-
Giro d'Italia 2025 - Follow the race via our live blog for all the latest news!
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
the big ring said:
I think it would be possible to get WADA to make some changes to the code if that tightened the system up. Any signatory would have to follow suit.
It's stuff like the delay in announcing Contador's positive that make me wonder how fool proof the system is, although it might be that they bought time with WADA because it was an unusual positive. It still seems that, to cover a positive the Lab analyst just rings Pat and says "I've got a glowing one from the day of the Ventoux stage, number 273652, who is it, shall I report it to WADA or not?" I would prefer if Pat would have to answer "I have NFI, you will have to ask WADA (or some other third party) who that sample belongs to. Then the results would be much harder to disappear.
I know the system is designed to shield the athletes identity from the Lab analysts, but I think there might be some loopholes. Won't the sample collector know whose sample had which number on it? And doesn't the athlete know what their number is? And the UCI knows. Would be all well and good if nobody had any incliniation to try and game the system but ...
The UCIs voting structure is bizarre, read it yesterday evening and it's not clear how or when the representatives from the national federations (UCI congress members) select their continental confederation voting representative, through which the congress members "exercise their vote". Anyhoo, it's definitely a bloody long road for any cyclist who wants to influence who is at the top of the UCI. Cyclists don't vote in the all powerful exec committee, they MIGHT vote in their federation representatives, who MIGHT vote for the confederation voting rep, who votes for the president and the management committee, who vote for the exec who have all the power.....now let's see those watch cyclists hold their organisation accountable
I Watch Cycling In July said:.....<snip>........The UCIs voting structure is bizarre, read it yesterday evening and it's not clear how or when the representatives from the national federations (UCI congress members) select their continental confederation voting representative, through which the congress members "exercise their vote". Anyhoo, it's definitely a bloody long road for any cyclist who wants to influence who is at the top of the UCI. Cyclists don't vote in the all powerful exec committee, they MIGHT vote in their federation representatives, who MIGHT vote for the confederation voting rep, who votes for the president and the management committee, who vote for the exec who have all the power.....now let's see those watch cyclists hold their organisation accountable
The most bizarre part of the current UCI structure is that Hein Verbruggen, retired former President of UCI and former IOC member, holds the title, not position, as "Honorary President". On resigning from IOC he was made an IOC honorary member in 2008.
The UCI constitution has no provision for an "Honorary President" but unelected Honorary President Verbruggen sits on the UCI Management Committee as Honorary President where, again, the UCI constitution provides no authority to a person to sit on the Management Committee other than as those specified in the Constitution.
Honorary is defined as: An honorary title or title of honor is a title bestowed upon individuals or organizations as an award in recognition of their merits.
Sometimes the title bears the same or nearly the same name as a title of authority, but the person bestowed does not have to carry any duties, possibly except for ceremonial ones.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 10,645
- 20
- 22,510
the big ring said:
My understanding of the story is WADA came about because the IOC promised that *this time* they were going to get a handle on doping only to have USOC hiding numerous positives. Because the IOC is very intent on being anti-doping controversy, they had to do WADA. WADA is/was set up such that the sports federations have complete control because the IOC is anti-doping controversy. Shocking that some hidden positives were in Track and Field! WADA provides recommendations for federations to pursue. They have no case processing authority.
They actually had an IOC president suggest the list of banned drugs be dramatically limited. As in, as long as we aren't killing athletes, then it's all good! http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/3/9/...tough-on-the-causes-of-doping-the-h-test-what It's astounding. I also suggest reading the Sports Illustrated Lance Armstrong story again. It has some great, and very incriminating stuff on the USOC.
As we shall see soon, it will come to light that WADA must have the authority to open anti-doping cases with the sports federations out of the enforcement-end of the process. However, this can't happen quickly because there would be a flood of positives across a number of sports damaging the IOC anti-doping brand.
Very nice series on some ancient doping history in Pro cycling: http://www.podiumcafe.com/tags/tough-on-doping?order=date&scope=affiliation&type=FanPost
Given Pat McQuaid is on the high powered committee & board of WADA, I am amazed he was reprimanded during the USADA jursidiction case.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
Velodude said:
UCI constitution Chapter 5 "Management Commitee" Article 47 paragraph 2 "The members intended in Paragraph 1 above can be joined my a maximum of 2 co-opted members." Article 50 "The Management Committee, composed in accordance with Article 47.1, may co-opt, for their particular qualities and capabilities, not more than 2 persons of their choosing to sit as members of the management committee." Article 55.2 states "Co-opted members shall have a right to discuss only"
Hein is there because the management committee voted to have him there.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
DirtyWorks said:
Nice observations. It will be a while till the political planets allign for this change to happen.
@ The Big Ring, WADAs smack down of the UCI, along with lots of other good stuff, suggests to me that the forces of darkness don't have much influence there at the moment....
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Current head of WADA, John Fahey's "Lance's choice not to defend himself is tantamount to a guilty confession" would seem to support your theory.
It's UCI election year next year. Good segue to remove Pat, surely?
I Watch Cycling In July said:
The maximum 2 persons co-opted as per current UCI Management Committee are:
Mr Vittorio ADORNI ITA
Mr Jean-Pierre STREBEL SUI
Verbruggen is listed on the UCI website Management Committeeas a sitting member with authority source as "Honorary President".
Reminds me of Vladimir Putin. Russian constitution prevented him from running another consecutive term so he put his annointed puppet in to keep the seat warm. He had billions of corrupt funds at stake if he lost control.
Hein's dictatorial presence, ably supported by appointee McQuaid, would prevent discussion about his past UCI conduct.
Velodude said:
I like your investigative input. These sorts of things don't mean a lot to people even here in the clinic, and I expect LL to drown it in rhetoric any second now, but this sort of stuff - what looks like the small stuff - imo is the crux of the matter.
This sort of stuff should be shouted from the rooftops, or questioned on the front page of the news sites at least.
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
the big ring said:
Bingo.
Not sure if even CN realize what they have here, as the moderation/forum structure improvements seem slow. The power of social media. Luckily a lot of excellent journos here also, and even if not posting, most will read. So keep up the good work on providing snippets and inferences! Collectively we can change the world
(did I say that?)
- Aug 27, 2012
- 1,436
- 0
- 0
wada website has much info, including meeting minutes in full. Well done John Fahey for creating transparency. Much cycling discussion there, and indeed some discussion that can be linked to specific doping cases.
Also an interesting mention on significant funding to SportAccord, an organization run by Verbruggen/McQuaid and others.
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/Governance/Executive-Committee/
Below are from the WADA Director General’s report (Mr David Howman) at 2 specific meetings
from 19 Nov 2011 meeting:
“ WADA had had informal discussions with them (ANADO) along the lines that WADA might be prepared to consider funding in the same way as it had funded SportAccord (it provided 160,000 Swiss francs annually to SportAccord under certain conditions that had been followed very properly by SportAccord, to the benefit of all concerned).” …“WADA provided the money to SportAccord on the basis that it was not to be spent for doping tests (it was to be spent only on overheads in relation to the operation of the unit, which included the salaries of those employed by SportAccord) and that WADA had a position as an advisory member of its committee and received audited reports from the body in relation to its activities.”
...
Discussion of the outcomes of the WADA research programme on pg 46 of the meeting minutes Pat McQuaid asked
“Dr Rabin had mentioned autologous blood transfusion, and he saw that it had been number one on the list of priorities for 2011, and WADA was now heading into 2012. Where was WADA with that and how did Dr Rabin see it in the short term in terms of WADA having an actual validated test for it? The second question, which was somewhat related to that, was about plasticizers: where was WADA with a test for plasticizers?”
from 1 Dec 2009:
Another issue that WADA faced in terms of the laboratories was that there were antidoping organisations sending samples to the laboratories with the request to have them analysed under a selective, and quite a reduced, menu. WADA did not have access to these contracts, but it should have, and again he asked the Executive Committee to consider a direction to the Laboratory Committee to examine the issue to see whether there were ways and means of WADA having access to the contracts that the laboratories had as part of the accreditation or reaccreditation process.
Another area on the subject of doping control and collection of samples was that it had been brought to his attention that some samples collected in competition were designated on the doping control forms as out-of-competition tests, which obviously led to the samples being collected for the out-of-competition testing menu, perhaps avoiding substances. That would be a breach of the standard and could lead to the board considering this a matter of non-compliance. There were no details as yet, and the only way in which it would be possible to get details was through access to more information from the laboratories.
He had included bribery and corruption again in his report just for this meeting, but he would not repeat it the following day at the Foundation Board meeting. WADA had been working with the Austrian authorities about the allegations raised about individuals at that laboratory being open to bribes and helping athletes’ agents. The inquiry had not finished, but WADA had been told that there was nobody directly engaged in the laboratory activities who might be involved. The bigger question was whether there was somebody on the periphery, and that inquiry was still ongoing and he could not provide any update until it was completed, but it showed that the very core of what was being done in the fight against doping in sport could be undone in a fashion that bordered on bribery and corruption.
Also an interesting mention on significant funding to SportAccord, an organization run by Verbruggen/McQuaid and others.
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/Governance/Executive-Committee/
Below are from the WADA Director General’s report (Mr David Howman) at 2 specific meetings
from 19 Nov 2011 meeting:
“ WADA had had informal discussions with them (ANADO) along the lines that WADA might be prepared to consider funding in the same way as it had funded SportAccord (it provided 160,000 Swiss francs annually to SportAccord under certain conditions that had been followed very properly by SportAccord, to the benefit of all concerned).” …“WADA provided the money to SportAccord on the basis that it was not to be spent for doping tests (it was to be spent only on overheads in relation to the operation of the unit, which included the salaries of those employed by SportAccord) and that WADA had a position as an advisory member of its committee and received audited reports from the body in relation to its activities.”
...
Discussion of the outcomes of the WADA research programme on pg 46 of the meeting minutes Pat McQuaid asked
“Dr Rabin had mentioned autologous blood transfusion, and he saw that it had been number one on the list of priorities for 2011, and WADA was now heading into 2012. Where was WADA with that and how did Dr Rabin see it in the short term in terms of WADA having an actual validated test for it? The second question, which was somewhat related to that, was about plasticizers: where was WADA with a test for plasticizers?”
from 1 Dec 2009:
Another issue that WADA faced in terms of the laboratories was that there were antidoping organisations sending samples to the laboratories with the request to have them analysed under a selective, and quite a reduced, menu. WADA did not have access to these contracts, but it should have, and again he asked the Executive Committee to consider a direction to the Laboratory Committee to examine the issue to see whether there were ways and means of WADA having access to the contracts that the laboratories had as part of the accreditation or reaccreditation process.
Another area on the subject of doping control and collection of samples was that it had been brought to his attention that some samples collected in competition were designated on the doping control forms as out-of-competition tests, which obviously led to the samples being collected for the out-of-competition testing menu, perhaps avoiding substances. That would be a breach of the standard and could lead to the board considering this a matter of non-compliance. There were no details as yet, and the only way in which it would be possible to get details was through access to more information from the laboratories.
He had included bribery and corruption again in his report just for this meeting, but he would not repeat it the following day at the Foundation Board meeting. WADA had been working with the Austrian authorities about the allegations raised about individuals at that laboratory being open to bribes and helping athletes’ agents. The inquiry had not finished, but WADA had been told that there was nobody directly engaged in the laboratory activities who might be involved. The bigger question was whether there was somebody on the periphery, and that inquiry was still ongoing and he could not provide any update until it was completed, but it showed that the very core of what was being done in the fight against doping in sport could be undone in a fashion that bordered on bribery and corruption.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
Velodude said:
WTF! The UCI are absolutely unbelievable. Nice digging.
My thinking has kinda gone full circle on this. Getting rid of Hein and Pat is not the silver bullet because they are not the only problem. But by getting rid of them there is at least a chance someone better will step into their roles. Someone who at best might have a go at sorting the structural problems, and at worst would be aware that their predecessors had to walk the plank for their indiscretions.
Fixing the problems has to start somewhere. Highlighting the extent of the problems shouldn't be a distraction from the fact that now is a good time to try and get rid of Hein and Pat. They've gotta go!
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
Velodude said:
Just reread the constitution with these points in mind. I can find nothing that suggests in any way that an Honorary president or vice president would have any right to sit on the management committee, unless they were to occupy one of the co-opted places.....which they most certainly aren't. 4 of them shouldn't be there. Unbelievable.
I did however find Article 83 " The congress may confer The title of a position to a person who has exercised said position at UCI honoris causa." So I'm not sure what you are getting at with the first sentence above?
I Watch Cycling In July said:
The UCI Constitution has no provision for any person to sit on a management committee or an executive committee without satisfying the eligibility requirements of the constitution.
By bestowing on Verbruggen the honorary title of "Honorary President" does not circumvent these requirements and allow him to attend and participate in management committee meetings.
The only persons who can sit on those committees are persons holding a position as identified in the constitution. An unelected Honorary President or Honorary Vice-President have no authority to be present and participate at those meetings and the UCI is acting beyond the power (ultra vires) of its own constitution.
Depending upon Swiss law relating to meetings resolutions passed at those meetings may be held to be invalid.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 346
- 116
- 9,480
It's interesting: in the end the problematic is very much akin to the debate surrounding the UE institutions, or the UN and the International Court of Justice... Nation-states have their flaws but there's a very solid framework going for it. International institutions, not so much.
On paper it's easy: there should be a real separation of powers (hence CAS, WADA, etc...), and some sort of independent representative "legislative" body (where federations, but also the athletes should have a voice).
A major problem to me is the widely-held belief that sports and politics should not mix. It dulls the amount of scrutiny that should be applied to sports institution and allows them to get away with some ridiculous things.
The drama is that cycling, in the grand scheme of things, is not one of the major players in the international sports. Everyone is much happy to quarantine the problems (doping, and all) to that and certainly would not like it to see it spread to say, football.
And so we come to the audience: considering what we know about the history of cycling, and of the history of track & field, and the few elements that have surfaced recently tangentially of the Festina Affair (The Juventus court case, for Christ's sake!), and what is going on in American sports leagues... I do not see how the only sensible, reasonable conclusion could be anything else that the existence of non-anedoctal doping at the very high end of all sports.
Yet everyone refuses candidly to look behind the proverbial curtain, and hopes that the show will go on and on...
Until the day when doping (and thus cheating, and thus match fixing...) will just be an inescapable issue.
It will happen alright: we will have to adress the debate of what constitutes a "natural performance" sooner rather than later, considering the advance of science. The Oscar Pistorius case is just the first of many that will pop up more and more often.
On paper it's easy: there should be a real separation of powers (hence CAS, WADA, etc...), and some sort of independent representative "legislative" body (where federations, but also the athletes should have a voice).
A major problem to me is the widely-held belief that sports and politics should not mix. It dulls the amount of scrutiny that should be applied to sports institution and allows them to get away with some ridiculous things.
The drama is that cycling, in the grand scheme of things, is not one of the major players in the international sports. Everyone is much happy to quarantine the problems (doping, and all) to that and certainly would not like it to see it spread to say, football.
And so we come to the audience: considering what we know about the history of cycling, and of the history of track & field, and the few elements that have surfaced recently tangentially of the Festina Affair (The Juventus court case, for Christ's sake!), and what is going on in American sports leagues... I do not see how the only sensible, reasonable conclusion could be anything else that the existence of non-anedoctal doping at the very high end of all sports.
Yet everyone refuses candidly to look behind the proverbial curtain, and hopes that the show will go on and on...
Until the day when doping (and thus cheating, and thus match fixing...) will just be an inescapable issue.
It will happen alright: we will have to adress the debate of what constitutes a "natural performance" sooner rather than later, considering the advance of science. The Oscar Pistorius case is just the first of many that will pop up more and more often.
- Dec 9, 2011
- 482
- 0
- 0
ThisFrenchGuy said:
The best line I have heard in a long time. People like to believe in 'excellence'. They can't even comprehend that this is being spoon fed to them. Unfortunate thing is you cant blow peoples minds first up cause they won't believe you. Just drip feed them info and let it sink in slowly.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 346
- 116
- 9,480
You make me blush...
It's hard to cast the first stone. I, myself, also follow football* (my interests come & go, like cycling) and I certainly do indulge in the fantasy. I know the PEDs are most probably there, but I try not to think too much about it, because once you ripped the curtain there is no going back (or maybe there is, but we have not yet be able to do it in cycling).
* Boring life story alert: I am from Paris, live in the suburbs currently, as such "my" club is Paris Saint-Germain. If you are interested in the sport, you probably know the radical change this club is now going through, which put me in a very uncomfortable situation. I'm at odds to reconcile my conception of sports with what is happening. The cause is different but the effect is not too far from what happened to cycling: A gaping disconnect is growing in my affection.
The only outcome I see, one which I do not know I will have the will to do, is to put aside the elite and go to a more local alternative, in the hope to reignite interest and to find a better ("less worse") situation.
EDIT: All this may be a tangent unrelated to the subject at hand. Interestingly, though, UEFA under Platini supervision actually promotes some interesting reforms: I'll remain cautious over the subject and wait for said reforms to be fully implemented, since talk is always cheap, but maybe we can be (slighty) hopeful that it is possible to evolve out of the current statu quo of international sport supervision.
(Unfortunately, not on the doping side. Platini is of the "PEDs are of less help in football, nothing to see there" school.)
It's hard to cast the first stone. I, myself, also follow football* (my interests come & go, like cycling) and I certainly do indulge in the fantasy. I know the PEDs are most probably there, but I try not to think too much about it, because once you ripped the curtain there is no going back (or maybe there is, but we have not yet be able to do it in cycling).
* Boring life story alert: I am from Paris, live in the suburbs currently, as such "my" club is Paris Saint-Germain. If you are interested in the sport, you probably know the radical change this club is now going through, which put me in a very uncomfortable situation. I'm at odds to reconcile my conception of sports with what is happening. The cause is different but the effect is not too far from what happened to cycling: A gaping disconnect is growing in my affection.
The only outcome I see, one which I do not know I will have the will to do, is to put aside the elite and go to a more local alternative, in the hope to reignite interest and to find a better ("less worse") situation.
EDIT: All this may be a tangent unrelated to the subject at hand. Interestingly, though, UEFA under Platini supervision actually promotes some interesting reforms: I'll remain cautious over the subject and wait for said reforms to be fully implemented, since talk is always cheap, but maybe we can be (slighty) hopeful that it is possible to evolve out of the current statu quo of international sport supervision.
(Unfortunately, not on the doping side. Platini is of the "PEDs are of less help in football, nothing to see there" school.)
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
@velodude. Yep, ThatswhatIsaid. I can find nothing that suggests in any way that an Honorary president or vice president would have any right to sit on the management committee Not sure if you are arguing or reiterating?
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
WatchCJ, great find. This is really important. If Verbruggen is holding a position on a UCI committee that he is not eligible to hold according to the constitution, then this is surely a sign of deep inner corruption.
If Verbruggen is just invited to attend the meetings and he does not have a vote on decisions, then this could be explained away as acceptable. However, it as you suggest he is actually a member of a committee for which he is not eligible or not duly appointed, then this is a serious serious issue.
What do you think can be done?
LauraLyn
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 594
- 0
- 0
IWCJ: When you look at the WADA Executive Committee, there is an overwhelming presence of IOC members. Is this not in se a deep going conflict of interest?
How is WADA going to act as an independent control for Olympic sports when it is largely made up of all those powerful corporate sports organizations that it must control?
How is WADA going to act as an independent control for Olympic sports when it is largely made up of all those powerful corporate sports organizations that it must control?
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
Lauralyn, that was velodudes find not mine.
Verbruggen (and 3 ex vice presidents) attending meetings without voting is not acceptable. Even being able to speak to the meeting and be privy to the agenda/discussion is undue influence. Such attendance is precluded by the constitution. It's inexcusable.
Being pragmatic, what can be done now is to scream blue murder about Pat and Hein, while their nuts are near the fire because of the USPS conspiracy. Demand the rest of the management committee take a vote to UCI congress to dismiss Pat. He and his mentor have acted unconstitutionally; they have presided over cycling during Festina, Puerto and the USPS conspiracy, thereby proving themselves incapable of protecting the reputation or integrity of the sport. Pat is not fit for his role and has to go. If the management committee fails to get rid of them or fails to act, then the management has to go too.
It might get rid of them, or might not. Getting rid of them might make things better, or it might not. It's a long shot, but a long shot is much better than no chance. The only question remaining is how to stoke the fire.
Edit: I think the WADA exec makeup dilutes the IOC interests by allocating equal numbers to various government representatives. It seems to be working, at least with the current leadership and current limited powers. Partly for reasons explained by the French guy, I wouldn't hurry to place far greater responsibilities on WADA though. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Verbruggen (and 3 ex vice presidents) attending meetings without voting is not acceptable. Even being able to speak to the meeting and be privy to the agenda/discussion is undue influence. Such attendance is precluded by the constitution. It's inexcusable.
Being pragmatic, what can be done now is to scream blue murder about Pat and Hein, while their nuts are near the fire because of the USPS conspiracy. Demand the rest of the management committee take a vote to UCI congress to dismiss Pat. He and his mentor have acted unconstitutionally; they have presided over cycling during Festina, Puerto and the USPS conspiracy, thereby proving themselves incapable of protecting the reputation or integrity of the sport. Pat is not fit for his role and has to go. If the management committee fails to get rid of them or fails to act, then the management has to go too.
It might get rid of them, or might not. Getting rid of them might make things better, or it might not. It's a long shot, but a long shot is much better than no chance. The only question remaining is how to stoke the fire.
Edit: I think the WADA exec makeup dilutes the IOC interests by allocating equal numbers to various government representatives. It seems to be working, at least with the current leadership and current limited powers. Partly for reasons explained by the French guy, I wouldn't hurry to place far greater responsibilities on WADA though. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I Watch Cycling In July said:
How irony. el oh el
I Watch Cycling In July said:
I agree wtih all this - but have been wondering for some time now: can we as members of a national federation (CAustralia for me) conduct a vote of no confidence in the management of the international federation (UCI)?
I feel it's time to stop whinging and start acting. Is there any avenue for this?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 2: Tirana - Tirana (13.7k ITT)- Started by Gigs_98
- Replies: 522
-
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 3: Vlorë > Vlorë (160 km)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 22
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 1: Durrës - Tirana (160.0k)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 435
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 30K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram