Has UCI shot its load?

[RdBiker]

http://www.velonews.com/article/73063

I found this article concerning what the UCI can do and here's a pick from it:

"Specifically, Gibbs points to a rule (12.1.004 for those keeping score) that applies to "anyone who behaves in an incorrect or dishonest fashion with regard to any other, or who fails to keep a promise or to meet contractual or other obligations in the domain of cycling."
That rule allows the UCI president to impose penalties "such as” exclusion from the world championships, continental championships or the Olympics."

So based on this it seems that the riders could be banned from the Olympics. But then we come to the problem who to ban It's going to be fun to watch the TT and the RR with continental teams and Astana (which by coincidence didn't take part in the P-N). That really would be a farce

Edit: ACTUALLY I would probably be more keen to watch the Olympics if the doped-to-the-gills pros weren't there (including Astana). But then you never know whether the continental riders dope or not.

 

[snood]

So, the question is why did McDumbass threaten riders with bans, knowing that he cannot possibly ban that many riders? Is he really such a dumbass to think that everyone would heed his threat and not race?

Not McQuaids threat. Hein Verbruggens threat.

 

[plectrum]

http://www.velonews.com/article/73063

I found this article concerning what the UCI can do and here's a pick from it:

"Specifically, Gibbs points to a rule (12.1.004 for those keeping score) that applies to "anyone who behaves in an incorrect or dishonest fashion with regard to any other, or who fails to keep a promise or to meet contractual or other obligations in the domain of cycling."
That rule allows the UCI president to impose penalties "such as” exclusion from the world championships, continental championships or the Olympics."

So based on this it seems that the riders could be banned from the Olympics.

Not quite as the riders have contractual responsabilities both to UCI & protour but obviously to their sponsors and thus to take part in certain key races throughout the year.

I doubt very much that UCI could actually ban a racer from Olympics or World Champs. Also UCI didn't have much effect on banning Bettini or Valverde from the recent Worlds.

 

[poulidor]

If my reading is correct the 12.1.004 UCI rule seems to give too much power to the President God especially when a disciplinary commission exist.

 

[earth_dweller]

BoulderReport:
After two years of scuffling that closely resembles a pushing match between eighth-grade boys (a few half-hearted shoves and insults, after which both parties disengage so as not to be late for fourth period), the ASO finally took a real swing. And it may have revealed that McQuaid, for all his bluster and tough talk, has a glass jaw.

 

[Crankyfeet]

BoulderReport:
After two years of scuffling that closely resembles a pushing match between eighth-grade boys (a few half-hearted shoves and insults, after which both parties disengage so as not to be late for fourth period), the ASO finally took a real swing. And it may have revealed that McQuaid, for all his bluster and tough talk, has a glass jaw.

Thanks Edie. Good read. Millar's right I think. Something has to change. Unfortunately just changing the UCI bobbleheads might not be enough, if the structure stays in place. Some kind of sanctioning body needs to be created that has more involvement in it by the main stakeholders of the tour, not just a bunch of amateur national feds who are more concerned about free VIP tickets to the TdF and the Olympics.

I don't know how this new body is going to be formed... because each party wants to annihilate each other.

Cycling needs an independent authority that reflects all parties though. If it is one that is only focussed on just the show/entertainment/Euro... it won't be that interested in spending millions on anti-doping IMHO.