Reforming the UCI

[Noodley]

twat

what?

 

[montage]

what?

Just wanted to get involved, innit mushta

 

[johnr]

Change Cycling Now organising conference
http://bikepure.org/2012/11/leading-anti-doping-figures-unite-to-form-new-pressure-group/
I think we should send Thom as our representative

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I was just about to post the Cyclingnews story on the same issue. This is great news. I will certainly be supporting this initiative.

 

[Orbytal]

Having looked at the site and the confirmed attendees which has 1 person in Ashenden of credit but no details what they say is wrong and how they intend to fix it, ie their Plan and how it shall be different in the future.

The request is sign their petition without any details what they will do, when it will be done and by whom!

They also suggest independent doping tests but who will do this and his do they intend to get IOC/WADA to agree?

Would anyone vote for a party/person who has no manifesto?

 

[oldroadman]

Having looked at the site and the confirmed attendees which has 1 person in Ashenden of credit but no details what they say is wrong and how they intend to fix it, ie their Plan and how it shall be different in the future.

The request is sign their petition without any details what they will do, when it will be done and by whom!

They also suggest independent doping tests but who will do this and his do they intend to get IOC/WADA to agree?

Would anyone vote for a party/person who has no manifesto?

Loooks more like a personal PR talking shop. And a major publicity coup for the Skins boss, which they have all gone along with. When they ask people to sign a petition with no proper stated objective, and don't say where it's intended for, there is no point and it would be daft to do it, like signing an open cheque in principle. The point is they have no idea of who should replace the people they are calling on to resign, no idea of how to implement any reform they might dream up, and no idea how they would fund WADA to carry out more testing. A piece on TV had it right, blood tests in cycling 35% of all tests, track and field 15%, tennis and footy 3%. Explain how cycling is not making huge advances in cleaning up? Walsh and Kimmage have a living to make and good news does not work for them. Ashenden is a slightly loose canon, and who else is invited to this "conference" in London, I wonder?

 

[ufkacbln]

The differences show why this is in reality bigger than cycling

There is still a need for a totally independent analysis of whet has failed both within the UCI, but also within WADA where the system failed to pick up the cheats despite testing.

 

[johnr]

Greg LeMond has joinedup with Clean Cycling Now, according to BBC teletext news

 

[oldroadman]

Greg LeMond has joinedup with Clean Cycling Now, according to BBC teletext news

Well he would, wouldn't he? All good PR, maybe. Greg, of course, never had a non--negative test, came back from being almost shot dead, and competed alongside Hinault, in an era when no-one could describe the peloton as squeaky clean. But it was all a long time ago, and if GL really wants to help a clean up of sport get even better, he might look at US track and field athletes, baseball, US football, tennis, as a starting point for some massive testing increases with sanctions to match. But hey, cycling is what he knows and it's easy to throw stones right now.
Everyone at the "conference" should be careful what they wish for when they start "demanding" whatever.

 

[rich p]

Well he would, wouldn't he? All good PR, maybe. Greg, of course, never had a non--negative test, came back from being almost shot dead, and competed alongside Hinault, in an era when no-one could describe the peloton as squeaky clean. But it was all a long time ago, and if GL really wants to help a clean up of sport get even better, he might look at US track and field athletes, baseball, US football, tennis, as a starting point for some massive testing increases with sanctions to match. But hey, cycling is what he knows and it's easy to throw stones right now.
Everyone at the "conference" should be careful what they wish for when they start "demanding" whatever.

Of course Lemond will be involved and interested in cycling rather tham baseball. Why would he care two hoots about those other sports. He was a cyclist and is passionate about clean cycling and has sacrificed much over the years to keep it top of the agenda despite massive pressures to shut up and take the money.
Have you considered that the reason he never had a non-negative, or positive as we say, was because he was clean? Most people who have followed the sport for a long time beleive him to be the last clean winner of the tour before Cadel Evans.
This 'be careful what they wish for' line you trot out is odd too. They wish, and are willing to work towards, a cleaner cycling peloton and a less corrupt ruling body. Don't we all? You seem to imply that we should stick with the status quo just in case Tchmil gets the top job. Most armchair pundits beleive that the UCI needs root and branch reform and are willing to take accept that a clean-up is long overdue.

 

[Orbytal]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ces-shake-up-with-announced-commission_266806

The independent review body now established for UCI review. All selected without an axe to grind or previous/existing legal wrangling with UCI.
This will also open up the full USADA Report to praise/criticism from this CAS appointed body. Are we looking at the new Vrijam Report or something else?

This will hopefully silence all those who wish change without any detailed report outling what they find is wrong, how they will fix it and how it shall be administered and run in future. Their sentiments appear to be well enough founded within themselves but their current Plan is about as much use as taking a blank sheet of paper into Bank seeking a Business Loan.

 

[PpPete]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ces-shake-up-with-announced-commission_266806

The independent review body now established for UCI review. All selected without an axe to grind or previous/existing legal wrangling with UCI.
This will also open up the full USADA Report to praise/criticism from this CAS appointed body. Are we looking at the new Vrijam Report or something else?

This will hopefully silence all those who wish change without any detailed report outling what they find is wrong, how they will fix it and how it shall be administered and run in future. Their sentiments appear to be well enough founded within themselves but their current Plan is about as much use as taking a blank sheet of paper into Bank seeking a Business Loan.

Please do not take this as a personal criticism but I'm struggling to understand the basis for your last sentence.

 

[PpPete]

Please do not take this as a personal criticism but I'm struggling to understand the basis for your last sentence.

Or perhaps a better question, in what way do you feel the Terms of Reference fall short ?

The full terms of reference for the commission are as follows:
In consequence of the Reasoned Decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), dated 10 October 2012, in its proceedings against Lance Armstrong as part of the US Postal Service (USPS) Pro Cycling Team Investigation
AND in light of the decision of the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), of 22 October 2012, to recognise the sanction imposed by USADA upon Lance Armstrong and not to appeal the Reasoned Decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and therefore proceeding upon the assumptions that as set out in the Reasoned Decision:-
(1) Lance Armstrong, whilst a professional cyclist, together with the USPS Team, engaged in the use, administration and trafficking of performance enhancing drugs and methods; and
(2) as admitted by them, teammates of Lance Armstrong in the USPS Team engaged in the use of performance enhancing drugs and methods AND without making any assumptions regarding the allegations against the UCI set out in the Reasoned Decision.
The terms of reference of the Independent Commission are as follows:-
A. To DETERMINE:-
1. Whether the allegations against the UCI set out in the Reasoned Decision are well founded.
2. Whether, between 1998 and 2012, the UCI realised that Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team were collaborating to avoid detection in the use, possession, administration and trafficking of performance enhancing drugs and methods, and: (i) if the UCI did realise, whether it failed to respond appropriately; and (ii) if the UCI did not realise, whether it ought to have done so, and what steps (if any) it should have taken to inform itself of the actions of Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team in order to act appropriately.
3. Whether, and if so, to what extent the UCI’s anti-doping policies and procedures between (i) 1998 and 2005 and (ii) 2005 and 2012, were inadequate or were not enforced with sufficient rigour; and if so, whether the UCI was at the time aware, or ought to have been aware, of such inadequacy or lack of enforcement.
4. Whether there was, between 1998 and 2012, any reliable evidence or information in the possession of or known to the UCI regarding allegations or suspicions of doping by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team; and if so, whether there was any failure by the UCI to act appropriately in regard to such information.
5. Whether, when Lance Armstrong returned to racing in 2009, there was a failure by the UCI to detect signs of doping by him, and whether it was appropriate for him to return to and continue racing.
6. Whether payments were made by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team to the UCI, between 1998 and 2012, and if so whether it was appropriate for the UCI to have accepted such payments, or to have accepted them on the basis (explicit or implicit) upon which they were made.
7. Whether the UCI inappropriately discouraged those persons with knowledge of doping by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team from coming forward with such
knowledge, and whether the UCI should have done more to encourage such persons to come forward sooner.
8. Whether the UCI adequately co-operated with, assisted in and reacted to the USADA USPS Team Investigation.
9. Whether any persons previously convicted of doping, or voluntarily admitting to doping, or supporting riders in doping, should be able to work within the world of cycling in the future; and, if not, how such a prohibition could and should be enforced.
10. Whether the UCI had a conflict of interest between its roles in promoting the sport of cycling and in investigating or making adverse findings against Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team.
11. Whether the current doping controls of the UCI are adequate and compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and whether those controls can be improved.
B. To EXAMINE all relevant documents in the control or possession of the UCI or its senior management or employees (or previous employees), including without limitation Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen, Christian Varin, Anne Gripper, Francesca Rossi and Mario Zorzoli, in regard to doping, or suspected doping, by Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team, such documents to include, without limitation:-
1. all external letters, emails, faxes, notes of telephone conversations, spreadsheets, presentations, instant messages, or other external documents whether physical
or electronic; and
2. all internal records (including financial records, scientific data and laboratory test results), emails, faxes, diary entries, notes of telephone conversations, records of internal meetings, memoranda, bank and computer records, spreadsheets, presentations, instant messages, or other internal documents whether physical or electronic, and to draw conclusions from such documents.
C. AND to make RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

[Orbytal]

I can see the confusion although it was crystal clear at the time of writing, in MY Head! lol.
Apology for any confusion.
My last paragraph was referencing the Reform Group with Kimmage and Co who may well have some brilliant ideas but are going ahead getting commitments from people for reform etc. but no details what their primary change is, secondary, etc. How they will manage change, who will be employed, how it shall be sustained and the most important issue how it shall be funded.
That led to my reference of blank paper and Business Loan as you need a fully detailed and costed Plan to achieve that, especially this day and age.

On the UCI Review Committee agenda this is quite extensive however those appointed will not be shy, in my opinion, in extending it into areas they see as being relevant and wont shy away from any of the issues.
I suspect they will make comments on USADA Report itself outwith the Agenda which I feel is part of UCI engineering with the outlined Agenda that has been issued.

It looks like a very interesting Event/Project and the findings will make some happy and shock others.
WADA absence for me is blindingly noticeable but I believe appropriate in this matter and this is being viewed as CAS choice so they should not complain but we shall see.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I apologise if this is slightly off-topic but I was very surprised to see how very Anglo-Saxon the trio appointed to look into LA's dealings with the UCI are. I've absolutely no reason to doubt their integrity but isn't 2 Brits and an Aussie (with British law qualifications) appointed by another Aussie a strangely narrow choice for an international organisation?