UCI Independent Commission on 'Lance-Gate'

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Just checked back to Nov 7th Velonation report on the setting up of the commission.

They expressed "surprise" that the UCI themselves had decided to contact those chosen for the panel by Coates.

No conflicts there then :rolleyes:
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
waste of time IMO, why not just bypass the UCI entirely and re-build cycling structure from the ground up?
 
The scope is interesting. I need to read it in more detail.

A. To DETERMINE:-
1. Whether the allegations against the UCI set out in the Reasoned Decision are well founded.
2. Whether, between 1998 and 2012, the UCI realised that Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team were collaborating to avoid detection in the use, possession, administration and trafficking of performance enhancing drugs and methods, and: (i) if the UCI did realise, whether it failed to respond appropriately; and (ii) if the UCI did not realise, whether it ought to have done so, and what steps (if any) it should have taken to inform itself of the actions of Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team in order to act appropriately.
3. Whether, and if so, to what extent the UCI’s anti-doping policies and procedures between (i) 1998 and 2005 and (ii) 2005 and 2012, were inadequate or were not enforced with sufficient rigour; and if so, whether the UCI was at the time aware, or ought to have been aware, of such inadequacy or lack of enforcement.
4. Whether there was, between 1998 and 2012, any reliable evidence or information in the possession of or known to the UCI regarding allegations or suspicions of doping by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team; and if so, whether there was any failure by the UCI to act appropriately in regard to such information.
5. Whether, when Lance Armstrong returned to racing in 2009, there was a failure by the UCI to detect signs of doping by him, and whether it was appropriate for him to return to and continue racing.
6. Whether payments were made by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team to the UCI, between 1998 and 2012, and if so whether it was appropriate for the UCI to have accepted such payments, or to have accepted them on the basis (explicit or implicit) upon which they were made.
7. Whether the UCI inappropriately discouraged those persons with knowledge of doping by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team from coming forward with such
knowledge, and whether the UCI should have done more to encourage such persons to come forward sooner.
8. Whether the UCI adequately co-operated with, assisted in and reacted to the USADA USPS Team Investigation.
9. Whether any persons previously convicted of doping, or voluntarily admitting to doping, or supporting riders in doping, should be able to work within the world of cycling in the future; and, if not, how such a prohibition could and should be enforced.
10. Whether the UCI had a conflict of interest between its roles in promoting the sport of cycling and in investigating or making adverse findings against Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team.
11. Whether the current doping controls of the UCI are adequate and compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and whether those controls can be improved.

B. To EXAMINE all relevant documents in the control or possession of the UCI or its senior management or employees (or previous employees), including without limitation Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen, Christian Varin, Anne Gripper, Francesca Rossi and Mario Zorzoli, in regard to doping, or suspected doping, by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team, such documents to include, without limitation:-
1. all external letters, emails, faxes, notes of telephone conversations, spreadsheets, presentations, instant messages, or other external documents whether physical
or electronic; and
2. all internal records (including financial records, scientific data and laboratory test results), emails, faxes, diary entries, notes of telephone conversations, records of internal meetings, memoranda, bank and computer records, spreadsheets, presentations, instant messages, or other internal documents whether physical or electronic, and to draw conclusions from such documents.

C. AND to make RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
Deagol said:
waste of time IMO, why not just bypass the UCI entirely and re-build cycling structure from the ground up?
So the UCI are paying an independant panel to investigate them?
Might have had a decentrally elected ethical committee and save yourself the licence holder moneys.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Cloxxki said:
So the UCI are paying an independant panel to investigate them?
Might have had a decentrally elected ethical committee and save yourself the licence holder moneys.
good point. If license holders would rebel and not renew this year, that would put pressure on the top brass at UCI. Also, save that money for something that could replace the flawed organization.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Time for "Movement For Credible Comittee"?

Come on, if it's supposed to be the Nuremberg tribunal of cycling, it should not be named and paid by the cyclonazis.

Any ideas for members?
 
Deagol said:
good point. If license holders would rebel and not renew this year, that would put pressure on the top brass at UCI. Also, save that money for something that could replace the flawed organization.
Sad truth is that likely UCI makes more on relations with single partners such as Amgen, than on all licence fees combined.
But yeah, I advise anyone to always respond to UCI-related topics and petitions with their licence number. You're club member. You have a vote there.
 
How transparent is this going to be? Just one big report when it's over?

I too am concerned that it's going to be "The UCI would have been better served to..." and falling back on "poor judgment, though not illegal" rulings, instead of calling them for what they are.

I do however expect they'll leave Armstrong out to hang. He's an easy target at this point with zero credibility.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
How transparent is this going to be? Just one big report when it's over?

I too am concerned that it's going to be "The UCI would have been better served to..." and falling back on "poor judgment, though not illegal" rulings, instead of calling them for what they are.

I do however expect they'll leave Armstrong out to hang. He's an easy target at this point with zero credibility.
Yip, pretty much.

While I am pleased enough with the integrity of the panel and even the terms of reference ultimately it will be a toothless report.

I fully expect a final report that blames Mary Jane in accounts for not notifying Pat about all the various transactions and that they they were from that Lance Armstrong and that the UCI will revoke her privilege to listen to the radio at her desk for a week, if more than 2 transactions, maybe 2 weeks.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
The Third Man, Malcolm Holmes QC, occupies two *chambers.

One in London and one in Sydney


*Barristers in the British system don't have offices they have chambers. Elevated to near judge status.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
who's paying for this commission?
sounds like wasted tax payer money to me.
perhaps UCI have saved some of those donations for bad times like these?
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
3 Emminent People are about to be treated badly by ALL Cycling Fans because they have been " handcuffed " by the terms of reference that this commission requires .
Last year i predicted that Lance would skate out of the " Federal case " until perhaps May/June 2013 .

The situation created by the T of R of this Commission would defy anyone to find adversely let alone recommend Criminal Action !

We will see phat trying to be the president again in 2013 , that will be the end of the Future of Cycling !

ONLY when WADA creates an AMNESY for USERS will there be any hope of breaking the current OMERTA ! Each person tossed out of Sky proves that SSDD is the mantra for the vested interests identified in the " Donati Report"!
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Velodude said:
The Third Man, Malcolm Holmes QC, occupies two *chambers.

One in London and one in Sydney


*Barristers in the British system don't have offices they have chambers. Elevated to near judge status.
Barrsiters in England and Wales have chambers. In Ireland its a library system. And the word chambers is really the only thing in common between Barristers chambers and judge's chambers.
 
martinvickers said:
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!!"
Me?

orbeas said:
W T F does Tany Gray Thomson know about cycling - doping and the way the UCI is run ????

Will it be an open to the press and public ?????
WTF do you (aside from recognizing a good bike), or me for that matter, know about cycling?

Does that really matter?

And, shouldn't sport outsiders be more welcome than anyone with any exposure (with the notable and noteworthy exceptions of Sylvia Scheck, Ashenden, Kimmage)?

Dave.
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
How transparent is this going to be? Just one big report when it's over?

I too am concerned that it's going to be "The UCI would have been better served to..." and falling back on "poor judgment, though not illegal" rulings, instead of calling them for what they are.

I do however expect they'll leave Armstrong out to hang. He's an easy target at this point with zero credibility.
As the saying goes, it will be transparent as mud :D

The UCI isn't about to allow anything that might even **** (chip then, I used the other ch word for slightly damanged armor) the armor out in public.

I wouldn't hold out on anything coming of it, do expect it to convene in a couple years though. Don't expect to see or have the receipt for the special anti-doping machine validated either.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
D-Queued said:
I take your point, and I'll raise you a me, too. But TGT is, genuinely, loudly, consistently and very, very serious about anti-doping. Of British sportspersons, only Paula Radcliffe and Lisa Dobriskey have, to my knowledge, been more obviously vocal, and they are still active.





Does that really matter?

And, shouldn't sport outsiders be more welcome than anyone with any exposure (with the notable and noteworthy exceptions of Sylvia Scheck, Ashenden, Kimmage)?

Dave.
Dave Walsh, non pro cyclist knew LA was dirty in 99
Hein Verbruggen, cycling in his bones, 'didn't know it' weeks ago.

your point dave, +100
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Cramps said:
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.
Good luck with that. David Millar just did this very thing.
 
Tell me it ain't so !

Quote from Cookson

"The commission has no legal status and cannot subpoena witnesses".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9713960/International-Cycling-Union-include-Baroness-Tanni-Grey-Thompson-on-Lance-Armstrong-affair-investigation.html

So if that is the headline where is the fine line ? Witnesses can withhold evidence? "Sorry pal, you have no legal status you can't force me to show you anything. I will tell you exactly what I want to tell you." email records and the like do not have to be presented? Tell me this is not true. Three "great and the good" asking, getting answers and making a conclusion on that, but getting nowhere near any truth ? All paid for by a membership shafted by Hein, Pat and Brian, exactly as they have been shafted since 1998 ?
 
Freddythefrog said:
Quote from Cookson

"The commission has no legal status and cannot subpoena witnesses".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9713960/International-Cycling-Union-include-Baroness-Tanni-Grey-Thompson-on-Lance-Armstrong-affair-investigation.html

So if that is the headline where is the fine line ? Witnesses can withhold evidence? "Sorry pal, you have no legal status you can't force me to show you anything. I will tell you exactly what I want to tell you." email records and the like do not have to be presented? Tell me this is not true. Three "great and the good" asking, getting answers and making a conclusion on that, but getting nowhere near any truth ? All paid for by a membership shafted by Hein, Pat and Brian, exactly as they have been shafted since 1998 ?
A nice bit of selective quoting there. The full quote is more encouraging:

“The commission has no legal status and cannot subpoena witnesses but it will be held in open forum with the press and observers invited to attend every day and everybody can make their own judgment on what evidence is given and make their own conclusions if any invited witness chooses not to attend. It will be open and transparent.”

It has no legal status because that is the law. This is a civil inquest. You can't just make up the law as you see fit.
 
martinvickers said:
Hardly TGT's fault that CAS ruled against BOA, Wiggo, is it??
Exactly. But our boy Cav wanted Millar (the go faster version of Rob Hayles ?) and the Sky spin machine kept a steady stream of press releases coming, stating that this is what our boy (who could fail to love him ?) needed if the whole nation was to get exactly what it deserved and the first ever rider to ride as World and Olympic champion at one time, as it so justly deserved.

Meanwhile, cutely tacked on at the bottom of every transcript of the interview with Cav, sent to the journo after the interview, but typed before the interview took place, was a gorgeous quote from St David saying he had been a very bad boy and had to take whatever punishment his peers deemed he should take. If it meant never riding for my country at the Olympics again (sigh), so be it. But if ever the call to arms was made, he would lay down his life for the benefit of the great Cav win.

[Meanwhile lets get our hackers taking down any site with reference to Sydney 2000 and our playboy St David being thrown out of the village for serious partying and wrecking the chances of other GB athletes who had yet to compete. ]

Yes, get out the sick bag. Fran needed to rehabilitate her brother, there was a very nice income stream that needs feed water.

And so it came to pass, after everyone who needed to posture, had postured, Brailsford just had to select St David. He had no choice in the matter.

Unless he had some morals, in which case, OK Dave. You have spun faster than stabilising gyros in a guided missile ever since you and I were sat having a quiet drink together whilst you fed me a shed-full of horse excrement. You don't get your day of atonement. Oh but I am forgetting - St David did ride for Team GB, every time he was not riding for team Spain at the World Championships.

If you ever doubt where Sutton and Brailsford are coming from, compare and contrast the treatment of Houvenhagel and Millar.
 
Parker said:
A nice bit of selective quoting there. The full quote is more encouraging:

It has no legal status because that is the law. This is a civil inquest. You can't just make up the law as you see fit.
Absolutely, so If Cookson and Co. reckon anything illegal has been going on - and the first place to look is in the formal accounting and relationships between Hein and Lance - ie the payments from Lance and any others - it is straight to the authorities with evidence. About 6 years ago Cookson should have insisted on the books being published and some tough questions being asked. So where is the invoice for the machine ? Instead he stood by, silently, whilst Pat took the pi*s big style saying it was a contribution from Lance towards the UCI anti-drugs campaign.

Thought process in the brain of Brian --- Q1 - gears turning ? slowly but yes - movement detected. Check. Q2 question formed ? "Are Lancey boy & Hein up to naughty things ?" Seems like a question. Lots of nasty people are saying stuff and he went up the Alpe like he was on a motorbike. So check Q2 as well. Now let me think ? Can I believe that Lance out of the goodness of his heart made such a donation for such a cause. Well Hein's son Pat tells me it is true - eeerrrrr. eeeerrrrr I don't know ? eeeerrrr errrrrr Common pesky cogs whirrrrrrr !

Got it - an answer ! Phew ! Well bless his cotton socks, of course he could and shame on me for ever doubting that !

Are you joking ? Cookson and the board could have kicked out Pat and Hein loads of times. They, beyond anybody else, could have put the evidence out there and the clean up could have started the moment the "donation" hit the rumour mill.

Lance and Pat must have been wetting themselves when one of them came up with the idea that they would say it was a donation to an anti-doping campaign. They knew the calibre of people like Cookson exactly.
 
Jul 2, 2010
80
0
0
orbeas said:
W T F does Tany Gray Thomson know about cycling - doping and the way the UCI is run ????

Will it be an open to the press and public ?????
WTF do you know about TGT?

Unless you give us reason to believe otherwise I will presume she knows more about doping and bodies like the UCI than you or I ever will. She also has the intelligence to apply her knowledge efficiently to cycling and the integrity to make sure this counts.

I'm surprised at the anglo-centricity of the commission but its make-up and ToR are reasonable. Many people on here don't live in the real world where change is a process in which you cannot have everything suddenly idealised. I'll be interested to see the response of the impressive set of leading lights of Change Cycling Now.

Given the panel, it's worth considering that recent independent inquiries in the UK have not always produced what the government wanted. Re. Iraq, following the Hutton Inquiry we had the Butler Report which I read at the time Butler expected to finish Tony Blair. The problem was how the report was used and the crucial points that weren't subsequently debated. This is the stage where the forum might be able to play a role wrt to the UCI Commission.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY