Katusha - WTF !!!!

nathancom

RichN95 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

My guess is that Igor Makarov was told that he had to choose between cycling administration or team ownership and failed to sufficiently comply.

On one hand he owns Katusha, Rusvelo and the Itera team. On the other he is President of the Russian Federation, a member of the UCI management committee. He was also UEC Chairman, but stepped down last month, getting his puppet Tchmil elected (by becoming their main sponsor).

He's the very definition of conflict of interest, and he probably needed to be curtailed a little bit.

Taking out Katusha from the top division of cycling is a rather cack-handed way to achieve this though. If I was in the position of a potential sponsor looking to come into this sport the dismissal of the most successful team from the top tier might make me question the sanity of the governing body.

Fair enough, Katusha might not be a shining bastion of clean cycling. But a fair few teams aren't.

It may be cack handed to you, but it's an effective way of doing it. Makarov has his fingers in to many pies to be healthy and if threatening him with the loss of the licence is a way to force him to drop some, then so he it. Good move.

To use another football analogy, if the owner of Manchester United (and Preston and Oldham) was also Chairman of the FA, a vice President of FIFa and the main sponsor of UEFA, everyone would call foul and expect something to be done.

Well to follow the football analogy you wouldn't just relegate Man U without following any regulations. You would make sure rules existed within football gov bodies to regulate ownership with set sanctions for breaking the rules and then act on those sanctions in a transparent manner. All this move does is emphasise the mafia-style nature of cycling politics which can hardly be good for the sport in the long term.

RichN95.

Some of you might like to read rules 2.15.052-053 , bearing in mind the common ownership of Katusha and Rusvelo

iainf72

It appears they didn't comply with the financial requirements

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

It appears they didn't comply with the financial requirements

Did E&Y turn up money-laundering?

LangerDan

Astana fell at this hurdle in the past too.

ad_snow

iainf72 wrote:

It appears they didn't comply with the financial requirements

Source?

No_Ta_Doctor

While I'm not fan of Katusha and recognise the decision to drop them may well have been right, the announcement does little to enhance the credibility of the UCI. In the days while we wait for a reasoned decision (and Katusha do too) we'll have loads of speculation, at least some of which will involve Machiavelian power games from McQuaid.

If they've got reasons they should have at least made Katusha aware of them and told us at the bare minimum which criterion they failed under. As it is it looks like they're giving themselves a couple of days to manufacture some.

Right or wrong, this isn't how you run a credible organisation.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

If they've got reasons they should have at least made Katusha aware of them and told us at the bare minimum which criterion they failed under. As it is it looks like they're giving themselves a couple of days to manufacture some.

I expect the top management at Katusha know exactly what the problem is, and have done for some time.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

If they've got reasons they should have at least made Katusha aware of them and told us at the bare minimum which criterion they failed under. As it is it looks like they're giving themselves a couple of days to manufacture some.

I expect the top management at Katusha know exactly what the problem is, and have done for some time.

It still needs to be communicated officially. Otherwise it looks like a whim. To admit you haven't even told them why yet is ridiculous - even if they know already. It follows the usual UCI pattern of making a contentious decision without telling anyone how it was made, who made it, when and under what regulations. It's why McQuaid has gotten into all this bother - because we cant actually trust that the correct regulations and procedures are being followed and strongly suspect it's Pat and his cronies making it up as they go along.

ddraver

ad_snow wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

It appears they didn't comply with the financial requirements

Source?

You ve not met Iain before have you...

frenchfighter

Got to love that Katusha statement. Straight out of Russia.

phreak

Bet Ben Swift is gutted.

blazing_saddles

Somehow, I just don't see it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -Tour.html

Richmond Racer

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Somehow, I just don't see it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -Tour.html

Me neither. They've go the money and the spot - to my reckoning they're currently at 27 riders, unless they're lining up a stagaire (do they count?), and with 3 neo pros next season could take that number to 30 (bring over Moreno?).

But they'd end up with a seriously over-packed squad of GT guys - and a very hacked off set of riders e.g. Uran and Porte just for starters next year.

Jez mon

Surely there are a few teams who have a bit of spare cash and could do with a top class rider? Sky have the money but have no need.

Richmond Racer

Jez mon wrote:

Surely there are a few teams who have a bit of spare cash and could do with a top class rider? Sky have the money but have no need.

I suspect Purito's salary would be a little more than a bit of spare cash. AND I think he'd want to try to take at least 1 or 2 of his guys with him e.g. Moreno.

Jez mon

Richmond Racer wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Surely there are a few teams who have a bit of spare cash and could do with a top class rider? Sky have the money but have no need.

I suspect Purito's salary would be a little more than a bit of spare cash. AND I think he'd want to try to take at least 1 or 2 of his guys with him e.g. Moreno.

I guess so, and I guess race organisers are probably going to want Purito at most of the races he wants to ride

LeicesterLad

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Somehow, I just don't see it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -Tour.html

Brendan Gallagher Is full of sh*t.

Also, taking on J-Rod wouldn't exactly enhance Sky's anti-doping credentials. OK so J-Rod never been caught, but he's Spanish, Rides for Katusha, Went from being a decent puncheur to riding everyone off his wheel on 26% 12km climbs in the space of a season and not only that, two of the people he rode away from every single day in the high mountains were - according to most on here - most likely juiced to the nines, which by that logic means J-Rod was too.

RichN95.

LeicesterLad wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Somehow, I just don't see it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -Tour.html

Brendan Gallagher Is full of sh*t.

Also, taking on J-Rod wouldn't exactly enhance Sky's anti-doping credentials. OK so J-Rod never been caught, but he's Spanish, Rides for Katusha, Went from being a decent puncheur to riding everyone off his wheel on 26% 12km climbs in the space of a season and not only that, two of the people he rode away from every single day in the high mountains were - according to most on here - most likely juiced to the nines, which by that logic means J-Rod was too.

Any improvement Rodriguez has had is surely mostly down to being the main team leader rather than the chief domestique. He had plenty of good results before Katusha and has long been one of the best on 20% ramps.
If he's doping now, he was doping before. I doubt someone who has been through teams he has would be clean and then suddenly start doping at the age of 30.

andy_wrx

I'm amused at the hard time Fat Pat and the UCI initially gave USADA over the Lance decision, demanding to see the evidence immediately, etc, then they go and do this themselves without disclosing any reasons

Richmond Racer

Katusha claim they have the support of almost 5m people* and that Pussy Riot are being released to sign an anti-UCI protest song in the Kremlin**

Option 1: one of those statements is made up
Option 2: both of those statements are made up

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13497 ... cence.aspx

rozzer32

They are now taking it to CAS. This could get messy.

iainf72

UCI have sent Katusha their "reasoned decision"

Katusha says they covered everything in November

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

UCI have sent Katusha their "reasoned decision"

Katusha says they covered everything in November

Luckily they're only going to use "civilized means" to right the wrong. Which is comforting.

Richmond Racer

@inrng: Italy's @Gazzetta_it says Katusha's licence rejected over ethical issues such as numerous positive doping tests, judicial investigations etc

ddraver

No tA Doctor wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

UCI have sent Katusha their "reasoned decision"

Katusha says they covered everything in November

Luckily they're only going to use "civilized means" to right the wrong. Which is comforting.

Pat's bodyguard just breathed a huge sigh of relief...

iainf72

Does anyone know who sits on the commission that decides? Theyre effectively independent with Ernst and Young providing some of the audit function, but who are the others?

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

Does anyone know who sits on the commission that decides? Theyre effectively independent with Ernst and Young providing some of the audit function, but who are the others?

Courtesy of INRNG: '... It’s run by Paolo Franz, Hans Hoehener, André Hurter and Pierre Zappelli – all Swiss. These are not small time bureaucrats, Zappelli is a judge and member of the Switzerland’s Supreme Court whilst Hurter is the boss of a Swiss energy and water utility. They are tasked with reviewing all the applications and the idea is to keep them away from the other parts of the UCI so that the Licence Commission can be neutral. Does it work? Who knows but the point to note is that the Licence Commission is not President McQuaid and his pals. The Licence Commmission then works with Ernst and Young, a firm of accountants, to review the documents submitted, especially the financial ones.'

Richmond Racer

aaaaaand here we go

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/12/ ... nub_269470

nathancom

The reasons seem sound, but the method is appalling. Why are they given any sort of licence if the ethical failures are deemed great enough? Why isn't there a clear set of sanctions for each infringement? There hasn't really been a satisfactory process followed whoever is in place on the panel.

It would be like the government confiscating the property of drug dealers and putting them on work placement schemes without any trial or legal procedure.