UCI Independent Commission on 'Lance-Gate'

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Grandillusion said:
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?
Only that CCN have been approached by the UCIIC.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-independent-commission-wants-change-cycling-now-input

The lacking in the terms of reference is a dragnet term to consider evidence for any corrupt UCI conduct other than relating to Armstrong.

I cannot accept that UCI only strayed from the path relating to Armstrong.

There is scope for the UCI decision makers to receive inducements, like the IOC, to give preferences, e.g., in selecting the world championship venues for track and road.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Cheers Velodude, I missed that news report.

I think you're right about the likelihood of more wide ranging misdemeanors emanating from the UCI over the last 15 years, wish they could be properly investigated. If the present ToR were thoroughly investigated, that'd be good enough for now though IMO. Just don't trust they truly will be. Hope to be proved wrong :)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Here are the guidelines of the commission. What a joke

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116067667/Procedural-Guidelines

Limited direct questioning of witnesses, just emailed statements. If a witness is called to London they cannot have legal representation and they do not have to tell the truth

Will they talk to Matt White about how McQuaid told him to not co-operate with the Feds because the case was "Going nowhere"?

Will they talk to Julien DeVries?

Will they ask Hein about the multiple, significant, business deals he worked with lance?

Will they see Lance's Hct numbers from 1998-2005? Given that even Pat acknowledged that Hct dropped in the 3rd week of a GT
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/giro-ditalia-tests-show-cycling-is-cleaner-mcquaid-says

And warned riders about their blood values
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5128/Holczer-Leipheimer-had-suspicious-blood-values-during-the-2005-Tour-de-France.aspx

Will they ask why the UCI ignored Armstrong's Hct being 49.5 the day after the 2nd rest day?

*Will they ask about the special access give to Lance?
*How they let him slide on his Cortisone positive?
*Actiovigen? Dozens of syringes and insulin?
*How they let Johan visit the lab to discuss testing for EPO?
*Will they ask why lance was allowed to return to racing, and collect a $2,000,000 appearance fee, even though he had not been the testing pool long enough?

I doubt the commission will absolve Lance. It is too obvious but they will

*Attack the dopers who received lighter sentences. The Baroness clearly thinks the reductions are wrong
*Attack USADA.
*Attack SOL....this is why they have 2 lawyers
*Point the finger at WADA. The UCI will want to infer it was WADA' fault, not the UCI's,
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
On the bright side Christina Watches Team will end up with more black list riders, possibly get a Giro wildcard invite!
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Race Radio said:
Here are the guidelines of the commission. What a joke

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116067667/Procedural-Guidelines

Limited direct questioning of witnesses, just emailed statements. If a witness is called to London they cannot have legal representation and they do not have to tell the truth ....<snip>.....
I read through the guidelines.

Witnesses can make statements in advance to the UCIC in any written form.

Those witnesses reluctant or unable to provide written statements can be assisted by the Commission's solicitors by way of transcribed interview if their evidence is relevant.

The Panel will select the witnesses to appear before it for examination and cross-examination by both parties' counsels on their statements.

A called witness is entitled, after application to the Panel, to legal representation. Doubt this could be refused even though the guidelines use the word "exceptionally".

If a witness is permitted legal representation that lawyer can provide oral submissions and interview other witnesses.

The proceedings are private non judicial and not owing its existence to laws of a land.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Velodude said:
I read through the guidelines.

Witnesses can make statements in advance to the UCIC in any written form.

Those witnesses reluctant or unable to provide written statements can be assisted by the Commission's solicitors by way of transcribed interview if their evidence is relevant.

The Panel will select the witnesses to appear before it for examination and cross-examination by both parties' counsels on their statements.

A called witness is entitled, after application to the Panel, to legal representation. Doubt this could be refused even though the guidelines use the word "exceptionally".

If a witness is permitted legal representation that lawyer can provide oral submissions and interview other witnesses.

The proceedings are private non judicial and not owing its existence to laws of a land.
The are allowed legal representation.....but not in the hearing

4.1.6 If a witness fails to give relevent evidence, who could have
done, the panel may if appropriate view that negatively
Basically if someone does not co-oproate all of their evidence will be looked on poorly
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Velodude said:
I cannot accept that UCI only strayed from the path relating to Armstrong.

There is scope for the UCI decision makers to receive inducements, like the IOC, to give preferences, e.g., in selecting the world championship venues for track and road.
keirin as an Olympic event?
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Race Radio said:
The are allowed legal representation.....but not in the hearing



Basically if someone does not co-oproate all of their evidence will be looked on poorly
RR:

Witnesses are allowed legal representation at the Hearing if granted by the Commission. Read Paras. 6.6.2 & 6.6.4

Witnesses are there voluntarily as the UCIIC have no compulsion power through subpoenas. I would not expect voluntary witnesses to withhold information. Unless they buckled under cross-examination.

UCI employees submitting witness statements or being called as oral witnesses only would be a category most likely to dither.

Armstrong could offer to be a witness, submit a witness statement, would be expected to be called to attend to be questioned and be granted the right to legal representation.

Now that would make other witnesses apprehensive knowing they could be questioned by Armstrong's counsel.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
blackcat said:
keirin as an Olympic event?
The $3m of cash funds held "on behalf of" the UCI by the Japanese Keirin body would take, according to the rate of drawings to 1997, about 25 years to fully be fully drawn down.

The BBC, who investigated the scandal in 2008, saw a (Japanese) bank statement for 1999 of payments made relating to Hein Verbruggen.

The Armstrong/UCI conspiracy investigation has been set with 1998 as the starting year. Why not look at the Verbruggen/Japanese Keirin transactions from 1998 onwards while sniffing around the UCI?

Unfortunately, the terms of reference do not permit such an intrusion.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Velodude said:
RR:

Witnesses are allowed legal representation at the Hearing if granted by the Commission. Read Paras. 6.6.2 & 6.6.4

Witnesses are there voluntarily as the UCIIC have no compulsion power through subpoenas. I would not expect voluntary witnesses to withhold information. Unless they buckled under cross-examination.

UCI employees submitting witness statements or being called as oral witnesses only would be a category most likely to dither.

Armstrong could offer to be a witness, submit a witness statement, would be expected to be called to attend to be questioned and be granted the right to legal representation.

Now that would make other witnesses apprehensive knowing they could be questioned by Armstrong's counsel.
I think you are right. I read a lot of contracts but this one confuses me. In 6.6.1 they say legal representation at the hearing is limited to the UCI and the commission. Then in 6.6.2 the panel can "Consider" an "Exception" if a witness wants legal representation at the hearing.
 
Race Radio said:
I think you are right. I read a lot of contracts but this one confuses me. In 6.6.1 they say legal representation at the hearing is limited to the UCI and the commission. Then in 6.6.2 the panel can "Consider" an "Exception" if a witness wants legal representation at the hearing.
Are they fishing for people dumb enough to break Omerta and then the UCI punishes them post-hearings?

I think so, but I'm a pessimist.
 
Sep 4, 2012
250
0
0
It should be a very interesting event.
p 6.3 Witnesses -- The Panel will, in advance of the Hearing, identify thosewitnesses from whom it wishes to hear at the Hearing

Presumably, some of the invited witnesses would among others include Armstrong and Landis.

Armstrong will never appear, that must be a given, but Landis should be in fine form.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Looks like the UCI can't help trying to interfere on behalf of doping riders. CN is reporting that the UCI is asking the Commission to pause while it works with WADA on immunity for riders.

And, after the Armstrong case, I thought that the UCI didn't like immunity . . ..
 
Carols said:
You just cannot make this stuff up. Good for the IC they aren't backing down!!

http://road.cc/content/news/74658-breaking-independent-commission-neutralised-uci-announces-truth-and
Incredible two different ways.

1. I was convinced this was going to be a Vrijman Report version 2.0. I'm glad I'm wrong.
2. Apparently, the UCI has been very, very busy violating their own rules to the point they don't want anyone showing up to the IC hearing. The scale of the corruption must be epic to the point of among other things, the UCI picking/selling??? winners.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
McQuaid trying to delay it till he gets re elected then accepts being paid off to step down when his position 'officially' becomes untenable.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Incredible two different ways.

1. I was convinced this was going to be a Vrijman Report version 2.0. I'm glad I'm wrong.
2. Apparently, the UCI has been very, very busy violating their own rules to the point they don't want anyone showing up to the IC hearing. The scale of the corruption must be epic to the point of among other things, the UCI picking/selling??? winners.
Spot in.....the UCI could screw up a cup of coffee
 
DirtyWorks said:
Incredible two different ways.

1. I was convinced this was going to be a Vrijman Report version 2.0. I'm glad I'm wrong.
2. Apparently, the UCI has been very, very busy violating their own rules to the point they don't want anyone showing up to the IC hearing. The scale of the corruption must be epic to the point of among other things, the UCI picking/selling??? winners.
Spot on.....especially #2
 
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Incredible two different ways.

1. I was convinced this was going to be a Vrijman Report version 2.0. I'm glad I'm wrong.
At the risk of "I told you so" I warned the UCI would be mad to try and pressure these people, particularly Tanni Grey Thompson. If they thought she was a'soft touch' they've seriously misjudged. Looks like they are going to find that out the hard way...


2. Apparently, the UCI has been very, very busy violating their own rules to the point they don't want anyone showing up to the IC hearing. The scale of the corruption must be epic to the point of among other things, the UCI picking/selling??? winners.
I think the phrase i used before was "Berlin Bunker" stuff - the Red Army is at the gates, methinks...HV is frankly, Toast - the only question is whether McQuaid goes down with him, or negotiates a gentler phased exit. My money is on the former...
 
martinvickers said:
I think the phrase i used before was "Berlin Bunker" stuff - the Red Army is at the gates, methinks...HV is frankly, Toast - the only question is whether McQuaid goes down with him, or negotiates a gentler phased exit. My money is on the former...
1. I'm not above an "I told you so." Following UCI cycling for more than a few years now tends to make one into a pessimist.

2. I don't know how that exit would go. He would have to have some kind of ban from any contact with UCI sports administration AND WCP. Don't forget Hein is running World Cycling Productions too. Is there an Olympic method for doing such a thing? That's not WADA's charter for sure.

It seems to me it like telling a dictator with a loyal military he's fired. Who fires him? Rogge? Maybe the UCI management committee? Even then, Hein finances his stand-in like he did Pat's election.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
1. I'm not above an "I told you so." Following UCI cycling for more than a few years now tends to make one into a pessimist.

2. I don't know how that exit would go. He would have to have some kind of ban from any contact with UCI sports administration AND WCP. Don't forget Hein is running World Cycling Productions too. Is there an Olympic method for doing such a thing? That's not WADA's charter for sure.

It seems to me it like telling a dictator with a loyal military he's fired. Who fires him? Rogge? Maybe the UCI management committee? Even then, Hein finances his stand-in like he did Pat's election.
The IOC will do little.

But the only reason Hein is involved with the IOC is because he is Honorary President. That's why they made up the role, he needs that to be on IOC.
So if that Honorary position removed he is gone. So it's well in the powers of UCI management committee to get rid of him
 
Dr. Maserati said:
The IOC will do little.
Agreed. Just enough to quiet any controversy that might reach into the IOC itself and no more.

Dr. Maserati said:
But the only reason Hein is involved with the IOC is because he is Honorary President. That's why they made up the role, he needs that to be on IOC.
So if that Honorary position removed he is gone. So it's well in the powers of UCI management committee to get rid of him
Ok, but there's no mechanism forbidding him from staying involved in cycling, e.g. World Cycling Promotions. Be patient with me on this topic. I haven't looked for the rules that might apply at the UCI. Not like rules matter at all to Hein, but you get the idea.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
I'm tired of all the nay-sayers, all the conspiration-theorists in here. It's not that I can´t, sort of, understand their rationale, I mean, there's been plenty of collusion, doping, hidden forces, enablers, dirty doctors, that's a given, but come on, take five, read the statements from Phat McQuack over the last few years, and what you'll be able to take away from it is a guy who obviously hasn't got the greatest PR-department, frequently has predecessors' statements getting in his way, but all in all is a positive force against doping.
I admit, there's been a lot of bad, not-quite-thought-through statements. There's been, of lateley, the WADA-UCI spat about the TRC, which will be resolved, but c'mon, the BAD guy here is Verbruggen, not Pat McQuaid. Clean cycling really has moved forward under his rule. I don't like to admit it, but it really has done so.
Now, call me naive (which BTW is the exact opposite of all Evian-comsumers worldwide), but I really believe there're parts of Pat that wants to go about the upcoming process in a decent way, sod all previous allegiances, and he may yet be the central star in a TRC we'll find just, in-time, and as well as looking backwards will be looking towards the great future that is in store for cycling at large.
Just thinking.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY