1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UCI making friends again.

Discussion in 'Pro Cycling (Road and Track Racing)' started by mondobongo, 19 Mar 2008.

  1. mondobongo

    mondobongo Über Member

    So the ruling body is asked for assistance by a Countries Controlling Body and refuses to help. Just what is the UCI playing at now its no wonder ASO have gone off on their own and others are sure to follow them can you blame them.
    (Article below Copied from Cycling News)

    WADA disappointed with UCI over Landis case funding

    The World Anti-Doping Agency has said it's disappointed that the International Cycling Union (UCI) has turned down a request for funding assistance from the United States Anti-Doping Agency to help its fight against disgraced cyclist Floyd Landis. USADA's request for funding comes as the case moves to the final stage of appeal today (see separate article) with the parties to appear before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
    Following the UCI's refusal to offer financial assistance, WADA has stepped in and opened its coffers to the American anti-doping body. Figures of just how much financial assistance has been offered have not been confirmed, which some sources suggesting WADA will pick up the entire bill.
    "It became apparent, from the way in which the matter was being defended, that further efforts had to be made to ensure that all relevant information was put before the tribunal, and that the witnesses required could be present," said WADA in a statement e-mailed to AP. "This required some assistance from WADA."
    WADA added that its decision was made after the UCI refused to offer assistance. "Which was disappointing," said WADA. "Particularly as it is a case under UCI rules."
    USADA took over the case as a result of the UCI rules that sees a doping case handed to the rider's national doping body after the B-Sample is found to be positive.
     
  2. Keith Oates

    Keith Oates Janner

    Location:
    Penarth, Wales
    I don't think WADA is on the UCI Christmas card list after the attacks it suffered from 'Dick' Pound when he was around.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  3. rich p

    rich p ridiculous old lush

    Location:
    Brighton
    This typical of the UCI burying its head in the sand. What's the latest on their threat to ban teams who rode the Paris Nice?
     
  4. rich p

    rich p ridiculous old lush

    Location:
    Brighton
    But the UCI here is doing the dirty on USADA not WADA, Keith.
    There are far too many initials in cycling!
     
  5. mondobongo

    mondobongo Über Member

    The UCI have a meeting with the riders on the 25th March to discuss the implications of riding the Paris-Nice.
     
  6. simonali

    simonali Über Member

    Location:
    Wiltshire
  7. Dave5N

    Dave5N Über Member

    Fancy the UCI taking an inconsistent approach to drug-use!
     
  8. Keith Oates

    Keith Oates Janner

    Location:
    Penarth, Wales
    Rich p, To make that statement you have to assume that he is guilty. Surely if the UCI gave money to USADA to help prove he is guilty then it should give money to Landis to help prove he is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  9. But Keith, he is guilty.
     
  10. Keith Oates

    Keith Oates Janner

    Location:
    Penarth, Wales
    I'm not passing judgement on who is or is not guilty only the fair way to get the correct answer. Frankly speaking when lawyers get involved it is my opinion that the guilty party is not always the one to be punished!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  11. rich p

    rich p ridiculous old lush

    Location:
    Brighton
    As YSR says, Landis has already been found guilty. Are you disputing that finding, Keith? Surely you can't judge every legal case on your own gut feeling or hunch? We're talking here about whether a governing body is willing to help fund its own procedures!
     
  12. Keith Oates

    Keith Oates Janner

    Location:
    Penarth, Wales
    I'm not disputing the fact that he has been proven guilty by one 'court'. However as I understand it the system says he's allowed to appeal that decision then both he and USADA should be treated equally in the hand out department!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OT, but I find it amazing if a man who is guilty would make himself nearly bankrupt to prove he's not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!