English version (scroll down for German version)

Decisions of UCI - Appeals Board and Ethics Commission

The decisions of the UCI Appeals Board and the UCI Ethics Commission, especially the UCI Press Release, are commented as follows:

As a participant of the Munich Olympics 1972 I dedicated my whole life to voluntary work within national and international sports organisations thus trying to help develop the principles of Olympism all over the world. This motivation made me start my work as a member of the UCI Management Committee in 2000 with great enthusiasm. I always wished to communicate frankly and in good friendship with all the member federations of the UCI and to try to help them especially to develop our sport and the voluntary work. So in the past years I made a lot of friends in the international cycling family, I am very grateful for this opportunity.

The actual developments in the UCI make dubious whether the Olympic Spirit really reigns our association. Let me just cite what the International Olympic Committee sets in its "Directions Concerning the Election of the IOC President":

"During the campaign respect for the "Universal Fundamental Ethical Principles", one of the foundations of Olympism, should prevail" and

"It is essential that, during the campaign, equality be observed between the candidates and an atmosphere of mutual respect prevail amongst them"

There cannot be any doubt that these principles have to prevail in the UCI as well - that is what I am standing for, even if I am going to be blamed for it.

I prefer objective arguments and refrain from any defamatory attacks against persons.

It is good that the Appeals Board decided to avoid an infringement of the UCI Constitution committed by changing the Asian voting Delegates through a postal vote. Thus at least one problem concerning the upcoming congress and the elections has been solved, that is in the interest of all concerned.

The Appeals Board rejected my petition concerning the infringement of the UCI Constitution through the payment to McQuaid, that does not confirm in general that the candidature of McQuaid is admissible. Reasons have not been given yet.

On request of the Appeals Board the UCI had to deliver till 3 pm yesterday additional documents concerning the relation UCI - McQuaid, at 4.30 pm the decision of the Appeals Board was given. I had no opportunity in between to examine the documents and to comment on them. The documents are not at all complete and from my point of view do not proof in any way that an allowance is paid to McQuaid in accordance with the UCI Constitution.

I will wait for the reasons and then take all possible juridical measures against the decision, which is not final.

The decisions of the UCI Ethics Commission sent yesterday, too, confirm the bias of the Commission i.e. its President as already pointed out (see press release dated 1 September 2005). I will as well take all possible measures against these decisions, especially ask the IOC Ethics Commission for a decision. The following points are remarkable:

1. The Ethics Commission defends in total the support given by the UCI and its President to one candidate for the presidency - McQuaid - and does not see any infringement of the UCI Constitution, democratic principles and a fair election procedure.

2. The UCI Ethics Commission states: "If tasks are transferred and an agreement has been reached in such matters by the UCI/the UCI President and the said candidate Mr. Pat McQuaid, the UCI or the President of the UCI is in general not in the position to step back from this kind of agreement, especially since the proposed candidate, Mr. Pat McQuaid, moved from Eire to Switzerland to assume these tasks.

In the case pending at the Appeals Board the UCI stated however: "The UCI Management Committee has decided and accepted that Pat McQuaid was given the opportunity to work at the UCI as described above. The UCI Management Committee has the authority to change its decision at any time without notice or indemnity."

Regardless of any specific legal ground, common sense and general fairness should have caused McQuaid to stop working for the UCI immediately after the nomination of two other candidates. By staying in place McQuaid could only create the current situation of absolute inequality of treatment (access to information, contact to federations). Verbruggen caused this situation by his support.

3. In contradiction to the proceedings before the Appeals Board the UCI Ethics Commission understands that according to the UCI Constitution a member of the Management Committee may have an employment contract with the UCI, it is just forbidden to have two contracts with the UCI and with a national or continental federation at the same time.

4. I am blamed for an infringement of the UCI Ethics Code for the following "false and misleading statements":

a)"Hein Verbruggen proposed Pat McQuaid as his successor."

I do not understand this reproach, at least it is not at all problematic.

b) "Pat McQuaid is living in Switzerland at the expense of the UCI since February."

This statement has been confirmed by McQuaid and the UCI in written in the Appeals Board case, just with the date from 1 March on.

c)"The UCI sent McQuaid on missions for the sole reason to promote his candidature."

One can discuss which measures support a candidature - I stick to my opinion that the many journeys representing the UCI, especially to the congresses of the continental confederations, have been helpful. The understanding of the Ethics Commission is that it would only be a problem if McQuaid had daily contact to the voting delegates. I really cannot understand this argument.

Thank you for reading 5 articles in the past 30 days*

Join now for unlimited access

Enjoy your first month for just £1 / $1 / €1

*Read any 5 articles for free in each 30-day period, this automatically resets

After your trial you will be billed £4.99 $7.99 €5.99 per month, cancel anytime. Or sign up for one year for just £49 $79 €59

Join now for unlimited access

Try your first month for just £1 / $1 / €1