UCI “Smokescreen” Confirms Commission Is Not Truly Independent


Change Cycling Now (CCN) is dismayed by the Union Cycliste Internationals’s (UCI’s) incomplete response to the Independent Commission’s calls for wider terms of reference and alterations to the general process of its forthcoming review. It is a response which clearly illustrates the UCI’s continued determination to manipulate the independent process and consequently endangers the credibility of the Commission’s individual representatives.

The Commission published its concerns in a statement on Wednesday, 16th January, 2013, after the World Anti-Doping Agency, (WADA) The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and CCN independently announced they could not co-operate with the review process under the current terms of reference. CCN supports the view of both WADA and USADA that wider terms of reference are required in addition to the creation of afull truth and reconciliation and amnesty process.

However, the UCI’s decision to ignore the wider issues by merely announcing conditional ‘approval’ for an amnesty, confirms CCN’s view that the Commission is being systematically obstructed in its efforts to establish a truly independent process. The Commission has publicly confirmed its commitment to a comprehensive Truth and Reconciliation process and also acknowledged – and accepted – the objections of WADA, USADA and CCN to the currently restrictive Terms of Reference. But by publicly approving an amnesty process and ignoring the wider issues, the UCI has effectively confirmed that the Commission is not, as the UCI have suggested, empowered to make unilateral decisions to ensure true independence. If, as the UCI has claimed, theCommission was empowered to draw up the Terms of Reference itself, it should equally be empowered to amend them without approval from the UCI.

It is CCN’s understanding that part of the WADA proposal is for the Truth and Reconciliation process to be administered by WADA on behalf of the Commission. It is therefore unnecessary and specifically disingenuous for the UCI to advise WADA on the need for compliance with its own code. CCN’s understanding of the process of amnesty is that any legally binding regulations are temporarily relaxed or suspended for the benefit of the wider process. The UCI’s suggestion that the code may be violated is therefore irrelevant. For example, a gun amnesty created for the greater benefit of society, does not require wholesale change to the applicable law to be successfully applied.