Is Pat McQuaid Losing It?

Friday, 16 August 2013

The battle between Pat McQuaid and Brian Cookson to be President of the UCI rages on. At times it’s personal, at times it’s policy-based but it’s also procedural.

Now there’s a dispute over whether Pat McQuaid has actually been nominated by the Thai and Moroccan federations with Cookson calling on McQuaid to show the proof. Most interestingly McQuaid is not calmly providing the paperwork but calling on Cookson to back off. Why?

The more you read into things, the more McQuaid hints his nomination is in danger but for the sake of the contest he should still be allowed to stand for President.

As a reminder, the UCI rules say a candidate as be nominated by their federation. Convention had this as the candidates home federation, for example the nomination letter for Brian Cookson by British Cycling, his domestic federation, can be seen online.

Pat McQuaid tried this but in the first procedural mistake, he bungled the nomination hearing on a technicality which prompted Irish Cycling to call an extraordinary general meeting where delegates could vote on whether to nominate McQuaid. Before the vote took place McQuaid sought instead to get nomination from Swiss Cycling and claimed in a press release that this had been secured and told Irish radio that his lawyers say it was secure. But others think different, that there were not enough board members present at the Swiss meeting to approve the decision and actually the officials from Swiss Cycling were not directly endorsing or nominating McQuaid but instead expressing the idea that as President he should have the right to run. In addition members of Swiss Cycling are taking the national body to arbitration to test whether McQuaid has the nomination or not in a move funded by Jamie Fuller, the Chairman of Skins and a fierce critic of McQuaid.

So with the Irish option lost and the Swiss route under threat we got the odd news that McQuaid had been nominated by the Thai and Moroccan federations earlier this month. Only nominations had to be made by 29 June and it took more than a month for the news of these additional nominations to come out. Curiously these nominations were announced just at the same time as a bizarre Malaysian proposal to allow multiple nominations was announced by the UCI. This proposition itself could be illegitimate because several UCI Management Committee members say they did not approve its inclusion on the agenda, whilst the UCI’s constitution states only the Management Committee can decide what goes on the agenda.

Revelation
There’s now a new twist with a news item on orange.co.uk that says:

now it can be revealed that UCI general director Christophe Hubschmid and Amina Lanaya, from the world governing body’s legal services department, requested the amendment be brought into being

If this is true it’s in breach of the UCI’s own constitution and therefore an astonishing act by two senior staff who are tasked with upholding the UCI’s constitution rather than circumventing it with pet items for the agenda. Also the pair are accused of arranging this on 27 June, just two days before deadlines for nomination closed. Was the Malaysian proposal actually made in Switzerland?

Tragedy turns to farce now because Cookson, via lawyers, has asked McQuaid to prove he has a valid nomination. In other words prove the Thai and Moroccan nominations came in before the deadline of 29 June. Rather than calmly produce the paperwork to show everything is OK, McQuaid has gone on the attack.

As the president of British Cycling, Brian Cookson must explain his decision to allow his federation – that is funding his campaign – to behave in this way and to use its considerable financial clout to employ lawyers to challenge issues in the election.”

It’s amusing to see McQuaid blast Cookson for using British Cycling’s lawyers whilst McQuaid has been busy using UCI staff, including lawyers, to help his cause.

Procedural Matters
Nomination deadlines and paperwork from foreign federations are not as exciting as Alpine passes and cobbled roads. But this still matters because the UCI is a governing body and sets the rules for the sport. If the President of the UCI keeps tripping up over his own rules and has been strong-arming others in Aigle to suit his agenda ahead of the constitution then it’s a serious matter of competence, duty of care and legitimacy. You can’t expect riders to live by strict whereabouts rules, teams to adhere to ethical criteria or manufacturers to stick to the rules if the President won’t follow his own rules.

McQuaid’s Swiss nomination could survive up to the legal challenge but it’s looking likely that the surprise Thai-Moroccan nomation was created after deadlines for nominations closed and can only work if September’s UCI Congress votes to approve a retrospective rule change, an unlikely outcome.

“I am not at all concerned by my ability to secure the support and votes that I require to be re-elected as UCI president… … While it would appear that Brian has lost confidence in his own ability I continue to challenge him to allow the UCI congress and its voting delegates to decide.”

Conclusion
Reading McQuaid’s response above there’s a sense that he might not have a safe nomination but still he wants to put his case to the 42 delegates at the Congress. In other words, he’s in danger of losing out before the congress starts but… rules schmules.

Yet if McQuaid’s nomination is secure then why flame Cookson for asking? Perhaps it’s just McQuaid’s combative style but the risk is the President “doth protest too much” with angry press releases when British Cycling lawyers start asking questions.

If true, the claims on orange.co.uk mentioned above are serious as they go beyond McQuaid. Putting items on the agenda without approval from the management committee is a breech of the constitution and if this is being done by the chief executive and the legal services department then they’re ignoring the rules they’re supposed to uphold. Why are they trying to shoehorn in extra nominations, do they think the Swiss one is void? More obviously they’re also working for McQuaid which is itself questionable and means McQuaid’s criticism of Cookson using British Cycling lawyers don’t work.

At the same time this is not saying much about Brian Cookson’s leadership abilities. Rather than winning over the voters with a rallying vision of the future, he’s playing a procedural card. It’s the equivalent of winning a bike race by disqualifying your rival for something irregular rather than sprinting past for an undisputed win. But this election is not sport or entertainment and upholding the rules matters even more when it comes to choosing the leader of a governing body.

Pin It

{ 67 comments }

Anthony August 16, 2013 at 9:54 pm

Like a little dog, the more insecure/scared it is, the nastier it behaves. Pure comedy.

Larry T. August 16, 2013 at 9:58 pm

I understand your points, but with only 42 delegates to decide this thing – do we really want to take a chance that somehow pro cycling’s “Mad Hatter” pulls a “Mugabe” and gets reelected? Cookson can certainly take the high road – directly to a losing candidacy. When it comes to the crooks at the UCI, (and Cookson might well be one of them, but at least he sounds like a guy who’ll work for real reform) anything that will help them win seems to be the game plan. It’s a case of fighting fire with fire I’m sad to say.

channel_zero August 16, 2013 at 11:36 pm

Cookson has quietly been on the Management Committee for years and years. Until tabling the Kimmage SLAPP lawsuit, not much was done by the Committee. Of course, there was the revolutionary acknowledgement “a decision needed to be made” regarding an Armstrong inquiry by the federation….. A decision. I wonder what it was?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-accepts-stakeholders-consultation-recommendations

Before his nomination, he categorically condemned any additional UCI resources be spent on Women’s cycling, including a minimum wage regulation.

I expect he’ll be a more sophisticated version of McQuaid. He’s got Plant and USA Cycling backing him for sure. Probably Makarov too. Of course BC is behind him.

Larry T. August 17, 2013 at 1:47 am

I’m not a fan of ANY of the three probable backers of the Mad Hatter’s rival you highlighted but it seems little more than a case of voting for the lesser evil since no true transformational candidate came forward. With the requirement of being nominated by the federation, there was no way Greg LeMond was going to get the nod from USA Cycling – chock full of cronies and supporters of BigTex…. until his ship began to take on way too much water. It’s the same thing with the upcoming IOC election…does anyone think Bubka is going to clean things up over there? Who else is there?

Lukas August 16, 2013 at 10:00 pm

As always, a great piece: Putting forward a complicated matter in a way that is, while still not simple, at least easier to understand.

TailWindHome August 16, 2013 at 10:01 pm

Not sure that it’s strictly true that ‘Pat McQuaid tried this but in the first procedural mistake, he bungled the nomination hearing on a technicality which prompted Irish Cycling to call an extraordinary general meeting where delegates could vote on whether to nominate McQuaid’ is an accurate summary of what happened.

The Inner Ring August 16, 2013 at 10:04 pm

What happened then? I think the original meeting had a technical problem with allowed member Anto Moran to contest it and so starting a chain of events that led to the EGM and the rejection of McQuaid.

TailWindHome August 16, 2013 at 10:13 pm

That’s my understanding too, though that’s not the same as saying he (McQuaid) bungled the nomination. Sorry, this seems much more argumentative than I meant it to be.

Anonymous August 16, 2013 at 11:11 pm

’twas the president and CEO who made the procedural errors AFAIK

The Inner Ring August 16, 2013 at 11:33 pm

I understand but if your nomination is at stake you’d surely ask for everything to be watertight?

conormcgrane August 16, 2013 at 11:12 pm

’twas the president and CEO who made the procedural errors AFAIK

Owen August 16, 2013 at 10:04 pm

McQuaid seems to have been losing it for a while. He strikes me as immature, with his petulant outbursts. Forget everything else, someone with those traits shouldn’t be the president of an international organisation.

Abdu August 19, 2013 at 4:02 am

What sort of traits are you talking about exactly?

Surely not the fact that many years ago Pat McQuaid was caught racing in Apartheid South Africa under a false name? While the whole world was revolted by the policies of apartheid and took a stand to boycott the regime, Pat McQuaid had no qualms doing so but tried to disguise his dirty little secret.

If it walks like a duck…

TailWindHome August 16, 2013 at 10:09 pm

Sorry that comment was badly worded and I don’t seem to be able to edit it

Anonymous August 16, 2013 at 10:39 pm

It’s that photo again!

Skippy August 16, 2013 at 10:40 pm

Seems that you are following up on the statements that i made on 4th August !

As we get closr to the 27th Sept, when the 42 Voting ballots are cast , the mud will get heavier & dirtier!

Time BOTH these people stood back and thought about WHAT the Stakeholders require of the UCI !

What a shame that ALL STAKEHOLDERS having filled out the Questionaire , are not now having their views considered ?

Time the UCI Voting Delegates decided that ONLY a Woman will do the ” HouseCleaning ” needed to ensure that the UCI survives the next Term of Office !

Abdu August 19, 2013 at 4:09 am

With all due respect to Tracy Gaudrey, it’s not her gender that makes her the perfect person for this role.

There are a million reasons why she’s the right one, no. 999,999 is the friendly banter she exchanges with punters on the occasional group ride down on down Beach Road… Credible, successful in senior roles, an ex Pro cyclist, not in it for the freebies…etc.

BC August 16, 2013 at 10:53 pm

Aside from all the endless procedural wrangles, the present situation exemplifies why there has to be root and branch change at the UCI. It is little wonder that the sport has experienced the problems of the past years, when the qualities of leadership, direction, honesty and transparency are so clearly lacking.

Lets hope for the sake of the sport that Cookson wins, and starts the process that is urgently required. If there is no change, the corrupt and poor leadership of the past will continue into the future.

Anonymous August 16, 2013 at 11:06 pm

Inrng, thank you for yet another passionate piece. :-)

The orange.co.uk wording may be slightly misleading in the quote -
“now it can be revealed that UCI general director Christophe Hubschmid and Amina Lanaya, from the world governing body’s legal services department, requested the amendment be brought into being retroactively ahead of the UCI congress in Florence.”

Please note that InsideTheGames have one letter on display plus additional info from “A spokesman for the UCI “
http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/summer/cycling/1015561-exclusive-new-doubts-over-transparency-of-uci-election-after-correspondence-shows-staff-intervened-in-drafting-rule-change
From letter: “I note from section 4 of the rationale for the proposal that it is the Malaysian National Cycling Federation’s intention that the proposed amendment, if accepted, applies to the elections that will take place at the 2013 Congress,”

According to the spokesman without the changes to initial MNCF proposed amendment it would have created a situation where “In practice this would have allowed new candidates to be proposed for the Presidential election immediately after the possible passing of the Malaysian amendment – potentially minutes before the election for the new President. “

Either way, methinks McQuaid should get the Super Combatif award.

Paul Jakma August 17, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Reading the letter ,as published on insidegames, as you linked to, it sounds like Hubschmid and Lanaya could be said to have been offering advice to a member federation on an amendment so as to reduce ambiguity should they succeed. It sounds like they’re doing their job.

Indeed, I think, based on just this letter, it demonstrates Hubschmid and/or Lanaya very likely could NOT have been involved in any prompting of the Malaysian federation to table their amendment. For, had they been, they would not have needed to reply to them to advise them how to improve it.

The Inner Ring August 17, 2013 at 2:04 pm

But they were not giving this item to the Management Committee to decide whether it goes on the agenda, they were working with the Malaysians to create the amendment and put in on the agenda themselves. That’s a breach of the UCI Constitution, no?

It’s fine to help draft the proposal and offer advice but they surely should have put it to the Management Committee? Instead it seems odd that the chief executive and the legal services both omitted to do this?

Paul Jakma August 17, 2013 at 2:45 pm

Well, if this did not go to the Management Committee, then that’s definitely an issue. However, you have to ask, who was supposed to have brought the Malaysian proposal before them? I do not know the answer to that, nor does this letter speak to that.

Neither Hubschmid nor Lanaya are members of the Management Committee. So probably it was not down to either of them to present this to the committee itself. However, someone at the UCI office must surely be responsible to report these things to someone on the MC, particularly to someone also with executive function at the UCI. The president of the UCI has such a function, being both executive head of the UCI and the chair of the MC. The director-general, Hubschmid, reports to the president.

My guess is that it was the responsibility of the Director-General to present the Malaysian proposal to the executive members, e.g. the president (or otherwise the vice-presidents?), and that it was then the president’s responsibility to ensure the MC were informed. The president of the UCI is of course Pat McQuaid. :) Also, one of the executive vice-presidents (and hence also on the MC) is Cho Hee-Wook, who was Cc’ed by Hubschmid in their other capacity as head of Asian Cycling Federation.

In short, it’s quite possible that Hubschmid and Lanaya did what was required of them in their positions within UCI, and that the responsibility for failing to inform the MC lies with Pat McQuaid. Perhaps very deliberately.

On a tangent, it seems the UCI constitution document apparently was never spell-checked. I searched through it for ‘comittee’ by mistake, and got a result. :)

Anonymous August 17, 2013 at 7:36 pm

Have been trying to look into the constitution as well (am no lawyer, so please read the following comments accordingly.)

IIRC Both Cookson and Makarov, as members of the MC made the point that they were not informed about the MNCF proposed amendment of the constitution. Supposedly, since the MC draws the agenda of the Congress and “…no vote shall be taken on any question which is not on the agenda” (Article 31) the question arises whether putting the amendment to the vote at Congress is in accordance to the constitution. However, I wonder how valid this point is.

Indeed, as you note, a federation need only submit a draft proposal to the OFFICE* of the UCI (at least 90 days before congress) and there appear to be no provisions in the constitution as to whether and how such a proposal should be presented to the MC.

Article 29
1. The Congress shall have the following EXCLUSIVE* powers and duties:
a) Alteration of the Constitution and dissolution of the association;

Surely, if Congress has exclusive powers over alternation of the constitution it doesn’t make sense that the MC could veto any such proposed alternations. Could it be that the MC rubber stamp a Congress agenda which only includes a general section regarding vote on constitutional amendments?

While the MC sets the date, venue and agenda of Congress its powers lie more with budget managing, regulations and a bit re memberships. They don’t appear to have power over constitution amendments.

In any case Hubschmid and Lanaya appeared to have acted in accordance with:

Article 30
1. Notices convening the Congress shall be sent to the federations at least sixty days before the date of the Congress. The continental confederations will be sent a copy. The notices shall indicate the date, the time, and the place of the Congress as well as the agenda. Should the case arise, they will be accompanied by the full text of any proposals to amend the Constitution and the list of the candidates for the presidency and the Management Committee.

All in all, while the Malaysian proposed amendment in conjunction with McQuaid’s nomination issues may have a very unpleasant smell, am still unconvinced that there is something unconstitutional about it. It is the retroactive element that is so controversial, but when one considers the following:

Article 44
Unless otherwise decided by the Congress, the decisions of the Congress shall be effective IMMEDIATELY*.

It would seem that the constitution has no substantial provision against the retroactive element because, if Congress would first vote on the proposed amendment without the transitional clause, it would have taken effect immediately. So in that sense, the UCI’s legal department tried to avoid a potentially messier situation.

* Note UPPERCASE is this writer’s emphasis.

Anonymous August 17, 2013 at 9:54 pm

Interesting question.

31.3 makes it clear that modifications to the constitution must be on the agenda, the setting of which is the remit of the management committee. That said, any other questions can be put tabled for a vote at the congress itself, if at least 15 federations request (also 31.3).

So I would agree with you, the management committee can block constitutional questions, by way of refusing to include them on the agenda. However, should the MC do so, if enough federations agreed, they could at the congress respond by invoking article 42, which would require the proposal to be examined by the MC and also be put on the agenda for the next congress. Further, congress could even respond by dismissing the MC (29.1 f) and installing new members. However, congress would be limited to voting for those already nominated by notification 90 days prior to congress (51.2), unless there were insufficient numbers of candidates, in which case nominations could be introduced at congress, and *only* those introduced at the congress would be eligible (51.3).

So it does seem the management committee can block constitutional amendments for one congress, however congress can respond and ensure it will get its vote for the next congress, if it really wants. Is how I read it.

Interesting :)

Paul Jakma August 17, 2013 at 9:56 pm

Damn, the comment starting “Interesting question.” at 9:54 was meant to have my name on it :).

Nick Evans August 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm

It depends. The Malaysians may have put forward a draft proposal to go on the agenda and asked “we want it to do X, does it work?” Then the relevant officials within UCI responded to the effect “if you want it to do X, then you need to change this bit here”. That’s not a smoking gun for me.

Anonymous August 17, 2013 at 7:35 pm

Thanks. You manged to phrase more or less my thoughts. :-)

JimW August 16, 2013 at 11:30 pm

Yes.
Yes, he is losing it.
In more ways than one.
Shame so much is at stake.
I can’t help laughing at the absurdity of it all.

channel_zero August 16, 2013 at 11:40 pm

The name Christophe Hubschmid rarely gets mentioned in the Press. As “General Director” what is the scope of his authority?

I have a very hard time reading through the UCI’s regulations. The language is difficult. This from someone who found WADA’s code relatively easy to read.

Great work as always.

cyclingfan August 16, 2013 at 11:48 pm

Sorry but do you think that a guy who is backed by a Russian named Igor Makarov could be a respectful IF president??? Have you ever googled Igor Makarov?
If Makarov via his puppet takes over the UCI, it is over forever….

The Inner Ring August 17, 2013 at 12:07 am

I’m not to endorsing either side and this blog been one of the first places to shine a light on Mr Makarov, try the search function to see for yourself. Of course Pat McQuaid has associated with him too, he had no qualms working with him it seems. The problem is systematic to the UCI’s governance and not down to one man.

FourOhFours August 19, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Good to know I am not the only one thinking exactly this. IF the UCI staff are trying to do what they can to help PMQ gain re-election they must fear the alternative (which is this: http://t.co/78CMwad59f). Oligarchs and oligarchs-by-proxy (puppets) are getting themselves into worrying positions in other sports organisations (look at SportAccord) so maybe they see a reality that the media is unwilling to scratch the surface of?

cyclingfan August 17, 2013 at 12:26 am

Yes ok McQuaid was “closed” to him but I don’t think that the deal Makarov has done with Cookson for the upcoming elections is comparable with the one done with McQuaid in the past…. It is well-known that Makarov is against McQuaid because of the refusal of the Katusha world tour licence last year and that he wants him down… It is only about revenge and power.. but you are right, the UCI’s governance is at stake because all this people used to be friends in the past… that is “disgusting” for cycling fans like me….

otherSteve August 17, 2013 at 12:28 am

BC is on to it!

It seems clear that the UCI is in serious need of a total overhaul.

Given the disarray, and a total lack of leadership at all levels, now is the time to completely reorganize.

Call in a Gardner group, McKinsey.

Cedrik August 17, 2013 at 5:49 am

McQuaid must go. Maybe if I repeat it enough it will happen. McQuaid must go. This truly has become like an absurdist French movie from the 60′s.

CitrusCityCycle August 17, 2013 at 8:09 am

I’m imagining the elevator Muzak version of the Benny Hill theme softly playing in the lobby in Aigle.

Steppings August 17, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Imagine another 10 years with fat Pat in power. I dread to think! Goood bye Pat your garden is calling you.

trounder August 17, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Great insights once again INRNG, but I’m confused by a contradiction in your last paragraph: “At the same time this is not saying much about Brian Cookson’s leadership abilities… But this election is not sport or entertainment and upholding the rules matters even more when it comes to choosing the leader of a governing body.”

How does paying attention to the procedures surrounding McQuaid’s candidacy reflect poorly on Cookson’s ability to lead a governing (aka: rule making) body? Seems like he’s doing exactly what he’s supposed to do…ie: following the rules wherever they may lead!

The Inner Ring August 17, 2013 at 6:46 pm

Just that the talk of procedure is getting ahead of reform, we’re discussing whether McQuaid is an eligible candidate rather than the future of the sport. Nothing wrong with proper procedure, it’s vital. But it’s important to debate the future too.

sam August 17, 2013 at 7:09 pm

To be fair Cookson’s put a lot out in the public domain about his plans for the sport – starting with an independent investigation into the conduct of the UCI over Lance. IMO quite rightly, his first priority is the restoration of UCI’s credibility.

The procedural issues have not, and are not, preventing that.

But remember when it comes down to it, the votes do not lie in the hands of any of us – they lie in the hands of 42 delegates. So we can choose which topics we want to debate – but ultimately its what the federations decide out as a result of discussions behind closed doors.

LM August 19, 2013 at 1:39 pm

What Cookson has put out there is nothing more than political public relations clap-trap. His and his supporters agenda is to be elected, then he can do as he likes. Makarov with his team of dopers (the most doping infractions, I believe) probably do not have any interest in cleaning the sport up further. They want to control the sport because it’s about to become internationally mainstream. Cookson’s manifesto is unlikely to become anything but the smokescreen that it is, drifting off and forgotten in the wind after the election.

If you do some homework into his career background, Cookson has no business running anything on an international level; he has been as complicit in the UCI shortcomings as anyone, he does not run British Cycling, Team Sky does (and, you know who owns Sky and his ethics track record). Cookson is a minor milktoast civil servant.

If you look at who is supporting Cookson publicly, it’s a conga line of people with a power control agenda or an axe to grind because of a historical clash with McQuaid. Vaughters is the standout in the axe grinding group, which says a lot about his shortcomings.

Lastly, everyone talks as if McQuaid invented doping and sold the idea to Festina and Postal. While he grew up in a culture where doping rules were only to protect the riders and competition ethics didn’t exist with the riders or the fans like they do now in this post P.C. world. Cheating has been going on in sport since the first contest. And, if you take ten steps back, the IOC rules are as much of an impediment to clean sport as the ineffectiveness of the Passport. In reality, it’s too expensive to catch All the cheaters. Once you wrap your head around that fact, what USADA did is an amazing feat of thoroughness. And, it’s Very lucrative to be a successful cheater. So lucrative that what the best cheaters are doing now is not even addressed by the rules, and therefore, not technically cheating.

No sport has done more to clean up it’s competitions and it’s image, even though just writing that only makes one feel impotent. That has been with McQuaid at the helm.

sam August 19, 2013 at 1:59 pm

Time for the conspiracy theorists to come out.

Do your homework, read up on how Cookson took over and turned around the woeful state of cycling governance in the UK with the BCF shambles. This was many years ago – or perhaps Sky and Murdoch were just lurking in the wings years actually running Cookson and BC BEFORE actually getting in the cycling sponsorship game?

As for ‘a conga line of people with a power control agenda or an axe to grind because of a historical clash with McQuaid’….Jesus, name someone in the public eye who DOESNT have an issue with McQuaid. Oh, by the way the LeMonds have publically backed Cookson. But Paul Kimmage hasnt. So how does that stand up to your claim?

LM August 19, 2013 at 7:22 pm

Kimmage over LeMond every and any day.

Aside from his frankly brusk style, do you think people have an issue with McQ because he’s enabling the status quo of doping and omerta or because he has in fact been at the helm during a time sweeping change? He has tried to protect the image of the sport while introducing more controls, more tests and more longer suspensions than ever before. It is a fact that there are more clean riders than ever before, that didn’t happen by mistake. That happened under McQ’s direction.

And as to his style; as an example, he has been persecuted for calling Landis and Hamilton “scumbags”. A poor choice of public words perhaps, but what would you call two dopers who were caught, denied their guilt, publicly lied and then fabricated preposterous defenses, eventually admitted their guilt, turned into stool pigeons, then wrote a books to capitalize financially. I might find a more P.C. term for the news release, but they are definitely scum.

I’ve read all the PR about Cookson’s miracles; all generated with this political battle in mind. He did not create Hoy, Cav, Wiggins, Pendleton or Boyden. He is a volunteer in cycling with a day job as a public property planner from the sleepy Borough of Pendle, population: 89,000. You must read EVERTHING and then reread Between the lines to have just an inkling of what is really happening.

As to your accusation of conspiracy theorist; Makarov owns the team with the worst doping record in the pro peloton, Sky in the future, may go down as the team that took the Postal formula and perfected it exponentially. It will be called cheating, but not against the rules.

Cheating is a way of life in almost all professional sports, because winning=$ and money is the point of the game. No sport has tried harder to change that than cycling. More dopers have been caught in the McQ era than any other. That’s not by mistake or by the efforts of Cookson.

Sam August 19, 2013 at 9:15 pm

er…no…Cookson did actually turn things around.

But, you know, you carry on. Vive le Pat!

The Inner Ring August 19, 2013 at 9:20 pm

Sam, can you point me to where I can read how Cookson was responsible for the fortunes of British Cycling now? I’d be interested to see what he’s done here because separating correlation vs causation is hard. For example some say the track success was down to Peter Keen and the British lottery rather than Cookson. But some info on Cookson’s leadership role would be useful.

sam August 20, 2013 at 10:26 am

INRNG, this is what Cookson came in and sorted out

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sproat-puts-a-spoke-in-cyclings-big-plans-1312454.html

If you note, I am not claiming that Cookson has one hand on all the medals GB’s won on the track – but in terms of sorting out the omnishambles of how the sport was being governed and run in the UK…yes, absolutely.

Paul Jakma August 20, 2013 at 2:55 pm

What are the best cheaters doing now then?

LM August 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm

Genetic manipulation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/the-cheat-gene-could-the-next-step-in-sporting-fraud-come-from-manipulating-dna-8073605.html

Not to start some interweb argument, because I have No Idea, but this has been successfully experimented with for a decade. If you take the present phenom, Froome, and look at his known history (I haven’t found anyone writing a piece that isn’t just PR regurgitation), the lack of historical facts, who his parents were, how he is so physically gifted that he can produce implausibly clean #s that rival the best of the most recently known dopers, why he’s a resident of Monaco (a tax shelter for billionaires) on, until recently, a super domestic’s salary, where his girlfriend really made her money, etc… It makes you wonder. Add to that the legalese of his language. Someone should write an independent, in depth look into who he really is.

I don’t know, but it should make one pause and consider. Of course, it is possible that he just happens to be The most spectacular human specimen of an endurance athlete that has ever been born…

Nick August 18, 2013 at 11:31 am

True, but it seems to me that a lack of procedural transparency has been one of the UCI’s weaknesses, so placing an emphasis on getting the procedures right, including as part of the hustings, is a valid approach (so long as it’s not overdone).

sam August 19, 2013 at 10:15 am

yep, agree Nick

Touriste-Routier August 17, 2013 at 8:42 pm

Let’s not confuse leadership with politics or self interest; often they are all mutually exclusive. I think a true leader would know when their time was up, and would plan to leave with some degree of honor. Political desperation does not make a good bed fellow to leadership.

BC August 17, 2013 at 9:37 pm

When did the current incarnation of the UCI, and its paid officers need to worry about such tiresome things as approval or legitimacy ! There are at least twenty years of glaring examples.
If these officers had one ounce of moral fibre, they would have resigned long ago.
There is a general consensus on everything I see and read, that it is time for change. Is there one voice out there who would consider the current position tenable moving into the future ?

Darren August 18, 2013 at 12:14 am

Obi One Kenobi once described the UCI to Luke, although he
colloquially referred to it as ‘Mos Eisley’!

Those familiar with the original Star Wars movie will understand!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7NjE3UXuP8

Alex TC August 18, 2013 at 3:45 am

“… Nomination deadlines and paperwork from foreign federations are not as exciting as Alpine passes and cobbled roads…”

Oh, in this case it is very exciting indeed! LOL

Mark H August 18, 2013 at 12:31 pm

I don’t personally see how seeking to uphold the rules – in the face of someone who shows McQuaid’s complete and utter contempt for them – reflects in any way poorly on Cookson. Rather a leader who respects the rules; in preference to a deluded megalomaniac who makes them up on the fly, for no-one’s benefit but his own and those whose futures rely on his continued incumbency.

TheDude August 19, 2013 at 1:34 am

There feels a tone that the UCI is a governing body in a perpetual state of political infighting, influence peddling, and insider self-dealing. Of the nine recorded presidents of the UCI (source: wikipedia… for convenience), have any of these individuals demonstrated visionary leadership and strong moral character? These are model traits, but is it realistic given the federation design of the UCI, and the relationship to the IOC? Likely, we can exclude presidents # 8 and 9 based on recent memory of their candor and conduct. :-)

I ask this, as many commenting on INRNG hold volumes of knowledge, and I don’t really have a good hunch as to how I would research the answers posed above without chasing my tail. LoL.

1. Emile De Beukelaer Belgium 1900–1922
2. Léon Breton France 1922–1936
3. Max Burgi Switzerland 1936–1939
4. Alban Collignon Belgium 1939–1947
5. Achille Joinard France 1947–1958
6. Adriano Rodoni Italy 1958–1981
7. Luis Puig Spain 1981–1990
8. Hein Verbruggen Netherlands 1991–2005
9. Pat McQuaid Ireland 2005–

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_UCI

Split Link August 19, 2013 at 1:35 pm

To further clarify the position referred to by Anon/ChrisO on August 18th, and earlier by The Inner Ring, regarding Article 31.
The ONLY question which CANNOT be added to the agenda of a Congress at the request of 15 federations is a question(motion) which purports to alter the Constitution.
It seems that 15 federations could table a motion that a Constitution change be discussed and voted uopn at the subsequent Congress, but not at the Congress just convened.
So if the Management Committee have not approved a Congress agenda that includes a proposed Constitution amendment, it simply cannot go before Congress – full stop!!

Paul Jakma August 19, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Yes, but the Congress can then force the proposal to be put on the agenda for the next congress via article 42. See my comment at http://inrng.com/2013/08/uci-presidential-elections-mcquaid-nomination-dispute/#comment-78708 previously in the discussion.

Paul Jakma August 19, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Ken August 19, 2013 at 3:32 pm

When in the course of cycling events … Oh, sorry, I was thinking of another Declaration! How long are the professional teams, their sponsors, and the big organizers going to put up with this charade? I still think we are seeing the last gasps of an organization rapidly losing all validity.

BC August 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm

Swiss nomination withdrawn. A few more hoops to go through for PMcQ. This is all becoming a serious farce.
Just resign for the future of the sport for goodness sake !

Paul Jakma August 20, 2013 at 9:56 pm

Inrng linked to the UCI’s lawyers’ analysis of the constitutional question on twitter: http://t.co/4ewmNMUdi7

It seems the agenda has been drawn up and sent out by the administrative staff of the UCI for the last twenty years, with no management committee involvement. So the argument is that, because the UCI hasn’t followed its own constitution for the last few decades, therefore it’s OK!

They do also make the point that the management committee likely would have had to draw up the exact same agenda. Which seems fair to me.

The Inner Ring August 17, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Good work. But we’re back to Article 31, my emphasis:

Article 31
1. The agenda of the Congress shall be drawn up by the Management Committee.
2. A federation wishing to include one or more items in the agenda of the Congress, or to put a question to the Management Committee, shall submit its draft proposals stating the reasons on which they are based or the text of its question, in English or in French, to the registered office of the UCI at least ninety days before the date of the Congress.
3. With the exception of alterations to the Constitution, any question not on the agenda of the Congress can be added to be discussed and voted on by the Congress at the request of fifteen federations.
4. Except in cases where the preceding point applies, no vote shall be taken on any question which is not on the agenda.

Therefore if the MC didn’t approve the item for the agenda it can’t be voted on. Note constitutional change has to go on the agenda as in para 3. Why go through all of this work between Aigle and Kuala Lumpur only to make it invalid by not getting MC approval?

Paul Jakma August 17, 2013 at 9:59 pm

Pat is not someone noted for having a good grasp of fine details (e.g. exactly what rules), nor for paying much attention to ones that are an obstacle to him. ;)

Anonymous August 17, 2013 at 10:16 pm

It is very confusing as, again, it does not make sense that a body that has no power (given by the constitution) over constitution alterations should effectively be granted such power by having the right to disapprove the inclusion of proposals for constitution amendments on the agenda of the Congress. If that were the case, then in theory the MC could block any constitutional amendments and thus rob Congress from its exclusive power that is given to it in the constitution. And if we take this to an even more absurd end, then the MC could even block voting on a new UCI president by not including it on the agenda of the Congress. Just doesn’t make sense.

My understanding is that some issues are in a way beyond the MC’s drawn agenda for Congress. This is perhaps partially why Article 31 section 2 directs a federation proposal to be submitted to the office of the UCI and not directly address it to the MC. The office, it would appear, would have the discretion to decide whether to proceed with it to the MC to decide on approval for Congress agenda or not.

According to the initial Hubschmid letter as it appeared in Velonation breaking story* on the proposal, the MC members were only informed about the inclusion of the proposal along with all national federations. The wording of Hubschmid is interesting, because it seems as if he refers to 3 separate items for Congress:

1. The agenda for Congress.
2. Nominations for UCI offices (President and MC members) to be voted on at Congress.
3. MNCF proposal for change to Article 51 of the constitution to be voted on at Congress.

The first paragraphs of the Hubschmid letter to the MC members as per Velonation*:

(begin quote)

To all Management Committee Members,

Sent by email only

Aigle, 29 July 2013
Ref: Directorate General

Dear Management Committee Members,

You will have seen the agenda for the UCI Congress in September that has been sent out to National Federations today, together with nominations for UCI offices (President and Management Committee members) to be voted on at Congress.

You will see that the UCI has been sent a proposal from the Malaysian Federation – which has also been presented by the Asian Continental Confederation – to make a permanent change to Article 51 of the UCI Constitution concerning Presidential candidate nominations.

(end quote)

* See Velonation initial story at
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15115/Malaysian-federation-proposes-unprecedented-rule-change-which-could-assist-McQuaid-overcome-hurdle-to-re-election.aspx

Anonymous August 18, 2013 at 9:16 am

You’re placing too much emphasis on the term ‘office’.

The Article says that the federation proposal has to go to the registered office.

Contracts and legal documents usually include an address and often a person to which notifications must be sent to be valid. It means that if I’m making some sort of official communication with the company I can’t just hand it over to one of their employees and say that I’ve submitted it, or in the case of the UCI they can’t just give it to any UCI official or branch location.

Clearly the proposal is intended for the Management Committee since it is a request for an agenda item to be included.

The MC has the right to block proposals in exactly the way you describe. But there is a balance against their authority by allowing an agenda item to be included if 15 federations agree. This means that they have the right to set the agenda – someone has to do this, you can’t have a congress or AGM with no agenda or a completely open agenda – but if they were behaving in a dictatorial way and ignoring valid requests then the federations can overturn them. Seems perfectly logical.

ChrisO August 18, 2013 at 9:22 am

Addendum to that previous comment, which was mine, not meant to be anonymous…

The registered office function also has the opposite function of not allowing a company or organisation to say they haven’t received notification. Typically a notice sent by registered mail to the specified address is considered as proof that it has been duly delivered.

It’s a matter of internal procedure how it is then dealt with, but in this case clearly any agenda items which were properly received but not passed on to the Management Committee for consideration would bring in to question whether the staff responsible were doing their job properly.

Imagine if you sent a notice that you were bringing a legal case against a company and it was delivered to the registered address but the receptionist decided not to pass it on to legal.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: