UCI Independent Commission on 'Lance-Gate'

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
theyoungest said:
Well, it is very Anglocentric. Not having someone from a traditional cycling nation on board, to me, seems a weakness.
This was exactly my reaction. It would seem to behoove the credibility of this committee to have someone knowledgable from, say, France, committed to the squad; as well as perhaps someone from among the Padova investigation.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Some of the terms of reference seem OK, some are obviously sidestepping the core issues.

This inquiry serves the UCI old boys club by encouraging people to sit back and think something is being done. It buys them time for the media storm to settle and people to forget that they have already had their second, third and forth chances.

Unless those responsible are held accountable, they will assume they can continue to get away with the same old tricks. It's not policies and procedures that are most needed, it's accountability. The people responsible for what has happened must face consequences. Their replacements need to learn that complicity and cover-ups will get them thrown out of their cushy positions.

Other changes are needed too, but changes are toothless without improved accountability.

It's disgusting that the only consequence highlighted in this so called investigation into the UCI, is the possibility of imposing further penalties on former riders.
 
“What shocked me the most was to discover to what extent Armstrong and his teammates were perhaps protected by the powers that be,” he said. “I find that more serious than the cheating in itself. Frankly, you can see that at the UCI, they did the minimum to try to stop him. Cycling has lost all its credibility. Whether you’re honest or not, nobody believes in us anymore.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/casar-doping-falsified-everything
 
Oct 14, 2012
63
0
0
It s concerning to me that the UCI appoints a commission to investigate it's own potential for corruption, no conflict of interest there. But then again, who else would appoint an investagatory board? IOC? One of the biggest problems of the sport commissions is they report to no-one. No wonder being the head of UCI is such a plum job.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
" WHITEWASH " coming down this track ! Delayed justice and a T of R that suits the phats of aigle means that the " Panel " will be frustrated in any endeavour to do a thorough job !

Come June , phat will be polishing his halo as he gets ready for another period of frustrating the Fans and seeing that " Sponsors " get less than they deserve for their investment in this SPORT !
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
howsteepisit said:
It s concerning to me that the UCI appoints a commission to investigate it's own potential for corruption, no conflict of interest there. But then again, who else would appoint an investagatory board? IOC? One of the biggest problems of the sport commissions is they report to no-one. No wonder being the head of UCI is such a plum job.
Is it an investigatory Commission?

Three eminent, experienced and highly qualified jurists.

Recall the UCI's media release concerning the proposed composition of the panel compared to the announced Commission.

The Commission will comprise three members: the first and its chair will be a respected senior lawyer; the second will be a forensic accountant, who will be recommended by the chair; and, the third will be an experienced sports administrator. All three members will be independent of cycling.
Have the Commission a capacity and funding to employ competent mignons to roll up their sleeves to ferret out the evidence by trawling through UCI records and transactions, grilling employees under intense light lamps, playing good cop/bad cop etc.?

Is this a stroke of Coates' brilliance to provide a structure acceptable to any scrutiny that is in reality unworkable to address the terms of reference?
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Velodude said:
Is it an investigatory Commission?

Three eminent, experienced and highly qualified jurists.

Recall the UCI's media release concerning the proposed composition of the panel compared to the announced Commission.

Have the Commission a capacity and funding to employ competent mignons to roll up their sleeves to ferret out the evidence by trawling through UCI records and transactions, grilling employees under intense light lamps, playing good cop/bad cop etc.?

Is this a stroke of Coates' brilliance to provide a structure acceptable to any scrutiny that is in reality unworkable to address the terms of reference?
Good question. Are we seeing a case of right people, wrong resources?
 
Parker said:
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.
I actually find that part even more discouraging.

Yes, it is great that it will be open to scrutiny.

But, what about witnesses and whistle blowers (e.g. employees of the UCI) who are concerned about either self-incrimination, or 'consequences'?

With the Sky team policy, for example, there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that any member of Sky will tell the truth in a forum that does not have a mechanism to deal with sensitive issues.

What about non-analytical positives? Anyone who is doping now cannot possibly admit anything or unveil anything about themselves, their suppliers, their team management, UCI facilitation, etc. without facing major personal consequences.

Dave.
 
The title of this thread should be Vrijman Report, not Lance-Gate. Because that is, at best, what it will be.

Pay careful attention to when this inquiry closes. If my memory serves, the timing of Pat's reelection is such that he's reelected before this panel concludes. I expect a few delays too just in case Hein has some nomination troubles.

Hein and Pat have this all smoothed over.
 
D-Queued said:
What about non-analytical positives? Anyone who is doping now cannot possibly admit anything or unveil anything about themselves, their suppliers, their team management, UCI facilitation, etc. without facing major personal consequences.
Dave,

You are mistaking a circus for some kind of legitimate forum.

Sky's clean. Dominating the stage racing calendar for an entire season, 2 steps of the TdF podium and an Olympics show that was beyond belief happens all the time. Nothing to see there. Move along.

Personal consequences is the plan if a rider is so stupid as to break Omerta. Suddenly, that contract will just run out and it's back to the minor leagues.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Hein and Pat have this all smoothed over.
They hope.

But there are Kimmage's/Fuller's cases, Puerto/Padua, and Johan & co still to come. Maybe Travis can remain cycling's superman for a little longer before retiring...
 
DirtyWorks said:
Dave,

You are mistaking a circus for some kind of legitimate forum.

Sky's clean. Dominating the stage racing calendar for an entire season, 2 steps of the TdF podium and an Olympics show that was beyond belief happens all the time. Nothing to see there. Move along.

Personal consequences is the plan if a rider is so stupid as to break Omerta. Suddenly, that contract will just run out and it's back to the minor leagues.
Ach, I am such an idiot.

Dave.
 
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
howsteepisit said:
It s concerning to me that the UCI appoints a commission to investigate it's own potential for corruption, no conflict of interest there. But then again, who else would appoint an investagatory board? IOC? One of the biggest problems of the sport commissions is they report to no-one. No wonder being the head of UCI is such a plum job.
It's pretty standard practice for an org to pick the people who audit it. Sounds pretty counter intuitive I know, but it's reality.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Nuash65 said:
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.
That is probably why the gone down the Anglo route....

Not many independent enquires in Oz favour the government either...

I also fully agree with the rest - change of this magnitude won't happen overnight
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
martinvickers said:
It's pretty standard practice for an org to pick the people who audit it. Sounds pretty counter intuitive I know, but it's reality.
But an auditor has strict and onerous obligations from legislation and codes of ethics to act independently apart from management and directors.

To be caught out not acting in the interest of shareholders and third parties could result in disbarment, practice dissolution and, the worst, imprisonment.

Did not auditors Arthur Andersen with 85,000 employees implode and dissolve the accounting partnership world wide over its non independent conduct in Enron in 2001?

Arthur Andersen partners/executives should have served jail time except for improper instructions to the jury by the judge.
 
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Velodude said:
But an auditor has strict and onerous obligations from legislation and codes of ethics to act independently apart from management and directors.

To be caught out not acting in the interest of shareholders and third parties could result in disbarment, practice dissolution and, the worst, imprisonment.

Did not auditors Arthur Andersen with 85,000 employees implode and dissolve the accounting partnership world wide over its non independent conduct in Enron in 2001?

Arthur Andersen partners/executives should have served jail time except for improper instructions to the jury by the judge.
that;s financial auditing, i'm talking more generally
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
First Communique from the UCI Independent Commission

UCI Independent Commission calls for evidence

"The UCI Independent commission set up to investigate issues and allegations arising out of the Reasoned Decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has called for anyone with any evidence to make a submission before December 31"
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
ValleyFlowers said:
UCI Independent Commission calls for evidence

"The UCI Independent commission set up to investigate issues and allegations arising out of the Reasoned Decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has called for anyone with any evidence to make a submission before December 31"
I note that the Independent Commission must have engaged the services of a silk, Guy Morpuss QC, to act as leading counsel for itself.

Also, a large and reputable firm of London lawyers, Macfarlanes, will be acting as an expensive post box and filter for communications for the Independent Commission.

Could not have UCI HQ being a communication depository. Fox in charge of the hen house?

The UCI are responsible for all these costs. Expect an extraordinary meeting of UCI Congress to be convened to approve a hefty slug on fees to fund this expensive operation.

Independent Commission are calling for submissions on evidence by the end of this month.
 
Sep 29, 2012
422
0
0
Velodude said:
But an auditor has strict and onerous obligations from legislation and codes of ethics to act independently apart from management and directors.

To be caught out not acting in the interest of shareholders and third parties could result in disbarment, practice dissolution and, the worst, imprisonment.

Did not auditors Arthur Andersen with 85,000 employees implode and dissolve the accounting partnership world wide over its non independent conduct in Enron in 2001?

Arthur Andersen partners/executives should have served jail time except for improper instructions to the jury by the judge.
You should google Sino Pacific Forest Products
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
at least the comittee tries to look serious, the question list looks quite interesting - but let's see how they'll resolve the first one (and frankly, I don't have much hope for No 4 and 6)... and then let's hope for a potential "new era starter" hidden in No 8

---
The Commission's remit presides over eight key elements, each tied to the accountability of the UCI.

1. Whether the UCI did realise, or ought to have realised, what Mr Armstrong and the USPS Team were doing

2. the adequacy of the UCI's anti-doping policy from 1998 to 2012

3. whether Mr Armstrong or the USPS Team made inappropriate payments to the UCI

4. whether the UCI inappropriately discouraged people who had evidence of the activities of Mr Armstrong and the USPS Team, from coming forward

5. whether the UCI adequately co-operated with the USADA investigation

6. whether the UCI the UCI had a conflict of interest between its roles in promoting the sport of cycling, and investigating Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team

7. whether the UCI's current anti-doping controls are adequate and

8. whether people previously involved in doping should be permitted to continue to work within the sport of cycling.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
The Committee has been commissioned by the UCI; the panel recommended by IOC bigwig, and friend of Hein & Pat, Coates; the members contacted since by the UCI to the surprise of Velonation journalists reporting on this; CCN have expressed their scepticism regarding the true autonomy of this investigating commission.

Anybody know if there has yet been any meaningful contact between the three panellists and the CCN group?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY