UCI Corrupt

Frigo's Luggage said:

Saw this interesting article about the French Federation president alleging that the UCI is corrupt. The allegations are totally unrelated to doping.

cyclingnews.comnews.phpOpen ↗

I don't know about the allegations. However, McQuaids comments really show me that there is a real attitude problem with the people that run the UCI.

UCI must go.

I don't know Frigo. Pitallier's accusations may have been substantiated with evidence, but the way the article reads, it sounded like more of a mud-sling. There are obviously parties who want to undermine the authority of the UCI. The question is, should UCI be allowed to hold its current authority or should the whole thing be restructured?

In the end, you are going to need some institution to fill the void. I can see Pitallier's point of view if he has hard evidence. I can also see that he may elevate soft evidence to harder evidence just because it fits with what he wants to happen (ie. UCI being discredited/undermined). I can also see McQuaid's point of view. Though I am unsure of how he defines "insubordination".

Unfortunately, the article doesn't give much information on either side. I would like to read more about Pitalliers accusations, certainly any specifics (if there are, otherwise it's just mud slinging). I found the particular wording of Pat's reply intriguing (and I wonder if that is a direct comment or just edited this way):

Quoted post said:

Meanwhile, UCI president Pat McQuaid accused some of the federations of disobedience, and called for greater unity within the cycling family to solve its current problems.

When you read this quote from the article, doesn't it make Pat sound like a mafia boss?

Cobblestones said:

Unfortunately, the article doesn't give much information on either side. I would like to read more about Pitalliers accusations, certainly any specifics (if there are, otherwise it's just mud slinging). I found the particular wording of Pat's reply intriguing (and I wonder if that is a direct comment or just edited this way):

When you read this quote from the article, doesn't it make Pat sound like a mafia boss?

If you picture the UCI as a machiavelian power-monger, then yes. But if you interpret it from the view that some cooperative member federations are executing the UCI's tough stance strategy, and some federations are either not acting after saying they would, or simply turning their backs - then it could be very frustrating for McQuaid. Change in any system requires an across-the-board, cooperative effort.

The question I don't fully understand the answer to is how much authority UCI has over its member Federations? Does anyone here understand the extent of their charter and authority?

Cobblestones said:

When you read this quote from the article, doesn't it make Pat sound like a mafia boss?

You know, I struggled with the original post because I thought the exact same thing. I didn't mention the word "omerta" in the original post because I didn't want this to dgenerate into a d*ping discussion. But it certainly sounds as if he is calling for an omerta among the national federations.

My main problem with the UCI is that they wear too many hats and have too many conflicts of interest. They are the rule makers, organizers, promoters, watchdogs, enforcers, judges and juries. They can't possibly do all of these effectively. Most importantly, they have failed miserably at promoting the sport.

The whole system must be revamped. Either the UCI takes total control and operates the professional part of the sport as a single unit (like Major League Basesball) or the UCI must shed some of its contradictory roles. Its unlikely that the UCI can operate the sport as a single entity because the ASO has the economic power. A UCI program without the Tour, Roubaix and Liege is really just the minor leagues. So, the UCI, and the ProTour, is doomed to fail.

Sorry for the rambling.

Crankyfeet said:

The question I don't fully understand the answer to is how much authority UCI has over its member Federations? Does anyone here understand the extent of their charter and authority?

I don't know the answer for certain and I suspect that it may differ by country. I know that the UCI is the IOC sanctioned governing body for cyling. I know that the USCycling is the US Federation that is sanctioned by the US Olympic Committee. By act of Congress, the USOC is the official US Olympic Organiztion and has a monopoly. So, if you follow the hierarchy, the IOC has significant authority over the USOC which has significant authority over USCycling. IOC's authority is delegated to the UCI. In effect, the UCI can lay down the law. The national federations may put up fight every now and them. However, ultimately, the IOC controls the show because they can deny Olympic participation to the national federations.

This all begs the question as to why the Olympics, which has one road race every four years, controls the 200 days of professional cycling each year.

I can foresee the Grand Tours and other larger oranizers breaking away from the UCI in the near future and forming their own professional cycling league.

Frigo's Luggage said:

I don't know the answer for certain and I suspect that it may differ by country. I know that the UCI is the IOC sanctioned governing body for cyling. I know that the USCycling is the US Federation that is sanctioned by the US Olympic Committee. By act of Congress, the USOC is the official US Olympic Organiztion and has a monopoly. So, if you follow the hierarchy, the IOC has significant authority over the USOC which has significant authority over USCycling. IOC's authority is delegated to the UCI. In effect, the UCI can lay down the law. The national federations may put up fight every now and them. However, ultimately, the IOC controls the show because they can deny Olympic participation to the national federations.

This all begs the question as to why the Olympics, which has one road race every four years, controls the 200 days of professional cycling each year.

I can foresee the Grand Tours and other larger oranizers breaking away from the UCI in the near future and forming their own professional cycling league.

Thanks for the informative description Frigo. If ultimately UCI and member Feds are reporting to the IOC, it explains a lot of the problems IMHO.

Frigo's Luggage said:

This all begs the question as to why the Olympics, which has one road race every four years, controls the 200 days of professional cycling each year.

I can foresee the Grand Tours and other larger oranizers breaking away from the UCI in the near future and forming their own professional cycling league.

In particular since the IOC doesn't have a stellar record with respect to doping-free games as we just learned from M. Jones. Anyway, the topic here isn't doping but corruption. From the little what is written it seems to me that ASO tried to influence/change the ProTour calender, got snubbed by the UCI and is now complaining/mud-slinging through the mouth of Pitallier. What went on there behind closed doors we'll probably never know, which, of course leaves the UCI under suspicion.

I agree with Frigo that the UCI has too many, often conflicting roles, and, in the end, very little leverage if the big organizers such as ASO would decide to pull out. I would think the best for the sport is if the official role of the UCI is reduced to something in proportion with their actual power (maybe setting the general rules of the sport, and promoting the few races which they 'own' such as the Olympics). The watchdog role (in particular running doping tests) should be taken over by a different body, such as WADA; the jurisdiction (especially in doping cases or sporting fraud in general) should be with the national or regional judicial systems (assuming the countries in which races are held have a meaningful anti-doping/anti-sporting-fraud law).

There was some controversy over McQuaid's election to head the UCI. He was hand picked by Verbruggen. Before the election McQuaid moved to Switzerland and was being compensated, which is against UCI rules. Verbruggen presided over the election meeting. There were several lawsuits over the details. The GTs put there own man into the election, but he lost 11 to 31. McQuaid then did nothing to smooth over the fracas that got him elected.

Verbruggen has remained a player behind the scenes. From the GT organizers' point of view, the UCI does not appear to be very democratic. Combine the inability to change the leadership by election with an autocratic ruling style and the UCI is very difficult to get along with.

Bro Deal said:

There was some controversy over McQuaid's election to head the UCI. He was hand picked by Verbruggen. Before the election McQuaid moved to Switzerland and was being compensated, which is against UCI rules. Verbruggen presided over the election meeting. There were several lawsuits over the details. The GTs put there own man into the election, but he lost 11 to 31. McQuaid then did nothing to smooth over the fracas that got him elected.

Verbruggen has remained a player behind the scenes. From the GT organizers' point of view, the UCI does not appear to be very democratic. Combine the inability to change the leadership by election with an autocratic ruling style and the UCI is very difficult to get along with.

Thanks Bro Deal for this information and analysis.

Verbruggen is the corrupt motherfarker who presides over the IOC's Ethics Commision. Installed there by that other altruist-oops sorry, wrong ist, I meant fascist-Juan Samaranch. Laughter or tears, which is the correct response? Maybe just despair. 😠

Bro Deal said:

There was some controversy over McQuaid's election to head the UCI. He was hand picked by Verbruggen. Before the election McQuaid moved to Switzerland and was being compensated, which is against UCI rules. Verbruggen presided over the election meeting. There were several lawsuits over the details. The GTs put there own man into the election, but he lost 11 to 31. McQuaid then did nothing to smooth over the fracas that got him elected.

Verbruggen has remained a player behind the scenes. From the GT organizers' point of view, the UCI does not appear to be very democratic. Combine the inability to change the leadership by election with an autocratic ruling style and the UCI is very difficult to get along with.

Pat was Verbruggens preferred choice as successor.
Moved to Switzerland?
I don't know about that.........he's still got his residence here and he's a frequent attendee at national federation meetings here and he attends races here all the time.

The overall issue of corruption and UCI is interesting though.
Essentially the UCI is a "self regulating" body much like the IAAF etc.
I would dispute the term self regulating....because it seems to me that they're entirely incapable of regulating [FONT=Arial]our sport[/FONT].

Isn't the real problem though, that the tests and the test procedures are so poor that even ordinary people can see the 'evidence chain' is just not there, so 'beyond reasonable doubt' fails, hence people just have no confidence in it. Yet, to hang on to sponsors the associated clubs have to play lip service and say they'll join in.

The problem, as always, is that the UCI is made of of self promoting power seekers that want to rise to a higher station on the food chain and will use the most convenient vehicle to do so.
It doesn't matter who is laid to waste in the collateral damage and the truth is subjective to what plays well with the media.
Otherwise they are a grand bunch of individuals.

U- unscrupulous
C- corrupt
I- individuals

limerickman said:

Moved to Switzerland?
I don't know about that.........he's still got his residence here and he's a frequent attendee at national federation meetings here and he attends races here all the time.

Here's an article about the issue:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=sylvia_schenk05a
Schenk, a Frankfurt attorney, alleges that McQuaid's cost of living in Switzerland has been entirely paid for by the UCI since February 2005, and that it violates Article 52 of the UCI Constitution. "Pat McQuaid obviously lives in Switzerland at the expense of the UCI since February - and Verbruggen doesn't deny that," she said. "So one has to conclude that there is either a contract existing or if there isn't a contract, it represents a by-pass of the Constitution which stipulates that no member of the Management Committee may have a contract with the UCI at the same time."

threaded said:

Isn't the real problem though, that the tests and the test procedures are so poor that even ordinary people can see the 'evidence chain' is just not there, so 'beyond reasonable doubt' fails, hence people just have no confidence in it. Yet, to hang on to sponsors the associated clubs have to play lip service and say they'll join in.

No, that is just the defense of last resort when Americans get busted for doping. They love to allege a French conspiracy spiked their samples, but they never have an answer to (or any evidence) that the lab knew it was their sample that was being tested.

Bro Deal said:

No, that is just the defense of last resort when Americans get busted for doping. They love to allege a French conspiracy spiked their samples, but they never have an answer to (or any evidence) that the lab knew it was their sample that was being tested.

Are you suggesting that they're just using such excuses in trying to weasel out of the charges? Heaven forfend!

Bro Deal said:

Here's an article about the issue:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=sylvia_schenk05a
Schenk, a Frankfurt attorney, alleges that McQuaid's cost of living in Switzerland has been entirely paid for by the UCI since February 2005, and that it violates Article 52 of the UCI Constitution. "Pat McQuaid obviously lives in Switzerland at the expense of the UCI since February - and Verbruggen doesn't deny that," she said. "So one has to conclude that there is either a contract existing or if there isn't a contract, it represents a by-pass of the Constitution which stipulates that no member of the Management Committee may have a contract with the UCI at the same time."

Very interesting.

I wasn't rying to be disingenuous when I said that I didn't know about Switzerland - I didn't (know about Switzerland).
Given the amount of time he spends over here - they must be paying his flights too.

limerickman said:

Very interesting.

I wasn't rying to be disingenuous when I said that I didn't know about Switzerland - I didn't (know about Switzerland).
Given the amount of time he spends over here - they must be paying his flights too.

I don't know if he still has a place in Switzerland. I got the feeling that the UCI was paying for him to learn the ropes of being president long before the election took place. Which makes having an election a bit of a charade.

Bro Deal said:

I don't know if he still has a place in Switzerland. I got the feeling that the UCI was paying for him to learn the ropes of being president long before the election took place. Which makes having an election a bit of a charade.

He had to get proposed by our national federation first for the role of UCI Presidente.................that was a titanic battle let me tell you.
A sizable proportion of us opposed his nomination.

Nice guy......I get on well with him.......he coached me for five years.
A superb coach......and good company.....very affable.

But do I want him as UCI head honcho?
No.
He's Verbruggen part deux.