Wake up people, keep your focus on the UCI

[skippy]

GAME OVER ! Fat Pat is now " Fire proof "! Jaques , Mr IOC , sits with him at the Olympic Track Cycling , and is seen on World TV doing so , thus as far as the IOC are concerned he is " Mr Spotless "!

16th Sept is the start of the UCI Road events , once again in the area of Valkenberg. Last time it was after the " Festina Debacle " , now it will be during the " USADA spat " ! Then nothing changed after all the hot air at that congress , what will happen this time ? Fat Pat will float around in extacy with ALL Congratulating his ascension in the IOC hierachy ! Guess he doesn't have to worry about next year's election with the IOC athis back !

What is going to happen to cycling now ? Hard to think it will lose it's Olympic Status BUT will anything change ? Why would it now that the IOC have shown their confidence in Fat Pat and his recent antics ?

Meanwhile ALL those who have passed the 8year SOV limit will start to develop their writing skills since beating the system is such a popular subject all of a sudden . Let me know when all these " weighty tomes " arrive in the " Remaindered shelf " at a 1c a pop please !

Wonder if there are any out there willing to jeopardise their income stream by letting on about what is currently the in thing in the supplements arena ? hope they know how to apply their hand brake should they decide to speak out without permissions fom the biggies in the know .

Who would want their offspring to embark on a Cycling Career with what is currently taking place ?

 

[doperhopper]

So what could realistically kick the UCI mafia in the ***? Cycling removed from the Olympics (= less money to their pockets in the end)? Breakaway clean pro league (also with new clean-sensitive sponsors)?

In any case, how are the UCI bosses elected, it's the member states, right? That means, in the end, politicians... and that's quite bad, big fail hardcoded in the DNA (no rational debate has any chance against political battles).

 

[D-Queued]

Verdruggen still working his magic:

McQuaid appointed by IOC to 2020 Selection Commission

The UCI obviously han't burned all its matches yet...

PS: So much for that lifetime competition ban.

Yet another twist on The Peter Priniciple?

Rising to one's absolute level of incompetence. Or, in this case, to one's absolute level of unimpeachable corruption?

Dave.

 

[the big ring]

Dave,

McQuaid and Verbruggen should not alone be demonized. They are (usually) rational actors (not so much McQuaid lately) that had a job to do, manage and grow the sport. If an institution like the UCI can be driven so far off course by one or two people, then the institution itself must be reformed.

Ever heard of North Korea?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The UCI's job has always been about “image management” and not transparency. There has never been any incentive on their part to produce a bad image, which means allowing a system to expose the rampant doping within the sport effectively and without limits.

At the same time the popular view of "fair play" necessitated that something be done in the interests of producing a good image, for without any controls the sponsors would run away. For no corporate sponsor would willingly invest its name and product line into something that risks tainting its business reputation.

Sport usually provides a good investment return, given its popular appeal, so the corporate sponsors have a strong interest in these markets and only look to the governing bodies like the UCI for "guarantees." Anti-doping protocols are meant to provide these. The UCI has instituted the sporting world’s toughest anti-doping protocols, however, given the widespread nature of doping culture within cycling, it knows that having them work too well is counter-productive and, in the end, menacing if not lethal.

So you have a most delicate and in many ways perverse situation in which cleaning up sport is less advantages, from a business point of view, than playing the game of "image management," which the UCI had made an art of and probably thought it produced its finest masterpiece in supporting the whole Lance legend. All the while reaping all the benefits form actually covering his doping. Until one disgruntled cyclist rebelled. Though the UCI has another card to play, sustain USADA’s motion to strip the Texan of all his titles since 98 and hope that this results in appeasement to deter any further pursuit of it. I’d say, right now, as things stand, they’ve got a 50/50 chance at pulling it off. These are probably better odds that Lance initially was given in beating cancer.

PS. But even this might backfire, since a thwarted Lance may at last start talking just to take revenge against those who protected him for so long. Would love to hear what he has to say on this account. Anbody want to post odds on this happening?

Great post.

I can only imagine how Armstrong has threatened the UCI. Probably took another page out of Floyd's playbook: Help me out OR ELSE. And if the UCI can't help him out? KA-BOOM!

(one can hope)

 

[the big ring]

Wrong. I have followed the sport for a very long time.

And I am not saying Pat and Hein shouldn't be put up against the wall. I am saying you can't stop there. And everybody at the Clinic and in the mainstream media does seems to stop there.

Step 1 is to bring down Lance Armstrong and his merry men. I am disappointed you did not start your post with, "I am not a fan of Lance", but it's clear from your postings you don't want to talk about the herd of elephants in the room.

Step 2 is to get the corruption aired, so people like Pat and Hein don't get cushy positions with IOC, or get removed from them ASAP.

Step 3 is to excise the cancer from the sport: Pat, Hein, Lance, unrepentant riders and team managers.

Then you need to introduce a structure that works, yes.

Let me give you an analogy:

when someone has cancer, you don't say: you need to get up and do some aerobic exercise and eat well. You first work on the cancer. And as small as that cancer is, you need to remove it, quickly. Because as we know, cancer spreads. Look now as Pat the cancer cell slowly migrates to another potentially healthy IOC cell to corrupt it for his own gain.

As for noone in the clinic going past Pat and Hein, you are wrong. So very wrong. We've even got threads and posts discussing what to replace the corrupt system with.

The "raising the bar" advice you have offered is as useful as tits on a bull, mate. If you really think, "raising the bar" is going to instill the kind of change we need in the UCI then your entire thread is a smoke screen to your real intent.

Name one change that can be implemented at the UCI to improve things. Just one. Hint: "checks and balances" is NOT a change.

Finally, you've missed the other elephant in the room: the race organisers themselves. You know, Zomegan who refused to retest Giro samples, ASO, who ditched anti-doping Clerc pre-Lance comeback. These guys have as much impact on the monitoring of rider health and doping as anyone else in the chain. What are you going to do about them?

Or are you going to stop there, at "raising the bar".

Good grief.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

This is the whole point. If the system can be corrupted by one or two bad apples then the problem is not solved when you replace them with seemingly trustworthy people. The whole institution needs to be reformed to with a system of check and balances to ensure that rules will be enforced.

When I say raise the bar, I mean in every department, as a functional organization. Not just the public stance on what is and isn't permissible in doping.

And I am not saying Pat and Hein shouldn't be put up against the wall. I am saying you can't stop there. '...'

You are absolutely right with the above statements.

Anybody with a sound ubderstanding of not-for-profit governance can see the glaring flaws in the UCI structure. Far too much power is invested in the president, who has a pivotal role in both governance and executive management. The governing body is too unwieldy and meets too infrequently for effective oversight. The result of these two structural flaws alone, is that incompetence will not be effectively challenged and the organisation is inherently corruptible. And that is not even looking at the voting rights...

However, changing such overwhelming systemic problems involves real will to overcome the interests of all the small minded petty tw@ts the system serves. Without both leadership within the system AND "grass roots"/external pressure, there is no chance of meaningful change in the foreseeable future.

Which brings me to Markvw's post. Even while recognising the riders are indespensible to solving the problem, he displays his usual contempt for every single peron who has ever ridden a bike for a living. @Markvw, where exactly do you get off castigating the courage and integrity of an entire group of people, most of whom you have never even heard of, let alone met and come to know? Your tone implies you view yourself as an infinitely superior human being, yet you show no humanity towards other people. Not cool.

 

[MarkvW]

You are absolutely right with the above statements.

Anybody with a sound ubderstanding of not-for-profit governance can see the glaring flaws in the UCI structure. Far too much power is invested in the president, who has a pivotal role in both governance and executive management. The governing body is too unwieldy and meets too infrequently for effective oversight. The result of these two structural flaws alone, is that incompetence will not be effectively challenged and the organisation is inherently corruptible. And that is not even looking at the voting rights...

However, changing such overwhelming systemic problems involves real will to overcome the interests of all the small minded petty tw@ts the system serves. Without both leadership within the system AND "grass roots"/external pressure, there is no chance of meaningful change in the foreseeable future.

Which brings me to Markvw's post. Even while recognising the riders are indespensible to solving the problem, he displays his usual contempt for every single peron who has ever ridden a bike for a living. @Markvw, where exactly do you get off castigating the courage and integrity of an entire group of people, most of whom you have never even heard of, let alone met and come to know? Your tone implies you view yourself as an infinitely superior human being, yet you show no humanity towards other people. Not cool.

I'm cool. Look at the sheep. What are they doing when they have an extremely unfair playing field thrust so far into their faces that they can't ignore it? Nothing. They're doing nothing because they are sheep. Nothing wrong with sheep. Lamb tastes good. I'm sure McQuaid and race organizers like feasting on sheep--especially sheep that don't make the slightest move to check the UCI's corrupt behavior.

They can stop being sheep and start being men at any time. It's not an incurable condition, you know.

 

[BroDeal]

Sylvia Schenk speaks.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-doubts-mcquaid-has-the-credibility-to-clean-up-cycling

 

[Benotti69]

Is it me or is there an effort to shift the talk and derail several threads to apportioning full blame on the UCI.

I wonder why?

Did McQuaids promotion ruin Armstrong's chance of them sticking by him?

Will they now throw him under the bus and wash their hands while McQuaid retires from UCI?

 

[MarkvW]

Is it me or is there an effort to shift the talk and derail several threads to apportioning full blame on the UCI.

I wonder why?

Did McQuaids promotion ruin Armstrong's chance of them sticking by him?

Will they now throw him under the bus and wash their hands while McQuaid retires from UCI?

The riders have a measure of responsibility for doping. Doping isn't all the UCI's fault.

And I think we can be very confident that expediency will guide any decision the UCI makes.

 

[Tinman]

If you people put half as much energy into asking questions about the UCI's mgmt committee, executive board, and anti-doping commission, as you do about LA's one nut then you might actually see some change.

Agreed. We need more posts on all of above. Map out the local cycling federations (who is who and their leanings/local ambitions) and conclude some influence map towards the 2013 UCI elections. And then build a plan to execute.

Also love the recent CN article on Schenk, it needs many more of those to build UCI main stream awareness.

 

[Tinman]

For anyone that hasn't read. This is one of cyclismas serious efforts. Pretty sound.

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/how-do-we-fix-the-uci/

great great post and article. How to facilitate the changes required at the top. Some highlights:

... it would take simply one member of the management committee, be it Mike Plant of the USA, or Igor Makarov of Russia, or even Mike Turtur of Australia to muster the support of 1/5 of the Federations in the UCI membership to call an extraordinary Congress for a vote on the removal of president Pat McQuaid. The UCI must convene the Congress within two months of said request. An approval of the ultimate removal of the president requires a 2/3 majority vote.

...

Or they could simply file a motion to add the dismissal of the UCI president for cause based on the mounting evidence (which requires immediate action) at the Congress meeting at the UCI Championships, provided they have 15 of the federations supporting the inclusion of the item on the agenda. Again, the 2/3 majority vote would come into play. The question is, are current members willing to make this gesture and do the footwork, or are they also merely puppets to a corrupt agenda, similar to other sports?

...

There are mechanisms to trigger the investigation and removal of the entire management committee, or the president solely. In our current circumstances, it is imperative that this happens now from multiple sources. From inside the UCI. From the AIGCP. From WADA. From the IOC. Enough is enough.

 

[red_flanders]

If you people put half as much energy into asking questions about the UCI's mgmt committee, executive board, and anti-doping commission, as you do about LA's one nut then you might actually see some change.

The problems are STRUCTURAL. If you don't fix the structure, in 3 years time you will all be talking about Andrew Talansky and Tejay Vangarderen in the same way you talk about Phillipe Gilbert and Froome.

Like any profit-driven corporation that does the absolute maximum of what is permitted by regulation, cycling teams will bump up against (and sometimes cross) the line the UCI sets.

So it seems to me the question is how do you get the UCI to raise the bar?

Who has power to do anything about the structure of the UCI? Certainly unclear to me.

No shortage of comments about the UCI in here. I would say that in the mass media articles on the topic there is little or none, and the comments section is always flooded with the Armstrong focus. Though I am sure 1/2 those are paid Armstrong bots, so it skews nutter.

 

[Deagol]

huge report on worldwide doping
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/donati_report_trafficking_2007-03_06.pdf

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Who has power to do anything about the structure of the UCI? Certainly unclear to me.

That's an excellent question. All those "associations" have cemented the governance over the different sports, and there's no one to monitor them (bar maybe the IOC, which is yet another one of those institutions with the very same flaws). They pretend to be removed from the world of politics (thus tutelage from public powers) and drapes themselves into their "neutrality".

Basically the only way out is self reform, which will only happen under the public pressure following a major scandal.

Also, as been noted, considering some of the very strong suspicions, bringing down Lance Armstrong could be very well the gateway to get to the UCI. So it is not one or the other...

 

[dadane]

Basically the only way out is self reform, which will only happen under the public pressure following a major scandal...

Yep, UCI reports to UCI and anyone who really wants to disagree is welcome to disaffiliate.

However, like any management committee, only a few people actually make the decisions and most of the others will be enjoying the perks that come from voting 'Yes' at the right time.

At best, you can chop off the top of the tree and see which sprouts make it to the top for better or worse.

Either way McQ's bank balance will remain big enough to buy up a few distilleries. Cheers.

 

[rhubroma]

Great post.

I can only imagine how Armstrong has threatened the UCI. Probably took another page out of Floyd's playbook: Help me out OR ELSE. And if the UCI can't help him out? KA-BOOM!

(one can hope)

Now go back and read what I wrote yesterday, and then read this:

"Cycling, that's the UCI and the Tour de France, they're at a very important point in their history and it's about whether they try to go on as before with the people they've elected and keep hoping they can get off with it or whether they really are going to start with zero-tolerance, make fundamental changes to the culture of cycling, for example bringing in transparency and accountability, and implement all steps needed for a comprehensive anti-doping system. That would send a very strong message to sponsors - and the sponsors are more and more concerned regarding the integrity of sport - governments and all the stakeholders. That's what should happen. It will take a big effort and I don't know whether the people in charge have the energy and the credibility to do that."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-doubts-mcquaid-has-the-credibility-to-clean-up-cycling

 

[rhubroma]

I'm cool. Look at the sheep. What are they doing when they have an extremely unfair playing field thrust so far into their faces that they can't ignore it? Nothing. They're doing nothing because they are sheep. Nothing wrong with sheep. Lamb tastes good. I'm sure McQuaid and race organizers like feasting on sheep--especially sheep that don't make the slightest move to check the UCI's corrupt behavior.

They can stop being sheep and start being men at any time. It's not an incurable condition, you know.

Indeed lamb is pretty tasty, especially off the grill.

The problem is, of course, cycling is very much a mafia type structure within the peloton, for which you have a rather ruthless pecking order, which seems to be in the nature of the game. How else are you going to find strong guys willing to thrash their bodies for kilometers and kilometers, while only getting a pat on the back in the end and told that tomorrow's stage will be even harder?

Inherent to such a self-effacing, masochistic psychology is a predisposition toward obedience and restraint, while next comes the pressure to maintain omertà and to not "spit on the plate" from which you are fed. Humiliation and sacrifice run hand in hand, all in the name of reaching the team goal. One almost has to be sheepish to survived and have a career. Then there are the roosters, but you can’t have too many roosters in the hen house.

It’s no wonder this sport has gotten the governmental body it has.

There has never been a better time for the sheep to become men, though, because there seems to be a crack in the code of silence which has corrupted the sport from within, has been its very culture (so we can't blame the sheep really), for decades now if not since the very beginning.

 

[Fidolix]

If you people put half as much energy into asking questions about the UCI's mgmt committee, executive board, and anti-doping commission, as you do about LA's one nut then you might actually see some change.

The problems are STRUCTURAL. If you don't fix the structure, in 3 years time you will all be talking about Andrew Talansky and Tejay Vangarderen in the same way you talk about Phillipe Gilbert and Froome.

Like any profit-driven corporation that does the absolute maximum of what is permitted by regulation, cycling teams will bump up against (and sometimes cross) the line the UCI sets.

So it seems to me the question is how do you get the UCI to raise the bar?

Seems you forgot where you are, take a look around, and for gods sake, follow what the signs says --->

 

[the big ring]

There has never been a better time for the sheep to become men, though, because there seems to be a crack in the code of silence which has corrupted the sport from within, has been its very culture (so we can't blame the sheep really), for decades now if not since the very beginning.

Agreed.

Have you read stories of the first tours? No more than 2 bidons per stage, which was 300km or more? Carry your own tyres and tools. NO outside assistance.

All so they could sell more newspapers.

It can be a beautiful sport. But its foundation is rotten to the core.

 

[LauraLyn]

Agreed.

Have you read stories of the first tours? No more than 2 bidons per stage, which was 300km or more? Carry your own tires and tools. NO outside assistance.

All so they could sell more newspapers.

It can be a beautiful sport. But its foundation is rotten to the core.

Serious races then. A favorite story is in the 1913 Tour where Eugène Christophe broke his fork and had to carry his bike in one hand and fork + wheel in the other 10k or more to the nearest town, and then at the local blacksmith's repaired the fork himself (the rules mandated he had to do it himself).

All great stories. But still there were guys "doping," though with the same stuff and sophistication as today. And the omerta was there already.

We are swimming upstream in this discussion.

 

[LauraLyn]

" . . . . Cycling, that's the UCI and the Tour de France, they're at a very important point in their history . . . to start with zero-tolerance, make fundamental changes to the culture of cycling, for example bringing in transparency and accountability, and implement all steps needed for a comprehensive anti-doping system. That would send a very strong message to sponsors - and the sponsors are more and more concerned regarding the integrity of sport - governments and all the stakeholders. That's what should happen. It will take a big effort and I don't know whether the people in charge have the energy and the credibility to do that."

You mean sponsors like Nike? BSkyB? RadioShack? Omega Pharma? the Lance Armstrong Foundation (aka LiveStrong)?

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . . Basically the only way out is self reform, which will only happen under the public pressure following a major scandal.

Also, as been noted, considering some of the very strong suspicions, bringing down Lance Armstrong could be very well the gateway to get to the UCI. So it is not one or the other...

I can see some pressure building on the UCI recently. But so far it looks that McQuaid and Verbruggen are not going down with Lance.

I don't see much chance for "self reform" within the UCI.

 

[LauraLyn]

I nominate Gregg Germer for the next presidency of the UCI.