What is your beef with the UCI?

[Dallas_]

Have heard a lot of negative comments about the UCI in the clinic. Maybe some of us 'newbs' could also gain a better insight! I have read a thread where BB stated us newbs weren't up to speed!

eg dope testing protocols, implementation of the bio passport, la's donation, Pat's interviews, etc, etc ... Any links would be a bonus

Could the UCI use a negative comment to create a positive policy change, or is that too optimistic!

cheers

 

[nevada]

Have heard a lot of negative comments about the UCI in the clinic. Maybe some of us 'newbs' could also gain a better insight! I have read a thread where BB stated us newbs weren't up to speed!

eg dope testing protocols, implementation of the bio passport, la's donation, Pat's interviews, etc, etc ... Any links would be a bonus

Could the UCI use a negative comment to create a positive policy change, or is that too optimistic!

cheers

Until McQuaid goes nothing will change - then an Ethics and Conflicts policy would be a good start.

 

[The Hitch]

Their president has absolutely no respect for the Giro d italia. He said that it should be perhaps Cut down.

Unforgivable. I say rather than cut down the Giro and Vuelta we cut down Mcquaid.

Metaphorically of course

 

[gobuck]

The uci uses 2 sets of rules for the riders. The prefered riders get early drug test notification and a buyout option on a positive test. The rest of the riders get public notification on any positive test and a 2 year ban..

 

[sniper]

The uci uses 2 sets of rules for the riders. The prefered riders get early drug test notification and a buyout option on a positive test. The rest of the riders get public notification on any positive test and a 2 year ban..

I tend to believe you, but for the record, you're mainly speculating, right? Or do you have any clear-cut indications of this?
Anyway, let's continue speculating and pretend it happens for real:
the UCI would have to be extremely cautious not to leave any tangible evidence of such practices. So any ideas on what shape or form such notifications would have, and/or how they would reach the respective rider(s)?

 

[theswordsman]

If you really want to know, and are willing to work for it, you can start with this 173 page report from the New Pathways Conference. The UCI shunned the Conference, supposedly because they had the audacity to let Floyd Landis attend, but perhaps someone actually read the paper?

http://www.newcyclingpathway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/21-NOW-FINAL-.pdf

Then you can read the Independent Observer Report from the 2010 Tour de France. Keep in mind that the UCI requested months in advance that they be there, and this is how they behaved during the three weeks of the year they were under scrutiny, and imagine how thy might do things when no one is watching.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...endent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf

If you think the UCI is interested in constructive criticism and making changes, you can look at the 2003 TdF IO Report in English, and the UCI point by point rebuttals, which didn't make it out of French.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/News_Center/News/tdf_io_report.pdf

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/News_Center/News/uci_tour_de_france.pdf

As for Pat McQuaid, read this article about how the Pro Teams were selected (teams still don't know), and see if these two quotes aren't contradictory:

Pat McQuaid has hit back at criticism of the rules governing the allocation of ProTeam licences, calling the process “a just system” and adding that “there’s nothing secretive.”

The rules on final selection come down to a mix of rider points, sporting ethics, team administration and finances. However McQuaid was unwilling to specify how the final selection for places were made, but added that all four elements were equally important.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-hits-back-after-proteam-selection-criticism

As a bonus, you can research their public battle with the AFLD. When the AFLD does Tour testing, trying to keep competition in their country fair, riders get busted for PED's. When the UCI insists they do it on their own, it doesn't happen. In 2009, the French wanted to do tests on guys who were in the country training for the Tour, but the UCI wouldn't give them Whereabouts info until late the night before, keeping testers from getting to the athlete during the appointed hours.

That's a start for you. Personally, I'm done reading UCI stories as of December 31. They just make me angry, and my reading what they say or do takes away from my enjoyment of the sport. Happy New Year, everyone!

 

[BotanyBay]

The UCI is supposed to be a "governing body" for cycling, but they behave like the honchos from a professional sports league. These two roles are often in direct conflict with one another.

The entire professional cycling industry would be wise to rise-up and ditch them, and come to think of it, the amateur side could do far better as well.

 

[Velocentric]

I could write a book on what's wrong with the UCI but I'll leave it with the synopsis:

Pat McQuaid is corrupt and damaging the sport for personal profit and profit for his Family members.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I jest.....

Have heard a lot of negative comments about the UCI in the clinic. Maybe some of us 'newbs' could also gain a better insight! I have read a thread where BB stated us newbs weren't up to speed!

eg dope testing protocols, implementation of the bio passport, la's donation, Pat's interviews, etc, etc ... Any links would be a bonus

Could the UCI use a negative comment to create a positive policy change, or is that too optimistic!

cheers

To show the examples you raised:
Doping Testing Protocols - Jesus Manzano claimed that Kelme and USPS were given advance notice of OOC testing.
The difference between Fuyu Li's announcemnt and Contadors.
Allowing teams 45 minutes before testing, poor storage of samples and being too friendly with riders.

Biological Passport - Pat mentions this at every oppurtunity to show that the sport is cleaning up. But instead of being a ferocious rothweiller it is a toothless pup.
Some riders flagged by the scientific committe for sanction were not pursued.
Even if you are under suspicion the UCI will allow you an oppurtunity to explain your case, am before they take a case against you..

Pats quotes -jeez, where to start.

Dec 2010-

"I am, however, in favour of increasing the duration. There should be a four-year ban for those who take EPO. We're going to propose that to the national federations soon".

Sounds tough - but didn't he say the exact same thing 3 years ago??

From the first of January [2009] there is a bit more flexibility in it, and we can go up to a four year ban in the cases of something regarded as willful cheating.

"In these cases [Kohl and Schumacher], considering that these guys were given the product and then went and took it for the Tour de France, it would be very much classified as willful cheating. Next year a rider in that position would face a four year ban".

In June this year Pierre Bordry said "There are not enough targeted controls, too little training [for testers] and unannounced inspections; someone who wants to dope knows the system perfectly well."
But Pat said that was "Pure bullshit"
Of course Bordry's analysis was confirmed in the Independant Report that 'theswordsman' linked earlier.

LA's 'Donation' - It is pretty well covered in this Cycling Weekly article.
But some more memorable quotes from McQuaid on the donation.

May 2010 - "There was only one donation from Armstrong, not two or three."
McQuaid talking about the donation - "It was a one-off definitely."

That is reassuring to know.
Hmm, whats this? McQuaid reveals Armstrong made two donations.

 

[hfer07]

Have heard a lot of negative comments about the UCI in the clinic. Maybe some of us 'newbs' could also gain a better insight! I have read a thread where BB stated us newbs weren't up to speed!

eg dope testing protocols, implementation of the bio passport, la's donation, Pat's interviews, etc, etc ... Any links would be a bonus

Could the UCI use a negative comment to create a positive policy change, or is that too optimistic!

cheers

looks to me that you started following cycling "last year".....
In a nutshell-UCI has been fvcking up the sport since the mid 90's up to date...

 

[BotanyBay]

looks to me that you started following cycling "last year".....
In a nutshell-UCI has been fvcking up the sport since the mid 90's up to date...

Remember when they decided to "define what a bike is", like 10 years after Moser broke the hour record? That's the kind of crap they've pulled for decades.

They're so checked-out of reality as far as how the sport works, yet from time to time, they'll suddenly decide to involve themselves (when it suits them). And that... I have always detested (like a sickness).

-Pino.

 

[brianf7]

My beef is the UCI executive and president should be elected by the members each year not the way it is done now.
If they had to answer to members vote they would at least try.

They are all there to feather their own nest with Cycling in general 2nd 3rd priority.

The people at the top have never organised a bike race and probably cant even ride a bike. "up hill"

 

[online-rider]

Remember when they decided to "define what a bike is", like 10 years after Moser broke the hour record? That's the kind of crap they've pulled for decades.

They're so checked-out of reality as far as how the sport works, yet from time to time, they'll suddenly decide to involve themselves (when it suits them). And that... I have always detested (like a sickness).

-Pino.

Cycling is like a wild jennie you can't lassoo. Considering how furked up cycling is with your bruynels and Saiz's and your Lars Booms and Landis's is it any surprise that any move the UCI makes gets heckled and booed? We're a diverse bunch, having our decisions made by the UCi is never going to please us. But for one, I think the Olympic track changes are worth a try, that Mquaid is trying to bring help cycling using economics, which surely he must do, and that the 10 round World Cup of '98 - '04/ </> was and exciting well run calendar of races. Despite all the drouges

 

[Velocentric]

The people at the top have never organised a bike race and probably cant even ride a bike. "up hill"

Pat McQuaid had an OK career as a racer so (as much as I hate to do it) he did at one point know how to ride.

Of course, his career wasn't without his own controversy (South Africa), and he rode with known doper Sean Kelly.

 

[Anonymous]

Other than being totally corrupt, there's nothing really wrong with the UCI.

 

[D-Queued]

A number of excellent points have already been made. Rather than echo them, here are some more.

1. Stupid rules

The many silly rules on bicycles - especially TT configurations - deserve particular note. Watching the TT position rules be administered at TT events goes well beyond the comical and into the absurd.

What this represents is the UCI's focus on the picayune while major issues are completely unaddressed.

But, the biggest problems are related to the fact that the UCI is an insider's club and the way that they have dealt with many things Armstrong is appalling. Any one situation should have resulted in a major enquiry. Yet, the BS goes on, and on, and on.

2. McQuaid appointment

Consider the 'appointment' of McQuaid as Hein's successor. This process violated a number of UCI articles.

From Cyclingews:

CN: In her interview with Cyclingnews, Sylvia Schenk alleges that the UCI are financing one of the three candidates for presidency, making the suggestion that the three candidates aren't on an equal level democratically. How do you respond to that?

PMcQ: I wouldn't accept that. The UCI are not financing my campaign. The Irish federation are assisting me in my campaign, and they have been doing quite a bit of work for me, lobbying for me and campaigning for me. The work that I'm doing in the UCI offices at the moment has absolutely nothing to do with my campaign. It's completely separate to that. So I don't think there is really any cause for concern there.

CN: But Hein Verbruggen has admitted that you have been getting expenses from the UCI. Do you feel that this is allowed under the UCI Constitution?

The UCI article in question specifically bars double-dipping "no member of the Management Committee shall be bound by an employment or service contract with the UCI, a federation or a continental confederation at the same time"

Vrijamn was appointed by Hein, which goes against the UCI charter, and his 'campaign' was funded by the UCI, which goes against the UCI charter.

When there is no transparency in leadership transition, the entire organization it taints the entire organization.

A complete crock of sh*t.

3. The Vrijman whitewash

Then there is the Vrijman affair. After being 'contracted by the UCI' Vrijman doesn't interview anyone at the UCI - never interviews Ressiot - and never reveals how the forms were signed to release the sample results. In other words, there was no investigation at all about what was purported to be the biggest problem.

The purpose of the (*ahem*) investigation was:

The independent investigation of all facts and circumstances regarding the analyses of the urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France ... According to the article, six urine samples of Armstrong from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly tested positive for r-EPO when analysed by the LNDD as part of ongoing research to further improve the existing detection method for r-EPO. In addition, it was alleged that six other urine samples, from six other riders, had also tested positive for r-EPO.

Even a good investigative journalist would check their sources. Vrijman did not.

The body of the Vrijman 'evidence' represents unconfirmed quotes from news articles. There was no confirmation that any sample did or did not test positive for anything

Vrijman did not determine that the UCI or anyone at the UCI provided the release.

**** Pound provided 15 signed copies of release forms to Hein Verbruggen the 2006 Turin Olympics. The Vrijman report - which clearly did not investigate the source of the release forms - notes that perhaps "the UCI may have provided Mr. Ressiot, the journalist of L’Equipe, with at least one (1) or more copies of the original doping control forms of Lance Armstrong". And, "the Investigator (i.e. Vrijman)" dismisses this as "not material".

The UCI's Zorzoli gets a 'suspension' with no follow-up investigation.

A complete crock of sh*t.

4. The ProTour rule

Whatever happened to the double suspension for riders on ProTour teams? It has never been rescinded, but has only been applied in one case that I can find.

Another complete crock of sh*t.

Dave.

 

[sniper]

A number of excellent points have already been made. Rather than echo them, here are some more.

1. Stupid rules

The many silly rules on bicycles - especially TT configurations - deserve particular note. Watching the TT position rules be administered at TT events goes well beyond the comical and into the absurd.

What this represents is the UCI's focus on the picayune while major issues are completely unaddressed.

But, the biggest problems are related to the fact that the UCI is an insider's club and the way that they have dealt with many things Armstrong is appalling. Any one situation should have resulted in a major enquiry. Yet, the BS goes on, and on, and on.

2. McQuaid appointment

Consider the 'appointment' of McQuaid as Hein's successor. This process violated a number of UCI articles.

From Cyclingews:

CN: In her interview with Cyclingnews, Sylvia Schenk alleges that the UCI are financing one of the three candidates for presidency, making the suggestion that the three candidates aren't on an equal level democratically. How do you respond to that?

PMcQ: I wouldn't accept that. The UCI are not financing my campaign. The Irish federation are assisting me in my campaign, and they have been doing quite a bit of work for me, lobbying for me and campaigning for me. The work that I'm doing in the UCI offices at the moment has absolutely nothing to do with my campaign. It's completely separate to that. So I don't think there is really any cause for concern there.

CN: But Hein Verbruggen has admitted that you have been getting expenses from the UCI. Do you feel that this is allowed under the UCI Constitution?

The UCI article in question specifically bars double-dipping "no member of the Management Committee shall be bound by an employment or service contract with the UCI, a federation or a continental confederation at the same time"

Vrijamn was appointed by Hein, which goes against the UCI charter, and his 'campaign' was funded by the UCI, which goes against the UCI charter.

When there is no transparency in leadership transition, the entire organization it taints the entire organization.

A complete crock of sh*t.

3. The Vrijman whitewash

Then there is the Vrijman affair. After being 'contracted by the UCI' Vrijman doesn't interview anyone at the UCI - never interviews Ressiot - and never reveals how the forms were signed to release the sample results. In other words, there was no investigation at all about what was purported to be the biggest problem.

The purpose of the (*ahem*) investigation was:

The independent investigation of all facts and circumstances regarding the analyses of the urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France ... According to the article, six urine samples of Armstrong from the 1999 Tour de France allegedly tested positive for r-EPO when analysed by the LNDD as part of ongoing research to further improve the existing detection method for r-EPO. In addition, it was alleged that six other urine samples, from six other riders, had also tested positive for r-EPO.

Even a good investigative journalist would check their sources. Vrijman did not.

The body of the Vrijman 'evidence' represents unconfirmed quotes from news articles. There was no confirmation that any sample did or did not test positive for anything

Vrijman did not determine that the UCI or anyone at the UCI provided the release.

**** Pound provided 15 signed copies of release forms to Hein Verbruggen the 2006 Turin Olympics. The Vrijman report - which clearly did not investigate the source of the release forms - notes that perhaps "the UCI may have provided Mr. Ressiot, the journalist of L’Equipe, with at least one (1) or more copies of the original doping control forms of Lance Armstrong". And, "the Investigator (i.e. Vrijman)" dismisses this as "not material".

The UCI's Zorzoli gets a 'suspension' with no follow-up investigation.

A complete crock of sh*t.

4. The ProTour rule

Whatever happened to the double suspension for riders on ProTour teams? It has never been rescinded, but has only been applied in one case that I can find.

Another complete crock of sh*t.

Dave.

It's nasty indeed. If you sum it all up, it is hard to believe that there isn't more resistance.
How come several people and institutions appear to be so powerless against all the crap you picture above?
What happened to Zorzoli? Whas he payed off?
And given that the Vrijman report is so obviously fake, how come the SCA didn't digg into that deeper?

 

[Dewulf]

I know less about the machinations of McQuaid than others here but am not that surprised to hear what they've decribed.

BUT, I definitely want to agree with D-Queued on rules around bikes. I'm not a Contador fan (or hater), but didn't he have to abandon his planned TT bike (the new Shiv) like, 24 hours before a race this year?

Otherwise I hate the UCI for messing with races, and teams. Eg, forcing teams in the US to go pro-conti when there aren't necessarily enough races at that level for them there, plus not recognising criteriums (i mean really, wtf, it's a race, it's on bikes, oh i'm sorry it doesn't take 5 hours to complete, is that the problem?!?!)....seems it's all about getting these teams on the Passport, and the UCI is tying the Passport to pro-conti and above registration, but there has to be a better/cheaper way for these continental teams.

As for teams, sheesh, the application process just seems f^cked up, with the results equally so. Pegasus aside (Chris White seems to be the fire behind the smoke with that one), look at the mess Geox has on its hands. I think having separate categories of teams who might or might not attend big races is completely mental. Could formula 1 operate like that? Do any football leagues operate like this? Scrap the Pro-Tour (or whatever it's called now) AND pro-conti categories, put them all in the one group and call it "International", and attendance to races is based on performance in season, or even qualifying events.

OR maybe even cut down the no. of riders on each team in the peloton and get one or two more teams in each race? I don't know, again, there has to be a better way when looking for a new sponsor than to have to say "we THINK we'll get an invite to xyz race".

Oh, and last but not least, I think the UCI sucks for not having had the balls to grab the power of banning riders themselves. At least for UCI sanctioned races, they should be able to say "right, sorry Valverde, we've examined the evidence, it's clear you're a doper, you're banned from competing in any UCI races", rather than hoping for the relevant national body to get their act together and pass an unbiased judgement.

I mean, the UCI can stop an organiser from putting a criterium stage in an event, but they couldn't stop Valverde riding in the TdF (unless it passed through Italy, in which case it was the Italian Federation stopping him, not the UCI). WTF.

 

[D-Queued]

...

I mean, the UCI can stop an organiser from putting a criterium stage in an event, but they couldn't stop Valverde riding in the TdF (unless it passed through Italy, in which case it was the Italian Federation stopping him, not the UCI). WTF.

(Or from using decades-proven tri-spokes...)

Well said.

Nope, you cannot have a Criterium. Nope, we don't recognize a National Criterium Champ.

'cuz we said so.

How can you call it a race when people ride around in circles? What do you mean they do that on the track. Never heard of it.

Nope you cannot use a 650 front any more and a 700 rear. We don't know why, but we said so anyways. We don't care what triathlon guys or the USCF says or does or even that we were ok with this in the 90s. Those people left the UCI and they don't know what a bicycle is.

Nope you cannot use a 30 degree slope on your TT bars. We don't know why, but we said so anyways.

Nope, we aren't going to do anything about PEDs except maybe to facilitate doping it in the Pro Tour - in exchange for donations that we will deny, forget about, and not track.

Nope, we don't care if past Tour winners claimed they doped. They don't know what they are talking about. All of their records stand.

Dave.

 

[Big Doopie]

What is your beef with the UCI?

it is a corrupt (if not criminal) organization.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I know less about the machinations of McQuaid than others here but am not that surprised to hear what they've decribed.

BUT, I definitely want to agree with D-Queued on rules around bikes. I'm not a Contador fan (or hater), but didn't he have to abandon his planned TT bike (the new Shiv) like, 24 hours before a race this year?

<condensed version>

Oh, and last but not least, I think the UCI sucks for not having had the balls to grab the power of banning riders themselves. At least for UCI sanctioned races, they should be able to say "right, sorry Valverde, we've examined the evidence, it's clear you're a doper, you're banned from competing in any UCI races", rather than hoping for the relevant national body to get their act together and pass an unbiased judgement.

I mean, the UCI can stop an organiser from putting a criterium stage in an event, but they couldn't stop Valverde riding in the TdF (unless it passed through Italy, in which case it was the Italian Federation stopping him, not the UCI). WTF.

I agree with all except the highlighted portion. Do we really want this lot to have unilateral power to ban any racer they don't like for whatever reason. They are crooked enough already. Give WADA that power.

 

[unsheath]

The mere sight of McQuack makes my blood boil....

 

[Dewulf]

I agree with all except the highlighted portion. Do we really want this lot to have unilateral power to ban any racer they don't like for whatever reason. They are crooked enough already. Give WADA that power.

Ah yes, I was kinda thinking about that as I was writing, you're 100% right and i meant to say something about that. I like the idea of giving it to WADA. Imagine that could go down easier with the riders and teams too.

 

[DirtyWorks]

We're a diverse bunch, having our decisions made by the UCi is never going to please us. But for one, I think the Olympic track changes are worth a try, that Mquaid is trying to bring help cycling using economics, which surely he must do, and that the 10 round World Cup of '98 - '04/ </> was and exciting well run calendar of races. Despite all the drouges

If you acknowledge the grand scale of the corruption and self-dealing at the UCI that is well documented and put it aside, your comment gets to another fundamental problem with the UCI.

For Pat, Hein, and likely a few Tailwind principles,(sp???) the UCI's role as rule-maker is used to enrich themselves, not benefit cycling as a sport. They want to see the sport 'grow' only to capture some of the revenue growth for themselves, acquiring more power and influence along the way.

 

[BotanyBay]

So Dallas, are these enough reasons?