Get access to everything we publish when you sign up for Outside+.
CIRC comes up with some surprising, sometimes shocking answers.
By John Wilcockson // Photo: Yuzuru Sunada
A first look at the just-released report of the Cycling Independent Reform Commission reveals that cycling would be a very different sport today if key events in the past 20 years had happened the way the three-man commission sees them.
For example, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) would have become a stronger anti-doping force than it is today, Laurent Brochard would not have won the world elite men’s road title in 1997 (he’d have been disqualified for doping), Lance Armstrong would not have won the 1999 Tour de France (he’d have been DQ’d too), and several conflicts of interest in the sport would have been avoided.
Despite those views, the CIRC also writes that the UCI may not have grown from a small international federation of only 10 administrators (some part-time) into an organization with a staff 10 times as big and with the budget of a major pro racing team had its longtime president Hein Verbruggen not been as autocratic a leader as he was.
Similarly, despite frequent inconsistencies and conflicts of interest, the UCI did create a stronger anti-doping program than most other international federations. But officials of the sport’s governing body also comes in for some harsh criticism.
Over the past year, the CIRC has interviewed 174 people from all aspects of cycling, with 40 of them not wanting their names made public.
The other 134 names include the current and past two UCI past two presidents, Brian Cookson, Pat McQuaid and Verbruggen; current pro team officials Bobby Julich, Bjarne Riis and Jonathan Vaughters; current and past riders Chris Froome, Nicole Cooke, Tyler Hamilton, Michael Rasmussen, Andreï Tchmil and Armstrong; North American federation officials Shawn Farrell, Greg Mathieu and Bob Stapleton; current and past Would Anti-Doping Agency presidents David Howman and Dick Pound, and USADA’s Travis Tygart; journalists Damien Ressiot (L’Équipe) and David Walsh (The Sunday Times); and former grand tour race directors Patrice Clerc (Tour de France) and Angelo Zomegnan (Giro d’Italia).
Here are some of CIRC’s answers to 60 intriguing questions, as taken from the report:
Editor’s note: We embedded the full CIRC report at the end of this post.
1) What does CIRC think of the current doping climate in cycling? The Commission did not hear from anyone credible in the sport who would give cycling a clean bill of health in the context of doping today. However, the general view was that doping is either less prevalent today or that the nature of doping practices has changed such that the performance gains are smaller. There was a general feeling that this has created an environment where riders can now at least be competitive when riding clean.
2) Is EPO still being used in the peloton? Despite improvements to the science underlying the ABP, it is still possible for riders to micro-dose using EPO without getting caught. The Commission also heard that riders are confident that they can take a micro-dose of EPO in the evening because it will not show up by the time the doping control officers (DCOs) could arrive to test at 6 a.m.
3) Are there any EPO-like drugs being used? One rider informed the Commission that by way of using ozone therapy he felt stronger, and that the muscles recovered, but that it had however not been as efficient as EPO. Several interviewees mentioned that AICAR (aminoimidazole carboxamide ribonucleotide), which supposedly has similar effects to EPO, has become popular in the peloton.
4) Are corticoids still being used? [One] doctor stated that some quite recent big wins on the UCI WorldTour were as a result, in part, of some members of the team all using corticoids to get their weight down to support the individual who won (who also used the same weight-loss technique).
5) What is the status of the therapeutic-use exemption, or TUE? Today there appears to be concern among riders about the way in which TUEs are used for corticoids and insulin in particular, and the extent to which they are being abused. … In general, there was a feeling that it is too easy to obtain a TUE; one rider who had doped reported that he was told to ask for a TUE for triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort) claiming that he had tendonitis; he had no problem obtaining the TUE.
6) What about TUE abuse in women’s cycling? The Commission heard that the problem of abuse of TUEs also exists in women’s cycling, where some riders would turn up at the race registration with extensive folders of TUE-related documentation.
7) What other banned drugs are used? One rider … told the Commission that he had used at least 12 different types of substances throughout his professional career, some of which were highly experimental and which were even designed only for horses. By way of example, GW 1516 is a substance that sends more oxygen to the muscles, burns fat and increases muscle mass. However, regulated development of the drug stopped before it was given clinical approval because it was thought to cause cancer.
8) Are crashes being caused by drugs taken by riders? The Commission was also told by a rider of a “pills system” used during races in 2011, involving up to 30 pills daily. … He said team riders also took tranquilizers at night and anti-depressants in the morning. He believed some of his crashes were due to the effects of these drugs.
9) Did CIRC ascertain all the different types of doping today? The Commission has collected a long list of substances or medical products that riders are using today or have been using in the last few years. Some of the substances or methods used to enhance blood oxygen capacity or “normalize” blood values are: Aicar, Xenon gas, ozone therapy, ITPP, Gas6, Actovegin, various forms of EPO such as CERA, “Eprex”, EPO zeta, EPO Retacrit, Neorecormon, and Albumina (to normalize blood values).
Products used to increase muscle growth and recovery (in the general classes of anabolic substances, HGH, Growth Hormone releasing peptides and Gonadotropin- releasing hormone) which have been reported include: Kryptocur, Lutrelef, Gonasi, TB-500, Glucagone, Geref, Menogon, Proviron, Deca Durabolin, Testovis, Triacana, Dynatrope, Monores, and Hypertropin.
10) Are riders using Viagra or other non-banned substances? The Commission heard that riders will take a wide range of non-banned substances to create a performance-enhancing effect. … Products and substances that have been mentioned include Viagra, Cialis and various nutritional supplements and homeopathic products: Testis, Coenzyme Compositum, Spirulina, Levothyroxine, Acetylcarnitine, Levocarnitine, Fructose; Levomefolate calcium, beta-alanine, iron products, Vitamin B12 and folic acids, Omega 3, and Oxazepam.
11) And what about Tramadol? The Commission was told by some that [Tramadol] is used widely because it is an extremely strong painkiller and is not on the banned list. Again, there was a body of opinion that if a rider needed to take the product, the rider should not be riding. It was also thought that Tramadol could cause impairment of judgment in a rider, which in turn could cause crashes.
12) Where do riders get banned drugs? Two newer sources of PEDs are the Internet and gyms, which are favored sources for acquiring drugs for those without access to the right doctors. The Internet has opened up a market in new designer steroids and allows riders to identify and obtain drugs that are still in clinical trials.
13) How do riders avoid testing positive? For example, riders know that they should micro-dose in the evening and that they will then be fine if tested in the morning. … One rider explained that he would take EPO until 3 to 4 days prior to the start of a competition and administer HGH [Human Growth Hormone] up until 5 days prior to competition, but would start using corticosteroid injections 3 to 4 days prior to the competition.
14) What about dodging the “whereabouts” program? Several interviewees also confirmed to the CIRC that riders are able to “play” the whereabouts system, for example by changing their whereabouts frequently and at the last minute or providing vague information so that they could not be found.
15) Is there doping in Gran Fondos? Masters races were also said to have middle-aged businessmen winning on EPO, with some of them training as hard as professional riders…. Some professional riders explained that they no longer ride in the Gran Fondos because they were so competitive due to the number of riders doping.
16) Does the current team system discourage riders from doping? The CIRC was told by some elite cyclists that they do not even know who most of the people in their team are, including even other riders, and would not be able to recognize them. They have their own people and rely on them for most of their requirements. This makes it harder for teams to exercise any degree of control or to guide riders away from the temptation to dope. Clearly it is harder to create a “clean culture” if riders are not together in a team environment.
17) Does the crowded race calendar encourage riders to dope? The Commission is of the view that the race calendar and the point system have a negligible impact on doping and consequently are not an excuse for doping.
18) Have many doctors helped riders to dope? [The CIRC found that] at least 69 different doctors between 1985 and 2014 assisted in the doping of riders.
19) Did the media contribute to the doping problem? The media has had a difficult relationship with cycling over the years. The environment was openly hostile, highly litigious and deeply protective of riders in an effort to protect the sport. This environment made it difficult, and acted to dissuade the media from delving into rumors of doping.
20) What about a lack of ethics in cycling? One person told the CIRC, “There is no room for ethics in sport”. The counter argument is that there is no room for no ethics in sport, and that sport should uphold strong ethical values. As one interviewee stated, it would be ethical if you can tell a journalist what you’re doing and feel okay about it. This is a good way of identifying and differentiating the ethical issue from the “follow the rules only” issue.
21) Are there new deterrents to doping on the horizon? The Commission understands there are some innovative scientific ideas out there that promise much for the future of anti-doping. Two examples are of new techniques for detecting autologous blood doping, and for detecting gene doping by identifying fluctuations in Ribonucleic Acid (RNA). Unfortunately, it appears that at present, it can take several years for new projects to be fully developed.
22) Is funding a problem in anti-doping efforts? The Commission notes the 2013 WADA report’s findings about its funding of research and the problems it had encountered. …. It stated that a refocusing of its budget on Code compliance was in order, and hinted at a move away from research. This is a concern for the anti-doping community. [Conversely], the doping community is well funded, with serious money to be made from it.
23) Should dopers be sent to jail? The Commission considers that the criminalization of doping per se is not necessarily the most important factor. Rather the key is to ensure that anti-doping organizations build good relationships with the police and other authorities, such as customs and border control, to benefit from their greater investigative powers.
24) Can the UCI eradicate doping? The challenge to the UCI is huge, given that the culture of doping has not been eradicated. … Only the participants themselves can decide when enough is enough, and act to effect change. … Cycling has the potential to become a sport with integrity, ethics and accountability, but it can only become so if all participants are prepared to contribute.
25) Did the long battle between the UCI and ASO (Tour de France owner) affect anti-doping efforts? The conflict between UCI and ASO provided headline news for several years and was likened to a war by senior UCI staff. The dispute absorbed a lot of time and resources of UCI personnel, which considerably harmed the fight against doping. This power struggle led to an aggressive confrontation that had a negative effect on the entire world of cycling.
Through the mediation of the IOC, the conflict with ASO came to an abrupt end at a meeting in Beijing during the 2008 Olympic Games. However, this did not mean that all problems were definitively resolved and the presence of ASO, which still had a dominant position in professional cycling, continued to present a potential source of tension.
26) What else has hindered anti-doping efforts? CIRC was provided with information from interviewees that indicates that the state authorities in certain countries, such as Kazakhstan, have intervened directly in the everyday affairs of teams and riders. This is not necessarily a positive development. We consider that these episodes contributed to create a climate which certainly did not encourage coherent action against doping.
27) Has cycling been a doping scapegoat? The UCI has repeatedly been the target of criticism with regards to doping. There may be justification for this, but it is also clear that, despite obvious failings and errors, UCI has also been a pioneer in the field of anti-doping. The UCI leadership has however experienced some frustration—it considers that other sports do little or nothing when it comes to anti-doping. … WADA data…quite clearly showed that other sports were just as affected by doping as cycling, in some cases even more so, but did not attract media headlines.
28) How did Verbruggen and McQuaid act as presidents of the UCI? In interviews conducted by the CIRC, Hein Verbruggen has been described as a charismatic “patron absolu.” The organization was completely focused on him and he controlled every aspect of the federation through his key figures in the various departments (be it external or internal staff). … Unlike Hein Verbruggen, Pat McQuaid has been described by the majority of the current and former UCI staff as a rather “weak leader.” It has been reported that he did not manage to dissociate himself from Hein Verbruggen. Hein Verbruggen remained Vice-President of UCI, kept an office at UCI’s headquarters and was physically present a lot of the time.
29) Was McQuaid as autocratic as Verbruggen? Unlike Hein Verbruggen, Pat McQuaid would communicate and interact more directly and openly with the ADU [UCI’s Anti-Doping Unit]. … Hein Verbruggen had a strong influence on Pat McQuaid throughout the latter’s presidency. … This close relationship…also meant that Pat McQuaid was not willing and capable “to cut” with the past and disassociate himself from Hein Verbruggen or the problems stemming from his presidency. Only gradually, at the end of his presidency, did Pat McQuaid become more independent.
30) Did battles with other stakeholders hinder the UCI’s development? From very early on, UCI wasted a lot of its time and resources fighting other important stakeholders in the sport. Real or, often only, perceived conspiracies were taken as an excuse to stage counterattacks and to initiate proceedings that absorbed and somewhat blinded the UCI leadership. This is also true for the relationship with ASO or with the AFLD [French anti-doping agency].
31) What’s the current status of the UCI’s anti-doping effort with the CADF [Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation]? The organization of anti-doping within UCI has evolved considerably over time both in size and structure. Anti-doping is recognized as a key issue in cycling and the independence of the CADF is a key element in restoring the UCI’s damaged credibility in anti-doping matters; independence prevents any inappropriate influence of UCI leadership on the Anti-Doping Program.
32) Is it a conflict of interest that pro teams help fund CADF? The fact that a large proportion of the CADF’s budget comes from pro teams (and the fact that the pro teams are represented on the financial board of the CADF) may create a certain dynamic whereby professional teams want to see what controls apply to them and thereby influence the overall testing strategy for all disciplines in cycling.
33) And many parts of the UCI are involved in anti-doping, right? The formulation of a comprehensive anti-doping strategy is complicated at the moment by the fact that different commissions/departments inside UCI (Anti-Doping Commission, TUE Committee, Legal Anti-Doping Service and the UCI Management Committee) and outside UCI (CADF) are involved in different parts of the decision-making process.
34) Were anti-doping efforts hindered by some UCI policies? UCI portrayed itself as always being at the forefront of the fight against doping. However, it appears to CIRC that there was little impetus to address the roots of the doping problem or to discuss strategies against doping proactively; and it seems that such an active policy was seen as an impediment to the development of cycling and was, therefore, not encouraged.
35) Has the UCI’s athlete biological passport (ABP) program made cycling cleaner? The ABP had a significant effect on the riders’ behavior and has helped to considerably level the playing field. Athletes, NADOs [National Anti-Doping Organizations] and laboratories have told the CIRC that only little advantage can be gained by applying refined doping techniques that stay under the ABP radar. Therefore, it is commonly held that it is much easier today to compete as a clean athlete competitively.
36) Are the UCI’s drug-testing methods up to date? The relationship between UCI with the various laboratories was and is being described as very good. UCI was and is responsive to new analysis techniques available in the laboratories. Furthermore, UCI also provides doping-relevant information to the laboratories and shares information on anti-doping activities with the laboratories through international scientific journals as well as workshops.
37) What about test information leaking to the media before it’s confirmed? Making allegations of ADRVs [Anti-Doping Rules Violations] by disciplinary bodies in public is not provided for as a tool to combat doping in the WADA Code, since this touches upon sensitive issues such as personality rights of the persons involved and the right to be heard. The CIRC is of the view that if an ADO is not capable of conducting further investigations on its own, it should forward the information so far collected to the competent authority that is capable of doing so. Posting these allegations into the public domain is unacceptable.
38) How come there’s more doping reported at the lower levels of cycling? The focus of UCI’s effort has had the effect that part of the doping problem has shifted to layers below the top road cyclist level. It has been reported by riders and ADOs that the doping problem has grown more prominent in the group of U23 riders and particularly within continental teams. In this group of cyclists there are many athletes that want to turn professional and/or look for good contracts and are, thus, particularly vulnerable to doping.
39) Did USADA make a scapegoat of Lance Armstrong? It appears to the CIRC that the doping practices of Lance Armstrong were not any different to those of many other riders. CIRC has had the opportunity to interview a lot of other riders and team personnel who have confirmed that the peloton was for a long time doping infested and that more or less identical doping practices were adopted throughout the peloton. All of this is of course no excuse or justification for Lance Armstrong’s behavior and there cannot be a shadow of a doubt that such behavior warrants a harsh sanction. However, equal treatment is a fundamental principle on which the fight against doping and its acceptance by all stakeholders is based.
40) What about some offenders getting less severe suspensions? At the end of the day, the difference in treatment can only be justified by the fact that some of the riders, contrary to others, chose to break the omertà. Whether this alone is justification enough for such a difference in treatment has been questioned by many people the Commission spoke to. By adopting the WADA Code the anti-doping community has decided, in the CIRC’s view correctly, that the advantages of obtaining information through plea bargaining with athletes must be given priority over the principle of equal treatment of athletes.
41) Did the UCI conceal a positive test by Lance Armstrong at the 2001 Tour de Suisse? On the basis of the information in its possession, the CIRC can conclude that Lance Armstrong did not test positive for EPO or any other doping substance during the 2001 Tour de Suisse. CIRC has not found any indication of a financial agreement between Lance Armstrong and Hein Verbruggen or, as would follow from the absence of evidence of a positive test, of any attempts by UCI to conceal a positive test by Lance Armstrong at the 2001 Tour de Suisse.
CIRC has not found any evidence of corruption in relation to a positive test by Lance Armstrong during the Tour de Suisse in 2001, as alleged by Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis in their affidavits to USADA as part of the Reasoned Decision. CIRC considers that it is unfortunate that such serious accusations can be made public, without UCI first being consulted and the allegations being thoroughly investigated.
42) Is it true that Armstrong helped finance the Vrijman Report, which in 2005 investigated reports of the American retrospectively testing positive for EPO at the 1999 Tour? CIRC has not found any evidence to corroborate the above-mentioned allegations that Lance Armstrong helped to finance the Vrijman Report. Lance Armstrong made a commitment to pay USD 100,000 to UCI for the fight against doping and, among other things, for the purchase of a Sysmex XT-2000i machine before the publication of the article in L’Équipe that ultimately gave rise to Emile Vrijman’s mandate.
43) Were there any unethical developments with the Vrijman Report? UCI, together with the Armstrong team, became directly and heavily involved in the drafting of the Vrijman Report, the purpose of which was only partly to expedite the publication of the report. The main goal was to ensure that the report reflected UCI’s and Lance Armstrong’s personal conclusions. The significant participation of UCI and Armstrong’s team was never publicly acknowledged, and was consistently denied by Hein Verbruggen.
44) What about Armstrong’s donations to the UCI? Notwithstanding the above, once again CIRC notes that UCI did not act prudently in soliciting and accepting donations from an athlete, and all the more so from an athlete in respect of whom there were suspicions of doping.
45) Were the allegations of corruption against Verbruggen and McQuaid justified? A dossier outlining allegations of corruption against UCI president Pat McQuaid and his predecessor Hein Verbruggen was commissioned by Igor Makarov and compiled by two private investigators during the 2013 presidential campaign and handed over to the UCI Ethics Commission at the beginning of 2014. … CIRC considers that this type of conduct is entirely unacceptable: for a member of UCI [Makarov] to engage private investigators to draw up a report and publicly refer to the existence of that report… This “strategy of suspicion and public shaming” is particularly inappropriate as it comes from members of the UCI Management Committee.
46) How did Laurent Brochard avoid suspension after winning the 1997 rainbow jersey? French rider Laurent Brochard was crowned Road World Champion in San Sebastian, Spain, in October 1997. The former Festina soigneur Willy Voet and former Festina Sport Director Bruno Roussel both state in their books that Laurent Brochard tested positive for lidocaine during the World Championships. They assert that Brochard had not recorded that he had a therapeutic exemption on the form during the medical control, that a medical certificate was requested by UCI and that a backdated medical prescription was supplied to, and accepted by UCI. … The fact…was not contested by…UCI President Hein Verbruggen.
47) Was their similar treatment two years later for Lance Armstrong? According to data provided by UCI during the 1999 Tour, Lance Armstrong was one of 26 riders who tested positive for corticosteroids. They all provided a medical certificate that was authorized by [UCI doctor] Lon Schattenberg. For three of these riders, the CIRC established that…no medical prescription was declared at the time of the control…. On one occasion, a medical prescription was clearly faxed days after the doping control had taken place. Not one of these three riders was sanctioned by UCI.
48) What should have happened in the Brochard and Armstrong cases? Disciplinary proceedings should have been opened by UCI against both Laurent Brochard and Lance Armstrong following their positive tests for prohibited substances on the basis that they did not declare the use of a medicine justifying that substance on their doping control form. This is regardless of the fact that they subsequently produced a prescription explaining that use after testing positive.
49) How come Armstrong was allowed to make his comeback in 2009 some two weeks before he was fully integrated in the UCI’s anti-doping program? When Pat McQuaid made the decision to allow Lance Armstrong to compete in the Tour Down Under, UCI failed to apply its own rules by not applying Article 77 of the 2008 UCI ADR. In doing so, UCI damaged its reputation by sending the message that rules applied differently to some athletes compared to the rest of the peloton. … The Management Committee Members displayed a lack of judgment by not challenging the decision of the UCI President to allow Lance Armstrong an exemption to return to competition early.
50) But there were extenuating circumstances, right? Without detracting from the comments above, it is however noted that Lance Armstrong put UCI in a difficult situation by publicizing his participation in the Tour Down Under after having been informed that he was not eligible to participate. As a result, UCI was in the position that whichever decision it took, it would have been criticized by either the Tour Down Under organizers, the South Australian government, the public in Australia and Lance Armstrong for being too strict or by WADA and the media for amending their rules to favor Lance Armstrong.
51) So how come McQuaid changed his mind? CIRC has considered all the evidence and whilst there is no direct evidence of an agreement between Lance Armstrong and Pat McQuaid, documents in the CIRC’s possession show a temporal link between the two decisions: in the morning Pat McQuaid told UCI staff that he had changed his mind and decided to let Lance Armstrong participate in the Tour Down Under, and that same evening Lance Armstrong told Pat McQuaid that he had decided to participate in the Tour of Ireland.
52) Why did Armstrong sometimes get preferential treatment from the UCI? There are numerous examples that prove that Lance Armstrong benefited from a preferential status afforded by the UCI leadership. These favors were granted to him because he was considered the greatest cyclist and moreover the people’s hero as a cancer survivor. As one source summarizes, “… The primary concern was the commercial and international development of cycling and the arrival of Lance Armstrong was an extraordinary opportunity, a real success story, and the UCI closed its eyes to the rest.” Another source considered that within UCI, Lance Armstrong was considered “the illustration of the success of professional cycling and that if he fell, everyone would fall with him.”
53) Did Contador get special treatment with his clenbuterol positive? The CIRC has found no evidence to show that UCI tried to hide the positive test of Alberto Contador. WADA had been informed about the positive test and was involved in the discussion regarding the results management of the case. … Notwithstanding the peculiarity of the case due to the very low level of clenbuterol found in the rider’s body and the fact that Alberto Contador was the winner of the 2010 Tour, the CIRC is of the opinion that the same rules and procedures should have applied to Alberto Contador as to all riders irrespective of his ranking and status.
54) What about Contador’s test details being leaked to the media? The Commission regrets again the violation of the duty of professional secrecy when the positive test was leaked to the press. This is yet another example that has been brought to the CIRC’s attention and such cases should be seriously investigated in order to respect the athlete’s right to privacy as well as his/her rights for due process.
55) Why didn’t the UCI Management Committee have greater influence with UCI president Verbruggen? The main decisions concerning doping were principally taken by the President, lawyer Philippe Verbiest and Dr Lon Schattenberg…. As a former UCI employee reported, Hein Verbruggen “was the Management Committee.” The CIRC is also of the view that the UCI Management Committee generally took a passive approach and demonstrated a lack of a critical attitude.
56) How did cycling’s “doping” image affect UCI governance in the Verbruggen era? Several people indicated that Hein Verbruggen, described as an “Executive President” or “Enlightened Dictator”, did not accept opposition and any potential opponents were side- lined. … The evidence available to the Commission gave a clear impression that the UCI management adopted a strategy of aggressive defense, a “with us or against us” strategy…. This “siege mentality” can be explained in part, but not be justified, by the fact that cycling had become the main target of all criticism in respect of doping. These criticisms were certainly justified but often failed to recognize what was happening in other sports.
57) What does the CIRC think of the transition of power from Verbruggen to McQuaid as the new UCI president? Pat McQuaid was a member of the Management Committee and President of the Road Commission. Hein Verbruggen offered Pat McQuaid paid work at the UCI for a period of approximately six months before the 2005 election, without making the post open to a competitive recruitment procedure and without a specific job description. It is the CIRC’s view that conferring this type of benefit is not in keeping with principles of good governance or equality of opportunity for candidates.
58) And what about McQuaid working as a consultant to an upcoming world championship organizer? In addition, Pat McQuaid had accepted a paid position as a consultant to the organizers of the 2004 Road World Championships in Verona. At that time Pat McQuaid was the President of the UCI Road Commission. This conflict of interest was acknowledged by Hein Verbruggen in a letter from him to Pat McQuaid, as in June 2003 he made a proposal to Pat McQuaid that his fees from Verona (EUR 85,000) should be paid to the UCI. … The UCI’s accounting documents show that this sum, paid to the UCI in May 2004, served to finance Pat McQuaid’s “training” in Aigle before his election to the office of President…. In the CIRC’s view these types of arrangements are not consistent with principles of transparency and good governance.
59) There was some opposition to the McQuaid “training” period, right? The conduct before Pat McQuaid’s election, in particular his paid employment for several months before the ballot, was severely criticized, including in public, by Sylvia Schenk, a member of the Management Committee. She referred the matter to the UCI Ethics Commission five times between 2004 and 2005, as well as once to the IOC Ethics Commission and once to the UCI Appeals Board. … The Ethics Committee declared that Sylvia Schenk had made false declarations and breached the duty of confidentiality applicable to all of the organization’s executives. … The proceedings concluded in February 2008 with an out-of-court settlement between the parties.
60) Finally, what is the CIRC’s verdict on the antics of Russian official Igor Makarov in the 2013 election campaign between McQuaid and Cookson? Igor Makarov, owner of the Katusha team and member of the UCI Management Committee, had publicly called for Pat McQuaid not to be re-elected. … [He is also] president of the Russian National Cycling Federation and a sponsor, through his company, Itera, of three of the five UCI Continental Confederations…. The sponsorship of the [African Confederation] and the renewal of the sponsorship of the [European Union] were put in place at the same time as the 2013 presidential election. These three Confederations account for 30 [of the 42] voting delegates in the presidential election. … It is disappointing and unexplainable that Igor Makarov did not agree to meet with the CIRC despite repeated invitations.
You can read the full CIRC report below, including the CIRC’s recommendations on page 211: