The CIRC report is positive on aspects of the UCI's approach to doping under Pat McQuaid, but in many sections it is highly critical of the organisation under his leadership and of McQuaid personally.
A major new report on doping in cycling has found Lance Armstrong was treated favourably by the UCI when he decided to return to the sport in 2009 and Irishman Pat McQuaid had a direct role in that regard.
The Cycling Independent Reform Commission says there is no evidence to support allegations that payments by Armstrong to the UCI were linked to doping cover-up on his behalf.
It also clearly states the eight-year period to September 2013 when McQuaid was UCI president was marked by significant progress in the sport’s fight against doping.
However, a lot of the conclusions are critical of the UCI under McQuaid and of the Irishman personally.
Advertisement
On the issue of Armstrong’s return to the sport in 2009, it says there was no evidence of any agreement between McQuaid and the American at the time.
But it suggests the decision to allow him return to racing in time to ride the Tour Down Under was linked to his decision to ride the Tour of Ireland professional race later that season.
It deals with that episode in a section on how the UCI failed to adhere to its own rules.
It first cites the “therapeutic use exemptions” case of former world champion Laurent Brochard in 1997 and Armstrong in 1999, “when both riders were permitted to provide backdated prescriptions to avoid sanction”.
It then goes on to deal with Armstong’s 2009 comeback and the fact he was permitted to return to racing early to compete in the Tour Down Under.
Armstrong during his comeback in 1999 in the colours of Astana. He said his return to the sport was the link to the past that resulted in his downfall.
This was despite not having been in the UCI’s testing pool for the prescribed period before any rider’s return to racing.
“Whilst there is no direct evidence of an agreement between Pat McQuaid and Lance Armstrong, information in the Commission’s possession shows that: (i) Pat McQuaid made a sudden U-turn and allowed Lance Armstrong to return 13 days early to participate in the Tour Down Under, despite advice from UCI staff not to make an exception, and (ii) there was a temporal link between this decision, which was communicated to UCI staff in the morning, and the decision of Lance Armstrong, which was notified to Pat McQuaid later that same day, to participate in the Tour of Ireland, an event run by people known to Pat McQuaid.”
On the allegations that payments to Armstrong were linked to favourable treatment under anti doping programmes, the commission finds no evidence to support this, saying:
Related News
“Despite allegations that Lance Armstrong tested positive during the June 2001 Tour de Suisse and paid UCI to cover up it up, reports from the laboratory show that he did not test positive during the Tour de Suisse (although three of his five samples came back as suspicious for EPO).
“A donation of $25,000 was made by Lance Armstrong to UCI for the fight against doping, but it was not paid until May 2002 and there is no evidence that the two were linked.
“It was also alleged that Lance Armstrong paid money to help finance the Vrijman report, which had been commissioned by UCI to investigate accusations by L’Équipe in August 2005 that Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.
“Six months earlier, in January 2005, Lance Armstrong had proposed to contribute $100,000 to UCI’s anti-doping programme and in July, a Sysmex machine was bought by UCI, which was finally paid for by Lance Armstrong in January 2007.
“There is no evidence to link the donation by Lance Armstrong and the Vrijman report, and the timing indicates that the two were not related.”
UCI "defended and protected" Armstrong
In a section titled “Preferential treatment for Lance Armstrong” the report also says the UCI “saw Lance Armstrong as the perfect choice to lead the sport’s renaissance after the Festina scandal” that began to unfold on the occasion of the 1998 visit of the Tour de France to Ireland.
“(The) fact that he was American opened up a new continent for the sport, he had beaten cancer and the media quickly made him a global star. Numerous examples have been identified showing that UCI leadership “defended” or “protected” Lance Armstrong and took decisions because they were favourable to him.
“This was in circumstances where there was strong reason to suspect him of doping, which should have led UCI to be more circumspect in its dealings with him.
“UCI exempted Lance Armstrong from rules (see above), failed to target test him despite the suspicions, and publicly supported him against allegations of doping, even as late as 2012 when UCI threatened to challenge USADA’s jurisdiction.
“In addition, requesting and accepting donations from Lance Armstrong, given the suspicions, left UCI open to criticism.
“In respect of the (2005 - Ed) Vrijman report (see above), UCI purposely limited the scope of the independent investigator’s mandate to procedural issues contrary to what they told stakeholders and the public and against Emile Vrijman’s own suggestion.
“UCI, together with the Armstrong team, became directly and heavily involved in the drafting of the Vrijman report, the purpose of which was only partly to expedite the publication of the report.
“The main goal was to ensure that the report reflected UCI’s and Lance Armstrong’s personal conclusions. The significant participation of UCI and Armstrong’s team was never publicly acknowledged.
"In the CIRC’s view, based on an assessment of documents in its possession, UCI had no intention of pursuing an independent report; UCI’s approach prioritised the fight against WADA and the protection of its star athlete.”
Publishers note: We will publish further stories on all aspects of CIRC report centred on the role of Pat McQuaid in leading the UCI during the period under review.
Topics
