UCI has one 'last chance to prove its credibility'

Aug 9, 2012
2,223
0
0
Head of British Cycling says UCI has one 'last chance to prove its credibility' in wake of Lance Armstrong report

Brian Cookson, Britain’s representative on the International Cycling Union board, has warned his own colleagues in Switzerland that unless they nominate a truly independent commission with the power to investigate every allegation of wrong-doing against it then it will cease to exist as cycling’s world governing body.

“To be honest this is the UCI’s last chance to re-establish itself as a credible organisation,” says Cookson, president of British Cycling.

“Unless we have a commission that the sporting community trust to deliver verdicts on the big questions the UCI, to put it honestly, will be stuffed.

We are looking at a commission of three to investigate everything and anything that needs looking at and, in fact, once those three are appointed they will be invited to draw up their own terms of reference. Nothing will be off limits.

"That was the strong mood of the management board meeting on Friday and we are expecting everybody from Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid downwards to be completely transparent at all times.”

Cookson has confirmed that both the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic Committee will be consulted as to the composition of the commission and that ideally it will contain at least one internationally respected judge while the other two individuals would be figures from the sporting world. The UCI expects to have finalised the make-up by the end of next week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9641909/Head-of-British-Cycling-says-UCI-has-one-last-chance-to-prove-its-credibility-in-wake-of-Lance-Armstrong-report.html

If this is what happens, I remain hopefull.

My reason for hope has somewhat increased:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/head-of-international-council-of-arbitration-for-sport-to-recommend-uci-commission-members
Independent investigation part looks good.
Terms of refference for the investigation is still unclear.

Update of situation posted on post #93 in this thread.
 
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Unless we have a commission that the sporting community trust to deliver verdicts on the big questions the UCI, to put it honestly, will be stuffed

This the hopeful sentence - it suggests he sees how bad the situation is, and can forsee UCI gone and replaced entirely. The fact he can forsee the possiblity puts him ahead of th Heins and Pats.

know hope.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
change

without major replacement of uci top staff how will the uci be able to move on with any credibility?

however independent the inquiry is if no corruption is found no-one will ever believe the report..........it will be perceived as a 'cover up'

some-one will have to carry the can for recent events

observers have seen too much

now if only the uci had put as much effort into policing the sport as developing the world tour
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Is Cookson going to start close to home by looking at potential conflicts of interest between Sky and British Cycling? Or is this just bandwagon jumping from a blazer who makes the right noises but does nothing?
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Is Cookson going to start close to home by looking at potential conflicts of interest between Sky and British Cycling? Or is this just bandwagon jumping from a blazer who makes the right noises but does nothing?
Brian Cookson has disappointed me in the past, as with the way he sided with the UCI when the organisers of the Grand Tours were looking to break away from the UCI's corruption and prevent them from taking over control of the TV rights to pro cycling. However, I think he needs to be given a lot of credit here for simply speaking out, something which in an organisation such as the UCI is almost guaranteed to see the 'old guard' marking you for life.

Let's hope he can help to ensure that a genuinely independent commission is set up, and one that has some real teeth.
 
ToreBear said:
The IOC standard response is a bribe to Cookson and perhaps some bonus UCI funding to BC being arranged by Hein and Pat. The terrorists probably have more than one Keirin Racing Association account to spread some wealth around to convince Cookson to stay on board. Never underestimate Hein skill at remaining dictator for life of the UCI. How he got Pat in was remarkable, this isn't as big a challenge.

Best case scenario, Cookson can't be bought, the Vrijman Report coming on the subject is published sometime 2015 with Cookson pleased with the results. Either that or Cookson is not bought and he has to find another job. I'm reminded of the way Bisceglia was fired from USA Cycling for doing his job.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
IMO, the IOC can definitely be bought but not so much WADA, I felt more confident in them with **** Pound at the helm though, more than John Fahey.
 
Aug 9, 2012
2,223
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The IOC standard response is a bribe to Cookson and perhaps some bonus UCI funding to BC being arranged by Hein and Pat. The terrorists probably have more than one Keirin Racing Association account to spread some wealth around to convince Cookson to stay on board. Never underestimate Hein skill at remaining dictator for life of the UCI. How he got Pat in was remarkable, this isn't as big a challenge.

Best case scenario, Cookson can't be bought, the Vrijman Report coming on the subject is published sometime 2015 with Cookson pleased with the results. Either that or Cookson is not bought and he has to find another job. I'm reminded of the way Bisceglia was fired from USA Cycling for doing his job.
I see you are preparing your self for dissapointment. I can't blame you for that. History has proved your pessimism to be realism.

Somehow I think this time is different.


Hopefully you won't hammer me too hard with your "I told you so's".:D
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Briant_Gumble said:
IMO, the IOC can definitely be bought but not so much WADA, I felt more confident in them with **** Pound at the helm though, more than John Fahey.
I have zero confidence in Fahey. He seems to have absolutely no backbone and spends most of his time repeating the party line (which is only to be expected of a career politician).
 
ToreBear said:
Hopefully you won't hammer me too hard with your "I told you so's".:D
Believe me when I post that I want it to be different. It's just the 30+ years of following the sport from one scandal to the next beats the optimism out of a fan and turns it into indifference.

It's why I am amazed at the number of posts targeted at the team level, rider level reform generate so many replies. The problem is well above the Team/Rider level, starting at the IOC and the UCI. At some point I don't remember I bet I thought reform could happen at the Team/rider level too, but I can't remember it.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
ToreBear said:
I would broadly agree - there were minutes of UCI management meetings released recently and Cookson was quite outspoken against McQuaid on several issues.

However - talk is cheap. I remember before McQuaid was elected he too was talking the talk.
This all will quickly become apparent when the names of who is on the commission and whether "nothing is off-limits".
 
Jul 29, 2009
125
0
8,830
Talk is cheap but I think Cookson wouldn't have been so outspoken without having gained the support of others either openly or during 'offline' discussions. I hope it gains some momentum.
 
Have you seen Cookson's message on the British Cycling website yesterday?

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/bc20121029-Home-Page-Message-From-Brian-Cookson-0

I guarantee unequivocally to the members of British Cycling that I will use my influence through the UCI Management Committee to ensure that our International Federation operates with integrity, honesty and transparency. If I am not able to do that from inside the organisation, I will resign.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
luckyboy said:
Have you seen Cookson's message on the British Cycling website yesterday?

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/bc20121029-Home-Page-Message-From-Brian-Cookson-0

I guarantee unequivocally to the members of British Cycling that I will use my influence through the UCI Management Committee to ensure that our International Federation operates with integrity, honesty and transparency. If I am not able to do that from inside the organisation, I will resign.
Talk is cheap. Actions count. The stuff about how clean Sky are doesn't fill me with confidence.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Maintain the rage to ensure an independent investigation committee with a comprehensive terms of reference is appointed. Make sure the period covers all of Hein's tenure of office.

Cycling Weekly Comments:
Apparently there is going to be a mass ride to Lausanne to demonstrate outside the UCI, start outside Abergavenny Rail Station 6th Nov. 10am Burnings in effigy of the main players in this unseemly mess on the previous night are optional ... as transmitted via facebook and twit.(sic)
Edit: Just noticed that Abergavenny is in Monmouthshire, Wales :(
 
Oct 14, 2012
63
0
0
"That was the strong mood of the management board meeting on Friday and we are expecting everybody from Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid downwards to be completely transparent at all times.”

Do they actually expect this? I am sure that even if either Hein or Pat has done nothing illegal, they will want to protect their legacy and would therefore not be fully transparent. And if, on the other hand, they have done things which are not legal or moral, there sure as hell would not be transparent. Full transparency is against human nature.
 
ToreBear said:
Maybe they'll FINALLY realize how whacked out of his mind, and how crooked Patsy is, and drop kick him out of the UCI once and for all(one can only hope).

IMO, that's the ONLY way UCI can remain credible to anyone. McQuad is one of the biggest frauds/crooks/smarmy dudes in sports.
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Is Cookson going to start close to home by looking at potential conflicts of interest between Sky and British Cycling? Or is this just bandwagon jumping from a blazer who makes the right noises but does nothing?

It is a good point, but he wouldn't be the only one in a federation with a potential conflict of interest.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Does anyone here think the newly announced media manifesto and the associated media "alliance" will change things for UCI and the "independent" investigation?

I think there is a high likelihood that this change in media perspective may become the tipping point, ie. provide ongoing media/public pressure on UCI to get the right changes for the sport.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Tinman said:
Does anyone here think the newly announced media manifesto and the associated media "alliance" will change things for UCI and the "independent" investigation?

I think there is a high likelihood that this change in media perspective may become the tipping point, ie. provide ongoing media/public pressure on UCI to get the right changes for the sport.
Imagine if your team was sponsored and owned by a powerful media conglomerate.

Do you think your sponsor could influence other media outlets to promise to fight the good fight?

Do you think your sponsor could direct everyone's efforts towards a common enemy and away, far, far away from your own back yard?

Amuary own ASO (Tour de France, Tour of Beijing, multiple classics, part-owner of other GTs) and l'Equipe, one of the 5 newspapers making up the manifesto for clean cycling. I have no doubt they will do all in their power to deflect attention away from themselves, onto a perceived common enemy that they can constrain or control.

At the moment GCP (UCI) control new races, ASO get to run them. All thanks to Pat and Hein. I don't see them hurting their "new business opportunity" partners.

As for Cookson and the independent report... Cookson has spoken many great words, none of which commit him to any course of action, other than quitting. A card Brailsford already played back in 2008 post-Hayles fiasco.

We now have the IOC and WADA putting together a panel to do an independent report.
Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen are both IOC members.
Pat McQuaid is a multiple board member of WADA.

While the preceding 2 statements remain in effect, I do not expect anything untoward to happen to either of those individuals mentioned.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Below the recommendation to UCI again (from CN article). Seems pretty strong. If the situation is as bleak as you infer it, then why make this media statement at all? And thanks for outlining the relationships, it's certainly worth being aware of the complex inter-dependencies. In fact a map would be very worthwhile if anyone has the time & interest to produce one.

Media Manifesto recommendations:
- That the UCI recognizes its responsibilities in the Armstrong case.

- The creation, under the responsibility of the Agency (WADA), of a neutral and independent commission to investigate the role and responsibility of the UCI in the Armstrong case and the fight against doping in general; to report errors, abuses and possible complicity.

- That the organization of controls at the biggest races is directly by WADA and the national anti-doping agencies.

- That the suspensions for serious doping cases are more severe and that teams pledge to terminate contracts and not sign for a further two years any athletes suspended for more than six months.

- The restoration of the ‘gentlemen's agreement’ that allowed the temporary suspension of riders involved in a doping investigation.

- A stronger involvement and accountability of the title sponsors of teams.

- The reform of the WorldTour, its points system and licensing, which remains closed and opaque. We propose that the licences are no longer awarded to the managers but to the sponsors.

- The organisation of a major ‘cycling summit’ before the start of the 2013 season in order to define the new organization and new rules.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Tinman said:
Below the recommendation to UCI again (from CN article). Seems pretty strong. If the situation is as bleak as you infer it, then why make this media statement at all? And thanks for outlining the relationships, it's certainly worth being aware of the complex inter-dependencies. In fact a map would be very worthwhile if anyone has the time & interest to produce one.
Make the statement to appear as if you want something to change, as a PR stunt, to deflect attention away from other, less appealing avenues of investigation.

I fully agree that the UCI need to be held accountable and lessons learned from what they did or did not do right or wrong.

My Negative Nancy take on the points:

Tinman said:
Media Manifesto recommendations:
- That the UCI recognizes its responsibilities in the Armstrong case.
And ASO's sacking of Clerc?
AFLD's treatment of Bordry?
WADA's treatment of **** Pound?
IOC's acceptance of Hein and Pat into the fold despite the obvious shortcomings of their governance of cycling and Pat's lifelong ban from the Olympics?

Tinman said:
- The creation, under the responsibility of the Agency (WADA), of a neutral and independent commission to investigate the role and responsibility of the UCI in the Armstrong case and the fight against doping in general; to report errors, abuses and possible complicity.
In a word: money. This commission will take money, and there is none.
And Pat is on a number of WADA boards.
I have gleaned a little information re: ADAMS and it sounds like it was developed on a shoestring budget.

Tinman said:
- That the organization of controls at the biggest races is directly by WADA and the national anti-doping agencies.
Who handles results management?
What about pre-competition and out of competition - arguably when the most reckless doping would occur?
From 2010 to 2011, UCI OOC test collection dropped from 13% to 1%, NADO increased 1% to 4% and agencies increased from 86% to 95%. UCI would welcome someone else doing all the collection and analysis - it costs money!

Tinman said:
- That the suspensions for serious doping cases are more severe and that teams pledge to terminate contracts and not sign for a further two years any athletes suspended for more than six months.
Punish the riders. Who are already scared of team managers.

Tinman said:
- The restoration of the ‘gentlemen's agreement’ that allowed the temporary suspension of riders involved in a doping investigation.
Punish the rider. This already happens (eg: entire teams not invited to Tour or ejected from Tour). What about the team, their doctors, or other people involved?

Tinman said:
- A stronger involvement and accountability of the title sponsors of teams.
Nice words - not sure what this means in real terms.

Tinman said:
- The reform of the WorldTour, its points system and licensing, which remains closed and opaque. We propose that the licences are no longer awarded to the managers but to the sponsors.
Disagree with sponsors owning the license - in fact I think the idea is ludicrious. Professional cycling is not their core business and they have no knowledge of its operation. Nor any commitment to the sport, unlike managers. Far more sponsors have dropped entire teams in it than managers, by pulling out for whatever reason. No, just no.

Agree with reworking the points system, as mentioned in another thread. Not sure "reform" is the right word, it's not like it's completely broken or needs a radical makeover. The basic premise is you earn your way onto the World Tour.

Please don't talk about transparency, noone in the pro cycling world knows what it means, if current press releases are anything to go by hah! :D

Tinman said:
- The organisation of a major ‘cycling summit’ before the start of the 2013 season in order to define the new organization and new rules.
Grandiose ideas, for sure, nice words too, but not actionable, imo.

Cycling organisation is something that has evolved and developed over decades. It's not something you're going to redefine at a cycling summit in January of 2013.

For me the single biggest problem, based on the above is this:

Riders are not represented. They are they guys that have to ride the bikes, that miss out the most when others dope. They do the real work. They hurt and get treated like dirt on a regular basis. And then get punished the most for doping.

Riders have no or very little power, control or say in what goes on.

UCI go on about level saddles and mid-calf socks then a car drives into a breakaway in the Tour de France, nearly killing 2 riders, and speeds off, doesn't stop, doesn't really get into trouble later either. Then Stephen Roche starts banging on about riders should not be allowed to unzip their jerseys.

Yes, I agree the systems needs to be reworked, with rules and structures in place to support the sport. No question the UCI need to be reworked and rethought. But as I have said all along - blaming the UCI, or trying to fix the UCI in isolation, will ultimately fail in changing professional cycling. UCI are only part of the machine, which from the IOC to the forum shills needs to be considered in totality.

Step 1: remove the need for sponsors.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
To destroy doping in cycling in GTs at least is Elementary. Everything UCI should have had to do is to measure a rider's hematocrit before and after each of stages and pull out any rider whose parameter grows. Hematocrit goes down approximately by 2-3 points per week and can not increase because an organism goes full bore and it doesn't recover completely. This step must have been accepted 10 years ago, but UCI didn't do that while preferring to sink in corruption. All UCI big fishes should be questioned according to the law and suffer punishment for their crimes. The biopassport programme turned out to be the biggest anti-doping cycling swindle ever.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
airstream said:
To destroy doping in cycling in GTs at least is Elementary. Everything UCI should have had to do is to measure a rider's hematocrit before and after each of stages and pull out any rider whose parameter grows. Hematocrit goes down approximately by 2-3 points per week and can not increase because an organism goes full bore and it doesn't recover completely. This step must have been accepted 10 years ago, but UCI didn't do that while preferring to sink in corruption. All UCI big fishes should be questioned according to the law and suffer punishment for their crimes. The biopassport programme turned out to be the biggest anti-doping cycling swindle ever.
Hct goes down due to plasma expansion. In 2008, David Millar's Hct went UP mid-Tour.

The team manager everyone here seems to love, JV1973, had this to say, when asked about it by Captaintbag:



He never did provide Zabriskie's blood data to corroborate his theory.

When I pointed out Millar did very well in 2001, riding 3 GTs for the year, he qualified by saying he meant riding for GC in GTs, then blocked me from twitter.

Notice that Millar repeats his good TT ability in 2009, riding 3 GTs again.

JV also said everyone tested high at the start of the 2012 Giro. When asked to provide one other rider's passport to corroborate this theory, he declined.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY