UCI Independent Commission on 'Lance-Gate'

[martinvickers]

Thought I'd start you all off.

Word coming through that Commission is going to be

Baroness Tanni Gray Thompson , Paralympian and Member of House of Lords (GBR)
Sir Philip Otton - Former Lord Justice of Appeal (second highest tier of judiciary) (GBR)
Malcolm Holmes QC, Senior Barrister and chartered arbitrator (professional mediator), (AUS)

Confirmed by Baroness TGT.

Unleash the hounds, Smithers....

 

[Grandillusion]

Thought I'd start you all off.

Word coming through that Commission is going to be

Baroness Tanni Gray Thompson , Paralympian and Member of House of Lords (GBR)
Sir Philip Otton - Former Lord Justice of Appeal (second highest tier of judiciary) (GBR)
Malcolm Holmes QC, Senior Barrister and chartered arbitrator (professional mediator), (AUS)

Confirmed by Baroness TGT.

Unleash the hounds, Smithers....

Well McQuaid seems very happy with it all, so the only sensible reaction would be enormous scepticism at any notion of true accountability and independence.

 

[Morbius]

Well Tanni Grey-Thompson is regarded in UK as pretty much unimpeachable.

I found this about Sir Philip Otton. It seems he has sports as well as legal experience, though after working with F1 he is likely to consider any strange goings-on at UCI as child's play.

He is a Chartered Arbitrator, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and an Accredited Mediator by the Institute. He is an Appointed Arbitrator to the NASD, a Member of the American Law Institute, of the American Bar Association and has served on the Faculty of NITA. He is appointed to the Sports Resolution panel of Arbitrators - Commercial List.

His experience covers a wide range of cases, principally in the general commercial, insurance, oil and gas and energy fields as Arbitrator and Mediator.

In the field of sports law, he is a Judge of the International Court of Appeal for cases relating to Formula 1 and he has served as an arbitrator in disputes involving English Football Premier League players and clubs, chaired Football Association disciplinary proceedings, and has served as sole Mediator in disputes relating to Formula 1 Racing companies and the 2007 America's cup.

 

[Grandillusion]

Yes, I'm aware of the surface respectability & "unimpeachable" credentials. Just don't trust any investigating body that's made McQuaid seem so cheerful.

 

[sniper]

**** me.

10 chars

 

[martinvickers]

Baroness TGT is VERY sound on doping issues - but also quite politically savvy. Not sure if Pat knows what he may have taken on there!

Seems very Anglo-centric, and no doubt the Sky and Cadel doubters will 'draw the dots'.

TGT was heavily involved in the review of doping prior to the Dwain chambers CAS case; she is, as said above, close to unimpeachable on the issue. But she's one person, has two lawyers around her, and the uci waiting in the wings.

I will say this, at risk of being filleted. Pat could certainly have chosen a less troublesome priest.

 

[Grandillusion]

Baroness TGT is VERY sound on doping issues - but also quite politically savvy. Not sure if Pat knows what he may have taken on there!

Seems very Anglo-centric, and no doubt the Sky and Cadel doubters will 'draw the dots'.

TGT was heavily involved in the review of doping prior to the Dwain chambers CAS case; she is, as said above, close to unimpeachable on the issue. But she's one person, has two lawyers around her, and the uci waiting in the wings.

I will say this, at risk of being filleted. Pat could certainly have chosen a less troublesome priest.

Hope yer right & it's him that gets filleted!

 

[martinvickers]

Hope yer right & it's him that gets filleted!

My main worry is not 'soundness' - TGT can be trusted to be viciously anti-doping. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who dislikes doping more.

My worry is the tendency in any inquiry to see incompetence where there is really malice. i.e. they are likely to say "Silly Hein", to avoid the awfulness of saying "Crooked Hein!"

I can't see them giving UCI a clean bill of health - the evidence is too great - but I fear there may be a lot of "UCI of course was honest, BUT it was foolish, etc, etc" - instead of "You pack of crooked ***ers!!"

 

[martinvickers]

The other thing worth mentioning is that both lawyers have history in ADR and mediation, how to set it up, run it, etc... - is that a truth and reconicliation/amnesty answer i smell, I wonder

 

[Grandillusion]

My main worry is not 'soundness' - TGT can be trusted to be viciously anti-doping. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who dislikes doping more.

My worry is the tendency in any inquiry to see incompetence where there is really malice. i.e. they are likely to say "Silly Hein", to avoid the awfulness of saying "Crooked Hein!"

I can't see them giving UCI a clean bill of health - the evidence is too great - but I fear there may be a lot of "UCI of course was honest, BUT it was foolish, etc, etc" - instead of "You pack of crooked ***ers!!"

Far more eloquently expressed than my bumbling efforts - spot on! That's exactly what I fear.

What is the reason for this tendency to over-clemency & indulgence though? Weird.

 

[mountainrman]

One MAJOR issue to question is the terms of reference

A major issue is missing - in my view.

Whether the UCI has or had an irreconciable conflict of interests in being both the promoter of the sport (ie conduit for good news and PR and manager of bad news and PR) - and to manage doping in the sport (generator of bad news and PR)

To me that is one of the prime drivers in the Armstrong affair that led to UCI trying to keep the genie in the bottle.

So should there be a separate independent body managing doping, testing and publicity related to both of those

Also ancillary questions -
Result management - settling the jurisdiction issue - Whether the structure of national federations as prosecutor and judge has led to Partisan treatment favourable and unfavourable eg Spanish Defending contador, Danish playing "get Rasmussen" So should a new body act as judge in doping affairs where national federations act only as prosecutor. Should UCI be involved at all as "ratifier" of decisions?


The blacklist. Whether UCI should actively seek to hinder or help the prospects of returning riders from doping. It has clearly helped some return, and actively sought to blacklist others extending bans to life in some cases by the back door. Has blacklisting served to dissuade some from "coming clean" knowing it exists.

I think the comission should look at the structure and scope not just the decisions and role of UCI.

Views?

 

[martinvickers]

That's exactly what I fear.

What is the reason for this tendency to over-clemency & indulgence though? Weird.

Certainly in British law/public life (and two of the panel are brits, the other is a quasi-british system) there a number of reasons

1. a history of believing in authority's honesty - "It's not cricket" mentality.
2. a dislike of direct verbal confrontation - again historically, the British considered such things, not frightening, but 'tasteless' - 'gauche' - lacking in class.
3. A strong fear of defamation litigation.
4. A working assumption, from the adversarial nature of British law, that the truth always lies between the two extremes of the participating advocates. And usually the only working solution to a fight between corrupt and not currupt is incompetent -

Meant good, did good - upstanding (defendant)
Mean bad, did bad - crooked, corrupt (plaintiff)

solution?

Meant good, did bad - incompetent.

the wronged gets their compo, the wrongdoer 'keeps' their 'honour'.

It was ever thus. See Leveson just yesterday.

 

[martinvickers]

So in this case, we end up with UCI did wrong (took money, played fast and loose with results) but for 'honourable" (!!) reasons

result? UCI has to make certain changes, some of them even good...but Pat keeps his job.

My 2c

 

[Grandillusion]

Certainly in British law/public life (and two of the panel are brits, the other is a quasi-british system) there a number of reasons

1. a history of believing in authority's honesty - "It's not cricket" mentality.
2. a dislike of direct verbal confrontation - again historically, the British considered such things, not frightening, but 'tasteless' - 'gauche' - lacking in class.
3. A strong fear of defamation litigation.
4. A working assumption, from the adversarial nature of British law, that the truth always lies between the two extremes of the participating advocates. And usually the only working solution to a fight between corrupt and not currupt is incompetent -

Meant good, did good - upstanding (defendant)
Mean bad, did bad - crooked, corrupt (plaintiff)

solution?

Meant good, did bad - incompetent.

the wronged gets their compo, the wrongdoer 'keeps' their 'honour'.

It was ever thus. See Leveson just yesterday.

Cheers, yep that sounds about right. And Pat's no dummy, he knows this stuff too. No wonder he sounds so cheerful. Hope he's miscalculated & they get some balls

 

[theyoungest]

Baroness TGT is VERY sound on doping issues - but also quite politically savvy. Not sure if Pat knows what he may have taken on there!

Seems very Anglo-centric, and no doubt the Sky and Cadel doubters will 'draw the dots'.

TGT was heavily involved in the review of doping prior to the Dwain chambers CAS case; she is, as said above, close to unimpeachable on the issue. But she's one person, has two lawyers around her, and the uci waiting in the wings.

I will say this, at risk of being filleted. Pat could certainly have chosen a less troublesome priest.

Well, it is very Anglocentric. Not having someone from a traditional cycling nation on board, to me, seems a weakness.

 

[martinvickers]

Cheers, yep that sounds about right. And Pat's no dummy, he knows this stuff too. No wonder he sounds so cheerful. Hope he's miscalculated & they get some balls

Remember, Pat's Irish. our legal system is all but identical in format to the British - a 'common law, adversarial' system. He'll be well aware, therefore, of the tendancy I describe - he'll also have a fair helping of Irish 'cute hoor' - sneaky fooker savvy too - Kimmage has the same wonderful take no **** any-means-neccesary tendency, but in his case turned tot he good!

 

[Morbius]

The terms of reference seem pretty good though as someone said, narrowly focussed to doping and the Armstrong case. I particularly like number 8

Whether the UCI adequately co-operated with, assisted in and reacted to the USADA USPS Team Investigation.

 

[Grandillusion]

Remember, Pat's Irish. our legal system is all but identical in format to the British - a 'common law, adversarial' system. He'll be well aware, therefore, of the tendancy I describe - he'll also have a fair helping of Irish 'cute hoor' - sneaky fooker savvy too - Kimmage has the same wonderful take no **** any-means-neccesary tendency, but in his case turned tot he good!

"Irish cute-hoor - sneaky fooker savvy". Ha ha! So accurate.

I watched the five Youtube vids of Pat being interviewed by Canadian Cycling or somebody, and man that cute-hoor sneaky fooker vibe was strong! Very able, intelligent & articulate but wouldn't trust him as far as...

And I'm of Irish extraction too, so do have some understanding of the propensities

 

[Cramps]

A Tanni Gray-Thompson quote from a longer interview that might give us some hope:


'Tanni, who led a UK Sport anti-doping review, says: "If anyone serves a doping ban they should not be allowed to compete in the Olympics. It is something we must stand firm on.

"It would be a backwards step to weaken our stance. Dwain [Chambers] is a really lovely young man but what really troubles me is that when he was given the opportunity to take the direction he did, why did nobody stop him?"

"You can say it's not fair, but sport itself isn't always fair. It's not fair when you are clean and have to compete against athletes who may not be. There was a view for a while that disabled athletes didn't cheat, but regrettably some do, and have been caught, though I can say hand on heart I have never competed against anyone who I thought was at it.

"We have to ask ourselves what we want our sport to be. We want it to be exciting and interesting but we also want it to be clean. I am not saying this is a fight we can totally win because there will always be those who do every single thing they can to take that extra step."

 

[simo1733]

I am looking fir evudence that it is just a PR stunt but I can't see any.It is hard to imagine that they will not find that the UCI failed on several levels.
Maybe Pat is hoping that Hein will take the brunt.

 

[martinvickers]

I am looking fir evudence that it is just a PR stunt but I can't see any.It is hard to imagine that they will not find that the UCI failed on several levels.
Maybe Pat is hoping that Hein will take the brunt.

I think that about hits on the head - Pat i beginning to realise that Hein is toast, and he want's to put some clear blue between himself and verbruggen. Rats, sinking ship and all that.

Wouldn't put it past him to succeed either - he did a fair demolition job on Armstrong eventually, when he worked out he had no alternative.

 

[Tinman]

One MAJOR issue to question is the terms of reference

A major issue is missing - in my view.

Whether the UCI has or had an irreconciable conflict of interests in being both the promoter of the sport (ie conduit for good news and PR and manager of bad news and PR) - and to manage doping in the sport (generator of bad news and PR)

To me that is one of the prime drivers in the Armstrong affair that led to UCI trying to keep the genie in the bottle.

So should there be a separate independent body managing doping, testing and publicity related to both of those

Also ancillary questions -
Result management - settling the jurisdiction issue - Whether the structure of national federations as prosecutor and judge has led to Partisan treatment favourable and unfavourable eg Spanish Defending contador, Danish playing "get Rasmussen" So should a new body act as judge in doping affairs where national federations act only as prosecutor. Should UCI be involved at all as "ratifier" of decisions?


The blacklist. Whether UCI should actively seek to hinder or help the prospects of returning riders from doping. It has clearly helped some return, and actively sought to blacklist others extending bans to life in some cases by the back door. Has blacklisting served to dissuade some from "coming clean" knowing it exists.

I think the comission should look at the structure and scope not just the decisions and role of UCI.

Views?

Agreed. The terms of reference are way too narrow and miss much of the big issues to do with conflict of interest positions and governance structure. Presumably Coates' work and why Pat is smirking.

 

[frenchfry]

On the one hand, this commission appears to be acceptable. Time will tell.

On the other hand, for me the UCI has already used its "independant commission" joker and this time Verdruggen and the Fat One deserve to be kicked out directly.

 

[FignonLeGrand]

On the one hand, this commission appears to be acceptable. Time will tell.

On the other hand, for me the UCI has already used its "independant commission" joker and this time Verdruggen and the Fat One deserve to be kicked out directly.

The panel looks absolutely fine, however thats based on the presumption that they will have full disclourse and access to all records.

After everything else we have seen why would anyone belive that they have not been running round shredding everything in sight for the past few weeks.

Even the press statements attacks those 'attacking' the UCI "Rather than simply attacking the UCI, our critics now have an opportunity to be part of the solution" (McQuaid, 2012). Kimmage, Walsh et al have not been 'attacking' the UCI, they have been hoiding them to account for their percieved lack of action or worse involvement.

Regarding point 2 of the scope does anyone really expect memos to be found stating that they think Lance is doping and maybe we should cover it up?

 

[Grandillusion]

Well the terms of reference seem wide-ranging and reasonably comprehensive.

It's just the real independence & credibility of this chosen panel I don't trust.

Isn't Coates tainted with historic Australian corruption scandals? I seem to remember a lot of discussion from the Oz Clinic fraternity.

How come the UCI are the ones choosing Coates as a suitable person to put together this "independent" commission?

Shouldn't a commission be imposed by a higher authority? (not the IOC).

Dirty Works... help.