Le Journal Du Dimanche Accuses UCI and Froome

French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD) has come up with the sensational headline “Froome “dopé” par l’UCI” which doesn’t need much translation. Behind it is the allegation that during the Tour de Romandie Chris Froome fell ill, the team doctor wanted him to take an anti-inflammatory drug called prednisone and the UCI gave approval and that this was “rushed” with “administrative legerity”.

Prednisone is a glucocorticosteroid and here’s the WADA Prohibited List :

S9. Glucocortisteroids
All glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered by oral, intravenous, intramuscular or rectal routes.

Prednisone is banned in competition but note the wording, banned when administered by the four routes above. Other means are permitted, for example as a topical cream applied on the skin, as a nasal spray or even certain injections.

Banned substances can be used under approved conditions and the rider/team must apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). The JDD is saying Team Sky applied for a TUE for the oral use of prednisone and that this was agreed “on the spot” by the UCI’s chief medic, Doctor Mario Zorzoli. The JDD says “the eventual granting of a TUE goes via a committee of medical experts” but the UCI hurried things, citing links between the UCI and Team Sky to suggest favouritism, notably UCI President Brian Cookson’s son Oli who works for Team Sky.

What the UCI rules actually say
The JDD hasn’t quite got the UCI rules right. Rule 40 of Chapter 13 of the UCI rulebook says:

The UCI shall appoint a committee of at least 3 (three) physicians to consider requests for TUE’s: the Therapeutic Use Exemption Committee (TUEC).

But this rule relates to the appointment of the committee and not necessarily the execution of its duties. For that we have Rule 45:

Upon the UCI’s receipt of a TUE application, the Chair of the TUEC shall appoint one or more members of the TUEC (which may include the Chair) to consider such application and render a decision promptly.

In this case if Sky sent in the TUE form the UCI’s committee doesn’t have to meet in full, it can appoint one individual to consider and decide the matter. It might be more sound to convene given Froome’s high profile status and the sensitivities but that’s a matter of judgement, availability and timing and not the rules.

Normally the TUE has to be applied for 21 days ahead of use. But it can be fast-tracked or even retroactively applied for if the condition is “acute”.

Health issues
Aside from the rules there’s the health issue which is really what matters. If someone needs a strong medicine like this should they really be racing? Normally a doctor prescribing prednisone is going to advise rest rather than an Alpine stage race so why wasn’t the Team Sky doctor sending Froome home to rest? Professional sport is different, there are big issues at stake. Legal advantages to get the job done, be they tramadol or TUEs, are part of this in cycling and many other sports – other French newspapers have been quantifying the amount of cortisone injections (40 a year?) given to Franck Ribéry this week, treatment to play rather than the usual “have a rest”. Back to cycling and the same question was put by Lionel Birnie to Team Sky when Rigoberto Uran needed a TUE during the 2011 Dauphiné, scroll down to Stage 6 to read about what happened.

There’s also the issue of performance enhancement. Obviously this is why prednisone is banned and its use has to be regulated. There has been plenty of glucocortisteroids steroid abuse in the past and the current system of TUE’s is still open for abuse. Prednisone has a short half life so the timing of its use matters, for example a big dose prior or even during a key mountain stage or time trial could be a boost but use after such an effort and in the event of illness is quite another.

Note that in cycling the injection of glucocortisteroids under a TUE has to be followed by an eight day period of rest, Rule 13.1.065, and it’s something the likes of tennis or soccer don’t subscribe too. It’s likely there are players “doped by FIFA” in the World Cup. Just don’t expect the same headlines.

It’s not the first time Zorzoli faces a media grilling

Simple Test
It all boils down to whether Dr Zorzoli is part of the UCI’s TUE Committee. If so then he has the authority to issue the TUE alone and on the spot. If not then there’s some explaining to do.

Beyond this there are judgement calls. Should the committee have convened? Is it suitable to race while on this medication? It’d be good to get the explanation to both but these are matters of nuance rather than scandal.

Cookson’s Cookson
There’s also the problem for the Cooksons with UCI President Brian and son Oliver in Team Sky: Cookson Senior has the power to rule over factors that influence his son’s employer. Like the Pat McQuaid conflict of interest with the various business activities of his sons nobody should deny a right to work in pro cycling. Instead the UCI needs an effective conflict of interest management policy. McQuaid said he would “walk out of the room” which acknowledged the problem but was naive at best, as if those sat in the room would decide impartially just because the President had popped out. The UCI under Cookson is supposed to deliver more formal corporate safeguards and these need to be implemented. And seen to be implemented.

Headline doping? A topical application of cortisone might be needed for the Journal du Dimanche’s inflammatory “Froome ‘doped’ by the UCI” title. The JDD says the TUE application was “rushed” and should have gone to a panel of three experts but it turns out the UCI rules don’t state all three have to convene in order to review a TUE application. Ideally yes but in an emergency situation this would be impractical.

Behind the drama headlines there are some simple questions for the UCI to answer: if Dr. Zorzoli is part of the UCI’s TUE Committee then his lone approval is all within the rules. But if the TUE was issued in an unorthodox manner then Dr Zorzoli and the UCI have plenty to explain. Another follow-up question would be whether the UCI’s implemented new policies to manage conflict of interest concerns.

Note all translations from the JDD into English above are mine, ie unofficial

“Christopher Froome’s TUE for oral use of glucocorticosteroids was granted on April 29, 2014 based on duly documented medical history and in compliance with the applicable UCI Regulations and the relevant WADA guidelines. The TUE was granted for a limited period, following the usual procedure.

The process was fully transparent as it is UCI’s policy to systematically record all TUEs on ADAMS. WADA was therefore informed throughout the process.

The UCI wishes to emphasise that under the applicable rules – which are consistent with the WADA Code and the WADA TUE Standard and Guidelines – any rider with the same symptoms as Christopher Froome would have received a similar TUE.

The UCI would like to express its profound disappointment with the speculations that have been made suggesting its President could have any influence on the granting of TUEs. The UCI President and the UCI Administration have absolutely no involvement with decisions on TUEs. Insinuating that Brian Cookson’s son’s employment with Team Sky could have something to do with the decision to grant the TUE is an unfounded allegation which will be dealt with seriously.”

For starters it’s full of jargon. The JDD is a Sunday newspaper for ordinary readers but the UCI’s version of events won’t register with them as Aigle serve up a steaming bowl of acronym soup with UCI, TUE, ADAMS, WADA. You might get these terms but that’s because you’ve come to a cycling blog but everyone else won’t. Even the sports editor of a newspaper looking into this might not get it.

The main failing is that it’s not a point-by-point rebuttal. The JDD has set out a story and a series of events all built around the idea that Dr Zorzoli “rushed” a TUE for Chris Froome. The UCI responds saying it followed the rules, but doesn’t say why. If the UCI tried to explain who did this and why it was within the rules (ie as set out by this blog) then it kills the story. Just saying the process was “transparent” but not explaining it to anyone leaves readers – and the media – scratching their heads or dialling the UCI for more clarification.

Note the “any rider with the same symptoms as Christopher Froome would have received a similar TUE”. Same symptoms should equal same TUE, no? Not “similar” which suggests similarity not identical. Just a drafting error but this isn’t the place for ambiguity.

Also when the UCI says “The UCI President and the UCI Administration have absolutely no involvement with decisions on TUEs” hopefully that’s correct. But involvement and influence are not the same. When someone in an organisation is tasked with taking a decision that rules over their bosses family there’s always an unconscious influence. It might be tiny but it’s there. The UCI should instead be pointing to rigorous management practices to protect against conflict of interest concerns.

67 thoughts on “Le Journal Du Dimanche Accuses UCI and Froome”

  1. Good post, and horrible title by the JDD.

    More than everything, I wonder where did the news came from and why (*the Turkish embassador*).

    Another point: Zorzoli should be TUEC’s Chair, or else there should be an act of appointment by the Chair, and – obviouly – a previous information on the matter received by the Chair herself/himself.
    In 2010 Zorzoli was Tuec’s Secretary…

  2. “inflammatory” – nice!
    The world of cycling is very small and apparently people are often forced to trip over each other…..


  3. Can you really write these things in a newspaper without anybody suing you? As INRNG points out, JDD got the whole “committee of medical experts” totally wrong.

    • The paper is more subtle suggesting normally you have a committee, that this situation isn’t normal and it’s clouded by the Cookson family.

      It’s a good test for the UCI’s new communication efforts and also for Team Sky’s PR machine. As of the time of this comment there’s nothing from the UCI or Team Sky in response. I appreciate people want their Sunday rest and ride but this is a major story and leaving the JDD’s story – it appeared online 15 hours ago / Saturday – unchallenged is asking for trouble.

      • “The UCI would like to express its profound disappointment” that the media is skeptical of actions within the UCI based on its history.


  4. That is a great piece and a journalist’s work. Some researching has been done before making it online.

    Thank you for the great piece, keep it going!

    Oli (not Cookson ;-))

  5. Cyclists can’t sue anymore. Lance Armstrong did it, so if anyone else – no matter the image damages – does it, people will say they are like Lance = doper.

  6. I don’t know what to say. Whats’s the thing between glucocorticosteroids and good ole Thévenet’s cortisone? Why do I read that Franck Ribéry is refusing to have cortisone (legally, it seems) injected by French national squad doctors? Why do I read that President Georges Pompidou was fed daily doses of cortisone for his whole tenure, until his death. What’s with France and cortisone??? Roquefort, Reblochon, Pouilly-Fuissé, Cahors, and corticoids. “Je déconne,” of course, but I don’t know what to say.

  7. Cycling News copied and pasted the same nonsense. Their clinic sockpuppets are spouting off. Really shameful what DB and SW have done to cycling.

    • It is dishonest and deceptive for the editor to change a user’s handle without indicating that this is the case. So much for honesty and transparency by those who criticize cycling, cyclists and sports organisations for deception and fraud.

      This post and the above were published by the original and the real Race Radio, a clean committed competitive cyclist.

      Change what is written here or editorialized it all you wish to fit how you want the world to look, but at least have the courage to be honest about how you dope your own site and deceive your readers.

      The sports writers and editors are as responsible for doping in cycling as much as, and probably more than, many of the cyclists who dope. Don’t forget the insanity of doping in cycling was largely created by a cycling magazine that went to all costs to improve sales by creating the Tour de France and imposing super-human expectations on the athletes.

      You, The Inner Ring, similarly cheat your readers with your own deceptions. It is good for ratings/advertising/business. Good for palling down with other cycling editors who censor the truth. Why do you support Dan and his Clinic that is nothing but a hate fest and detracts from real attempts to clean up cycling?

      • Sorry for the “site doping”. I’m not sure who Dan is nor his Clinic but perhaps you mean the cyclingnews forums? If so I don’t know what I’m supporting, I’ve no links to cyclingnews today although have written a handful blogs for them in the past.

        • And Lance never really quite knew just what or who the UCI was though he did write them checks; but yeah that too was all in the past. And like Lance you have no intention to undo the wrong.

          No big deal IR it was just a teeny weeny pill, or ‘not’?

          Thanks for the ‘fame’ reference below. Appreciated. Froome too has busy days: ‘What was it this morning, hmm, inhaler? pill? needle?

    • Sorry, I should have mentioned the change of the name – I meant to but it’s been a busy day. For everyone else, I’ve renamed the poster above so as not to confuse it with The Race Radio of Twitter fame.

  8. Another stupid decision by the UCI and the doubt is increasing every months against Froome. It reminds me something like july 99. Thus guy is looking more and more like the son of L.A.

  9. I still can’t believe that some folks think Froome is clean. Though, the disguise is breaking at the seams. Look at JV’s recent “diplomatic” comments on the fact that Froome beat Lance Armstrong’s best times on the Col de la Madone…. He’s either a genetic freak or…. (1) has a motor in his bike or (2) dopes.

    What else? The whole Froome bio which goes on and on about his many illnesses and conditions but not asthma! Asthma which is the “reason” for him to inhale drugs before the big hill where he kicked everyone’s butt. Try and keep a straight face while saying that the inhaler did not enhance his performance (hint: think of how he would have done without it…).

    I believe that Froome is a doper, just as I believed Lance was a doper even during his first Tour victory. It is obvious. But it is also obvious that there are too many financial interests at stake to look at the present doping issue honestly. That’s for the UCI, the teams, the riders, the “journalists” (a note on the journalist thing: it is staggering to find out that Wash was right for the wrong reasons, he had a niche going and now backs Froome — another profitable niche — Christ!)… For the fans it is more of a psychological issue: the sport you love, etc…. Either way its denial.

      • I was impressed by Froome’s recovery between Liege and Romandie. This stuff is depressing, cycling needs some humour for gawds sake!

      • The evidence of Froome’s ongoing doping is the fact that he cracked on the final stage of the Dauphine, lost a significant chuck of time to all his rivals, and fell out of the top 10 for the GC. He was even beaten by his own domestiques. Obviously that would never happened to a clean rider…

        Now we’ll probably see the crackpot conspiracy theorists who’ll say that his Dauphine performance was merely a sham designed to make him look fallible.

    • Out of interest, what do you believe that Froome is doping with? Seriously. Is it a new substance currently undetected or are the lab positives being suppressed?

      It’s not enough to state ‘I believe Froome is a doper’

        • Well, given today’s results, presumably Bertie’s on the same or better. As are talansky et al.

          Maybe you should toddle back to cyclingnews.com.

        • Maybe it’s both. Maybe they’re suppressing the news that Froome would test positive if they could test for this new drug that they don’t yet know exists.

          I haven’t heard anything about it, which is surely proof enough.

      • None, but I would bet that somewhere down the results list is a clean rider who kept himself healthy and was screwed out of a result. TUE riders should not be racing, much less winning races, at the top levels.

  10. Froome’s use of prednisolone is probably as a consequence of his tendency to asthma and the dose is appropriate if he had an exacerbation of his asthma or a chest infection that worsened his asthma. A TUE would be correct – if it followed the correct administrative process. Froome riding seems to bring out as many conspiracy theorists as the assassination of Kennedy

    • The conspiracy theory is that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, period. Just because the powers that be and the news media tell you that all other versions besides their own is a conspiracy theory does not necessarily make it so. See the Armstrong case. See WMD’s in Iraq. Question the official narrative for a change!

      • Huh? I may be missing something, but I thought the conspiracy theory was anyone but Oswald… Or is making us think that perhaps the REAL conspiracy?!

  11. If a sports editor didn’t know what TUE, ADAMS and WADA meant, I’d be concerned about their being qualified for the job. Besides, these things are easy enough to Google aren’t they?

      • Quite. A technical press release will often have “notes to editors” attached to it, explaining the background to any technical phrases used. The version of the release on teh UCI’s website doesn’t seem to have that.

      • I disagree. The media should do their own work and not be spoon fed. Not even the public should be spoon fed. The media are generally rubbish. They don’t check sources and facts and leave out context.

          • Indeed, this is what much of cycling media is giving us: spoon-fed journalism. Fed by heros (and anti-heros), multi-million dollar ‘teams’, sold-out reporters, and editors who are interested in ‘readership’ and ‘hits’ and mostly advertising dollars and hoping the Froomes and Lances and Cooksons will give them their next sound bite five minutes before the next bought and paid media source. Hate and innuendo sells, facts and responsible reporting are (as you suggest) for many not even in the equation.

  12. The below copied from elsewhere online. Relevant and seems legit:

    emergency TUEs are always granted for exacerbations of asthma:

    he is asthmatic, he had a respiratory infection

    a respiratory infection in asthmatics can lead to an acute exacerbation of asthma

    and acute exacerbations of asthma are no joke, they can send you straight to accident and emergency if badly treated or not treated at all

    therefore, athletes with an acute exacerbation of asthma have the right to an emergency TUE, in fact they even have the right to a retroactive TUE if necessary. this is clearly stated in the WADA paperwork


    so i’m surprised they are making such a fuss about it

    … unless this is to do with his status as an asthmatic either not being registered or not having been renewed, which is another story altogether

    • Don’t deny his asthma and the possibility of an infection requiring immediate treatment. But . . .

      You have to wonder how serious it really is if he’s still able to ride? Anyone who’s had an onset of acute asthma should know how serious it is and not climb on a bike. That he remains competitive gives serious evidence to its lack of severity (or presence at all).

      • Maybe also put the question to Garmin and OGE, as Dan Martin, Matt Goss and and Simon Gerrans are all known asthmatics, and all race with inhalers.

  13. Team Sky is looking/reminding me more and more like Festina! Call me a pessimist..shady doctors, sporadic results, riders consistently inconsistent (Porte)..sure they’ll have it all dialed in come July.

  14. Sometimes I get the feeling there are certain individuals who love to shriek about doping more than they love professional cycling.

    One could point out that Froome fading in the last stage of the Dauphine suggests he’s only human after all, but they’d just cite that as “evidence” of an elaborate cover up, probably his loss was a false flag operation or something. Call the NWO, the Freemasons and Bilderberg Group….

  15. The UCI probably need Froome’s consent to reveal medical information about the event. That may be as much information they can release without his express permission.

  16. Just to pick up on ‘similar’ vs ‘identical’, I think this is a semantic analysis too far – not least as a strictly identical TUE would be of course be made out for one C Froome and therefore useless for another rider with the same symptoms… I’m happy to give the UCI a good kicking when they deserve it, but this particular criticism isn’t valid.

    • In this case it doesn’t make a difference. The UCI now has a rule requiring an 8 day rest, in line with the MPCC code. The remaining distinction with the MPCC is that they test for cortisol levels, with collapsed cortisol being a proxy for cortisone abuse. Too low levels, TUE or not, and riders are required to stop racing for the sake of their health. So if Sky was a member they’d have to test Froome, review his levels and then decide.

  17. i really think the rules need to be simplified – basically you should race au naturel. if your sick enough not to be able to race then don’t race. if you have medical conditions that affect you then live with it.

    Froome is a prime example. he seems to have a number of medical conditions that have/continue to require treatment to compensate for the negative effects they have on his body. i don’t see any reason to believe he is a doper as such, however he is not au natural. Like everyone he has certain physiological conditions both positive and negative to his performance. he clearly has some incredible aerobic capacity which few are blessed with. however he also has asthma, bilharzia etc. so his aerobic system is great except that it is susceptible to asthma. my aerobic system isn’t the half is his (i blame my parents ;), but on the other hand i don’t suffer from asthma. why does he get drugs to compensate for his negatives but i can’t take epo to boost my engine?

    so far as i can tell froome is working within the rules so i can’t blame him, i just think the rules should change. remove virtually all external chemistry from the equation and then things are perhaps fairer and certainly more clear whenever the drug issues come up.

    of course as inrng mentions this is actually one of the many drug related areas where cycling is well ahead of most of the sporting world. even if there is plenty of scope to improve, i think WADA should be the ones to drive that.

    • Agree with your main point; if a team / rider are working within the rules, don’t blame the individuals, blame the rules.

      A couple of points I would have liked to see JDD directly address.

      Firstly, was the TUE valid? ie did / does Chris Froome have the specific medical condition and symptoms claimed? And was the treatment prescribed the best fit for those symptoms. If the answer is yes, then you can question the procedural element but you can’t really call him a doper.

      Secondly, if you are going to claim the Cookson connection expedited the TUE application then it would be nice to show that previous requests without the “my dad’s the president” cover note took significantly longer to work through the system or had to take a different route altogether. Otherwise all you are really saying is “my word, aren’t they efficient!”.

      I’m not saying Froome is or is not a doper, I’m just going to keep an open mind and enjoy the racing until I hear something a bit more conclusive.

      And as a final point whilst I’m here, there seems to be a collective re-imagining of 1998 / Festina / 1999 / Armstrong / OP and all that jazz amongst many cycling fans. Somebody mentioned somewhere on an inrng blog that Sky reminded them a lot of Festina!! Just because large swathes of the media and the authorities buried their heads in the sand and refused to acknowledge what was happening simply because it did not fit the narrative / sell the product doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening (and yes, I’m waiting to have that very argument thrown back about Sky). Those years were dirty as hell and the sight of a carthorse like Bjarne Riis dancing up an Alp was a disgrace. Armstrong and those about him made scientific claims which wouldn’t make the cut for a shampoo advert to explain his performance. Whole teams were able to ride relentlessly for an entire GT. Sure Sky have made some downright stupid decisions in hiring, political stance and PR but until there is a fraction of the dirt we had in the bad old days let’s be sensible with the comparisons.

    • “i don’t suffer from asthma. why does he get drugs to compensate for his negatives but i can’t take epo to boost my engine?”

      -This doesn’t follow. Asthma is a medical condition which is treated in order to allow people to function normally. Taking EPO enhances your ability to compete in endurance sporting events. They are not equivalent.

      • “This doesn’t follow. Asthma is a medical condition which is treated in order to allow people to function normally. Taking EPO enhances your ability to compete in endurance sporting events. They are not equivalent.”
        Maybe the wording “functioning normally” is where the gray area starts . Asthma inhalers contain powerful drugs ( look up your pharmacology 101 texts or read the paperwork enclosed in the packaging one day) they are designed to open up the airways , increase O2 movement across the Alveola and a lot more. Many are steroidal and in most cases use at any time increase lung performance even in the absence of an attack.
        I went to my Doctor with Exercise induced bronchospasm , (you push really hard then later cough your lung up) Voila prescription for Inhaler full of good stuff.
        Maybe lots of riders use inhalers because they “can”.
        Idea is to prevent an episode” so use liberally when you think possibly, maybe, probably not but should’nt risk it , better to be safe than sorry ahhh what the heck .
        Your defense can always be “” I didnt Inhale…………………………………

  18. They related the TUE to the “chest infection”, but if a an *infection* was actually still on, cortisone & C. wouldn’t be very recommended due to the immune system suppression. A kind of side effect which is more relevant in the case of oral assumption. Nothing impossible to overcome, but in a pro athlete, who, as we are constantly remembered, lives a nearly permanent condition of weakened immune system…

    • Steroids are commonly prescribed to asthmatics with antibiotics for an infective exacerbation.
      But surely if he was this bad, should he have been racing.

        • You’re right, as I suggested saying that’s a problem usually overcome, but I’d like to stress again the fact that a rider’s immune system is in a peculiar condition, especially when the athlete undergoes/has undergone serious weight loss. Moreover, many antibiotics tend to spoil sporting performances… If he actually was under antibiotics treatment during that race, well, wow! If he wasn’t, I wouldn’t consider very cautious taking cortisone & C. with an infective state ongoing.

  19. “Just because large swathes of the media and the authorities buried their heads in the sand…”

    And Sky actually IS a large swathe of the media. Hmmm…

    • Sky is a large piece of the British media. But…even here, if the Guardian, the Telegraph or the Daily Mail had anything to expose, they would and could (do you have any idea of just how much Paul Dacre, for one, would like to get one over on Murdoch? I have a background in media and I know he would kill for the chance).

  20. it is kind of interesting, that Froome was on the kick-out line for Brailsford and is coming out of nowhere…than they find out about all his “illness” and his super genes (vo2max probably, although they never officially tested that – yeah right?!) and now he is the man to beat? Now there is use of inhalers, cortisone use and rushed TUEs coming out and all while the son of the president of the UCI is working for the team…maybe they needed also someone who doesn’t have to loose anything which they can treat like that. If it comes out that Froome really doped, they all gonna blame it on him and without all that he would have been in no mans land. Another story of doping pays off. Wiggins maybe had too much to loose to do everything or something new.

    Brailsford always praised the open and Anti-Doping strategy and not giving out any data from Froome to the public. Last year I was convinced that Wiggins won the Tour clean and so did Froome…now I just cannot believe than any word anymore…sounds to me like the same story as with Postal, Armstrong and Bruyneel. And also looks like Columbia is the new Spain and you just have to train there more than in other countries…I mean how come that Henao is back in Columbia for suspicious values and than come back and nothing gets declared to the public. A new clean generation in cycling? This was a dream of yesterday to me…

  21. Any comment yet on the information in the article in the Guardian by Will Fotheringham that David Howman of WADA has confirmed that WADA are not investigating this? A bit of made up fluff by JDD, on that particular point.

    • The JDD names WADA’s Dr Vernec the one looking into it. Note the word “enquête” can be translated as investigation but can also mean inquiry, I would not imagine a battery of lawyers more a check.

      There’s still no word on whether Dr Zorzoli is a member of the UCI’s TUE Committee. There’s mention he’s a secretary of the TUEC but is this part of the committee or a subordinate role?

  22. Let’s consider that an anti-doping program is similar to a certification program. In order to be efficient a certification program need to bring trust to the customers. If there’s no trust the customers won’t buy the certified products.
    To bring trust, in all industry, there are clear rules to preserve the transparency and impartiality of certification schemes. For example, in my country, if I’m in charge of certification of food I must sign a document stipulating that don’t have relatives who are food producers, resellers etc…

    The Armstrong case taught us that the UCI failed to manage a credible anti-doping system and had big issues regarding impartiality.
    8 months after the departure of Mc Quaid the same organisation and the procedures are still in place at the UCI hence the same problems . Nothing has changed: the UCI issues a press-release saying there’s no problem of conflict of interests, no problem with Brian or Oli Cookson and frighten to take legal actions. These people, the Cooksons, the Mc Quaids are either ignorant or dishonest.

    Meanwhile I can’t see how you could successfully attract new sponsors when there’s no trust (however sponsors like Gazprom can adjust to such situations …)

  23. Nothing like a doping allegation to bring out the screamers. Mr. Inner Ring’s doing a good job minimizing their negative impact without being too heavy on the censorship. What I find troubling is a) the old “Well, it’s not specifically outlawed by the rules and I’ve been doing it for a long time” and b) the constant drumbeat of “SKY, we’re the good, clean guys!” with actions that don’t seem to match their words. SPORTING VALUES are too-often missing here…and when/if those are all gone, all we have left is BUSINESS…who wants to watch that on TV or on the roadside?

Comments are closed.