Live Coverage: 2013 Giro D’ Italia – Stage 6 – Mola Di Bari To Margherita Di Savoia, 169km

Live Updates: 2013 Giro D’ Italia – Stage 3 – Sorrento To Marina Di Ascea, 222km

Live Coverage: 2013 Giro D’ Italia – Stage 2 – Ischia To Forio (TTT), 17.4km

Live Coverage of the TTeam Time Trial stage of the 2013 Giro d’Italia on the Island of Ischia

Live Update: 2013 Giro d’ Italia – Stage 1 – Naples to Naples, 130km

Friday Group Ride #164

Briefly, I will apologize for the FGR’s two-week hiatus. Technical difficulties kept us from sending our semi-fortnightly missive, and then a mad man on the loose on my home turf kept our minds otherwise occupied. But let’s leave behind weighty topics for a bit. All, now, seems back to normal, and so we push on with queries new and exciting.

While we were away, Classics season seems to have ended. Sadly. But as the Byrds (via Pete Seeger) sang, “…to everything, turn, turn, turn.” Grand Tour season is upon us. I call myself a Classics man, but Padraig prefers the Grand Tours. This we have hashed out in previous and ancient versions of the FGR.

And so the Giro, a race that has, arguably, been on the rise for the past decade. A confluence of great routes, closely-fought finishes and the dark star, self-destructive gravity of the Tour all coming together to the elevate the Italian affair.

As some indication of the Giro’s rise, last season’s Tour winner, Sir Bradley Wiggins, has opted to race for the Giro win rather than defend his yellow jersey. Team Sky will say that this Giro route suits Wiggins’ strengths better, while teammate Chris Froome will lead the squad in France, but it is hard not to understand the decision in the context of increased prestige for the Italian race.

Wiggins’ prime adversary is alleged to be Astana’s Vincenzo Nibali, a Vuelta winner with a better burst of uphill pace and a demonic ability to descend. Ryder Hesjedal, last year’s maglia rosa, remains a dark horse, which seems a bit cruel given the talent, guile and heart he showed in winning the 2012 race.

This week’s Group Ride opens our 2013 Grand Tour discussion, which also includes our own Charles Pelkey (Live Update Guy) doing live text updates throughout the race. Be sure to check in with Charles, a far keener analyst than I can pretend to be. So…the big question this week is: Who will win and why? Is Sir Bradley the man to beat, or will Sky’s disappointing season continue to disappoint? Who have we missed? Who else can win?

Images: Fotoreporter Sirotti, RCS Sport

The Explainer: The flight of the Ghibli

Dear Explainer,
I think you will be happy to get a question that doesn’t deal with the “big” story in cycling these days, so I want to offer you a chance to do that.

Sadly, my question involves an SOB of another sort, namely the airline I recently used.

I don’t do a lot of competitions outside of driving distance and I was excited to get a chance to compete in Europe this year. I packed my Cervélo P5 in the box it came in and then got a specially made plastic container for my wheels, including a Ghibli Ultra rear disk and a HED Tri-Spoke up front (yeah, I admit it, I am a geek). I had a great time and packed everything the same way I did for the trip over.

Anyway, when I got back to JFK airport, I picked up my luggage and my bike and then waited for the wheels. I waited and waited and then went to the baggage office to check. They had them there, but the box with the wheels was completely trashed. I’m sure you can imagine my reaction when I saw it and when I opened it, I freaked. The wheel box trashed. The top was open and there was a four-inch horizontal hole on both sides of the disc and my front wheel had one of its blades shattered. I have no idea what happened. Looking at my receipts, I have more than $5000 in damaged wheels.

I immediately notified the attendant and asked for a claim form. The baggage “service” guy said 1) that none of their equipment could have caused that particular damage, 2) that part of the problem is that I didn’t pack them well enough and 3) their “contract” limits damages to $3300.

They offered to refund my baggage charges, but are still “investigating” the rest of my claim.

It’s been two weeks and I haven’t heard a word. WTF do I do now?
– Richard

Dear Richard,
In the words of a former president, “I feel your pain.” Actually, I can’t, since I would still be hard-pressed to put together an amazing time trial machine like that … so I guess I can only imagine your pain.

But I digress.

Let’s start with the damages limit. The agent was referring to the airline’s “contract of carriage,” which is essentially the air transport industry’s version of the End User License Agreement (EULA) that comes with every piece of software you’ve ever bought. Why the comparison? Well, because nobody reads those either.

The problem is that the contract of carriage usually includes a liability cap when it comes to lost or damaged luggage. A quick survey of three such contracts – United, Southwest and American – shows they all top out at the aforementioned $3300. The airlines do offer you the opportunity to purchase additional coverage (generally up to $5000) for each item, but it’s something you have to ask for. I do not believe – even when you check a clearly pricey item like a Cervélo P5 or wheels like yours – that the duty to offer additional coverage falls to the airline.

One other common theme that emerges from these contracts of carriage is that all of the airlines make a point of saying something along these lines:

United is not liable for property that has been lost or damaged due to security screening requirements. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) assumes responsibility for security at airports. TSA is responsible for reviewing all claims relating to the screening of passengers and their baggage and, with limited exceptions, will determine whether claims should be paid and in what amount. In order to protect your rights, you must file a written claim with TSA and you should call the TSA Consumer Hotline at 1-866-289-9673 for assistance.

That’s important largely in that if the airline successfully argues that the damage to those wheels occurred while they – and other passengers’ luggage – were being screened by the TSA, they can avoid any liability. Just to make sure, go ahead and contact the TSA at that number and file the same claim with them. In other words, cover all of your bases.

I am a little concerned about the baggage agent’s claim that you didn’t pack your items well enough. I’ve seen bike-wheel-specific carriers and those are generally pretty secure. Indeed, from the sounds of it, someone would almost have had to ram a forklift fork through the thing to do the damage you described.

If you haven’t already done so, take pictures of everything and zoom in on the damaged portions so that you can offer detailed evidence of the damage and of the way you packed it.

The two-week wait you mentioned is annoying, to be sure, but it’s still a reasonable amount of time. I would make a pain of myself and maintain regular and polite (you know, keep it classy) contact with the airline’s claims department.

If they reject your claim or if they offer to pay less than the maximum, check to see if they have a built-in appeals process. If they do, use it. If they offer to pay you up to their liability cap, you have to make a decision. Do you accept the check and, therefore, waive any further claims, or do you take them on in court.

To start, do a bit of research and see if there are other suits pending out there. Several airlines have had to fend off individual and class action suits for poorly handled luggage and badly handled customer “service.”

I smiled when you mentioned that the airline offered to refund your baggage fee before doing a review of your claim. I’m not entirely sure, but that may stem from a 2010 lawsuit against American Airlines, which was sued for $5 million by a passenger whose luggage was lost and the airline took its sweet time in compensating her for her loss. To add insult to injury, the airline also refused to refund her a $25 “checked baggage fee,” even though the fee is purportedly to ensure the timely delivery of that baggage. No, I don’t think she won, but it may have left an impression on that and other airlines.

By the way, that particular suit noted that upwards of 2400 pieces of luggage handled by American are lost or damaged every single day.

It’s that level of mishandling that triggered a 2007 class action lawsuit against British Airways, when 13 plaintiffs sued the airline on behalf of themselves and any other passenger who flew an international BA flight between September 2005 and September 2007 and whose luggage was either “lost, damaged or delayed.”

The plaintiffs were able to offer evidence that the airline had been “inexcusably reckless” with their luggage. The airline took the claims seriously and moved quickly to settle, but with only the 13 original plaintiffs, heading off a class action suit that one can only imagine would have included tens or even hundreds of thousands of potential claimants. The details of the settlement are confidential, but you have to bet it was pretty hefty to stave off that potential disaster.

I raise those largely to encourage you to look around and see if there are other, similar suits brewing against the airline you used. If so, do your best to get in on it and get your damaged wheels fully covered in the process. Yes, it will take time, but it could be worth the trouble.

Keep in mind that a suit like that will probably be contested on a contingency basis, meaning that you will have to pay a significant portion (between 30 and 40 percent) of the settlement to the attorney handling the case, as well as your share of expenses.

If you find that your only option is to file suit on your own, it’s likely that you will have to hire an attorney with money up front and that ain’t cheap. If you end up fighting over the difference in value between your wheels ($5000) and the liability cap ($3300), it’s probably not worth enlisting a pricey attorney to do battle over the $1700 difference.

Still, before you accept any settlement offer, check in with an attorney to go over your options. Often, that initial consultation is free and the lawyer may offer suggestions to boost your settlement. (I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that a guy with a $6000 bike and $5000 wheels is not going to qualify for your local legal aid society, but the rest of you can always consider that option.)

It may be that if you are able to show the airline was – as in the British Airways case – inexcusably reckless, you might be able to sue for punitive damages in addition to your underlying economic damages claim. It would be a tough case to make, but as the BA case showed, it is doable. No matter what, though, it will take time.

The bottom line, though, is that you should think about any offer they make before accepting it. Don’t just take the money and run, without realizing that you’re waiving your right to any further claims regarding these damaged wheels.

Good luck and let me know how things turn out.
– Charles

The Explainer is a weekly feature on Red Kite Prayer. If you have a question related to the sport of cycling, doping or the legal issues faced by cyclists of all stripes, feel free to send it directly to The Explainer at Charles@Pelkey.com. PLEASE NOTE: Understand that reading the information contained here does not mean you have established an attorney-client relationship with attorney Charles Pelkey. Readers of this column should not act upon any information contained therein without first seeking the advice of qualified legal counsel licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

A Story Quashed: One small example of Lance Armstrong’s reach

Editor’s Note: I’ve previously made the case that endemic cycling publications were ill-equipped to chase the full-scope of the allegations against Lance Armstrong. Contributor Charles Pelkey told me of a piece he wrote that was first published on VeloNews.com in February 2009. The piece was a minor news update on a lawsuit filed in a British court by Betsy Andreu, wife of former U.S. Postal rider, Frankie Andreu. Within minutes of it being posted, Armstrong contacted management at the magazine and said that if the story were to remain on the site he would deny access to himself and his team by any member of VeloNews staff during the upcoming Tour of California. The story was subsequently pulled.

It’s a relatively benign story, reported in other media outlets, but the incident illustrates the hurdles the media faced in dealing with Armstrong.

—Padraig

 

British paper reaches settlement with Betsy Andreu

Britain’s Guardian newspaper has reached an out-of-court settlement with American Betsy Andreu over comments Lance Armstrong made about her in November.

By Charles Pelkey
February 14, 2009

The wife of former U.S. Postal rider Frankie Andreu has reached an out-of-court settlement with Britain’s Guardian newspaper in a libel case stemming from comments Lance Armstrong made about her in a November interview with reporter Donald McRae.

In the interview, McRae suggested that Betsy Andreu had lied about a now-infamous conversation Armstrong is said to have had with doctors treating him for cancer in 1996, in which she alleged that he admitted using performance-enhancing drugs. McRae wrote about Andreu’s allegation using a transition sentence that began “other people, apparently, also lied about Armstrong.”

That portion of the story was followed by a quote from Armstrong who recommended that the interviewer “go online and, to this day, Betsy blogs 24 hours a day about me. If that ain’t sick, what is?”

Following the November publication of the article, Andreu began legal action against the paper, demanding an apology, the opportunity to publish a response and damages, to be awarded to charities of her choice.

In a January letter to Andreu and her attorneys both in the U.S. and Great Britain, the paper acknowledged the validity of the claim and agreed to pay her attorneys’ fees as well as make $5000 in charitable donations on her behalf.

“It’s obviously not about the money,” Andreu told VeloNews. “I have asked that any cash settlement be paid not to me, but to charities of my choice: The Lennon Center, a local charity whose mission is to provide nonjudgmental counseling, material assistance and counseling before, during and after pregnancy; and St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“The whole thing is about getting the truth out and not letting people misrepresent who and what you are,” she added. “I told the truth and, in case you’re wondering, never have blogged … about him or anyone for that matter.”

The paper also removed the passages in question from an online version of the story and included an apology.

“We apologize to Betsy Andreu for comments made about her in this interview,” the paper noted. “She has asked us to clarify that, while evidence that she gave in proceedings about an insurance claim brought by Lance Armstrong is disputed, she honestly recounted what she believed she had heard.”

Andreu’s letter to the paper was published on Monday of this week.

Media attorney Razi Mireskandari, who represented Andreu in Britain, said he and his client are satisfied with the outcome of the case.

“”My client will not countenance the suggestion made in the Guardian article that she is lying when she says she heard Lance Armstrong telling doctors treating him for cancer that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs,” Mireskandari said. “She was in the room, as was Frankie Andreu, and they both heard what he said. They both told the truth on oath and no amount of denials or attacks will change their testimony. The Guardian apologized, regretted suggesting otherwise and paid an agreed sum to charities of my client’s choice and her legal costs.”

Calls to attorneys representing the Guardian had not been returned as of the time this story was originally posted.

The Explainer: Some thoughts on 2012

Dear readers,
Let’s start with a correction. I was wrong in last week’s column by naming Les Earnest as the sole opponent of the Mike Plant’s rather nefarious “reform” initiative back in the day. Board Member Chuck Collins was the only member of the board who voted against the measure, albeit with input from Earnest, American cycling’s Diogenes, who unfortunately is still walking the wilderness in search of an honest man. My apologies to Chuck and to Les for the error. I will attribute the oversight to an aging brain, if you’ll let me get away with that lame explanation.

Now, on to the business at hand. Well, we’re here; the last weekend of 2012.

As you recall, in last week’s column I also asked for input regarding the highlights and low points of the year. Several of you posted comments directly below the story and scores of you sent emails to my personal address.

It’s been a huge year.

It started out with Simon Gerrans’ win at the Tour Down Under last January and ended, I don’t know, maybe last evening when Bradley Wiggins was knighted, a reward for winning Olympic gold on home turf and, of course, doing rather well in that three week jaunt around France earlier in the year.

In between, we saw some spectacular racing, a bit of controversy and some guy from Texas refusing to defend himself when he was accused of stealing seven yellow items of clothing.

I have to say that on many, many levels the past 12 months were much better than the preceding year. Here’s hoping we continue on an upward path.

So, what were the best parts? Who were the best people? The worst? Having read your comments and emails – some of which actually changed my mind when it came to my picks – here goes:

Which of the three was the best grand tour?
This one was easy. Hands down, it had to be the 2012 Giro d’Italia.

Compared to the other two, this year’s Giro was the clear winner. We all have to admit that even if you are a fan of Brave, Brave Sir Wiggo, the 2012 Tour was something of a sleeper, with the outcome never really in doubt and the route not offering much in the way of excitement. Three mountain-top finishes? In the Tour de France? Come on.

The following month, the Vuelta more than made up for France’s shortfall by including ten of them, including a brutal finish atop Bola del Mundo on the penultimate stage. We saw a great battle between Alberto Contador, Joaquim Rodriguez and an impressive Alejandro Valverde. After missing out on the Giro, Rodriguez appeared to be on his way to winning his first-ever grand tour, until his spectacular implosion on Stage 17 to Fuente Dé.

Along the way, we also got to see five terrific stage wins by Argos-Shimano’s sprint sensation, John Degenkolb and a really great effort by Orica-GreenEdge’s Simon Clark to win the KOM jersey.
In most years, the 2012 Vuelta would have rated as the best of the three … but for the Giro.

The racing was even more exciting than it was in the Vuelta a España, with the final GC determined on the last-stage time trial (I am a big fan of those, anyway). Again, it was Rodriguez who put up an impressive fight for the leader’s jersey. Unfortunately for Rodriguez, he came into that final time trial with a scant 31-second lead over Garmin’s Ryder Hesjedal. Over the course of a flat 30-kilometer time trial, Hesjedal was clearly the favorite of the two. Most observers predicted that Rodriguez – not known for his TT prowess – would lose at least two or three minutes that. Remarkably, he ceded only 47 seconds, losing in the final standings by 16 seconds.

But in the end the Giro belonged to Hesjedal, one of the nicest, most selfless and hardest working riders in the professional ranks. It was a great finish and not one anyone would have predicted when the race started in Denmark three weeks earlier.

The Giro, too, offered up an answer to the question: Which was the greatest day of racing?

“Greatest” is such a subjective term, but I can’t think of anything better than that absolutely amazing ride put in by Matteo Rabottini on Stage 15. Admit it. You probably hadn’t heard of Rabottini until he slipped off the front early in the 166km ride from Busto Arsizio to a mountain-top finish at Lecco-Pian dei Resinelli on dreadfully wet day.

Rabottini went on to shed his companion and soldiered on through the rain – even crashing at one particularly dicey turn – for more than 120k. As is almost always the case with these suicidal attacks, Rabottini was caught on the final climb, by Rodriguez, who was intent upon putting time into Hesjedal, who had just taken the maglia rosa from him the day before.

If you haven’t seen this finish, you must:

To quote an old beer commercial, “it just doesn’t get any better than this.”

Which was the best classics performance of the year?

For me, it’s tough to come up with a single-day race that’s better than Paris-Roubaix. I just love that race (well, watching it, at least).

This year, the cobbled roads to the Roubaix velodrome served as the stage for Tom Boonen’s spectacular spring. Oft written off, Boonen is a resilient character and started a spectacular three-week-run with a win at the E3 Herelbeke, then won Gent Wevelgem and the Tour of Flanders. On April 8, Boonen capped off his Classics performance with an impressive solo finish in Roubaix.

The Spring Classics, with Fabian Cancellara back in contention, should be spectacular in 2013.

What were the highlights? – What were the low points?

As he’s been able to do since his return to the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong pretty much stole the headlines when it came to cycling this year.

His spectacular fall from grace rates as both the highlight and the low point for the year 2012. For me, the release of USADA’s 200-page “reasoned decision” – with its 1000+ pages of supporting documents, was a highlight. Yeah, sure, I’ve never been a fan of the guy, and I did experience a bit of Schadenfreude when things finally came out, but that wasn’t why it rates as the highlight.

For me, it was the highlight of the year, largely because the people who have long rated as the heroes of the sport – people I long trusted and admired – were finally proven to be right. Again, it wasn’t for the simple pleasure of watching them (quite deservedly) say “I told you so.” What made it the highlight was the admiration I felt for Betsy and Frankie Andreu, Greg and Kathy LeMond, Emma O’Reilly, Filippo Simeoni, Christophe Bassons, Stephen Swart, David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Dr. Prentice Steffen and scores of others who simply refused to be bullied into submission. Sued, slandered, threatened and more, they stuck to their stories.

I tip my hat to all of them. Chapeau.

The villains of 2012?
Yeah, sure, Armstrong, Bruyneel, Ferrari, et al … the whole gang of them rate. Nonetheless, my vote goes to the dynamic duo of Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid.

Somberly expressing disappointment at what they claimed to have learned in the USADA revelations, McQuaid and Verbruggen declared that Armstrong has “no place in cycling.”

Well, I hate to say it guys, but neither do you. The UCI’s record was abysmal throughout the fraud perpetrated on this sport by that feller from Texas. If they didn’t know, they should have known. As Agent Mulder would have said, “the truth was out there.” From all appearances, the management of cycling’s international governing body simply didn’t want to see it.

Nope, it took someone with a healthy I-don’t-give-a-sh#t attitude to dig through the evidence and make a compelling case. Travis Tygart is, therefore, my Person of the Year, but only because he did what the UCI could have and should have done years and years ago.

So, there you have it. Feel free to disagree. Post your comments or send me an email at Charles@Pelkey.com.

Have a happy New Year and let’s hope against hope that the news from cycling won’t involve another scandal, but just damn good bike racing.
– Charles

The Explainer: Can reform begin at home?

Dear readers,
As we approach the end of what has been a momentous year for cycling, a lot of us are left wondering where the sport goes from here.

Padraig and I have been chatting back and forth and one thing he asked for was something of a follow-up to the piece I did on the likelihood of reform at the UCI.

As I mentioned in a recent column – “When it comes to the UCI, change is needed … but it ain’t easy” – the structure of our international governing body is such that, despite its superficially “democratic” façade – real power in the organization is held in the hands of a very small number of people with the same set of skewed priorities and ingrained conflicts-of-interest that caused the problem in the first place

Padraig was interested in hearing about how our own national governing body was set up and whether we could possibly start the “revolution” from this side of the Atlantic.

Is reform possible?

Well, the short answer is “no.”

Back in the day, the old U.S. Cycling Federation (USCF) was something of a democratic organization. You bought a license and you earned the right to vote for members of the board of directors. Admittedly, not all that many voted and we’d see boards composed of people chosen in elections with less than 10-percent voter turnout.

Indeed, you still have the right to vote for board members, but your vote just doesn’t count for much. In 1999, a few years after the creation of USA Cycling, the successor to the USCF, there was a “special” meeting of the Board of Directors called by president Mike Plant (who, you might recall, remains a member of the UCI Management Committee) for which the agenda included some major changes to the Bylaws of the organization.

The measure was essentially railroaded through the board, without much discussion, save a vigorous effort from board member Les Earnest. If you’ve not heard of Les, you should, especially if you’re a reform minded cycling fan. Les’ professional background is in computers. He’s responsible for the development of the first spell checker, the first effective pen-based computer and was appointed as the executive officer of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1965. The guy is wicked smart and he loves bike racing. We’re lucky to have him around. (Author’s Note: I was incorrect in naming Les Earnest as the sole opponent of the Plant “reform” initiative. Board Member Chuck Collins was the member of the board who voted against the measure, as is correctly reflected in his comment below. My apologies to Chuck and I guess I’ll chalk up my error to an aging brain. I even wrote about Chuck being a lone voice in the wilderness at the time.)

Anyway, Plant’s changes were couched as an “emergency measure” (with no real explanation as to what the exact “emergency” might have been) and as such went into effect immediately upon passage. The net effect of those “reforms” was to place considerable voting power into the hands of a small group representing the USA Cycling Development Foundation. Indeed, while representing less than one percent of USA Cycling’s membership, the Foundation can effectively choose the majority of the membership on the USA Cycling board of directors.

Now, if you want the particulars, I am going to direct you to Les’ site, where he recently posted an essay describing the cycling’s current problems, a series of “coups,” representing what Earnest calls a “flagrantly crooked takeover by business interests” of the sport and the legal challenges that have resulted from those.

What is disheartening is that you find yourself agreeing with Earnest’s conclusion to the question “is reform possible?”

In short, it is not, unless there are serious changes to federal law (namely the “Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act). It is a dire conclusion when you realize your hopes of reform are rooted in that painfully rare phenomenon known as “Congressional Action.”

We do have one huge advantage

Now, I have to say that I have my reasons to believe that the situation here in the U.S. is still better than that of the UCI. It’s not that this country’s governing bodies are somehow better or less encumbered by conflicts of interest.

No, what sets American governing bodies apart from their international counterparts is that collective decision by those U.S. Olympic Committee-affiliated NGBs to hand off their authority to deal with doping cases to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Recall, that one allegation out there in the whole Armstrong case is that his “donation” to the UCI to assist in its anti-doping efforts was merely a pay-off to the organization to cover up an alleged positive doping test from the 2001 Tour de Suisse. While the UCI has yet to share the documents associated with that incident, how can anyone – after having seen USADA’s evidence – reasonably conclude that Lance Armstrong honestly made a contribution to the UCI to actually boost its efforts to control doping? (If you’re one who can reach that conclusion, by the way, give me a call. I have a really nice bridge to sell you in New York.)

The one element of the American system that should serve as a model for the rest of the world is precisely that separation of powers.

Read Les’ article and think about it for a minute. Then try to imagine the outcome had every bit of evidence in the Lance Armstrong case been in the hands of Mike Plant, Jim Ochowicz or Thom Weisel. The record books would remain intacct and few would be talking about reforming things these days.

It took a tenacious – and, above all, independent – agency to reach the conclusion that the Emperor did, indeed, have no clothes (well, at least no yellow jerseys).

That sole element, though, doesn’t mean that the U.S. system is otherwise any better than that which governs the UCI. We need fundamental reform. If you have a racing license, vote. And then let your opinions be heard. Contact the members of the board. Despite the lopsided and undemocratic imbalance of voting power, there are some good folks on the USA Cycling Board of Directors. Let them know how you feel. Demand changes. Finally, be willing to back up those demands with action … or as some suggest, in-action, meaning that you don’t renew your license for a year.

The sad truth, though, is that the current structure is largely the result of the inherently apolitical nature of folks in the sport. Hell, we didn’t get involved in cycling to add yet another political aspect to our lives. As a result, though, we let these folks take control. In some cases, they’ve done okay. In others … well, not so much.

If you want to see change in the organization, get involved. It will take all of us.

The big events of 2012?

Padraig had some other thoughts about closing out the year. I know at my old job, we would have editors and a few contributors sitting around voting on who was worthy of this, that or the other prize for things they did over the course of the previous year.

Certainly we here at RKP are not above pontificating now and then, but I want to hear from you, too.

I have my own opinion as to whom, for example, should rank as “Person of the Year” in cycling. What I like, though, is to hear what you have to say.

Please, use the comments section below or send me an email (Charles@Pelkey.com) and let me know your thoughts about the year in cycling.

• What were the highlights?
• What were the low points?
• Who are the heroes?
• Who are the villans?
• Which was the greatest day of racing?
• Which of the three was the best grand tour?
• Which was the best one-day race of the year?
• What great technical development may actually prove to be more than just a way to get you to spend more on bikes?

Feel free to comment on anything and everything. We’ll cobble together an awards column, but rest assured, it will be with your input.

Thank you

Finally, dear readers, I first want to thank you for indulging my off-topic detour last week. Like all of us, I was pretty shaken by the events of the previous day.

I managed to attend the funeral for my friend, Bob, and tears aside, the event quickly devolved into an opportunity for many of us to share stories about an old friend. My contribution?

Well, a few years back, we were having lunch on campus at the university here in Laramie, when a young man walked past, resplendent in full western regalia: hat, boots, vest and even chaps, despite there not being a horse anywhere within miles.

“Ya know, Charles, I never got that; the whole cowboy thing here in Wyoming,” Bob said. “I mean, I’m from New England … and I don’t dress up like a @#$% ing Pilgrim.”

A lot of us ended up the day laughing as we shared a host of Bob’s best one-liners. I hope we can all leave that kind of legacy when we’re gone. I’ll miss you, Bob, but I will almost always remember you with a smile.
– Charles

The Explainer is a weekly feature on Red Kite Prayer. If you have a question related to the sport of cycling, doping or the legal issues faced by cyclists of all stripes, feel free to send it directly to The Explainer at Charles@Pelkey.com. PLEASE NOTE: Understand that reading the information contained here does not mean you have established an attorney-client relationship with attorney Charles Pelkey. Readers of this column should not act upon any information contained therein without first seeking the advice of qualified legal counsel licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

The Explainer: When it comes to the UCI, change is needed … but it ain’t easy

Dear Mr. Pelkey,
I’ve been a follower of LUG, RKP and the social media cycling community for a while, now.

I am really happy about the recent events in pro cycling. Success and openness of Garmin, support for Paul Kimmage and, of course, the USADA report and consequences.

My huge concern is that those running the sport, Hein and Pat, will remain and we risk having the situation of 1998/1999 repeat – big scandal followed by business as usual. UCI leadership has no credibility, is incompetent and very probably corrupt.

Is the UCI election process capable of bringing change? Is there a way for grass roots activists to make a difference?

An Explainer to give us a little hope would be good, really frightened that this opportunity could be missed.
Regards,
– Peter

Dear Peter,
I have to agree with your assessment of the opportunity we lost in 1998 and ’99. I was among those who were convinced that the Festina Scandal of the ’98 Tour had finally proved that the cost of cheating would exceed the benefits and that riders, teams and officials would realize that it wasn’t worth the risk. Well, I was disabused of that Pollyannaish notion by the middle of the ’99 Tour.

This year has presented us with an even bigger opportunity. We have compelling evidence to suggest that not only did the sport not get cleaned up after Festina, it got worse. It appears that there is also enough evidence to suggest that the UCI was, at best, willfully ignorant of those developments or, at worst, complicit. As a result, it’s time for the two most visible and influential leaders at the UCI – Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen – to step down for the good of the sport.

Former – and now “honorary” – president, Verbruggen, has always struck me as having something of a Machiavellian streak, the sort that is intent upon working his way up the hierarchy not just of the UCI, but of the International Olympic Committee. He’s always struck me as one of the “Lords of the Rings,” described in Vyv Simson’s 1992 book.

I have to say that I actually like the current president, Pat McQuaid. He’s personable, bright and he seems to love the sport. Unfortunately, he and Verbruggen – whether by acts of commission or omission – have become part of the problem. Both really should resign from their respective positions and from the management committee for the good of the sport of cycling. But that ain’t gonna happen. And laudable as they might be, reform efforts face an uphill battle, largely because the organization is structured in a way to discourage genuine reform by limiting real power to a very, very small group of entrenched “leaders.” Here’s why:

The antithesis of democracy

First let’s have a look at the election process you asked about. There are two organizations that exercise control over the UCI. Those are the Congress and the Management Committee. Along with the president and vice presidents, the system is truly and example of how power in the organization is progressively distilled into the hands of fewer and fewer and fewer people.

The Congress is, according to the Constitution of the UCI, the “general meeting of members and the highest authority of the UCI.” But what does that mean? Are you, for example, one of those “members?”

Well, not exactly. Let’s assume that you hold a license to race bikes; one issued to you by your national governing body, which is USA Cycling. For purposes of this Congress, that doesn’t make you a “member” under the definition of the UCI Constitution. For purposes of this Congress, the members are the 171 national federations affiliated with the UCI. Member federations may be represented at the Congress by a delegation of not more than three persons.

Article 28 of the UCI Constitution requires that the statutory Congress be held at least annually, although exceptional circumstances could justify an emergency meeting. So, let’s imagine that all 171 member federations send three delegates to the Congress and those 513 representatives of the world cycling community assemble for the mandated annual convention. What do they get to do there?

They can talk to each other. They can listen to speeches. They can pick up gift packs of swag. Oh, and they can vote, right?

Well, not exactly. Let me explain.

Article 29 of the UCI Constitution grants broad authority to the Congress:

1. The Congress shall have the following exclusive powers and duties:

a) Alteration of the Constitution and dissolution of the association;
b) To transfer the registered office of the UCI to another country;
c) Admission, expulsion and suspension of federations, without prejudice to Article 46, d;
d) Setting the annual amount of contributions on a proposal from the Management
Committee;
e) Election of the President of the UCI and of nine other members of the Management
Committee;
f) Dismissal of the members of the Management Committee of the UCI;
g) Appointment of the public auditor, on a proposal from the Management Committee and his
dismissal.

2. In addition, the Congress shall each year decide on:

a) the management report of the Management Committee;
b) the auditor’s report on the accounts;
c) the annual accounts of the previous year;
d) the budget for the following year.

So we have up to 513 members of the global cycling community who wield considerable power, right?

Nope.

Article 36 of the Constitution limits voting rights to just 42 delegates. Those delegates are selected to represent their respective Continental Federations and are distributed in accordance with the following formula:

• Africa: 7 delegates
• America: 9 delegates
• Asia: 9 delegates
• Europe: 14 delegates
• Oceania: 3 delegates

It is those 42 delegates who get to vote on important issues and, more critically, select the president and 10 of the fifteen members of the Management Committee, which, according to the Constitution, is “vested with the most extensive powers as regards the management of the UCI and the regulation of cycling sports.” It’s where the real power in the UCI sits.

As I said, the power is increasingly distilled into the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people. Who are those 15? The Management Committee is composed of the President of the UCI and nine other members elected by the Congress. Of those ten elected members, at least seven have to belong to European federations. They are then joined by the presidents of the five Continental Federations.

In his day, Verbruggen worked that Management Committee like it was an extension of his own personality. He pretty much ran the show and hand-picked McQuaid to be his successor. I am not under the impression that McQuaid exercises as much power as did Verbruggen, but do keep in mind that Verbruggen remains involved in the Management Committee in his capacity as “honorary president.” It’s a non-voting position, but given that Verbruggen is also a vice-president in the IOC, he continues to wield power and influence in the UCI in general and the Management Committee in particular.

It is, by any definition, an old boys club and the old boys want to keep it that way.

Is there a way to change it? It may require a bit of creativity and, as Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein, it will require us to “follow the money.”

Time for reform?

After the USADA document dump in the Armstrong case, we suddenly had an opportunity to attack the way this sport is managed. The revelations were serious enough to even give the UCI, McQuaid and Verbruggen pause to reconsider their lawsuit against Irish journalist Paul Kimmage … at least until an “independent commission” completed a report as to the UCI’s involvement in the scandal.

That independent commission turned out to be structured quite like a normal three-member Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel. This one will be led by British appeals judge, Phillip Otton, and will include Australian lawyer Malcolm Holmes and British Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson. The three will meet in April to review evidence and then issue a report by June.

I’ll take a wait-and-see approach with regard to the panel’s independence. Superficially, it looks like a good group. Meanwhile, we won’t see much internal action from the UCI until that report is issued in June.

There is an admirable grass-roots effort underway right now, though. Following the whole Armstrong kerfuffle, Australian clothing entrepreneur Jamie Fuller started Change Cycling Now and the group organized a summit conference in London earlier this month. They are calling for a host of reforms, including the removal the UCI’s authority to administer its anti-doping enforcement and place it into the hands of a truly independent agency. (Do recall that is the model used in the U.S. and is likely the only reason we saw the Armstrong case pursued as it was.)

There were some heavy hitters involved, too, including Kimmage, his friend and colleague, David Walsh, the head of the Association of Professional Cyclists, Gianni Bugno, anti-doping expert Michael Ashenden, Garmin’s Jonathan Vaughters and the only American to win the Tour de France, Greg LeMond.

It may be a good sign that Johan Bruyneel referred to the meeting as “a bunch of douches.” Looking beyond that flash of Bruyneel’s rhetorical brilliance, it is important to remember that the quality of a man – or of an organization – can best be judged not only by the quality of their friends but also by the quality of their enemies. If you’re pissing off Johan Bruyneel these days, you’re probably doing something right. (Note to Johan: Take a cue from that Lance guy. Twitter is not your friend.)

It may well be the start of something good. Indeed, LeMond – who, by the way, is the only American to win the Tour de France (did I already mention that?) – said he was ready to run for the post of UCI president. Frankly, I can’t think of anyone better qualified than LeMond, who, by the way, is the only American to have won the Tour de France.

It will be an uphill battle, though. Again, think back to those 42 voting members of the UCI Congress. We’re not talking about a cadre of committed reformers when we mention those 42. The odds are good that these are people with the same set of skewed priorities and  ingrained conflicts-of-interest that caused the problem in the first place.

As I mentioned, it may be time for us to “follow the money,” and come at the UCI from the financial side. It’s time to organize and, yes, even boycott, sponsors whose support is critical to the UCI.

According to its annual financial report, the UCI’s “resources consist of contributions, sponsorship and royalties generated by sports activities.” Indeed, those sponsorships are the biggest single item in the governing body’s list of receivables each year.

Those sponsors include such notable companies as Shimano, Santini, Tissot, Skoda and Swatch. Let those sponsors know that their support of the UCI as it currently stands is not something that necessarily endears you to their product. Don’t necessarily boycott them yet, but do encourage them to use their influence to force reform within an organization that has failed to live up to its obligation.

Yes, we can push for change, but it ain’t gonna be easy.
– Charles

The Explainer is a weekly feature on Red Kite Prayer. If you have a question related to the sport of cycling, doping or the legal issues faced by cyclists of all stripes, feel free to send it directly to The Explainer at Charles@Pelkey.com. PLEASE NOTE: Understand that reading the information contained here does not mean you have established an attorney-client relationship with attorney Charles Pelkey. Readers of this column should not act upon any information contained therein without first seeking the advice of qualified legal counsel licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

Next Page »