UCI to seek to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission ...

Beasty · 26-01-2013 02:23AM #1

Details here

Not surprising given the pressure they have been under to do this, and in particular the problems they have had agreeing the terms of reference for the Independent Commission. I thought this had been the main stumbling block preventing the Commission getting on with its work, with members of the Commission and WADA insisting this was the way forward.

The UCI will seek to jointly develop with WADA the legal framework for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including providing for an amnesty programme. The UCI will share a first draft of this framework with WADA no later than Monday. The aim will be to announce the final format of the Commission around the end of March. The amnesty programme will need to be approved by the WADA Foundation Board.

The fact that WADA need to approve it is positive, but I guess that begs the question as to whether the UCI will actually come up with something that is acceptable to WADA. Hopefully so, then maybe we can start seeing a glint of light at the end of this tunnel, or am I being overly optimistic?

ashleey · 26-01-2013 10:17AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9828392/Team-Skys-Dave-Brailsford-angered-by-UCI-plan-to-offer-amnesty-to-doping-whistle-blowers.html

Overly optimistic I believe. It seems that PMQ is being accused of trying to drag this out. Maybe he has been taking lessons from the Quinns? 'I have no record of that Russian company' type thing.

Beasty · 26-01-2013 10:41AM

So it looks to me as if McQuaid originally tried to take the credit for setting up the "Independent" Commission. That Commission wanted to act "independently", which the UCI didn't like - they were particularly keen to set the agenda and the Commission members felt the UCI were putting obstacles in their way.

Now McQuaid wants to close down the "Independent" Commission, in return for agreeing to setting up the "Truth and Reconciliation" Commission! I'm sure he will then say this was all his own idea

I think you're right ashleey - nothing seems to change with the UCI, and in particular McQuaid who seems to be doing everything he can to make the whole process drag out, presumably in the hope that his claims to be doing something get him re-elected. I'm sure he will claim full credit for this "initiative" in his election campaign.

Having said that, I'm in favour of a properly constituted Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It should not be a matter of complete amnesties for everyone though. Anyone fully co-operating should be offered reduced penalties but that does not mean they should all be given a completely clean slate. I could live with 8 years for Armstrong (possibly a bit less) if he came completely clean (and that would be 8 years from October 2012, not 2005:rolleyes:) - let him do his Ironmans and Chicago Marathons when he turns 50 - can't imagine he'd be competitive without the drugs anyway ...

ashleey · 26-01-2013 11:08AM

I think David Walsh gave some insight into Lance's and/or his lawyers way of thinking last night: cut deals all over the place to cling onto his wealth and avoid having to pay back his libel monies in return for exclusives. This could be good for Lance and good for cycling as David Walsh, for example, wants to expose the whole racket and not just get at LA. Hopefully, this will get going before PMQ gets a chance to get himself and others off the hook by agreeing to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that could have the effect of limiting any potential sanctions on him and others. Or am I being too cynical of PMQ and his real intentions?

I also feel that I am coming to this McQuaid thing a bit late as I am not from Ireland and although I always cycled I've only got 'into' the sport in later years. If you look at PMQ's behaviour now (suing Kimmage etc.!, obfuscation of the highest order) you cannot see him as a good leader of the sport, <mod snip>. I know the blood passport idea has been excellent but it just seems that everything done by the UCI is to preserve their own rule. I am with Greg Lemond on this now and it seems that a breakaway organisation could run pro cycling but the risk is that it turns into boxing with several different organisations and belts.

happytramp · 26-01-2013 12:19PM

I'm not fully acquainted with the intricacies of the matter but why exactly are the UCI so reluctant to hand over testing in the sport to a third party? Surely in the wake of the scandal around the accepting of monies from those it's supposed to be testing they must realise the massive conflict of interest. Let Pat McQuaid keep his job if he must (assuming he wasn't complicit in covering up positive tests) promoting the sport worldwide etc but let an independent party police it.

ashleey · 26-01-2013 12:49PM

Unfortunately it goes too deep. At the time there was a vested interest to keep doping out of the headlines as the money would have dried up and there wasn't as much in it as now. They failed at that, the money in the sport was lower than it could have been, and what was there tended to stay in a golden circle (sound familiar). Read Paul Kimmage to see how little was available outside the grand tours. Now this circle don't want to be exposed. It's not just PMQ and LA.

tfrancer · 26-01-2013 01:39PM

Beasty wrote: »

So it looks to me as if McQuaid originally tried to take the credit for setting up the "Independent" Commission. That Commission wanted to act "independently", which the UCI didn't like - they were particularly keen to set the agenda and the Commission members felt the UCI were putting obstacles in their way.

Now McQuaid wants to close down the "Independent" Commission, in return for agreeing to setting up the "Truth and Reconciliation" Commission! I'm sure he will then say this was all his own idea

I think you're right ashleey - nothing seems to change with the UCI, and in particular McQuaid who seems to be doing everything he can to make the whole process drag out, presumably in the hope that his claims to be doing something get him re-elected. I'm sure he will claim full credit for this "initiative" in his election campaign.

Having said that, I'm in favour of a properly constituted Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It should not be a matter of complete amnesties for everyone though. Anyone fully co-operating should be offered reduced penalties but that does not mean they should all be given a completely clean slate. I could live with 8 years for Armstrong (possibly a bit less) if he came completely clean (and that would be 8 years from October 2012, not 2005:rolleyes:) - let him do his Ironmans and Chicago Marathons when he turns 50 - can't imagine he'd be competitive without the drugs anyway ...

Yes, those "confessing" should get joke off-season bans like Levi Leipheimer and others got after spilling the beans on Armstrong.

M cebee · 26-01-2013 01:48PM

pat mcquaid was a member of WADA’s Executive Committee until recently

two sides of the same coin

Beasty · 26-01-2013 02:43PM

Allegations of curruption are no different from doping allegations so far as Boards is concerned, so can we please move away from such discussions in this thread.

Thanks

Beasty

Edit
I've removed a number of posts and replies quoting them as some of the comments were going beyond what we can allow to be posted. Any questions, PM me

morana · 26-01-2013 06:55PM

its a money thing I think! the UCI arent a rich organisation in fact from Congress I recall they virtually survive on the World RR champs.

fat bloke · 26-01-2013 07:36PM

<ahem> "corruption"

-I'm not sure if allegations of corrupt moderator spelling should be posted in-thread or pm'd....

Dermot Illogical · 28-01-2013 11:07PM

Surprise!!!

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/uci-disbands-armstrong-commission-773324-Jan2013/

Lusk Doyle · 28-01-2013 11:27PM

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Surprise!!!

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/uci-disbands-armstrong-commission-773324-Jan2013/

And we continue to bundle along from one mess to another. A comedy of errors.

Fr D Maugire · 28-01-2013 11:33PM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

And we continue to bundle along from one mess to another. A comedy of errors.

Looks like they are trying to delay thing's so that maybe once things have calmed down again, they can then bury the TRC.

You do wonder what these guys are doing and how the hell they manage to stay in power.

TheBlaaMan · 29-01-2013 12:11AM

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Looks like they are trying to delay thing's so that maybe once things have calmed down again, they can then bury the TRC.

You do wonder what these guys are doing and how the hell they manage to stay in power.

Ok, so call me a naive optimist, but this change appears to bring WADA and USADA back into 'the fold' in terms of their backing for the TRC, so perhaps...perhaps this will actually deliver.

actually, its immediate effect of relieving pressure on Pat and Hein may tell a lot about this reason behind the decision. :mad: While it inevitably delays things though (in UCIs favour), the real problem will be if WADA/USADA drop out of the TRC. This is unlike immediately, but you wouldn't bet against it happening ins a few months.......if that happens, this whole process is worthless and we're back to square one. Where does Change Cycling Now fit into this?

crumliniano · 29-01-2013 04:46PM

This is getting embarrassing

WADA press release

UCIIC Press release

Any hope of the UN sending in a peace envoy I wonder :rolleyes:

Fr D Maugire · 29-01-2013 04:59PM

crumliniano wrote: »

This is getting embarrassing

WADA press release

UCIIC Press release

Any hope of the UN sending in a peace envoy I wonder :rolleyes:

All you have to ask yourself is which of there bodies has got the most to lose by independent investigations and it all makes sense.

UCI are a joke.

mcgratheoin · 29-01-2013 05:08PM

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

Ok, so call me a naive optimist,

Okey doke

, TheBlaaMan - you're a naive optimist...

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

this change appears to bring WADA and USADA back into 'the fold'

not so much

UCI are hoping that the whole process drags on long enough to take the sting out of any further revelations. Uninspiring but unsurprising..

In other news, looks like Bruyneel's promise to co-operate with a Belgian inquiry may not be kept - he's purportedly a no-show for the hearing.

Grischa Niemann says he doped while at Rabobank - no really? :eek: what a shock :rolleyes: - but he stopped in 2003 and will give all information to the relevant bodies.

Lusk Doyle · 30-01-2013 08:56AM

Does the UCI remind anyone of our previous government or is it just me? They (the bosses) are a complete joke at this stage. I'd ask for my money back from CI (the portion that goes to the UCI - if any) only then I couldn't race.

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

ednwireland · 30-01-2013 09:16AM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Does the UCI remind anyone of our previous government or is it just me? They (the bosses) are a complete joke at this stage. I'd ask for my money back from CI (the portion that goes to the UCI - if any) only then I couldn't race.

you would get about 2cents back, i asked ci how much affiliation to the uci is a while back. and yes i was suprised it was so little

Hermy · 30-01-2013 10:05AM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Does the UCI remind anyone of our previous government or is it just me?

Or the current government for that matter.

Beasty · 30-01-2013 10:11AM

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Does the UCI remind anyone of our previous government or is it just me?

Come to think of it Lusk Doyle, you do have certain things in common with a former Health Minister ...

(don't think you're in the same class as Bertie mind:))

Lusk Doyle · 30-01-2013 11:45AM

Beasty wrote: »

Come to think of it Lusk Doyle, you do have certain things in common with a former Health Minister ...

(don't think you're in the same class as Bertie mind:))

Which one?

ashleey · 30-01-2013 11:50AM

I just read the start of this thread and it looks like the fears were correct. PMQ is a master politician. He could drag this out forever. What's the bets on the UCI suspending nominations and elections inSeptember for fear of interfering with the TRC process?

Beasty · 30-01-2013 12:12PM

ashleey wrote: »

What's the bets on the UCI suspending nominations and elections inSeptember for fear of interfering with the TRC process?

I really don't see that happening. It seems to me that in dragging things on like this the tactics have been to sneak back in claiming to have been involved in everything that brought about the T&R Commission and that he needs to be given a chance to see the job through.

Of course, McQuaid does still require a nomination to stand for re-election, and if he asks CI for it that would be the opportunity for us to have our say

RobFowl · 30-01-2013 02:40PM

Beasty wrote: »

I really don't see that happening. It seems to me that in dragging things on like this the tactics have been to sneak back in claiming to have been involved in everything that brought about the T&R Commission and that he needs to be given a chance to see the job through.

Of course, McQuaid does still require a nomination to stand for re-election, and if he asks CI for it that would be the opportunity for us to have our say

And a say we will have.....

(hopefully)

ashleey · 30-01-2013 05:07PM

Beasty wrote: »

I really don't see that happening. It seems to me that in dragging things on like this the tactics have been to sneak back in claiming to have been involved in everything that brought about the T&R Commission and that he needs to be given a chance to see the job through.

Of course, McQuaid does still require a nomination to stand for re-election, and if he asks CI for it that would be the opportunity for us to have our say

I reckon you've got his tactics spot on. The only problem with this is that he is at risk given that WADA and USADA have effectively called him a liar because of the UCI press release that came out yesterday.

In reality, if he is seen as the problem then he must resign now to save cycling from anymore of this, but if he can command support that he is the right man...?

crumliniano · 30-01-2013 05:16PM

I don't think the TRC will ever see the light of day. I reckon WADA and UCI will continue to fall out so spectacularly and petulantly that each will blame the other for the impossibility of a workable all inclusive TRC coming into existance.
LA said in his cyclingnews interview today that cycling may enter a decade of decline as sponsers, etc run from the sport. He may not be far wrong. It's bleak, but the time may now be right for a real breakaway league (something I was against 12 months ago).

leftism · 30-01-2013 05:35PM

crumliniano wrote: »

I don't think the TRC will ever see the light of day. I reckon WADA and UCI will continue to fall out so spectacularly and petulantly that each will blame the other for the impossibility of a workable all inclusive TRC coming into existance.
LA said in his cyclingnews interview today that cycling may enter a decade of decline as sponsers, etc run from the sport. He may not be far wrong. It's bleak, but the time may now be right for a real breakaway league (something I was against 12 months ago).

Are you serious???

This whole debacle is entirely the UCI's fault. Don't drag WADA into it! As was mentioned earlier, what have WADA got to lose from an independent investigation? The UCI have done everything in their power for the last decade to hinder WADA from taking full control of anti-doping in the sport. The previous actions (suing Dick Pound) and public deception Mcquaid demonstrated yesterday highlight that fact.

WADA's statement is clear; the reasons Mcquaid put forward for shutting down the commission are untrue. That is fact! Read their correspondence, which WADA published. So until the UCI can truthfully explain why they shut it down, nothing should be done!

If the UCI were a citizen of the State, they'd have been arrested for perverting the course of justice long ago....

crumliniano · 30-01-2013 06:00PM

leftism wrote: »

Are you serious???

This whole debacle is entirely the UCI's fault. Don't drag WADA into it! As was mentioned earlier, what have WADA got to lose from an independent investigation? The UCI have done everything in their power for the last decade to hinder WADA from taking full control of anti-doping in the sport. The previous actions (suing Dick Pound) and public deception Mcquaid demonstrated yesterday highlight that fact.

WADA's statement is clear; the reasons Mcquaid put forward for shutting down the commission are untrue. That is fact! Read their correspondence, which WADA published. So until the UCI can truthfully explain why they shut it down, nothing should be done!

If the UCI were a citizen of the State, they'd have been arrested for perverting the course of justice long ago....

I'm not saying it's WADA's fault and I'm not for a minute defending the UCI. I'm saying they don't appear to be able to work together, and if they can't I can't see how the TRC will happen.

Fr D Maugire · 30-01-2013 06:23PM

crumliniano wrote: »

I'm not saying it's WADA's fault and I'm not for a minute defending the UCI. I'm saying they don't appear to be able to work together, and if they can't I can't see how the TRC will happen.

Well it's going to be difficult to work with any organisation that is trying to cover its tracks like the UCI. Cycling's governing body has a proven track record of being less than straightforward as they have shown again.

I think if you asked most cycling fans if they would be happy to see WADA or some other organisation take over all matters relating to anti-doping in cycling. 99.9% would be happy to see that happen but the UCI don't want that. Why not?

Sadly much of the momentum that seemed to have been built up over the last few months is being lost again. The independent panel has been disbanded, the Puerto trial is already turning into a farce and Bruyneel failed to show for his meeting with the Belgian authorities and the UCI are still screwing things up.

Sad times.

UCI to seek to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission ...

Comments