Tuesday, May 25, 2010

20 An Open Letter To The UCI President Pat McQuaid

Note : A gentleman on Cycling News' forums wrote the following, but it does not represent the views of CN itself. I'm helping to spread the word to other cycling fans, as I told him. The letter comes in direct response to McQuaid's statements today, denying using the money Armstrong "donated" in 2005 as bribe to cover up the latter's positive test in 2001. You guys must read this, as we're going through one of the biggest scandals in sports. NYT reports today that the investigations are going to broaden. Two unnamed individuals have already been contacted by investigators to exchange vital information in return for leniency.

Dear Pat,

As the cycling community is quite small, I have had the opportunity to meet with you over the years. I always admired your enthusiasm for the sport and your extensive knowledge of the sport in general.

Since the revelations made this week by Floyd Landis, the sport of cycling and the UCI of which you are President has come under immense scrutiny. The accusations that a positive drug test by Lance Armstrong was ignored in return for a financial settlement is deeply disturbing and a serious charge against the UCI.

In a radio interview on Friday you mentioned that Lance Armstrong had ‘donated’ $100,000 in 2005. You repeated those comments again today at the Giro d'Italia.

It seriously harms the reputation of this great sport that there still remains major discrepancies in your version of events.

At the Play The Game conference in October 2007 you said the $100,000 ‘cash’ came in to our account "in actual fact, about 15 months ago". (Audio here- second clip) This would be approximately July 2006 - which contradicts today's statements from you.

More alarmingly - July 2006 is only one month after the publication of the Vrijman report which cleared Mr Armstrong of facing sanction for having EPO in 6 urine samples that were retested in 2005.

With so many discrepancies I believe it is prudent that the UCI subject itself to a full independent financial audit.

I realize that this is a costly and time consuming process but it is one that the UCI must bare if it is to restore its faith in its members and the sporting community.

In a separate interview today former UCI member Sylvia Schenk said "the UCI was always very proud of its accounts".

This should mean that the UCI should be able to immediately release details of the transaction, UCI booking and machine purchased, before an audit gets underway.

I also believe that you need to consider your position at this point. In the interest of the sport of cycling, I respectfully suggest you stand down or stand aside while any investigation takes place – as I believe it would effect your ability to carry out the day to day duties of President.

If you feel that you should not stand down or stand aside then it is imperative that you clearly articulate the reasons for not doing so.

It is time to move along and begin the process of rebuilding the trust and credibility of this great sport.

- (Name and address with CyclingNews)

* * *

A little about Pat McQuaid : Before his election, Irishman Pat McQuaid (a former racing cyclist from 1966-1982) fell out with Sylvia Schenk, a member of the UCI's management committee, who believed McQuaid was living off an expense account sanctioned by Verbruggen. [Source]

McQuaid joined the UCI's management committee in 1997 and six years later was nominated to take over from Verbruggen.

At the UCI Congress in Madrid on Sept. 23, 2005, 42 voting delegates gave him a 31-11 majority over challengers Darshan Singh and Gregorio Moreno.

McQuaid heads a 14-man committee that meets each January, June and September. For legal decisions, he depends on a team of five lawyers.

"In my 2 years on the board, there has never been a vote, everybody's agreed by consensus," McQuaid said once. "When it gets down to legal decisions it's the lawyers here that would advise me."

He sums up his role as being the "executive" who presides over the running of day-to-day business.

* * *


  1. Anonymous10:22 PM

    Excellent. Pat getting caught with his pants down. One cover up after the other, and you get a shit pile of lies that contradict each other. Take 'em down!

  2. Phyllis10:29 PM


    I have been reading your blog for over 2 years now. I'm extremely disappointed that you're siding with conspiracy theorists. As a knowledgeable individual, given your profession, I thought you knew better. Lance Armstrong is the most drug tested athlete in the world. If you can learn anything from history, its not that he passed these trials before, but that the conspiracy theorists have failed at every attempt to dislodge him.

  3. Hi Phyllis. First of all, thank you for reading the blog. I'm honored if you've been following me for 2 years.

    You're right. I'm a knowledgable individual, I read voraciously. After having done my own research over the years on the doping drama, its apparent that there's an entity or entities in cycling today who will go through thick and thin to support criminals who fraud and dope, because they're "good for the sport", they "bring business", "attract sponsors" etc. Business sense has gotten the better of ethics, and values. This sport is in shit, there's no question about it. I will use everything in my means to make fun of, make aware of, lampoon, discredit, teach, and share the knowledge based on rational facts. I wouldn't have written popular articles such as "The Church of Lance Armstrong" if I didn't have a strong conviction that there is one serious flaw in this man's story, and the entire cycling industry may be sitting on it, sucking the gifts of "hiding" it. Bad for them, as now, that story has gotten so hot and violent, it's burst out like a volcano. Truth has its way to find outside air, trust me. I suppose calling out topics such as this "conspiracy theories" may have worked in the past, not anymore. Not now, when federal investigators are about to open a can and peek into it. What lies inside could be worms.

  4. Anonymous11:35 PM

    cycling has been in doping since its beginings, everybody enjoys the show when great performances happen, all televised sports are just that tv shows

  5. SkiJohn12:22 AM

    I can't believe in Lance anymore. Whatever he maybe doing for the anti-cancer movement today, his legacy is one built on doubt, misconduct and as the enforcer of the 'Omerta'. Its too hard not to believe he didn't do it. The number of witnesses are in double figures now. He could have come clean about it long back. Instead he chose to deny and harass others who spoke out against him. The day he evaded questions and instead, chose to insult Paul Kimmage at the press conference last year, I was telling myself somethings not right.

  6. Joe Rizzoni1:02 AM

    LA is clever on the books, but an idiot when it comes to knowing how to lie. When asked if he gave money to the UCI last week, he said "absolutely not". Really? Doesn't fall in what McQuaid's saying here, and doesn't fall into the "less than 35,000" claim he made at the SCA Promotions hearing some years back. The pieces are finally falling into place.

  7. Complete and utter train wreck!

  8. To Phyllis (and indirectly to Ron).

    I am glad someone takes the time to consolidate the sources for these very serious allegations, and making it easier to follow the evolution of this case.

    "most tested" athlete counts for nothing. See Caitlin, Montgomery, etc. The cheaters are ahead of the drug testing. Most of the major doping busts and confessions have not been the result of doping tests (Festina, Telekom - Riis, Kelme, etc.).

    Lots of money and power can buy you a lot of silence, but now that there is a real investigation

    It is VERY serious that the UCI took money from an athlete that it tests. That is major conflict of interests. That alone should be a huge red flag. The timing of this issue, and the long list of circumstantial evidence (nothing has stuck YET to Armstrong) makes it look very much like a bribe.

    Keep the information flowing, please.


  9. Kevin2:33 PM

    Incredible. A disgruntled and disgraced rider makes a few unsubstantiated accusations and people are being asked to step down from their jobs so the claims can be investigated. So... let's see... you have a falling out with a lover or a friend or a co-worker and they accuse you of a crime (which, of course, they can't prove), then, obviously, it's expected that the authorities should drop whatever they're doing and start investigating you. And you want to encourage this kind of thinking? Rethink, dude.

  10. Shocking that it allegedly only took a donation of $100,000 to cover up a positive test. If it's that cheap, no wonder people aren't getting caught.

  11. Who created this myth that Lance Armstrong is the most tested athlete in the world, do we know where and when it originated?

    Figures for five years UCI testing on Lance:
    1999: 15 urine tests
    2000: 12 urine tests
    2001: 10 urine tests
    2002: 9 urine tests
    2003: 9 urine tests
    2004: 8 urine tests and 1 blood test

    Far from the worlds most tested athlete, but i would be interesting when that phrase was first bandied around, and by whom.

  12. Anonymous9:50 PM

    @Dim : The most tested athlete myth was branded by Armstrong himself. Was it in 2004 or 2005, I can't remember.

  13. Anonymous12:55 AM

    interesting comment in marca yesterday - why do
    the UCI degrade Landis so much but treat Manzano like some saint when
    they know what Manzano got up to himself? and it is not pretty

  14. Some further questions/observations for the UCI to address.

    On Tuesday Pat McQuaid held a press conference at the Giro d'Italia - in which he said he had possession of 'letters' and documentation saying there was no positive test from the Tour de Suisse 2001.

    This would have taken co-ordination and co-operation from different stakeholders. Why is it in the same time-frame the UCI has been unable to produce any documents relating to the transaction from Lance Armstrong, the UCI booking number and receipt for the purchase of the Sysmex machine?

    Also - the 'ProTour Code of Conduct' appears to be no longer available on the UCI website or ProTour website - I found it eventually here in archives.

    The 'Code of Conduct' sets out the practices for teams regarding having a rider subject to investigation:

    IX. Without prejudice to the right to terminate the contract for serious misconduct, not to
    enter any licence-holder for events who is subject to judicial proceedings or
    investigation for facts relating to sporting activity, or any act constituting a breach of
    the UCI antidoping regulations, or any other intentional criminal act.
    1. as from the opening of the investigation or proceedings:
    · if the facts are admitted by the party in question, or
    · if information from an official source available to the UCI ProTeam
    shows that the facts in question cannot be seriously contested;
    2. in other cases, as from the date of referral by the investigating body or,
    where no such procedure applies, the date of the summons to the
    accused to appear before the trial judge for sentencing.

    What is the current UCI position?

  15. I think the most tested cyclist thing has been an oversight.. It is actually Kristin Armstrong. She was tested over 20 times a year between 2006 and 2008.

  16. Johans1:44 PM

    “The naked truth is always better than the best dressed lie”

  17. Fight4Truth6:47 PM

    There were two donations. One for around $25-$30M that was made some years before the 2005 testimony. The second was for the $100M that McQuaid just copped to receiving. In his 2005 testimony, Lance says that some time after he made the first donation and the date of his deposition, he had pledged to make an additional donation. See pages 98 and 99 of his deposition

  18. Apparently some people are taking Landis' words quite seriously... I find Michael Ashenden's theory of combining blood transfusion with continuous micro doses of EPO quite fascinating. Makes me suspect this might really be going on.

  19. Anonymous12:03 PM

    hi there Ron. Found this blog via a link on another site. I will now spend some time reading around further posts. However, before i do i just have a couple of questions i would like to run by you. The 2005 money was actually pledged at an earlier date, and "needed" to be chased by the UCI - are you aware of why there was a delay or is it all tied to the vrijman report? also, isn't hein verbruggen the man you should be chasing on this, or do you view Pat Mac culpable by being his right hand man at that time?


Thank you. I read every single comment.