Look at the timing , same treatment that is handed out to those Athletes being sanctioned , " Delayed justice ", is NOT Justice "! WE , the Cycling Fans are being treated as irrevelant ? UCI has realised that they are in the middle of a crisis , so instead of acting to regain the initiative they serve up platitudes .
First off , this mysterious " Hot line telephone service " , good way to tell anyone that they are costing the UCI money by using this facility , since they do not really want to hear about " Doping / PED usage ", evidenced by the stream of past and present Cycle Racers that report their failed efforts to convince UCI that there was a " Doping Problem " in the past generation . YES , a generation has passed without constructive action , to solve the problem of the current crop of PED products !
Whilst there is little time left before the 2012 season ends , what with most people wishing to enjoy the Festive Season , there is a Major Problem at the UCI that cannot be deferred until 2013 , lack of confidence / respect for those at the helm ! Of course nobody wishes to be out of work over the festive season BUT those currently leading the UCI are being handsomely paid , but doing little to justify those rewards ! When do the membership fees payable to UCI have to be remitted ? Many members are suggesting that " ALL " should withhold the 2013 Membership Fees as a way of demonstrating their frustration with the " Leadership of the UCI "! Great suggestion that would work elsewhere , but , as the Amateur and Professional Racers think of the UCI as their " Union " , there is thus no alternative , unless they take the year off ?
With the Announcement on Friday of the " Commission " , UCI fulfilled yet another " promise " of action made in the wake of the USADA Reasoned Report . How John Coates scored the guernsey of suggesting candidates for the Commission to the UCI , has not been adequately explained , but as a NOC Member from Australia with hefty credentials he has done the job . There were 3 candidates announced on Friday that appear to be above reproach , judging by the information available from WIKI !
Excellent career credentials that show that he will stick to the job in hand !
Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson , well known Paralympic Athlete , with FORTHRIGHT Views on " Doping " will be an asset to this Panel . Her credentials are such that entering " tanni " brought her name to the top of the google list : here is a short synopsis of her background :Carys Davina "Tanni" Grey-Thompson, Baroness Grey-Thompson, DBE is a Welsh former wheelchair racer and currently is a parliamentarian and television presenter. Grey-Thompson was born with spina bifida and uses a wheelchair. Wikipedia :
Born: July 26, 1969 (age 43), Cardiff
Spouse: Ian Thompson (m. 1999)
As well known as she is in the U.K. , she appears to suffer the fate of so many of the " Adaptive Population "!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9165540/Tanni-Grey-Thompson-I-was-forced-to-crawl-off-train.html#
The third member of this Panel is Malcolm Holmes , an australian with chambers in London and Sydney :
Sydney Chambers Website info :
.jpg)
http://www.elevenwentworth.com.au/areas-of-practice/?sid=10ALL panel members will do a superb job , BUT , will the " Terms of Reference " Allow this ?
" Full terms of reference of the independent commission can be seen below. "
Quote:
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.
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, and to draw conclusions from such documents.
C. AND to make RECOMMENDATIONS.
As i am a Novice , i am unable to determine the outcome of Item " C "!
Rest assured that phat is currently polishing his " Halo "!
OUT OF THE BLUE comes a comment from a well known racer , Sandy Casar :
“What shocked me the most was to discover to what extent Armstrong and his teammates were perhaps protected by the powers that be,” he said. “I find that more serious than the cheating in itself. Frankly, you can see that at the UCI, they did the minimum to try to stop him. Cycling has lost all its credibility. Whether you’re honest or not, nobody believes in us anymore.”
Tanni will understand his frustration , wish she and the Panel had the teeth to rip a bit off the " UCIless Management "!
No comments:
Post a Comment