Editor's note: If there is one thing this blog will not do is shy away from is jumping into the deep end. Thus, I present to you an on-going issue which threatens to rip cycling to pieces. One one side are those who seek the truth, and by extension, what is best for cycling. On the other side are people so bent on a single-person vendetta, that the potential lethal blow to the sport is of no consequence to them.
I have no dog in this fight. However, if there is evidence of systemic doping, then get on with it. If there is no evidence, then let it go. Innuendo is not enough to convict in the U.S.A. Or, is it?
Graham Watson Photo
War of words escalates between UCI, USADA over inquiry into Lance Armstrong, U.S.Postal. VeloNews, 08-05-2012
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (VN) — The war of words between the UCI and
the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency escalated over the weekend, with the
international governing body informing USADA on Saturday that it was
denying the agency “any authority to act or proceed” on behalf of the
UCI and/or USA Cycling.
On Friday,
The New York Daily News reported
that the UCI had asked USADA in mid-July to hand over all documents
related to the agency’s investigation of Lance Armstrong and others over
what
USADA CEO Travis Tygart has called a “doping conspiracy” at the seven-time Tour de France winner’s U.S. Postal Service team.
USADA general counsel Bill Bock
replied on July 26
that his agency had jurisdiction in the matter and indeed was
established “as an independent anti-doping organization not subject to
the control of any sports organization precisely for situations such as
this where a sports organization with manifest conflicts of interest is
attempting to impose its will on the results management process.”
Both letters were attached to a brief that USADA filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas.
On Saturday, the website Cyclismas.com
published a letter
dated August 3 in which UCI president Pat McQuaid asserted that his
organization had jurisdiction in the Armstrong case, that USADA was
withholding information from the UCI and those under investigation, and
that the international governing body had no conflicts of interest in
the matter.
“We contest and reject these allegations, which we feel denote a
political intention against cycling and the UCI,” wrote McQuaid, adding,
“Anyhow, whether there is a conflict of interests is not a matter for
USADA to decide.”
Regardless of the issues of jurisdiction and conflict of interests,
McQuaid continued, “USADA has disqualified itself as a neutral body by
proffering pages of accusations against the UCI which denotes a bias
against cycling, by ignoring UCI’s efforts in the fight against doping,
by judging upon press articles, by refusing to submit the evidence its
accusations are allegedly based upon, by claiming results management
authority without giving evidence of such claim, by calling for witness
statements under unknown but apparently unprecedented conditions which
seem also contrary to the Code, by
claiming to ban a person for life without elementary due process, (and) by invoking a violation of conspiracy that is not provided for in the rules.”
McQuaid closed by suggesting that USADA and UCI put the question of
jurisdiction to the international Court of Arbitration for Sport and
forbidding USADA “to act or proceed on the basis of ADR (anti-doping
regulations) or any other rule of the UCI or otherwise on behalf of UCI
and/or USA Cycling.”
It was not clear whether McQuaid’s edict referred solely to the
Armstrong inquiry or to USADA’s overall mission. E-mails to USADA and
USA Cycling seeking response and clarification have yet to be returned.
Also on Saturday, the UCI communications service issued a press
release lambasting USADA as laying claim to “an authority that it does
not have” and employing procedures “that violate basic principles of due
process.”
“The absence of any evidence that has been made available to the
respondents and to the UCI, the fact that USADA has no results
management jurisdiction in this case, the fact that USADA refuses to
have its file assessed by an independent results management authority
and the fact that USADA continues to claim in these circumstances
publicly that a doping conspiracy has taken place indeed brings UCI to
the conclusion that USADA has no respect for the rules and for the
principles of due process,” the release continued.
“The UCI wants that the case is judged according to the rules, upon
facts established on the basis of sound evidence and by a neutral
instance, including in the stadium of results management. The UCI wants
that justice is done. Justice cannot be done by violating rules on
jurisdiction, with files that have been kept secret so far and results
management proceedings that are not fair.”
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has remained largely silent
throughout this back and forth, though last month, following the
lifetime bans issued against three Armstrong associates,
the agency issued a statement
confirming its unity with USADA, while explaining that any
international federation — in this case, the UCI — has the right to
appeal the sanctions.
At the time WADA declined to comment on specifics of the case until “the time for exercising such rights has passed.”
VeloNews, 08-05-2012