UCI president Pat McQuaid has hit back at the manifesto of presidential election rival Brian Cookson released in Paris last Monday in which he outlined his plans for the world governing body should be become president after September's vote.
McQuaid, who is seeking a third term, branded Cookson’s report as “half baked, fundamentally flawed and financially impractical”.
The Irishman said, via a statement: “Just telling people what they want to hear is easy. He needs to explain how he is going to make it happen."
“He must also make a clear statement on whether he believes that cycling has changed, as many of today’s riders have said loudly and clearly."
“He must also clarify whether he believes cycling is leading the fight against doping, in order to reassure the cycling family that he is prepared to stand up for the sport against those who attack it.”
Advertisement
“Brian Cookson’s manifesto is proposing nothing new on independent anti-doping, because the WADA code simply does not permit the UCI, or indeed any other international federation, to create an independent anti-doping body."
“As a signatory of the WADA code, the UCI is responsible for all anti-doping in cycling. While it may delegate responsibility to a third party, any third party must comply with the UCI rules and the WADA code – and so its operations must remain part of the UCI’s anti-doping programme."
Related News
“What Brian is proposing, when you examine the detail, is simply to relocate the existing Cycling Anti Doping Foundation (CADF) unit, which is as fully independent as the WADA code permits, outside of the UCI building in Aigle."
“As Brian should know, much of the testing in cycling is already independent as the UCI shares responsibility for anti-doping with organisations such as WADA, USADA, AFLD, CONI, amongst others. And as Brian should also know, no anti-doping test result is ever seen solely by the CADF. The results of every single test are seen by multiple anti-doping organisations."
“Brian’s proposal that the 'UCI must remove itself from the management of anti-doping' is a nice sound bite, but it demonstrates how little he understands about the WADA C=code and the UCI’s responsibility as a signatory to the code."
“My own position, and that of the UCI, as we have said many times, is that we are in favour of independent anti-doping if WADA changes its code to facilitate that for all international federations.”
McQuaid also outlined six pertinent questions which he urged Cookson to answer. They are:
- Why he is proposing to establish a new anti-doping unit when the CADF already exists, whose independence he has vouched for, voted on and approved in numerous management committee meetings?
- If he is now abandoning his decision at the very recent UCI management committee to support a recommendation from the UCI stakeholders forum to increase further the independence of the CADF?
- How his proposal to establish an independent anti-doping board is any different from the recent decision of the UCI management committee to approve the appointment of a fully independent board for the CADF, a process which is already underway?
- What is the fundamental difference between the independent CADF that exists and the new unit that he is now proposing?
- How his proposed new “unit” will be staffed and funded and by whom?
- How far geographically must the UCI relocate the CADF away from its president’s office to guarantee its independence?
As part of his lengthy statement, McQuaid called into question his opponent’s stance on the truth and reconciliation platform, suggesting he had wavered about where he stood on this, how he plans to finance his proposed independent drug-testing centre, and how he can claim to influence policy within the Olympic movement when he is neither an elected member of the IOC nor “well known” by the membership.
Topics
