UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Talk about competitive road cycling in all its forms
User avatar
Macaloon
Posts: 5503
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:38 am

UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Macaloon » Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:11 pm

Is there any 'hard' evidence that implicates UCI executives in the grand Armstrong doping conspiracy?

I'm not talking about issues like the 'obstruction' of USADA's case, the ridiculous relationship with WADA, accepting gifts from athletes under suspicion (LOL), wildly emotional press releases etc. At a stretch these could be put down to standard governing body incompetence: like the FA. Or that a blind eye was turned to avoid slaying the golden goose. (Inexcusable, but not proof of complicity).

But what about specific incidents where the only possible way a doping violation was avoided required direct UCI involvement. In the current climate it would seem tricky to keep something like this quiet. Similarly if such incidents are known about why are they not forming the main case against the UCI, rather than what might be regarded as 'mere' issues of competence.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.

Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Richmond Racer » Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:23 pm

Nope, no hard evidence at the moment.

User avatar
Slim Boy Fat
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 15:50 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Slim Boy Fat » Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:26 pm

Armstrong, if willing to talk, could provide a wealth of knowledge. I'd say they have to be complicit.

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15986
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby RichN95 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:30 pm

It depends who you mean by 'the UCI'. There's a big difference between Hein Verbruggen and Anne Gripper, for example.

If there was any complicity, I don't think it extended beyond Verbruggen.
Twitter: @RichN95

Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Richmond Racer » Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:31 pm

Indeed, but until Lance coughs up...

And I'm inclined to agree with Rich - I think it centres on the Evil Dutchman

Its very easy to categorise all the badness on the UCI as an organisation. I think it's had and continues to have some decent people there who work hard and want to do the right thing by cycling.
Last edited by Richmond Racer on Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Slim Boy Fat
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 15:50 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Slim Boy Fat » Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:33 pm

RichN95 wrote:It depends who you mean by 'the UCI'. There's a big difference between Hein Verbruggen and Anne Gripper, for example.

If there was any complicity, I don't think it extended beyond Verbruggen.

I'm not sure only one person could weave such a web. Although I do agree about someone like Gripper but surely Verbruggen had a few cronies he could rely on?

User avatar
Jez mon
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 15:07 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Jez mon » Sun Jan 20, 2013 22:45 pm

I think they probably had a fairly good idea about what was going on, for all the riders, not just Lance. For one thing, the constant HCT, levels at almost 50% throughout GTs probably looked suspicious. Then there would be all the gossip around the peloton, that's got to get back to the UCI eventually.

BUT...

What were the UCI meant to do? Even now, in 2012, with all the extra time and effort they have to put into anti-doping, the blood passport may be more of a limit on how much doping riders can get away with, rather than an absolute preventative measure. Back in 1999, they didn't even have a test for EPO! So, I guess the UCI probably knew what was going on, but they knew that they could do little about it, and they knew that Armstrong was a cash cow. Arguably, if Lance hadn't come back, this wouldn't have come out in the open and the UCI's approach would have been fine.
You live and learn. At any rate, you live
Twitter

User avatar
Macaloon
Posts: 5503
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:38 am

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Macaloon » Sun Jan 20, 2013 23:01 pm

Richmond Racer wrote:Indeed, but until Lance coughs up...

And I'm inclined to agree with Rich - I think it centres on the Evil Dutchman

Its very easy to categorise all the badness on the UCI as an organisation. I think it's had and continues to have some decent people there who work hard and want to do the right thing by cycling.


Thanks for responses. I did mean those at the top who have oversight of the entire organisation, rather than specialist professionals like the estimable Ms Gripper.

What is odd about the lone-Verbruggen theory is that it demonstrates an extreme degree of competence strangely invisible at his (former) day job. Hard to believe he could keep anything significant from leaking.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15986
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby RichN95 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 23:07 pm

Slim Boy Fat wrote:
RichN95 wrote:It depends who you mean by 'the UCI'. There's a big difference between Hein Verbruggen and Anne Gripper, for example.

If there was any complicity, I don't think it extended beyond Verbruggen.

I'm not sure only one person could weave such a web. Although I do agree about someone like Gripper but surely Verbruggen had a few cronies he could rely on?


What web is he (or others) supposed to have woven, though? Most of the accusations of wrong doing involve inaction rather than action. Anyone can do inaction on their own - I'm brilliant at it.
Twitter: @RichN95

User avatar
Slim Boy Fat
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 15:50 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Slim Boy Fat » Sun Jan 20, 2013 23:12 pm

RichN95 wrote:
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
RichN95 wrote:It depends who you mean by 'the UCI'. There's a big difference between Hein Verbruggen and Anne Gripper, for example.

If there was any complicity, I don't think it extended beyond Verbruggen.

I'm not sure only one person could weave such a web. Although I do agree about someone like Gripper but surely Verbruggen had a few cronies he could rely on?


What web is he (or others) supposed to have woven, though? Most of the accusations of wrong doing involve inaction rather than action. Anyone can do inaction on their own - I'm brilliant at it.

Just an opinion from what I've read or heard. It wouldn't suprise me to learn that not only did they not act over it but facilitated it as well. I don't profess to 'know' anything and maybe I'm way off the mark. I hope we do get to the truth of it as I think for the sport to truly move forward its necessary.

Tom Butcher
Posts: 7046
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 22:07 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Tom Butcher » Mon Jan 21, 2013 00:44 am

The donation to the UCI seems very suspect. We are supposed to believe that a rider who was doping and whose entire team were doping made a voluntary donation to the UCI to fight doping ? Of course I can't prove the UCI were complicit but it seems very strange that such a self serving individual would make such a large payment without expecting something in return.
------------------------
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.

User avatar
Macaloon
Posts: 5503
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 09:38 am

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Macaloon » Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:16 am

It's a bizarre incident. Like The FA accepting a large consignment of whistles and flags from a referee who is under suspicion for match fixing.

Has it ever been explained? I mean beyond the laughable "Lance and UCI lead battle against dopers. Donation enables purchase of few test tubes and friendly scientists." That such an obvious conflict of interest was deemed acceptable indicates a delusional disregard for opinion outside the bubble.
...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.

User avatar
ddraver
Posts: 17395
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 15:57 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby ddraver » Mon Jan 21, 2013 08:30 am

I'm starting to think it was incompetent, or at most willfull blindness. Lots of banning the neo pro domestique that don't make anyone any money, but not rocking the boat with the big stars. To be honest I think they ve continued to do so, see the Contador case for example.

I think that's why USADA went totally public with the Armstrong case, if they'd done it properly and just sent it to the UCI, they'd have tried to make it disappear, but because we knew precisely what it said!
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver
- Blog-http://davekio.wordpress.com/

meggiedude
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 14:05 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby meggiedude » Mon Jan 21, 2013 09:25 am

ddraver wrote:I'm starting to think it was incompetent, or at most willfull blindness. Lots of banning the neo pro domestique that don't make anyone any money, but not rocking the boat with the big stars. To be honest I think they ve continued to do so, see the Contador case for example.

I think that's why USADA went totally public with the Armstrong case, if they'd done it properly and just sent it to the UCI, they'd have tried to make it disappear, but because we knew precisely what it said!

That's a very good example. The Contador case took an absolute age.
Both he and LA were good for the UCI, whereas a lowly domestique would be quickly dealt with, and hard - so as to show they were doing their job.
Personally I think its a combination of incompetence coupled with certain individuals having their own agenda.
Can I upgrade???

mike6
Posts: 1198
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 19:00 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby mike6 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 09:52 am

Both.

I think the UCI were so keen to "Globalise" cycling, and therefore generate much more money,they could not have there new American star testing positive and being banned. This would have put a big dent in the US cycling market as the Americans would not have had there big hero to follow.

So, they bury the positive tests and the Americans have there hero, and fall in love with the Tour.

Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Richmond Racer » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:08 am

One thing for which the UCI do have to be commended is the intro of the biological passport - first sport to do so.

Today reports that the AD arm of the ITF are seriously considering bringing in the bio passport
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/te ... t/1849295/

Players rarely undergo blood tests.

There's been a lot of pressure building up around tennis. Frankly watching yet another mammoth 5-hour match like yday's Djokovic v Wawrinka where the players are running just as fast and hitting the ball just as hard at the end as in the first set, doesnt help to dispel doubts.

User avatar
GeorgeShaw
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:55 am

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby GeorgeShaw » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:49 am

Richmond Racer wrote:One thing for which the UCI do have to be commended is the intro of the biological passport - first sport to do so.

Today reports that the AD arm of the ITF are seriously considering bringing in the bio passport
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/te ... t/1849295/

Players rarely undergo blood tests.

There's been a lot of pressure building up around tennis. Frankly watching yet another mammoth 5-hour match like yday's Djokovic v Wawrinka where the players are running just as fast and hitting the ball just as hard at the end as in the first set, doesnt help to dispel doubts.


Djokovic not tested for 6-7 months: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 56877.html

RowCycle
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 12:01 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby RowCycle » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:53 pm

Jez mon wrote:Arguably, if Lance hadn't come back, this wouldn't have come out in the open and the UCI's approach would have been fine.


I've heard this a couple of times but haven't understood why yet?


On another topic, the comment of donating to the UCI to help anti-doping I think is a clever move by Armstrong. By making a donation he can get an idea of what anti-doping testing is going to be in the future. He can have a nice chat about anti-doping, current tactics, visit a lab or two.

I reckon Lance was shrewd, and the UCI were niave - thinking Lance as going to help them sort out this mess with the donation, when he was using it for his own benefits.

User avatar
ddraver
Posts: 17395
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 15:57 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby ddraver » Mon Jan 21, 2013 13:00 pm

RowCycle wrote:
Jez mon wrote:Arguably, if Lance hadn't come back, this wouldn't have come out in the open and the UCI's approach would have been fine.


I've heard this a couple of times but haven't understood why yet?


Think a lot of people viewed it as another fresh start (until Bertie, Rasmussen, Moreni, Vino and such turned up and blew that theory sky high). There were whispers of a new set of young riders with fresh attitudes. The comeback seemed like a massive step back after that

Also, I think when he came back he'd lost a lot of the "power" he'd had, he was no longer the patron, and there were enough people making noise about doping suspicions (as they were then) and the black list had been wiped that people couldnt ignore it
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver
- Blog-http://davekio.wordpress.com/

Richmond Racer
Posts: 8475
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 17:11 pm

Re: UCI: Complicit or Incompetent?

Postby Richmond Racer » Mon Jan 21, 2013 16:42 pm

Cookson backed as contender of Fat Pat is levered out

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/ ... presidency


I've said this a couple of times over the last week

#humblebrag


Return to “Pro Race”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alan Ha Ha, bigcgilmour and 4 guests