UCI putting their foot in it

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
They appear to be as value-creating as Maurice Suh or Howard Jacobs.

Funny how the obvious candidate, or exception, is so obvious.

The original story in BBC Sport specifically mentioned Saxo Bank-SunGard manager Bjarne Riis as an example

But, if Frankie plans to start a new team, guess what? Somebody has to get thrown under the bus.

Shouldn't the "retrospective" on doping also consider team owners as well? You know, the kind that test positive 6 times?

What about trainers found guilty, or admitted to doping? Ferrari? Carmichael?

Hello?

Not so bold prediction: They will try and kick Frankie out, and protect everyone else.

Dave.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Are you serious here D-Queued?

Not retroactive would mean the doping has to occur after the rule is made, not just the confession or bust.

If UCI wants to blacklist Frankie, they will have to resort to other methods.
 
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Are you serious here D-Queued?

Not retroactive would mean the doping has to occur after the rule is made, not just the confession or bust.

If UCI wants to blacklist Frankie, they will have to resort to other methods.
Well, we will have to figure out what on earth the UCI means by retrospective, let alone retroactive, as their explanation is as clear as mud.

However, it appears that they are referring to being involved in a doping case, and NOT when the actual incident(s) occured.

Practically,” he added, “it means that from the moment on the proposal should be accepted, a (person) who will be involved in a doping case won’t be allowed to be part of cycling anymore in the future.”
Now, let's say a certain unnamed DS, say with the initials JB just for the sake of argument, gets caught up in a major doping investigation. Wouldn't the UCI's hands be tied if said DS actually were convicted of some crime?

What is Vrijman's exoneration fee these days?

Dave.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
D-Queued said:
'...'However, it appears that they are referring to being involved in a doping case, and NOT when the actual incident(s) occured.
Practically,” he added, “it means that from the moment on the proposal should be accepted, a (person) who will be involved in a doping case won’t be allowed to be part of cycling anymore in the future.”
Yes but there was also this from the CN article:

"You can't make it retrospective. Everyone must know what the playing pitch is like before they go onto it, and you can't do it in another way. However, once that rule comes into place and all riders are informed of it, they will know what the consequences would be should they get involved in a doping infraction and try to come back in another way."

"You can only bring in the rule for the future so it will only apply to people that get involved in doping after the rules comes in - so the riders know and they're informed."
My understanding is that the legal types generally think it a gross injustice to retroactively apply a penalty that wasn't invented when the deed was done.

Perhaps because the UCI is a private organisation, not a state judicial body, they may be abe to argue that they are entitled to set ethics standards for their associates. I would be surprised if they try it tho.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Yes but there was also this from the CN article:



My understanding is that the legal types generally think it a gross injustice to retroactively apply a penalty that wasn't invented when the deed was done.

Perhaps because the UCI is a private organisation, not a state judicial body, they may be abe to argue that they are entitled to set ethics standards for their associates. I would be surprised if they try it tho.
Again, whether they actually enact such a measure or not; it amounts to political window dressing. They plan to allow the serial franchise cheaters to continue running teams and races. They propose to set rules to define who can participate in the future. Who will that punish and whom does that serve? It serves the current stock of power players and potentially excludes competition for them since the UCI holds back information. It looks like it provides another franchise opportunity for the UCI, actually. Now they can affect the future income of potential positive riders after they get off the bike.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
I read as the likes of Riis, Hog, Zabel, Holm etc will be free to continue but old dopers who want to get involved - say if Rasmussen were to set up his own team then they wouldn't be allowed.

But who knows with the UCI - what they say and what they do are often completely different things.
 
Oldman said:
Again, whether they actually enact such a measure or not; it amounts to political window dressing. They plan to allow the serial franchise cheaters to continue running teams and races. They propose to set rules to define who can participate in the future. Who will that punish and whom does that serve? It serves the current stock of power players and potentially excludes competition for them since the UCI holds back information. It looks like it provides another franchise opportunity for the UCI, actually. Now they can affect the future income of potential positive riders after they get off the bike.
Exactly.

If they can retroactively go after athletes, then why not athletes who become involved with managing teams?

Why couldn't the UCI make that a rule? Doesn't it tarnish the sport to have known dopers and even known felons running the teams?

When it comes to UCI rule-making, such as the recent 'certified bike' program, the irrational behavior appears to be the norm. Why couldn't they do something rational for a change? Or, is it too irrational to hold out hope for this?

Dave.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
D-Queued said:
Exactly.

If they can retroactively go after athletes, then why not athletes who become involved with managing teams?

Why couldn't the UCI make that a rule? Doesn't it tarnish the sport to have known dopers and even known felons running the teams?

When it comes to UCI rule-making, such as the recent 'certified bike' program, the irrational behavior appears to be the norm. Why couldn't they do something rational for a change? Or, is it too irrational to hold out hope for this?

Dave.
And now we have this: Patrick McQuaid

Cyclingnews reported in March that up to 11 teams had signed up to the breakaway idea but we understand that the number now stands at 14. Earlier this month, McQuaid told Cyclingnews that, "I think they've lost a little common sense as to what their role is. In cycling we have the UCI, the governing body, organisers and you've got teams. What's happened here is that some team managers have got a little bit too ambitious and they want to be in the role of manager and or organiser of events. It doesn't work, it's crazy."

This as part of the threat to bill Garmin-Cervelo for excess "bio-passport costs" or bust them down to Continental status. The irony is in the order of importance: "In cycling we have the UCI, the governing body, organisers and you've got team."

NO PAT: What you have are athletes, promoters that want to display their talents for money and sponsors/fans willing to be a part of it. The UCI should be a facilitator for order, not the Order. This is where the sh*t has to stop. At every turn McQuaid and the UCI betray their underlying disrespect for the athletes and continue to attempt to manipulate the sport. They should be taking their directions from the very bodies they seek to govern.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
D-Queued said:
Exactly.

If they can retroactively go after athletes, then why not athletes who become involved with managing teams?

Why couldn't the UCI make that a rule? Doesn't it tarnish the sport to have known dopers and even known felons running the teams?

When it comes to UCI rule-making, such as the recent 'certified bike' program, the irrational behavior appears to be the norm. Why couldn't they do something rational for a change? Or, is it too irrational to hold out hope for this?

Dave.
As for doping, they like "rules".

For pointless helmet regulations, they like RULES.

The RULES are great PR for looking like you care about the sport.

The "rules" are great PR for looking like you care about the sport, and still allow the last couple of decades of the status quo to continue. And possibly line your pockets a bit as well...
 
Oldman said:
And now we have this: Patrick McQuaid

... Earlier this month, McQuaid told Cyclingnews that, "I think they've lost a little common sense as to what their role is. ...
Do you realize how hard I am laughing at that?

Who has lost a little common sense as to what their role is???

Quick, Pat, avoid all mirrors.

Dave.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
D-Queued said:
Do you realize how hard I am laughing at that?

Who has lost a little common sense as to what their role is???

Quick, Pat, avoid all mirrors.

Dave.
It's funny in a Trainwreck kind of way.
He gives voice to an attitude of business that no one should ever say; particularly when the kickback audit points your direction. I didn't think he could get any stoopiderer...er.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Oldman said:
It's funny in a Trainwreck kind of way.
He gives voice to an attitude of business that no one should ever say; particularly when the kickback audit points your direction. I didn't think he could get any stoopiderer...er.
McQuaid makes Homer Simpson look like Einstein!
 
Apr 30, 2011
26
0
0
sorry if this is too OT for you, but i can imagine, as the investigation into uci after 60 minutes progresses, pat mcaffi sits down and opens the first letter, like told in traffic, the movie:
You know, when they forced Khruschev out, he sat down and wrote two letters to his successor. He said - "When you get yourself into a situation you can't get out of, open the first letter, and you'll be safe. When you get yourself into another situation you can't get out of, open the second letter". Well, soon enough, this guy found himself into a tight place, so he opened the first letter. Which said - "Blame everything on me". So he blames the old man, it worked like a charm. He got himself into a second situation he couldn't get out of, he opened the second letter. It said - "Sit down, and write two letters".
 
I can't keep up!

UCI issues press release:

Press release - UCI rejects allegations made by Tyler Hamilton

Date:
23.05.2011

Description: The International Cycling Union categorically rejects the allegations made by Mr Tyler Hamilton, who claims that Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and had the results covered up after one of his representatives approached the Lausanne laboratory responsible for analysing test results from the event.

The UCI is deeply shocked by the seriousness of the allegations made on the “60 Minutes” programme aired by US television network CBS, and by the extent of the media interest in the case, and wishes to state once again that it has never altered or hidden the results of a positive test.

The allegations of Mr Tyler Hamilton are completely unfounded. The UCI can only express its indignation at this latest attempt to damage the image of cycling by a cyclist who has not hesitated to abuse the trust of all followers of cycling on several occasions in the past. At no time did he see fit to inform the UCI of the events he claims to have witnessed ten years ago, and which he is now using in his attempt to harm the UCI.

The UCI can only confirm that Lance Armstrong has never been notified of a positive test result by any anti-doping laboratory.

Aside from the fact that no legal action may now be taken in respect of events that occurred in 2001, the UCI also wishes to point out that in doping cases it must abide by the rules of evidence; any statutory or scientific evaluation must necessarily be made on the basis of the rules, knowledge and detection methods available at the time.

Once again, the UCI wishes to state that no manipulation or cover-up has occurred in respect of its anti-doping procedures. The UCI will continue to defend its honour and credibility by all means available, and reserves the right to take any measures it deems necessary against Mr Hamilton or any other person.

The UCI confidently awaits the results of the inquiry being conducted by the US justice system. It hopes that the investigations may be concluded swiftly and the truth ascertained, so that the sport of cycling may be spared further unnecessary damage.


http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NzM1NA&MenuId=MTYxNw&LangId=1&BackLink=/Templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw&LangId=1
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
thehog said:
I can't keep up!

UCI issues press release:

Press release - UCI rejects allegations made by Tyler Hamilton

Date:
23.05.2011

Description: The International Cycling Union categorically rejects the allegations made by Mr Tyler Hamilton, who claims that Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and had the results covered up after one of his representatives approached the Lausanne laboratory responsible for analysing test results from the event.

The UCI is deeply shocked by the seriousness of the allegations made on the “60 Minutes” programme aired by US television network CBS, and by the extent of the media interest in the case, and wishes to state once again that it has never altered or hidden the results of a positive test.

The allegations of Mr Tyler Hamilton are completely unfounded. The UCI can only express its indignation at this latest attempt to damage the image of cycling by a cyclist who has not hesitated to abuse the trust of all followers of cycling on several occasions in the past. At no time did he see fit to inform the UCI of the events he claims to have witnessed ten years ago, and which he is now using in his attempt to harm the UCI.

The UCI can only confirm that Lance Armstrong has never been notified of a positive test result by any anti-doping laboratory.

Aside from the fact that no legal action may now be taken in respect of events that occurred in 2001, the UCI also wishes to point out that in doping cases it must abide by the rules of evidence; any statutory or scientific evaluation must necessarily be made on the basis of the rules, knowledge and detection methods available at the time.

Once again, the UCI wishes to state that no manipulation or cover-up has occurred in respect of its anti-doping procedures. The UCI will continue to defend its honour and credibility by all means available, and reserves the right to take any measures it deems necessary against Mr Hamilton or any other person.

The UCI confidently awaits the results of the inquiry being conducted by the US justice system. It hopes that the investigations may be concluded swiftly and the truth ascertained, so that the sport of cycling may be spared further unnecessary damage.


http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NzM1NA&MenuId=MTYxNw&LangId=1&BackLink=/Templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw&LangId=1
Ha- and the UCI wait until right before 6 pm CET to release that - "everyone quick, turn off your PCs and switch off the lights".

Surely the UCI should be threatening to sue Armstrong and not Hamilton? its Armstrong who made the claim, TY & FL only repeated what they heard.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
i just love it and actually feel a bit sorry for the uci now having defended themselves almost daily against various leaks and allegations.

as i attempted to break down in another thread, the spinology on a 'no positive test' is the old legal trick we've all seen during the vrijman report fiasco - an intentional, transparent and obtuse play on the legal definition of an adverse analytical finding (requires presence of positive a- and b-samples)

but also note, the uci totally failed to address howman's interview to the 60 minutes where he told it straight - unheard of having meetings btwn the lab and the athlete, unheard of payments by athletes...etc etc....

stinking rubbish.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
thehog said:
The UCI will continue to defend its honour and credibility by all means available, and reserves the right to take any measures it deems necessary against Mr Hamilton or any other person.
If the UCI was blustering about suing Landis, a man with scarce personal resources, who is actually foolish enough to think they will try to take on a major US television network? An organization with pockets 100 times deeper than the UCI (CBS Corporation, the parent company of the network has a market cap of $18.0 billion US), and with literally legions of lawyers on staff whose sole purpose is to vet information and defend the network against claims of slander or libel?

Leslie Moonves probably had a nice chuckle over his morning latte when he read that one.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
From L'Equipe today:
L'Union cycliste internationale (UCI) a rejeté «catégoriquement» lundi les accusations «infondées» de Tyler Hamilton affirmant qu'elle a maintenu secret un contrôle antidopage positif de Lance Armstrong en 2001 .
 
thehog said:
I can't keep up!

UCI issues press release:

...

The UCI is deeply shocked by the seriousness of the allegations made on the “60 Minutes” programme aired by US television network CBS, and by the extent of the media interest in the case, and wishes to state once again that it has never altered or hidden the results of a positive test.

...
Farcical.

Can you say "out of touch"? Or, better still, "liars".

What, just because it was on CBS 60 minutes you thought nobody would pay attention?

It is time for a petition.

Dave.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
D-Queued said:
Farcical.

Can you say "out of touch"? Or, better still, "liars".

What, just because it was on CBS 60 minutes you thought nobody would pay attention?

It is time for a petition.

Dave.
I really hope that if a RICO indictment comes down, it names Hein and Pat as defendants. I'm not certain anything can be done criminally with the UCI and/or the IOC in an indictment, but Hein and Pat need to be brought to heel. I suppose the UCI could be named an unindicted co-conspirator. The UCI is morally bankrupt.........I know. What else is new.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY