what is happening here, but it appears that a WADA, USADA and CCN request to provide amnesty (limited?) for those who were willing to speak out to the UCIIC has somehow been transformed into a proposed full blown T&R process. To me these aren't the same thing. The first was to encourage those who wished to speak out about doping and UCI cover-ups while limiting the consequences, while the second is a very complicated and risky process involving the entire sport.

The first and obvious question is what organisation(s) are capable of managing the process - especially given that virtually all those involved are quasi-political or are structurally incapable of the task.

The next question is whether or not such a process could actually be beneficial. Personally I doubt that a T&R process will lead to the desired revolution. After all, we already know much about who did what and how - yet we remain stuck in a never-ending cycle of scandals, corruption, and incapability to slay the dragon. So what if we learn that Ferrari, Fuentes, Leinders, De Moral, etc. supplied and administered doping products. We know this already, yet they continue to do their damage almost unhindered. We know that Festina, t-mobile, USPS, Rabobank, etc. had team doping programs, yet this knowledge doesn't appear to stop Katusha, Astana, etc. from doing what they are doing.

What will a T&R commission really change?

Not to mention that it appears to be a pretext by the UCI to disband the "independent" commission that was intended to investigate their shady business. It now looks like this is a maneuver to avoid the truth from coming out, and maybe as a bonus to allow their financial backer Armstrong to latch onto an amnesty plan so he can continue to seduce his speedo clad groupies.
That's a brilliant post! The differentiation you've identified between the two processes is spot on accurate. More disingenuous smokescreen from McQuaid in pretending the two are the same thing.
 
Dec 18, 2009
451
0
0
Why are the riders saying nothing about this farce ?

This is really something they could strike over and force change.
 
weeniebeenie said:
3. People that take part in the T&R hearings and provide information about their doping activities will be given a much shorter sanction (e.g. a 6 month ban) that would normally be applied. This would be conditional on them providing full disclosure on their activities (whether doping was approved by their team, information on suppliers etc). This would obviously need sign off from WADA, UCI and national organisations before any hearings take place.

4. People that don’t take part in the T&R process and who are subsequently have found to have doped / been involved in doping (either through evidence presented to the T&R commission or subsequent revelations) will be banned for a much longer period than is currently normal (e.g. 8 years). This also applies to people that took part in the T&R process but are subsequently found to have lied.

5. Existing bans still apply (e.g. Armstrong, Ricco, Ferrari). However, people who are not serving lifetime bans should have the opportunity to testify at the hearings without additional sanctions being applied (or perhaps just a 6 month extension). If people are feeling generous then you could allow lifetime bans to be reduced to 8 years in the event of a full confession (still a career ban ending in most cases).
Some of this seems fairly unfair but I don't know how you fix it without turning the situation into a joke. It boils down to if you were caught doing what everyone else was doing then you are screwed but if you were lucky enough not to get caught then you get a slap on the wrist. Why should Ricco be burned at the stake while Menchov gets a free pass?

The only reason the UCI is interested in a T&R process is to save McQuaid and Verbruggen, so that will determine how the process works. The final report will be a non-detailed collective mea culpa.
 
frenchfry said:
I am having trouble following what is happening here, but it appears that a WADA, USADA and CCN request to provide amnesty (limited?) for those who were willing to speak out to the UCIIC has somehow been transformed into a proposed full blown T&R process. To me these aren't the same thing. ...
And a big issue has been with respect to protection for UCI whistleblowers.

They don't need amnesty or even reconciliation.

If truth is sought, then they need protection from retaliation and retribution.

Dave.
 
Jan 3, 2013
84
0
0
BroDeal said:
Some of this seems fairly unfair but I don't know how you fix it without turning the situation into a joke. It boils down to if you were caught doing what everyone else was doing then you are screwed but if you were lucky enough not to get caught then you get a slap on the wrist. Why should Ricco be burned at the stake while Menchov gets a free pass?
I think that's the main problem. I would be angry if I was serving a lengthy ban for doping, but then a T&R commission is set up and everyone else escapes with 6 months. However, I don't know how you get around it unless you agree to significantly reduce lengthy bans that are currently being served in the event that the people serving them agree to provide a full confession to the T&R commission. This would obviously include Armstrong and Ricco.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
T&R is utter b******t. It is just another way to "forget the past" and "move on" because "cycling is cleaner now." It will NEVER lead to structural change at the UCI.

"Truth and Reconciliation" administered by the UCI would just become "Target and Retaliate." Either that, or it would be just another free pass for dopers administered under a "legitimate" pretext. Trusting the UCI to administer anything fairly is ridiculous.
 
Lots of negative comments about the process being managed by the UCI.

Ever the optimist, I'd like to see a change in leadership there this friday.
Cycling really cannot wait another day.

Would that change peoples negative attitude to the UCI being involved?
Could a new leader build bridges with WADA and run this jointly??

Wishful thinking, perhaps!;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts