" uciic " ? Gone ?

[Dr. Maserati]

It was intended hypothetically, but I will comment on a couple of points raised. It certainly won't change the frequency I ride my bikes. I commute five days a week and will always go for a longer ride at the weekend up to audax level. That said it will certainly make me less inclined to go on sportives or grassroots events, less inclined to watch on TV or go to spectate pro-races or the worlds, and generally follow the sport less keenly. I'm not about to boycott the sport but at the same time disseminating the message as often as possible through word of mouth and social media can affect change. A sport is only as strong as its fanbase, if that fanbase declines, the revenue declines and so the sport.

I do think we all have to be active as we can to affect change in the sport. At the end of the day you vote with your feet. Enough people do it and it will be felt and changes will come.

Why would it make you "less inclined" to participate?
Most recreation riders do so for reasons that have nothing to do with 'the sport' and if the UCI manage to screw it up.

The sport at Pro level has been effectively at rock bottom for years now - which is crazy as cycling as a mode of transport and health activity is rising.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Why would it make you "less inclined" to participate?
Most recreation riders do so for reasons that have nothing to do with 'the sport' and if the UCI manage to screw it up.

The sport at Pro level has been effectively at rock bottom for years now - which is crazy as cycling as a mode of transport and health activity is rising.

True: scandal after scandal means simply it is commonly held as the most corrupt professional sport there is, yet it continues. Perhaps that is legacy of its history: drug use was rampant in the sport practically from the year dot, and certainly in full swing when it was finally illegalised (is that a word? if not it should be) in what, the mid 1960s? A couple of years before an amphetamine-addled Tom Simpson wobbled to a stop on Mt Ventoux?

Recuperative elixirs where long a staple of a good soigneur for ever in cycling's history, so as medicine advanced, so did the elixirs. Amphetamine,cocaine and coffee to get you going, morphine injections and brandy and sleeping pills to bring you down. I'm not sure any other sport had such a potent legacy to pass on to subsequent generations. It's a sport that started off by freeing the poor with their steel horses, suddenly freed to explore the country when their fathers had been born and died within walking distance of their village, and challenging to feats of incredible endurance to the sorry state it is now.

Sorry I am pontificating. Why does it make me less inclined? Because it makes me more cynical of the spectacle placed before me as entertainment, when a performance asks more questions than it inspires. Sport inspires faith, a faith reliant on heroics, of skill or endurance or mental strength, something beyond the ordinary. If that achievement is a sham, a deceit, then that faith is dented or destroyed. Why should I then and go and pay to enter sportives? The roads are free, I have friends, I can ride them by myself. I can choose not watch bike races on TV, not see the advertising. I can persuade other people to do the same. I can stop visiting sites like this, and seeing the advertising here. As the traffic dries up, the money dries up.

Sport needs its fans, they are the source of all its revenue. It is there you can most effect change.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

True: scandal after scandal means simply it is commonly held as the most corrupt professional sport there is, yet it continues. Perhaps that is legacy of its history: drug use was rampant in the sport practically from the year dot, and certainly in full swing when it was finally illegalised (is that a word? if not it should be) in what, the mid 1960s? A couple of years before an amphetamine-addled Tom Simpson wobbled to a stop on Mt Ventoux?

Recuperative elixirs where long a staple of a good soigneur for ever in cycling's history, so as medicine advanced, so did the elixirs. Amphetamine,cocaine and coffee to get you going, morphine injections and brandy and sleeping pills to bring you down. I'm not sure any other sport had such a potent legacy to pass on to subsequent generations. It's a sport that started off by freeing the poor with their steel horses, suddenly freed to explore the country when their fathers had been born and died within walking distance of their village, and challenging to feats of incredible endurance to the sorry state it is now.

Sorry I am pontificating. Why does it make me less inclined? Because it makes me more cynical of the spectacle placed before me as entertainment, when a performance asks more questions than it inspires. Sport inspires faith, a faith reliant on heroics, of skill or endurance or mental strength, something beyond the ordinary. If that achievement is a sham, a deceit, then that faith is dented or destroyed. Why should I then and go and pay to enter sportives? The roads are free, I have friends, I can ride them by myself. I can choose not watch bike races on TV, not see the advertising. I can persuade other people to do the same. I can stop visiting sites like this, and seeing the advertising here. As the traffic dries up, the money dries up.

If you knew the first 2 paragraphs then what is currently going on is nothing new. Why enter sportives? Now you are planning on not going because of old news? That does not make any sense.

The only people surprised by recent revelations are people who think Flanders is a character in the Simpsons. We never had them involved in the sport to lose them.

Sport needs its fans, they are the source of all its revenue. It is there you can most effect change.

The UCI funds come primarily through the Olympics and the TV rights they have for the Worlds, and cycling is still enogh of a draw in mainland Europe not to effect that.

 

[JimmyFingers]

If you knew the first 2 paragraphs then what is currently going on is nothing new. Why enter sportives? Now you are planning on not going because of old news? That does not make any sense.

The only people surprised by recent revelations are people who think Flanders is a character in the Simpsons. We never had them involved in the sport to lose them.

But you also have yet to gain them. You are dealing in too much subtraction, not enough addition. I think cycling is tapping a fraction of it's potential world wide because of ongoing doping issues. I've said elsewhere other sports must think cycling's a godsend because it draws attention away from their sports and the negligible testing there.

 

[Morbius]

Among all the details, lets not forget two explicit commitments that the UCI made on Friday to the UCIIC that were subsequently broken.

Firstly, they committed to deliver the 16 binders to the UCIIC "today" - i.e. last Friday
Secondly, they committed to provide the outline of their plans on T&R to WADA by "no later than the beginning of next week" - i.e. before today which is now Tuesday.

The UCI's failure to meet these commitments happened before they wound up the UCIIC late on Monday evening.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But you also have yet to gain them. You are dealing in too much subtraction, not enough addition. I think cycling is tapping a fraction of it's potential world wide because of ongoing doping issues. I've said elsewhere other sports must think cycling's a godsend because it draws attention away from their sports and the negligible testing there.

Ah, thats why i wrote upthread:
"The sport at Pro level has been effectively at rock bottom for years now - which is crazy as cycling as a mode of transport and health activity is rising."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Among all the details, lets not forget two explicit commitments that the UCI made on Friday that were subsequently broken.

Firstly, they committed to deliver the 16 binders to the UCIIC "today" - i.e. last Friday
Secondly, they committed to provide the outline of their plans on T&R to WADA by "no later than the beginning of next week" - i.e. before today which is now Tuesday.

The UCI's failure to meet these commitments happened before they wound up the UCIIC late on Monday evening.

Not sure if you saw this - the UCI put out a press release titled:
releases Fahey letters in response to WADA’s ‘blatant and aggressive’ untruths

 

[Morbius]

Who actually has any power or influence that might make a big change?

The challengers to McQ - Wiesel or Makarov
The major race organisers - in particular ASO
WADA - could force cycling out of the Olympics
IOC - could recognise a new federation
The national cycling federations - could form a new international body and aim for recognition

Sadly British Cycling would by most unlikely to support the last route, as it would mean throwing away too many Olympic medals, and therefore most of its lottery funding. However European federations might be prepared to lead on this as the Olympics is less of a big deal for them. I wonder if the German federation might take a lead? The germans have been fed up with doping for years, and they have lost a lot of TV coverage

 

[Morbius]

Not sure if you saw this - the UCI put out a press release titled:
releases Fahey letters in response to WADA’s ‘blatant and aggressive’ untruths

Yes I did see that. The commitments I was talking about were made by Ian Mills at the UCIIC meeting on Friday.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes I did see that. The commitments I was talking about were made by Ian Mills at the UCIIC meeting on Friday.

I read the conclusion of the UCIIC that they expected the documents "today" ie last Friday.

However -it was difficult to spot on the back and forth between the UCIIC and Mills for the UCI where he actually agreed that. Was it explicitly said by Mills?
The only place he commits is when he says the documents would be given on the basis of the TRC.

Obviously the UCIIC did not get anything from them, but it was their way of flushing out the UCI.

 

[northstar]

Among all the details, lets not forget two explicit commitments that the UCI made on Friday to the UCIIC that were subsequently broken.

Firstly, they committed to deliver the 16 binders to the UCIIC "today" - i.e. last Friday
Secondly, they committed to provide the outline of their plans on T&R to WADA by "no later than the beginning of next week" - i.e. before today which is now Tuesday.

The UCI's failure to meet these commitments happened before they wound up the UCIIC late on Monday evening.

I find the fact that the documents were not provided to UCIIC by UCI as instructed last Friday is revealing. There was no indication at the time UCIIC was going to be disbanded so the documents should have been handed over. To me that indicates UCI were not acting in good faith at the hearing and they never had any intention of co-operating with UCIIC in the first place. Today, UCI has shown they have no intention of co-operating with WADA. They can state in their press statements they are willing for T&R, but actions speak louder than words.

 

[northstar]

I read the conclusion of the UCIIC that they expected the documents "today" ie last Friday.

However -it was difficult to spot on the back and forth between the UCIIC and Mills for the UCI where he actually agreed that. Was it explicitly said by Mills?
The only place he commits is when he says the documents would be given on the basis of the TRC.

Obviously the UCIIC did not get anything from them, but it was their way of flushing out the UCI.

Yup, lots of confusing back and forth talk. Page 66 of transcript (linked in post 57) says:

In the meantime, the Commission will consider the documents in UCI's possession, custody or control, which leading counsel for UCI have said will be made available today to the Commission.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I find the fact that the documents were not provided to UCIIC by UCI as instructed last Friday is revealing. There was no indication at the time UCIIC was going to be disbanded so the documents should have been handed over. To me that indicates UCI were not acting in good faith at the hearing and they never had any intention of co-operating with UCIIC in the first place. Today, UCI has shown they have no intention of co-operating with WADA. They can state in their press statements they are willing for T&R, but actions speak louder than words.

The exchange abut the documents was exceedingly revealing - as you say, the UCI were not acting in good faith.


MR HOLMES: You have told us that your client will have a detailed proposal to WADA and other stakeholders along the lines, as I infer, of the USADA proposal, or deal with the same subject matter. And that will be available beginning of next week.
We were told that your solicitors were intending to serve the first batch of documents last week or the week before. Now, what do you say to a proposal that we consider the willingness for you to engage in the Truth and Reconciliation proposal on the basis of your performance in terms of a presentation to WADA that you're going to have next week? And on the basis of what documents you have for us to have a look at, so we continue until next Friday, and we come back next Friday to assess whether or not this Truth and Reconciliation is a goer or likely to be a goer, and whether or not we, the Commission, can be satisfied that there will be co-operation from UCI if we wish to continue. And we can assess that on the basis of the documents that you say that you've got there, that you can make available, and we can look at those, and we can come back next week, next Friday, or
Thursday.

MR MILL: I'm not sure that I quite understand, Sir, how the contents of the documents will enable you to assess our willingness to co-operate.
I have told you that the documents are available, and I have told you the reason why they have not been disclosed to the Commission.

MR HOLMES: If they are available, there's a standing order that they be made available as soon as possible.
MR MILL: Absolutely, and our request today is that you suspend the procedures of your inquiry for the reason being that, as we understand your Terms of Reference, it's not, on your own effective admission, going to be possible to do it within the time frame that is currently being proposed, and that therefore you would want to reconsider any Procedural Order anyway.

MR HOLMES: It may be that on examination of these documents, depending how full and frank the disclosure is, we may be in a position to re-assess the position. If you have the documents there that UCI says are relevant to its governance issues and can demonstrate its independence --

BARONESS TANNI GREY-THOMPSON: I just look at it in a more simplistic way. Sir Philip said in this section we are trying to establish where are we now. I find it really hard to give any comments on where the Independent Commission is without seeing those documents.

MR MILL: Well, this Commission has its remit. You haven't agreed to suspend its operations. You have heard my submissions on it. If your decision is not to, then obviously we will give you the documents because that is our obligation, and we've set you up. Of course we will do it. As I have said to you before, the reason why we have not given you the documents has nothing to do with our concerns over their contents.
MR HOLMES: I appreciate you have said that. It's up to us to assess that.
MR MILL: Well, I can tell you that on instructions.
MR HOLMES: I appreciate that.
MR MILL: And therefore if there is no suspension of this inquiry, if the inquiry is to continue, as you suggested may be for another week, clearly, since we have documents, you will have them. We have no desire to suppress or conceal any documentation from you. What we have concern to do is not unreasonably or unnecessarily to incur what is already very substantial
expense, if in fact you will not end up determining those issues.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yup, lots of confusing back and forth talk. Page 66 of transcript (linked in post 57) says:

In the meantime, the Commission will consider the documents in UCI's possession, custody or control, which leading counsel for UCI have said will be made available today to the Commission.

And as an aside - these were documents that the commission had requested and were entitled to since December.

 

[D-Queued]

The exchange abut the documents was exceedingly revealing - as you say, the UCI were not acting in good faith.


...

You sure don't have to be from Missouri to recognize the double-speak.

You said you would provide the documents.

Simple: Show me.

Dave.

 

[peterst6906]

The cat fight is in full swing:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-expresses-dismay-at-ucis-disbandment-of-commission

Personally, while I don't have any particular faith in WADA nor Fahey in terms of their own willingness to clean up sport, I still place their credibility above that of Pat.

Unbelievable situation, but at least it gives us something to talk about before the classics start.

I just hope that cycling (at least not track and the other smaller arms) is not ejected from the Olympics.

 

[northstar]

MR MILL: I'm not sure that I quite understand, Sir, how the contents of the documents will enable you to assess our willingness to co-operate.
I have told you that the documents are available, and I have told you the reason why they have not been disclosed to the Commission.

MR HOLMES: If they are available, there's a standing order that they be made available as soon as possible.
MR MILL: Absolutely, and our request today is that you suspend the procedures of your inquiry for the reason being that, as we understand your Terms of Reference, it's not, on your own effective admission, going to be possible to do it within the time frame that is currently being proposed, and that therefore you would want to reconsider any Procedural Order anyway.

MR HOLMES: It may be that on examination of these documents, depending how full and frank the disclosure is, we may be in a position to re-assess the position. If you have the documents there that UCI says are relevant to its governance issues and can demonstrate its independence --

BARONESS TANNI GREY-THOMPSON: I just look at it in a more simplistic way. Sir Philip said in this section we are trying to establish where are we now. I find it really hard to give any comments on where the Independent Commission is without seeing those documents.

MR MILL: Well, this Commission has its remit. You haven't agreed to suspend its operations. You have heard my submissions on it. If your decision is not to, then obviously we will give you the documents because that is our obligation, and we've set you up. Of course we will do it. As I have said to you before, the reason why we have not given you the documents has nothing to do with our concerns over their contents.
MR HOLMES: I appreciate you have said that. It's up to us to assess that.
MR MILL: Well, I can tell you that on instructions.
MR HOLMES: I appreciate that.
MR MILL: And therefore if there is no suspension of this inquiry, if the inquiry is to continue, as you suggested may be for another week, clearly, since we have documents, you will have them. We have no desire to suppress or conceal any documentation from you. What we have concern to do is not unreasonably or unnecessarily to incur what is already very substantial
expense, if in fact you will not end up determining those issues.

Well that's clear as mud

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You sure don't have to be from Missouri to recognize the double-speak.

You said you would provide the documents.

Simple: Show me.

Dave.

That very question was asked - one would assume an easy answer, alas...... )I wonder does he post on this forum??)


MR HOLMES: Show us the documents.
MR MILL: Hang on. Hang on a second. We are funding this process. We are funding this process. What we do not want to do is just give you a whole load of paper so that you can then incur further cost and expense in circumstances where this inquiry may very well end up not taking place before yourselves. It may end up being one process, and that is what we are trying to ascertain with the other participants in the sport at the moment.

BARONESS TANNI GREY-THOMPSON: The funding is one issue. We
were set up as an Independent Commission to look at the governance, but it's impossible to do that without having the evidence, and you said yourself the narrow remit, to me the Truth and Reconciliation wasn't in isolation of the other work we were going to do. So I would still very much like to see the documentation.

MR MILL: But there's no point, with respect, Baroness, in giving you the documentation unless you're actually going to determine the issues within the existing Terms of Reference. What would be the point in doing that? We are happy to give that documentation to whatever body is going to decide this issue. But for the reasons that we have discussed this morning, it is by no means clear that it's going to be you or that it's going to be within the sort of timetable that was originally envisaged. I want to be absolutely clear. There is no reason, based on concern about the contents of the documents, that has underlain the fact that we have not given that disclosure. None whatsoever.
It is purely because we want to engage in a process which, from our point of view, is cost effective, sensible, and proportionate.
Where we are being told by all and sundry around us that what we have set up is inadequate and inappropriate, concerns about your own independence have been expressed in the press, you are right about the public interest. In all those circumstances, all we are trying to do is to do our best to try and meet everybody's concerns.
Obviously your concerns are extremely important ones, but they're not the only ones that my client has to face. And that is why we have done what we have done. I'm sorry if it has created a problem.
If this hearing is going to go ahead in April, based on our documents and our evidence and such limited evidence as you are able to obtain without an amnesty, so be it. And then that's one matter.
But is that really sensible for you to seek to compel us to participate in, in circumstances where, for reasons that we have stated publicly, and with principled support from WADA, what is envisaged is a much broader process which will encompass those very issues. Why have two sets of people looking at the same issue?
That might very well be the case if you insist on proceeding with this inquiry on the lines of the Procedural Order that's been made. The Truth and Reconciliation process is not just going to look at riders who have doped. It will engage with the self-same issues that are within your terms of reference, and there are countless authorities that make it clear that it is not proportionate to have two bodies looking at the same issues, especially where in both cases it's going to be at my clients' cost.

 

[D-Queued]

That very question was asked - one would assume an easy answer, alas...... )I wonder does he post on this forum??)


-UCI Doublespeak BS-

Based upon that dialog alone, WADA's response calling the UCI deceitful was woefully mild.

This is our international sports organization. Kicking the sport out of the Olympics isn't punishment enough.

They deserve to be put in jail. For a very long time.

Dave.

 

[northstar]

How about this scenario for funding the T&R:

Swiss officials charge & convict Pat & Heinie with corruption. UCI make a claim against its directors liability insurance for wrongful acts committed by the 2 clowns. Insurance payout can fund the T&R.

ok, it's a bit of stretch but there is always wishful thinking

 

[martinvickers]

The cat fight is in full swing:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-expresses-dismay-at-ucis-disbandment-of-commission

Personally, while I don't have any particular faith in WADA nor Fahey in terms of their own willingness to clean up sport, I still place their credibility above that of Pat.

Unbelievable situation, but at least it gives us something to talk about before the classics start.

I just hope that cycling (at least not track and the other smaller arms) is not ejected from the Olympics.

Can I be honest, at the risk of being branded an enabler or something?

I think Pat has to go. simple. He just has to, he has no credibility. Hein frankly should be getting a toothbrush ready for some months of leisure if there's any justice....

But...

I hate to say it, but I'm coming to the conclusion Fahey should go too - it's clearly become far, far to personal for him. Reading the correspondence, Fahey comes across as badly as McQuaid.

And that takes some doing. Too many bloody egos, frankly. On all sides.

I'm actually getting a bit frustrated with WADA here, well Fahey anyway - not because of UCIIC, that's a perfectly rational decision; but some of this stuff seems, well, almost obstructive for the sake of it. I know the UCI are useless ***, John, but WADA shouldn't stoop to the same bloody level...

I'm pretty bloody depressed right now about the whole future - we're going to throw this chance away just like we did Festina....

 

[D-Queued]

Can I be honest, at the risk of being branded an enabler or something?

I think Pat has to go. simple. He just has to, he has no credibility. Hein frankly should be getting a toothbrush ready for some months of leisure if there's any justice....

But...

I hate to say it, but I'm coming to the conclusion Fahey should go too - it's clearly become far, far to personal for him. Reading the correspondence, Fahey comes across as badly as McQuaid.

And that takes some doing. Too many bloody egos, frankly. On all sides.

I'm actually getting a bit frustrated with WADA here, well Fahey anyway - not because of UCIIC, that's a perfectly rational decision; but some of this stuff seems, well, almost obstructive for the sake of it. I know the UCI are useless ***, John, but WADA shouldn't stoop to the same bloody level...

I'm pretty bloody depressed right now about the whole future - we're going to throw this chance away just like we did Festina....

If that is how you honestly feel, no problem.

I honestly don't feel that way. Particularly after reading the interchanges between the Commission and the UCI attorney.

That is completely disgraceful.

I doubt Fahey wrote the Press Release. He may have approved it.

It would have been highly scrutinized regardless.

I honestly believe that it was too nice.

The UCI set up the Commission, and promised to provide it with documents.

It not only did not provide the documents promised, but accused the Commission of wasting the UCI's money by asking for what had been promised.

That is worse duplicitous, sociopathic behavior than we have seen from Armstrong, and that says a lot.

Edit to add: The behavior is borderline or effectively criminal. WADA represents the only organization set up to police doping. Whether you are pro gun control or not, hopefully you won't be offended if WADA has to 'figuratively' draw their pistols to arrest these guys.

Dave.

 

[peterst6906]

I'm pretty bloody depressed right now about the whole future - we're going to throw this chance away just like we did Festina....

Yep. +1. While ever Pat and Hein are in place and the system remains the same, the same outcome as the past will recur, over and over and over, including the next scandal in a few years (maybe that will be Sky related.....just joking, different thread).

On Fahey and WADA, my thoughts on that are already posted elsewhere, but as a summary, I agree with what you wrote.

 

[D-Queued]

Yep. +1. While ever Pat and Hein are in place and the system remains the same, the same outcome as the past will recur, over and over and over.

On Fahey and WADA, my thoughts on that are already posted elsewhere, but as a summary, I agree with what you wrote.

Good grief.

UCI aren't playing nice, and aren't going to. They have been personally benefitting from, coordinating, supporting, and hiding doping and false results for decades.

Do you expect WADA to apologize for being wrongly accused?

Or should someone, for once, call them on their fraud?

Sorry, but this might get ugly. Maybe you should look the other way.

Dave.

 

[peterst6906]

Good grief.

UCI aren't playing nice, and aren't going to. They have been personally benefitting from, coordinating, supporting, and hiding doping and false results for decades.

Do you expect WADA to apologize for being wrongly accused?

Or should someone, for once, call them on their fraud?

Sorry, but this might get ugly. Maybe you should look the other way.

Dave.

Maybe you should stop smoking crack.

I have no problem with WADA calling the UCI out. As I said earlier, although I don't place much credibility in Fahey or WADA, I still place their credibility above the UCI.

It's one big cesspool and the UCI are the worst amongst a bad lot. A huge shake up is required and Pat and Hein need to go. If WADA/Fahey are a catalyst for that, then great.