Pat McQuaid is relying on the support of Thailand and Morocco to run for the UCI presidency and effectively has put their support into play in two ways. One of those is dependent on a vote at the UCI congress next month just before the UCI presidential election at the same meeting at the World Championships in Florence. The other form the Thai and Moroccan support takes is their nomination of McQuaid before the June nominations deadline passed. The Irishman says the UCI rules allow the nominations, but others say his interpretation of the rules is wrong. Now five federations want the Court of Arbitration for Sport to decide.
UCI president Pat McQuaid is being put under pressure by a group of national federations to allow the Court of Arbitration for Sport decide if his nomination to run for next month’s presidential election is valid.
Advertisement
The group of five includes the national federations of the USA, Russia, Finland, Algeria and Canada.
In letters addressed to McQuaid they say the cycling world “has been watching the UCI Presidential race carefully and its reaction has varied from amusement to outrage, from bewilderment to astonishment” and wants some matters clarified by CAS before that election takes place.
In their letters each federation says the UCI congress next month will decide if a motion should be passed that would allow any two federations nominate a candidate to run for UCI president. The proposal by the Malaysian federation would be backdated to the current period, meaning the recent declarations of support for McQuaid from the Thai and Moroccan federations would apparently be enough to see McQuaid contest next month’s election.
However, McQuaid has said that both the Thais and Moroccans nominated him before the initial nomination deadline expired in June and he believes that even if the Malaysian federation proposal is defeated, he already has a nomination from both the Thais and Moroccans under the existing rules, either of which would be enough to enable him contest the election.
It has always been believed that under the current UCI rules a candidate can only run for election if they have been nominated by their home federation or the federation where they reside.
McQuaid has secured and lost nominations from his home federation Ireland and that of his adopted country Switzerland, essentially falling back on the nomination by the Thais and Moroccans; support that only emerged when he had lost the Swiss backing.
However, McQuaid has insisted recently that he is a member of “six or seven” federations and that any one of them was eligible to nominate him under the existing rules before the June nominations deadline passed.
He has said that article 51.1 of the UCI’s constitution states a nomination can come from “the federation of the candidate”. Others believe the wording is much more restrictive and only provides for a candidate to nominated by the federation they first approach or either their home federation or the federation of the country where they reside.
The group of five federations claim while the Malaysian proposal will be rejected on endorsed by the UCI congress, the interpretation of those words in article 51.1 needs to be clarified before congress and that CAS is the only body that can do that.
It believes if the matter is not referred to CAS and the election is contested by McQuaid and won on the basis of the Thai and Moroccan nominations he says he already has, it will be open to legal challenged as McQuaid begins what would be a third four-year term at the head of the world governing body.
Related News
It has urged McQuaid not only to agree to refer the matter to CAS, but to seek the court deals with the case and makes a deliberation quickly, in order that a ruling is handed down before an election is held on September. The group further adds in its letter to McQuaid that if he accepts the proposal, it would draw up a draft arbitration agreement for him to consider.
The Irishman, by the time of writing, had not responded but we’ll bring you news of that if and when he does.
Some of the relevant sections of the letter sent to McQuaid include the following:
The cycling world has been watching the UCI Presidential race carefully and its reaction has varied from amusement to outrage, from bewilderment to astonishment. The loudest voices are frustrated by the uncertainty that will accompany this year’s Congress in light of shifting nominations, retroactive laws, and midstream changes to the election process. We understand that Congress has the power to address the propriety of amending the election process, and it will speak when these matters are addressed in Florence.
What is not before Congress -- and what remains a substantial question -- is the meaning of UCI’s Constitutional mandate concerning the nomination of candidates. Article 51.1 requires that any Presidential candidate be supported by a nomination from “the federation of the candidate.”
Some read that provision as allowing an individual to be nominated by any federation of which the candidate is a member, regardless of the length of the candidate’s membership, his participation in the affairs of the federation, or his residence in the country in which the federation operates. Others believe that Article 51.1 unambiguously allows a nomination from only one federation, the federation, of the candidate.
This uncertainty does not serve anyone’s interests, especially those of the delegates who rely on this year’s proceedings to allow UCI to prove to the cycling world that governance of their International Federation is ultimately grounded in the Constitution, and that the meaning of the Constitution is predictable and reliable.
As a group, we believe strongly enough about the legal principles involved to ask a court to resolve this Constitutional dispute in due course. But we also care enough about our International Federation to try everything in our power to avoid a protracted battle that might cast the results of the election into doubt for many months to come.
We therefore are willing to forego the spectre of any post-election litigation over Article 51.1 for the certainty of a pre-election, binding decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. We ask that you demonstrate your allegiance to the UCI Constitution and the welfare of all our constituents by agreeing to the same. Specifically, we ask that you agree to submit the following question to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for expedited resolution before Congress convenes:
Under Article 51.1 of the UCI Constitution, which federation(s) may submit a valid nomination for a prospective candidate for office of President of UCI?
(The letter was sent to McQuaid by all five federations individually)
Topics
