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!
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.