Showing posts with label UCI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCI. Show all posts

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Armstrong donated $100K to UCI in 2005

Paul Kimmage may have an axe to grind - and a fairly extreme perspective on Armstrong - but the Landis accusations are certainly major. Interestingly Armstrong apparently donated $100K to the UCI in 2005 for the development of the sport. Nothing wrong with that, unless clearly linked favourable treatment followed. And there's no evidence of that - is there?

In aid of transparency and the resolution of any apparent or perceived conflicts of interest it'd be interesting to see details of all such donations to the UCI over the past few years. Have other riders given similar sums?

Kimmage: Landis Allegations Will Decide The Sport’s Future | Cyclingnews.com
He did acknowledge that the UCI had received money from Armstrong. “The UCI received $100,000 from Lance Armstrong in 2005, four years after this incident was supposed to have taken place.” McQuaid then explained: “The UCI would accept donations from anyone who’s prepared to give. We’re a non-profit-making organisation so we’re prepared to accept money from anyone who’s prepared to assist us in developing the sport.”


Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Davis drops, Haussler tops - funny old UCI points score this year #cycling

We are well into the pro cycling year and still it seems that the early-season winners have the edge - although the edge is beginning to crumble.

Haussler took over the UCI world ranking lead from Allan Davis (Quick Step). After another strong performance in Paris-Roubaix, Haussler leads the rankings with 197 points, ahead of PaĆ­s Vasco winner Alberto Contador (Astana) with 188 points. Davis slipped to third with his 183 points.

Nice to see Davis hang in there so long, and good to see Haussler get his name in lights - if only for a little while. The 3 big tours will shake it all up, of course.

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Drug testers take blood, sweat and tears - Armstrong's behaviour 'unusual'?

Just what constitutes 'unusual' behaviour when 'surprised' by the blood, urine and hair-sample-taking team I don't know:

Lance Armstrong's behaviour during his 24th anti-doping control since returning to the sport may have landed the American in hot water with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and French Anti-Doping Agency (AFLD). L'Equipe has reported that AFLD, which conducted the March 17 out-of-competition test, submitted a report to the International Cycling Union (UCI) and WADA on March 30. The report apparently details the abnormal behaviour observed before and during the surprise visit from the French agency.

Did he run away? Slam the door? Abuse them? Or is this L'Equipe beating things up? He is recovering from a broken collarbone, so maybe he was a bit tetchy... I would be. Later, Armstrong's rebuttal came and it was quite reasonable - someone turned up to take samples who simply didn't appear convincingly authorised to do so, so they checked on his credentials:

"I returned home that day after a long training ride to find a man chasing me as I rode up to the house. He stopped me and told me he was from the French laboratory and was here to test me. I had never heard of labs or governments doing drug testing and I had no idea who this guy was or whether he was telling the truth.

Despite all of that reasonableness, the "drug testing laboratory" in question was concerned about the 20 minute delay between turning up and actually getting the samples. Without wanting to get carried away about it, having a shower could have been a cover for time to take a masking drug, but then again it could just have been a shower. In any case 20 mins is not long enough to mask much, especially so when blood, urine and hair was taken. Surely he didn't get a hair transplant in 20mins?

Postscript: The UCI's Pat McQuaid wonders aloud what the AFLD is doing: "Normal proceedings between institutions such as national anti-doping agencies, the international federation and the World anti-doping agency (WADA) are normally done in a professional and confidential way until a decision or sanction has been taken," he continued. "In this case it was leaked to the press and I do find that disturbing."