up for today’s tongue lashing is the UCWhy. crankpunk likes a little treat before bed with his coco but unfortunately there will be none for some time – possibly months – because the UCI has taken all the biscuits! the crafty cookie-snafflers!
first of all we had the venerable prez of the body that represents (allegedly) world cycling stating the other day that the UCI hadn’t been resting on its decaying laurels and in fact it really had been busy in recent months. he then produced a backdated ‘to do’ list which quite clearly proved that fact:
1. buy marshmallows
2. clean ears
3. watch steam coming from kettle
4. become a better human being
5. f**king ignore 4.
6. fill in 7-10 later
11. do something somehow someday about that stuff, uh, dammit, and find out how to get this crap to go away
13. ! buy large broom and massive f**king carpet
so what have the UCI been up to now? well, if you remember, a few months they announced that they would setting up an ‘independent’ commission (!) to investigate their links to LA, then decide hmmm that wasn’t really such a great idea, with Pat saying this:
“I am sorry that it has to be abandoned but we could not afford the money that we wanted to spend on it.”
then he announced that ‘in June’ he would be setting up another independent commission to look at the LA ties and at the UCI’s finances. now it seems it is finally happening, next week in Russia, when the UCI and, thankfully, WADA will meet to decide who will sit on the 3-member panel. now, let me not be hasty and start doubting the integrity of a panel that is at least half-approved by the very body it is supposed to be investigating – it could be that the panel does a great and thorough job and we finally get to the bottom of this.
but then, going off past history… well, let’s just say that even if you are in possession of a full tank of high-grade oxygen, i would still advise you don’t hold that breath.
when the UCI pulled that previous panel, USADA leader Travis Tygart wearily noted that “they [the UCI] disbanded the independent commission that was set up at the very time it began to actually act independent.” we need this, so badly. and it has to be done right. it can’t be another UCI fudge-job.
Tygart summed up the feelings of many, when he spoke the other day: “We have seen nothing. It has been over seven months since our report and their declaration that they needed to take decisive action. So, of course, we are frustrated.”
they really are treating us like idiots, it is incredible. and this is just a sporting body. i mean, imagine if our government was like this? oh, wait…
now, Pat just had an opinion piece in CyclingSnooze, in which he went on about all the great work the UCI was doing, quoting from a survey conducted for the UCI by Deloitte which praised the UCI’s day-to-day relations with the cycling world, but noted himself that:
‘The executive summary makes six ‘crucial’ recommendations to enable cycling to achieve its ‘bright future’:
• We must restore the credibility of cycling and the public perception of the sport;
• A decision needs to be made quickly whether to hold an independent inquiry into the Armstrong affair and whether to offer riders an ‘amnesty’ or reduced sanctions for coming forward to that enquiry;
• The UCI needs to develop a long-term strategic plan for cycling;
• We should further strengthen the anti-doping culture that already exists in the UCI;
• We need to improve our relationship with WADA; and
• We need to restructure the pro-cycling calendar.
The report summary also makes five additional ‘high-priority’ recommendations. They are:
• To increase the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation (CADF);
• To appoint an independent anti-doping body to sanction professional riders caught doping;
• To review the existing points system for pro-teams;
• To focus on developing women’s cycling;
• To improve our communication with professional road riders.
now, is it just me, or shouldn’t the first half of these be the UCI’s job in the first place? and, erm, shouldn’t the second half too?
so, Pat, let me get this right, the UCI is doing great! but not in fact doing any of the things that it should be doing… great work amigo, keep it up!
you know, if i had a report card like that from my job, i’d be out on my ass. seriously…
he ended his opinion piece by saying this:
‘Cycling has an extremely bright future.’
*NOTICE – i don;t know why certain words are linked, i didn’t do it but can’t stop it. that sucks, apologies.
“• The UCI needs to develop a long-term strategic plan for cycling;”
How long has the UCI been in existence?
i know, it’s like… sorry?
2015 it seems.
i mean, as i read the report, it’s basically saying ‘you have no idea what you are doing’
I just about Peed My Pants with laughter. Especially when I read their to do list of “To focus on the development of Women’s Cycling’ This is when I DID Pee my pants with laughter!
In the early 90’s, back when I was a yung un’, I was informed that the UCI was going to put up to vote whether or not a woman who was menstruating should be allowed to race? Hmmm, let me think about this, I replied: “During a 3 week stage race, that could take out the whole field? Maybe you could lock us in the Broom wagon, to follow the race till that awful, unthinkable flow stopped? Then could we continue the race? How about this? Do you think we women would lie about being on the rag? Or on the Chamy…. You know, we WILL all lie to you about this, so you’re gonna have to do panty check before the race, then we’d just use tampons, then you’d have to do string check… Are you getting the point here, Sir? Where are you from? Holland? What’s your name? Hein something? You are our new President? WOW! Looks like you are going to be a great asset to helping Women’s Cycling”
So, you can see why I had to go change my undies right now and it didn’t have anything to do with ‘the flow’. It was the ‘other flow’ of pee that comes with hysterical laughter.
I do wonder if they ever got around to voting on that item on the agenda? I doubt it….they are still looking into it, I’m sure….When they get that one voted on, I’m absolutely positive they will start on ‘the Development of Women’s Cycling’ In the meantime, I’m sure I’ll hit menopause and won’t have to worry about their vote.
Inga, you’re so funny 😉 I hope your impression of that Dutch asshole was somewhat offset by knowing me !
that’s funny, they bleed the sport dry but they have tome to worry about menstruating women? as ever, you couldn’t script it…
so let me get this straight… they’ve given themselves a mandate… no, not really a mandate, but rather a list of suggestions that are really what should have been their job description from the outset, but then they want to appoint a self appointed commission that they want the rest of us to believe is independent but is made up primarily of insiders to oversee them in their implementation of the list of suggestions that really should be what they were supposed to do all along? Is anyone following me? Frankly I’m not sure I’m following myself at this point but I can promise what I just wrote makes more sense then how the UCWhy is acting… but then what do you expect from a group that has been complicit in the destruction of the sport they were formed to serve?
Makes me glad I’m retired. I’d be really pissed about now if my livelihood was in some way dependent upon these morons…
yep, exactly, they fund a report that comes back saying ‘hey you’re doing a great job (and paying us, so we won;t criticise too much!) but you miiiiight want to try these recommendations – which are essentially your job in the first place, but we won;t say that…’ …they are nutters.