Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Independent Commission - UCI and Armstrong

Richmond RacerRichmond Racer Posts: 8,561
edited December 2012 in Pro race
The Independent Commission to look into the Armstrong business, has been named by the UCI:

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13403 ... rence.aspx


Sir Philip Otton - former Court of Appeal judge
Malcolm Holmes, QC
Tanni Grey-Thompson


Have to say, after all of 30 seconds thinking about this...this is more promising...lots of people arent going to like this but its just possible that the UCI have played a blinder
«1

Posts

  • Wow, bit of a surprise that. On the face of it seems like you could put a lot of faith in those three to do a good job.
  • Indeed.
  • I hope Tanni Grey Thompson has boned up her cycling knowledge since the Olympics...
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 23,216
    Sugar...Really?

    Wow, they might actually be learning!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • I hope Tanni Grey Thompson has boned up her cycling knowledge since the Olympics...


    Far better that its actually someone with censored all knowledge of the sport, if you ask me. But...at least she's good on a set of wheels :)
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,498
    A judge and a QC the UCI can easily handle. But an opinionated Cardiff woman? They're screwed.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I'm surprised they don't have an accountant
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • CorianderCoriander Posts: 1,326
    Any ideas on why they're all British?
  • Richmond RacerRichmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    edited November 2012
    Coriander wrote:
    Any ideas on why they're all British?


    They're not. Malcolm Holmes is Aussie - he's President of ASADA.
  • CorianderCoriander Posts: 1,326
    Coriander wrote:
    Any ideas on why they're all British?


    They're not. Malcolm Holmes is Aussie.


    Aaah, my bad, I just saw his name and that he was a QC and assumed.
  • LangerDanLangerDan Posts: 6,132
    I can understand the selection of Otton and Holmes, but what is Grey-Thompsons relevant background for this? Has she "previous" with review bodies - looking at her website it seems she's not "legal", medical or ,as Iainf has pointed out, an accountant.

    Just curious.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • LangerDan wrote:
    I can understand the selection of Otton and Holmes, but what is Grey-Thompsons relevant background for this? Has she "previous" with review bodies - looking at her website it seems she's not "legal", medical or ,as Iainf has pointed out, an accountant.

    Just curious.
    A top class athlete in the past and will have lots of dealings with all parties who are involved in a sport?
  • LangerDan wrote:
    I can understand the selection of Otton and Holmes, but what is Grey-Thompsons relevant background for this? Has she "previous" with review bodies - looking at her website it seems she's not "legal", medical or ,as Iainf has pointed out, an accountant.

    Just curious.
    A top class athlete in the past and will have lots of dealings with all parties who are involved in a sport?

    She's also been involved in a lot of different review aspects of sport including anti-doping, over the years since retiring from competition. For example in 2009 UKA published the recommendations from a 6 month anti-doping review she conducted (with panel) - and which they implemented.

    http://www.uka.org.uk/governance/anti-doping-review/
  • LangerDan wrote:
    I can understand the selection of Otton and Holmes, but what is Grey-Thompsons relevant background for this? Has she "previous" with review bodies - looking at her website it seems she's not "legal", medical or ,as Iainf has pointed out, an accountant.

    Just curious.
    A top class athlete in the past and will have lots of dealings with all parties who are involved in a sport?
    Agreed. An athlete who has not doped and is anti-doping makes sense in a tri-partate arrangement. Other than the Lord God Chris Boardman I can't think of anyone better. :lol:
  • nathancomnathancom Posts: 1,567
    Holmes and Otton both work out of the same chambers specialising in Arbitration and Mediation. Not sure why this expertise has been chosen to investigate corp governance.

    It suggests they are looking more at reconciliation of all interested parties, less at reform of the current structures in place.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    We need to ask ourselves what the aim of this thing is - It's not really an anti-doping discussion, it's more to look at the UCI's role in the whole thing. In the reasoned decision, the UCI didn't actually come out of it that badly. Probably because there wasn't a whole lot of concrete stuff other than "Lance told Tyler he paid off the UCI". But all that proves is Lance said he did it and it's not like he's got a great track record for being straight.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • nathancom wrote:
    Holmes and Otton both work out of the same chambers specialising in Arbitration and Mediation. Not sure why this expertise has been chosen to investigate corp governance.

    It suggests they are looking more at reconciliation of all interested parties, less at reform of the current structures in place.


    Not necessarily so. Just because they have an area of legal specialism in arbitration doesnt mean that the approach is getting all parties in a room together and looking for everyone to play nicely going forward.

    The 3 of them including TG-T have drafted their Terms of Reference, and their mandate is to deliver against them. The general theme of the TOR is review, conclude and produce recommendations.
  • rebsrebs Posts: 891
    I'm more interested in the grounds of the exact breif they will be given by the UCI. It's entirerly possible that it is independent. Especially if certainly topics or avenue of where things could lead to are out of bounds.

    I'm still fairly cynical of the results or impact this will actually have.
  • rebs wrote:
    I'm still fairly cynical of the results or impact this will actually have.
    There's plenty of time for documents to be shredded and emails to be deleted.
    Is the gorilla tired yet?
  • There's been plenty of time since the very beginning. You think Verbruggen's kept any documentary correspondence - if any ever existed, that is - re covering up that failed test of Armstrong's in 2001? No one's running around in Aigle maniacally shredding docs now. Basically I can see a lot of things being done verbally - face-to-face, over the phone, nice long lunch, a nod and a wink.

    The panel will have to use other types of evidence to review accusations against collusion and cover-ups, I suspect. As with USADA, corroborating witness statements would be key, perhaps.
  • iainf72 wrote:
    We need to ask ourselves what the aim of this thing is - It's not really an anti-doping discussion, it's more to look at the UCI's role in the whole thing. In the reasoned decision, the UCI didn't actually come out of it that badly. Probably because there wasn't a whole lot of concrete stuff other than "Lance told Tyler he paid off the UCI". But all that proves is Lance said he did it and it's not like he's got a great track record for being straight.

    Yup, what is the brief for these people? The UCI could use this panel to side step the issues that might hurt and come out of this all OK.

    Edit: Ill answer that for myself!

    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.
    INDEPENDENT COMMISSION
    TERMS OF REFERENCE
    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
  • Some game of chess
  • iainf72 wrote:
    I'm surprised they don't have an accountant


    Apparently they will have an accountant 'working' for/with them
  • MrTapirMrTapir Posts: 1,206
    Baroness Grey-Thompson is a cross-bench life peer in the House of Lords so politically she may have some clout.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    MrTapir wrote:
    Baroness Grey-Thompson is a cross-bench life peer in the House of Lords so politically she may have some clout.

    Yes, I'm sure that will come in handy for a sport run out of Switzerland, dealing with something that has come about because of an American / Spanish / Italian doping scandal.

    :P
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,192
    The terms of reference (posted above) can be found here: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... I&LangId=1

    Personally, I think they're a little too narrow (focus on USPS) with a couple of googlies thrown in for good measure (are our controls good enough?, should ex-dopers be allowed in management?). The second of those is a highly specific policy question that is an absolute minefield to navigate and is unlikely to be resolved in any way that will be satisfactory to all. Attempting to determine policy is a poisoned chalice for them.

    I'd have liked the commission to have examined the processes and structures of the UCI in order to ensure an organisation that was open, transparent, democratic and fit for purpose.

    Several posters here have pointed out that the "get rid of Pat" campaign is misguided, because we could get someone even worse in his place. I'd have been more interested in the panel examining how to make sure that even if a complete gangster got the UCI presidency then he couldn't have perverted its processes.

    I'll confidently predict that the report will come back with no concrete proof of corruption, but a list of questionable decisions by UCI members that will be able to be written off as naivety, poor PR, bad advice etc. They'll recommend putting some distance between the UCI and doping control to make sure control can be seen to be being done properly, but without saying that it hasn't been done properly. They'll praise the UCI for the ambition of its anti-doping stance (blood passport etc.) but will tell them the delivery needs improvement. They'll make a bodge job of the ex-dopers in management question that nobody will be happy with.

    In short, the UCI will get a rap on the knuckles for complacency and incompetence, but will be absolved of any actual wrongdoing. End of term report "must do better".

    This isn't a criticism of the panel, but of the TOR.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • The terms of reference (posted above) can be found here: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... I&LangId=1

    Personally, I think they're a little too narrow (focus on USPS) with a couple of googlies thrown in for good measure (are our controls good enough?, should ex-dopers be allowed in management?). The second of those is a highly specific policy question that is an absolute minefield to navigate and is unlikely to be resolved in any way that will be satisfactory to all. Attempting to determine policy is a poisoned chalice for them.

    I'd have liked the commission to have examined the processes and structures of the UCI in order to ensure an organisation that was open, transparent, democratic and fit for purpose.

    Several posters here have pointed out that the "get rid of Pat" campaign is misguided, because we could get someone even worse in his place. I'd have been more interested in the panel examining how to make sure that even if a complete gangster got the UCI presidency then he couldn't have perverted its processes.

    I'll confidently predict that the report will come back with no concrete proof of corruption, but a list of questionable decisions by UCI members that will be able to be written off as naivety, poor PR, bad advice etc. They'll recommend putting some distance between the UCI and doping control to make sure control can be seen to be being done properly, but without saying that it hasn't been done properly. They'll praise the UCI for the ambition of its anti-doping stance (blood passport etc.) but will tell them the delivery needs improvement. They'll make a bodge job of the ex-dopers in management question that nobody will be happy with.

    In short, the UCI will get a rap on the knuckles for complacency and incompetence, but will be absolved of any actual wrongdoing. End of term report "must do better".

    This isn't a criticism of the panel, but of the TOR.

    Thats a pretty insightful post and I agree totally. I think the UCI realises that to maintain its current lifestyle, it needs to off load the responsibility/control of anti doping. This panel should do that for them. Its hard to see the UCI ignoring what's to come out of this but it will survive I think pretty much as you say.

    This morning, the Baroness said the panel starts its work in January for 6 months. I think it should not make any announcements before the Tour. Clearly it will and clearly as usual, 'it' (doping discussion) will dominate the Tour PR. Lets hope for a clean Tour.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Nick Fitt wrote:

    Thats a pretty insightful post and I agree totally. I think the UCI realises that to maintain its current lifestyle, it needs to off load the responsibility/control of anti doping. This panel should do that for them. Its hard to see the UCI ignoring what's to come out of this but it will survive I think pretty much as you say.

    The problem with that is, you can't actually do it under the WADA code. So while it might be desirable, it's not something that can be achieved.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,192
    iainf72 wrote:
    Nick Fitt wrote:

    Thats a pretty insightful post and I agree totally. I think the UCI realises that to maintain its current lifestyle, it needs to off load the responsibility/control of anti doping. This panel should do that for them. Its hard to see the UCI ignoring what's to come out of this but it will survive I think pretty much as you say.

    The problem with that is, you can't actually do it under the WADA code. So while it might be desirable, it's not something that can be achieved.

    While you're technically correct (I'm led to believe, can't put my finger on the exact paragraph of the code) it would probably be possible to outsource doping control and results management to an external service while maintaining direct responsibility. I doubt WADA would actually object, more likely they'd see it as a possible model to deal exactly this sort of conflict of interest that we have now. I imagine they'd happily rewrite the code to accommodate it, if it wasn't already technically possible, probably rubbing their hands at the thought of jobs for the boys while they do so.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784

    While you're technically correct (I'm led to believe, can't put my finger on the exact paragraph of the code) it would probably be possible to outsource doping control and results management to an external service while maintaining direct responsibility. I doubt WADA would actually object, more likely they'd see it as a possible model to deal exactly this sort of conflict of interest that we have now. I imagine they'd happily rewrite the code to accommodate it, if it wasn't already technically possible, probably rubbing their hands at the thought of jobs for the boys while they do so.

    i know its not possible because either Howman or Fahey explained why not in an interview. I will try find the link
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
Sign In or Register to comment.