Armstrong scandal: UCI to set up independent commission to investigate… UCI

No results between 1998 - 2005 to be reallocated so seven editions of Tour de France to have no winner

by Tony Farrelly   October 26, 2012  

UCI logo on white

The UCI management committee has taken what it describes as "decisive action" in the wake of the Lance Armstrong affair that includes the setting up of an independent commission - whose members will not be nominated by the UCI - to investigate the UCI's conduct during the Armstrong era and to publish recommendations no later than June 2013. The commission will also investigate ways in which those caught for doping can be prevented from working within the sport, including in team entourages.

No victories will be awarded to any riders in the events affected by the affair between 1998 and 2005 and the UCI has suspended its legal action for defamation against the journalist Paul Kimmage, UCI president Pat McQuaid honorary vice president, Hein Verbruggen have also put their cases on hold pending the report of the independent commission.

The decision not to re-assign results from the races affected by Armstrong's conviction for doping and his and his former teammates who admitted doping and also had their results annulled confirms the stance taken by Tour de France organiser ASO with race director Christian Prudhomme having gone on record to say that the Tour should have no winner between 1999 and 2005. It is unlikely though to be universally popular not just with those riders directly affected - and who might have moved up a place or two, but those who think the history books should not be left effectively blank for those years. Addressing the riders the UCI statement says:

"The UCI Management Committee acknowledged that a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period – but that while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places."

That does leave open the question of what happens to the 2009 Tour de France result and whether Bradley Wiggins will be moved up from 4th place to third. Armstrong was disqualifed from the race in light of the USADA revelations and the sanctions that followed, but the UCI has not accepted that Armstrong doped during his Tour comeback race.

When it comes to the question of barring those convicted of doping from taking any further part in the sport the UCI statement is vague - perhaps necessarily so - and it provokes a number of questions:

Do they mean to bar people caught for doping after the commisison's report is implemented?

Would the bar apply to anyone convicted from 2005 onwards, or would it go back to 1999?

And what about those who have been convicted and who have turned into voiciferous anti-doping campaigners - such as David Millar - or those who were never convicted but have admitted doping and have also played a major role in trying to clean up the sport, such as Garmin Sharp boss Jonathan Vaughters? Both Millar and Vaughters, it should be noted, have also been openly critical of the UCI over its handling of the doping issue.

Will the ban apply only to those convicted or will it apply to anyone who admits to having doped in the past?

The UCI and the independent commission will need to answer all those questions and they've got until June 1 next year to do so.

More to follow…

UCI statement:

Quote:
The Management Committee of the International Cycling Union (UCI), meeting in Geneva today, decided a number of critical measures in the wake of the USADA ‘Reasoned Decision’ on Lance Armstrong. The Committee acknowledged that decisive action was needed in response to the report.

With respect to Lance Armstrong and the implications of the USADA sanctions which it endorsed on Monday 22 October, the Management Committee decided not to award victories to any other rider or upgrade other placings in any of the affected events.

The Committee decided to apply this ruling from now on to any competitive sporting results disqualified due to doping for the period from 1998 to 2005, without prejudice to the statute of limitation. The Committee also called on Armstrong and all other affected riders to return the prize money they had received.

The UCI Management Committee acknowledged that a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period – but that while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places.

Second, while the Management Committee expressed confidence that enormous strides had been made in the fight against doping since 2005, in order to ensure that UCI and cycling could move forward with the confidence of all parties, the governing body also decided to establish a fully independent external Commission to look into the various allegations made about UCI relating to the Armstrong affair.

The Committee agreed that part of the independent Commission’s remit would be to find ways to ensure that persons caught for doping were no longer able to take part in the sport, including as part of an entourage.

In the week of 5 November 2012, therefore, the Management Committee will announce which independent sports body will nominate the members of the Commission and, with the UCI Management Committee, agree appropriate terms of reference.
Following this, individual members of the independent Commission will be appointed as soon as possible with a view to their report and recommendations being published no later than 1 June 2013.

Finally, while continuing strongly to maintain the merits of UCI’s case, the Committee decided to seek to suspend the UCI legal action against journalist Paul Kimmage, pending the findings of the independent Commission. UCI President Pat McQuaid and Honorary President Hein Verbruggen who are individual parties to the case will similarly seek to put their cases on hold.

UCI President Pat McQuaid said: “As I said on Monday, UCI is determined to turn around this painful episode in the history of our sport. We will take whatever actions are deemed necessary by the independent Commission and we will put cycling back on track.
“Today, cycling is a completely different sport from what it was in the period 1998-2005. Riders are now subject to the most innovative and effective anti-doping procedures and regulations in sport. Nevertheless, we have listened to the world’s reaction to the Lance Armstrong affair and have taken these additional decisive steps in response to the grave concerns raised.”

35 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

Gkam84 wrote:
They are not giving his title's to anyone else either

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20103406

Recoup the millions and give the money to our future, the kids. I do not want to see the money absorbed in the system because they fucked up. Crying

posted by Seoige [104 posts]
26th October 2012 - 17:56

like this
Like (2)

Sadly Biggins wrote:
"Finally, while continuing strongly to maintain the merits of UCI’s case, the Committee decided to seek to suspend the UCI legal action against journalist Paul Kimmage, pending the findings of the independent Commission. UCI President Pat McQuaid and Honorary President Hein Verbruggen who are individual parties to the case will similarly seek to put their cases on hold."

If it has merit, why don't they continue to pursue it? Has LeMond's file got them rattled??

It is certainly not leMond that bothers them. It is you, I and the millions of other cylists who on this and other forums across the globe have indicated that, we have had enough. What they going to sue us all. We are telling the committee, if you do not roll the heads we as a democratic community will roll them for you by a lack of no confidence vote. And we will vote with our finances! It is amazing how beligerent they can be but they can host and attend the parties on their own. Let's see how smart they are then. Every individual on this site is making a change and they hear us. We started a tr#witter campaign that 6 hours after the launch of the debate on this site went global Wink

posted by Seoige [104 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:03

like this
Like (1)

A huge and heartfelt pat on the back for Paul Kimmage. He is truly a great and principled man, the likes of which we are priviliged to have in our ranks. People may like or dislike his personality, but this is not a personality contest, this is about the future of our sport. He has been bullied by Roche, Sean Kelly, the UCI, Lance Armstrong, you name them, and he has stood up to them all. If I ever meet that man in a pub, I will be buying him a pint, and every fecking last one of us on here should do likewise.

theclaw's picture

posted by theclaw [75 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:03

like this
Like (2)

Seoige wrote:
Recoup the millions and give the money to our future, the kids. I do not want to see the money absorbed in the system because they fucked up. Crying

The TDF money of course all goes back to ASO not the UCI.

Back in August (I think) they said they planned to use the money for youth cycling in France though I can't find our specific story on that right now.

Simon_MacMichael's picture

posted by Simon_MacMichael [7839 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:05

like this
Like (2)

If Mcquaid leaves, who shall we put in his place?

Sean Kelly?

Gotta keep it Irish don't we?

Sir Velo

Raleigh's picture

posted by Raleigh [1728 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:13

like this
Like (4)

you have to to admire their tenacity. It is like they are saying to us, you are minions! We dictate thetime frame. Well sorry to wake you guys at UCI up, we will boycott you until you all go on your bended knees. You put our favourite pastime into disgcrace and not all of us so timid. We want heads to roll or all of your heads even if we do not get satisfaction and accountability. Otherwise financially break you for being complicit in this affair. You are presumptious! If you do not think we count, think again. We are millions of grass root cyclists who fund your endeavours and the teams. You are directly or indirectly through shareholders sponsers etc. Even christ did 40 days in the wilderness ,lets see how you fare.

posted by Seoige [104 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:19

like this
Like (2)

I think sean is too committed to the home front. He has proven himself to be indirectly extremely good at sportives and each year the skt grow and grows. I have an additional five nieces and nephews next year. He just runs everything too perfectly

posted by Seoige [104 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:23

like this
Like (3)

Simon_MacMichael wrote:
Seoige wrote:
Recoup the millions and give the money to our future, the kids. I do not want to see the money absorbed in the system because they fucked up. Crying

The TDF money of course all goes back to ASO not the UCI.

Back in August (I think) they said they planned to use the money for youth cycling in France though I can't find our specific story on that right now.


I think that idea was suggested by the French Cycling Federation.

posted by The Rumpo Kid [590 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:26

like this
Like (2)

I would not give up Sean if they offerred me ten million dollars, I think Greg Le Mond is better suited more wary and familiar with that world therefore better to address it. Put it another way, I would not out snow white amongst a den of theives, I prefer Sindbad the sailor

Big Grin

posted by Seoige [104 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:28

like this
Like (3)

If YOU are NOT a BC member, you have no say in who goes and who stays.
So, do you join and try to vote against (how? - the voting process is by delegates sent from obscure meetings) or does your new membership get taken as an endorsement of their continuing presence?

SO - Perhaps not renew if you are a member, or not join at all.
Unfortunately, because of the hold BC has on racing, the "not renew" option means you can't race because you won't get a licence!

Catch 22 !

Binky

posted by davebinks [123 posts]
26th October 2012 - 18:28

like this
Like (2)

The Rumpo Kid wrote:
I think that idea was suggested by the French Cycling Federation.

Well remembered - explains why I couldn't find it when I was searching in connection with ASO Wink

Here's the story:

http://road.cc/content/news/64891-french-cycling-federation-says-it-view...

Simon_MacMichael's picture

posted by Simon_MacMichael [7839 posts]
26th October 2012 - 19:03

like this
Like (2)

Raleigh wrote:
If Mcquaid leaves, who shall we put in his place?

Sean Kelly?

Gotta keep it Irish don't we?

Lemond would be good. But it will be someone from the "inner sanctums" of the UCI again, hand picked by Fat Pat. Thats only when his tenure is up, as he's not going to forced out.

I think the ASO with the money they are due back from Armstrong should set up their own governing body. Leave the UCI behind Wink

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8645 posts]
26th October 2012 - 19:04

like this
Like (5)

UCI investigating itself - well that's just dandy for Pat and the boys. Same old stuff weeks off the pace - pushed into action rather than leading it and instead of just admitting that pursuing Kimmage is just wrong and self defeating it's another hubris ridden grudging temporary back off.

Sudor

posted by Sudor [179 posts]
26th October 2012 - 20:14

like this
Like (3)

It isn't investigating itself. It will give an independent sporting body the task of putting together a panel to investigate. That is one step removed and is likely a sign that there are *some* good people in the UCI at least.

I'd prefer if they resigned as well as investigated... It will come, have faith.

posted by AlanD [12 posts]
26th October 2012 - 20:32

like this
Like (4)

A huge and heartfelt pat on the back for Paul Kimmage. He is truly a great and principled man, the likes of which we are priviliged to have in our ranks. People may like or dislike his personality, but this is not a personality contest, this is about the future of our sport. He has been bullied by Roche, Sean Kelly, the UCI, Lance Armstrong, you name them, and he has stood up to them all. If I ever meet that man in a pub, I will be buying him a pint, and every fecking last one of us on here should do likewise.

+1

Greg

posted by Sheol [5 posts]
26th October 2012 - 20:33

like this
Like (2)

AlanD wrote:
It isn't investigating itself. It will give an independent sporting body the task of putting together a panel to investigate. That is one step removed and is likely a sign that there are *some* good people in the UCI at least.

I'd prefer if they resigned as well as investigated... It will come, have faith.

I wish i had your faith AlanD. Not sure you can credibly put the word 'independent' in front of a body selected by the very people they're supposed to investigate. Has the same feel to it as the 'voting' process that put Fat Pat into the top job after Hein stepped sideways.

Gotta love the soap opera though. Decisive action at last - we're going to look into our own wrong doing very carefully! We've listened to the world's outrage and we feel disgusted by what LA did...(But the people who grassed up Lance and the rest of us are scumbags!)

hee hee - you couldn't make this up.

posted by Lacticlegs [124 posts]
26th October 2012 - 20:51

like this
Like (0)

Why don't they do a bit of mutual back-scratching and get FIFA to conduct an "independent" investigation and they in turn do one over there? Big Grin One bunch of old duffers shuffling to meet another "nothing to see here, move along!"

Much as I like Kelly as a commentator, he's still too old-school IMO to be suitable for a role in the governance of the sport, likewise Roche - both have had plenty of opportunity to speak-up but the Omerta remains too strong.

Make mine an Italian with Campagnolo on the side

posted by monty dog [358 posts]
26th October 2012 - 20:51

like this
Like (3)

Sean Kelly apartheid supporter and doper for UCI president I think not.

Paul W

posted by PaulVWatts [111 posts]
26th October 2012 - 20:56

like this
Like (0)

Gkam84 wrote:

I think the ASO with the money they are due back from Armstrong should set up their own governing body. Leave the UCI behind Wink

i'm always a bit suprised that they didn't years ago, to be honest. look at the cards they hold:

- Tour de France
- Vuelta
- half the spring classics
- Dauphiné
- plus a bunch of others

plus they're on good terms with RCS who hold:

- Giro d'Italia
- Tirreno-Ardiatico
- Lombardia
- Milan San Remo

That's basically the professional racing season right there. The important bits of it, anyway. reach out to the other WC races and they hold all the good cards. they might not get the tour de suisse, i guess Smile

what are the UCI going to do, say 'we don't recognise your races and they won't count towards your UCI ranking'? who cares? Get IG or CQ to do the new ranking, they're already doing it and theirs are better anyway.

They take over the professional racing season and leave the UCI doing the national/amateur sport and world championships. that'd do me. any takers?

Barry Fry-up's picture

posted by Barry Fry-up [187 posts]
26th October 2012 - 21:27

like this
Like (3)

Agree with Barry Fry up. Tams and sponsors could also walk. This is the only way to deal with UCI - they are incapable of change from within because they have too much invested in the status quo and most if not all are compromised

Pastaman

posted by pastaman [205 posts]
26th October 2012 - 22:38

like this
Like (2)

Gkam84 wrote:

I think the ASO with the money they are due back from Armstrong should set up their own governing body. Leave the UCI behind Wink

Ideally, money shouldn't be the deciding factor but it is a reasonable option. How long it will take to get the cash is anyone's guess.

If the ASO don't get the cash back quickly or if they don't have the balls to break away then the Elite Teams should organise separately and negotiate with the organisers of the 3 grand tours and/or classics. At the very least they should threaten to break away with the intention of doing so if UCI don't play ball. The teams have to do something now while the UCI remains weak. A better time to make substantial changes is unlikely to present itself in the foreseeable future. Someone like Brailsford should grasp the nettle. He has an impeccable reputation and, I would suggest, has the respect of the peloton and many, if not all, pro team entourages.

posted by BigBear63 [69 posts]
26th October 2012 - 22:43

like this
Like (3)

I think I'd make a good pres. for a new cycling governing body.

I know what's what, who's who and how to handle 200 cyclists.

I propose:

1). No doping at all (obvs.)

2). Relaxed laws on equipment design.

3). All races to be broadcast on SKY, increasing revenue.

4). Increased support for grass roots racing in the UK.

5). A new grand tour - Velosport tur po Rossii.

You guys would back me right?

Sir Velo

Raleigh's picture

posted by Raleigh [1728 posts]
26th October 2012 - 23:05

like this
Like (2)

Don't really care about what happens to these two. What happens when a rider is caught or accused and banned what support does he receive. Does he get counselling is his team investigated are the doctors looked at. Why isn't Michelle Ferrarinin jail. We have to look at all the aspects of why and who. Is Italian Cycling going to be honest wher corruption is an art form. Lets start a new world cycling federation which is open honest and transparent. New beginnings new President and a new sporting body to govern this sport I love.

posted by theincrediblebike [41 posts]
27th October 2012 - 1:55

like this
Like (3)

All races on SKY why? Will just become like football. Relaxed laws on equipment might as well ride motor bikes. Think my vote for you is in the bin. Are you Alec Salmond per chance lol. Think about it.

posted by theincrediblebike [41 posts]
27th October 2012 - 2:02

like this
Like (3)

Errrr....all races on Sky and increased support for grass roots ?

Like football you mean ?

posted by Littlesox [89 posts]
27th October 2012 - 6:51

like this
Like (3)

davebinks wrote:
If YOU are NOT a BC member, you have no say in who goes and who stays.
So, do you join and try to vote against (how? - the voting process is by delegates sent from obscure meetings) or does your new membership get taken as an endorsement of their continuing presence?

SO - Perhaps not renew if you are a member, or not join at all.
Unfortunately, because of the hold BC has on racing, the "not renew" option means you can't race because you won't get a licence!

Catch 22 !

It is a dilemna Binky but what should we do? Be like Ostriches and hide our head in the sand. What we do is right here and right now and demand the change. I do not see why we have to suffer for their indiscretions or prolong it till next year. They think they are dictating the timeable because the old foggies think they are not accountable. Out with the old guard and in with the new. They have to be as dumb as fuck to think we cyclists are dumb as fuck.

posted by Seoige [104 posts]
27th October 2012 - 8:11

like this
Like (2)

Barry Fry-up wrote:
Gkam84 wrote:

I think the ASO with the money they are due back from Armstrong should set up their own governing body. Leave the UCI behind Wink

i'm always a bit suprised that they didn't years ago, to be honest. look at the cards they hold:

- Tour de France
- Vuelta
- half the spring classics
- Dauphiné
- plus a bunch of others

plus they're on good terms with RCS who hold:

- Giro d'Italia
- Tirreno-Ardiatico
- Lombardia
- Milan San Remo

That's basically the professional racing season right there. The important bits of it, anyway. reach out to the other WC races and they hold all the good cards. they might not get the tour de suisse, i guess Smile

what are the UCI going to do, say 'we don't recognise your races and they won't count towards your UCI ranking'? who cares? Get IG or CQ to do the new ranking, they're already doing it and theirs are better anyway.

They take over the professional racing season and leave the UCI doing the national/amateur sport and world championships. that'd do me. any takers?

Just like the old days! It would mean of course, that those riders wouldn't be able to ride the Olympics.

posted by izzi green [12 posts]
27th October 2012 - 8:31

like this
Like (1)

I don't understand why they have not withdrawn the suit against Mr Kimmage instead they have suspended it (to me) that's like saying we still think you're guilty but we aren't going to do anything about it just now.
Mind you considering they did nothing about doping when they must have been aware of what was going on Thinking

FATBEGGARONABIKE's picture

posted by FATBEGGARONABIKE [555 posts]
27th October 2012 - 9:17

like this
Like (3)

FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:
I don't understand why they have not withdrawn the suit against Mr Kimmage instead they have suspended it (to me) that's like saying we still think you're guilty but we aren't going to do anything about it just now.
Mind you considering they did nothing about doping when they must have been aware of what was going on Thinking

Can they actually suspend it though? Once its instigated surely they have to apply to the court. Also a libel case has two parties and reading Kimmage's little blast on Twitter I think he may try to insist the case continues. At the least he should have the right to claim damages for the attack on his reputation and costs for spurious litigation.

Paul W

posted by PaulVWatts [111 posts]
27th October 2012 - 21:15

like this
Like (1)

The act of suing for libel is McQuaid's and Verbruggen's as plaintiffs. As such they are in a position to request the case be put on hold, pending this 'independent' commissions findings. I can see that being allowed in a legal context. I suspect that Kimmage as defendant has to work with that, and can't insist that the case proceed in the interim. If he feels that he has a case against them eg defamation of his own character, he could try to counter-sue but that would be a different lawsuit altogether.

posted by Sam1 [212 posts]
28th October 2012 - 4:54

like this
Like (3)