UCI and doping controls

Before you can have any expectations of the UCI. We must first hash-out who and what the UCI
actually is, and what their actual purpose is.

What do all of you think they are?:

- Are they a bunch of benevolent do-gooders who just love the sport of cycling so much that they
want to be involved in the governance of racing?

- Are they a collection of stakeholders in professional cycling teams (IE, owners)?

- Are they a bunch of men who simply serve the interests of the Shimanos, Campagnolos and Mavics?

Before you can expect the UCI to be an organized bunch of anti-doping warriors, you must first
understand their stake in the business of cycling and the results they would be most interested in
getting out of their efforts.

My impression is that they are mostly represented by the ownership of the pro teams (IE guys like
Weisel). They seem to be more interested in getting attention away from the issue of doping (making
it go away) than in truly championing the effort of squashing drugs out of cycling. Much the same
way that the NFL and MLB ownership has agreed to drug testing criteria that effectively allows the
drug use to continue because of the advance notice required for such tests.

To my knowledge, the UCI requires no one to submit to random testing during the entire scope of the
season (outside of racing). USA Cycling does seem to go after amateur members of the US National
team, but I do not believe they have ever notified Lance or George of a surprise test while they are
in-country training. It just doesn't happen.

But, I could be wrong.

kaiser wrote:

> - Are they a collection of stakeholders in professional cycling teams (IE, owners)?

Stakeholders are people who have no interest in something. They used to hold the bets (stakes)
before sporting contests. So your description here might actually be quite accurate.

"Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:5ZySb.19703$ws.2625604@news02.tsnz.net...
>
>
> kaiser wrote:
>
> > - Are they a collection of stakeholders in professional cycling teams (IE, owners)?
>
> Stakeholders are people who have no interest in something. They used to hold the bets (stakes)
> before sporting contests. So your description here might actually be quite accurate.

More specifically: http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm STAKEHOLDER, contracts. A third
person, chosen by two or more persons, to keep in deposit property, the right or possession of which
is contested between them and to be delivered to the one who shall establish his right to it. Thus
each of them is considered as depositing the whole thing. This distin-guishes this contract from
that which takes place when two or more tenants in common deposit a thing with a bailee. Domat, Lois
Civ. liv. 1, t. 7, s. 4; 1 Vern. R. 44, n. 1.

2. A person having in his hands money or other property claimed by several others, is considered in
equity as a stakeholder. 1 Vern. R. 144.

3. The duties of a stakeholder are to deliver the thing holden by him to the person entitled to it
on demand. It is frequently questionable who is entitled to it. In case of an unlawful wager,
although be may be justified for delivering the thing to the winner, by the express or implied
consent of the loser; 8, John. 147; yet if before the event has happened he has been required by
either party to give up the thing deposited with him by such party, he is bound so to deliver it;
3 Taunt. 377; 4 Taunt. 492; or if, after the event has happened, the losing party give notice to
the stakeholder not to pay the winner, a payment made to him afterwards will be made in his own
wrong, and the party who deposited the money or thing may recover it from the stakeholder. 16 S.
& R. 147; 7 T. R. 536; 8 T. R. 575; 4 Taunt. 474; 2 Marsh. 542. See 3 Penns. R. 468; 4 John. 426;
5 Wend. 250; 2
P. A. Browne, 182; 1 Bailey, 486, 503. See Wagers.

There is another use as well:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...7368&dict=CALD stake (SHARE) [Show phonetics] noun
[C] a share or a financial involvement in something such as a business: He holds (= owns) a 40%
stake in/of the company.

stakeholder [Show phonetics] noun [C] 1 a person or group of people who own a share in a business

2 a person such as an employee, customer or citizen who is involved with an organization, society,
etc. and therefore has responsibilities towards it and an interest in its success
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Interestingly, I can find no reference to stakeholders in Blackstone's Commentaries On The Laws of
England which goes back to the mid-1600s, IIRC.

--
Sam, glad to be back after a bit of a hiatus. "kaiser" <k_sultze@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fe15cc0.0401291012.e039bd9@posting.google.com...
> Before you can have any expectations of the UCI. We must first hash-out who and what the UCI
> actually is, and what their actual purpose is.
>
> What do all of you think they are?:
>
> - Are they a bunch of benevolent do-gooders who just love the sport of cycling so much that they
> want to be involved in the governance of racing?
>
> - Are they a collection of stakeholders in professional cycling teams (IE, owners)?
>
> - Are they a bunch of men who simply serve the interests of the Shimanos, Campagnolos and Mavics?
>
> Before you can expect the UCI to be an organized bunch of anti-doping warriors, you must first
> understand their stake in the business of cycling and the results they would be most interested in
> getting out of their efforts.
>
> My impression is that they are mostly represented by the ownership of the pro teams (IE guys like
> Weisel). They seem to be more interested in getting attention away from the issue of doping
> (making it go away) than in truly championing the effort of squashing drugs out of cycling. Much
> the same way that the NFL and MLB ownership has agreed to drug testing criteria that effectively
> allows the drug use to continue because of the advance notice required for such tests.
>
> To my knowledge, the UCI requires no one to submit to random testing during the entire scope of
> the season (outside of racing). USA Cycling does seem to go after amateur members of the US
> National team, but I do not believe they have ever notified Lance or George of a surprise test
> while they are in-country training. It just doesn't happen.
Since USA Cycling has no idea when those athletes are going to be tested it would
be really hard to give them the heads up. As for "amateur" riders, what do you
mean? Define the term? If you mean juniors, they can be subject to OOC testing if
they meet certain criteria; U23 also can be.

>
> But, I could be wrong.

Amateurs meaning "not professional"

And to the others: thanks for finally clearing-up the definition of the word "stakeholders". It is
refreshing to see a bunch of attorneys splitting-hairs over a single word ;-)

The UCI leadership is definitley made up of people who have an interest in pro teams. Stakeholders,
if you will.

Going after those who help perpetuate the doping problem would mean going after themselves, because
it is the team ownership that provides the underground infrastructure and funding for the drug
distribution system. Getting tough would mean to cannibalize themselves.

The current level of response fromthe UCI over doping is merely the minimum effort needed to
convince the press that something is being done.

The Tour de France's "tough guy" stance on doping affects less than 1% of the available doping opportunity for
riders, but is responsible for 95% of the press' thinking that the problem is being addressed
adeqately. The Tour de France is the UCI's designated "dark trap" of the season. If a rider gets caught there,
then it means he was too moronic to have around anyway, because he can't adapt to the current "wink
wink" system in place.

"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<6reTb.7749$F23.1043@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> --
> Sam, glad to be back after a bit of a hiatus. "kaiser" <k_sultze@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6fe15cc0.0401291012.e039bd9@posting.google.com...
> > Before you can have any expectations of the UCI. We must first hash-out who and what the UCI
> > actually is, and what their actual purpose is.
> >
> > What do all of you think they are?:
> >
> > - Are they a bunch of benevolent do-gooders who just love the sport of cycling so much that they
> > want to be involved in the governance of racing?
> >
> > - Are they a collection of stakeholders in professional cycling teams (IE, owners)?
> >
> > - Are they a bunch of men who simply serve the interests of the Shimanos, Campagnolos and
> > Mavics?
> >
> > Before you can expect the UCI to be an organized bunch of anti-doping warriors, you must first
> > understand their stake in the business of cycling and the results they would be most interested
> > in getting out of their efforts.
> >
> > My impression is that they are mostly represented by the ownership of the pro teams (IE guys
> > like Weisel). They seem to be more interested in getting attention away from the issue of doping
> > (making it go away) than in truly championing the effort of squashing drugs out of cycling. Much
> > the same way that the NFL and MLB ownership has agreed to drug testing criteria that effectively
> > allows the drug use to continue because of the advance notice required for such tests.
> >
> > To my knowledge, the UCI requires no one to submit to random testing during the entire scope of
> > the season (outside of racing). USA Cycling does seem to go after amateur members of the US
> > National team, but I do not believe they have ever notified Lance or George of a surprise test
> > while they are in-country training. It just doesn't happen.
> Since USA Cycling has no idea when those athletes are going to be tested it would
> be really hard to give them the heads up. As for "amateur" riders, what do you
> mean? Define the term? If you mean juniors, they can be subject to OOC testing if
> they meet certain criteria; U23 also can be.
>
>
> >
> > But, I could be wrong.