For years the " Clinic " of that famous Forum , Cyclingnews.com , has had that famous refrain " It will be revealed on Tuesday " ! Well we certainly get to read the revealed " info " on most Tuesdays ! This week we were entertained with the relevation of WHAT WENT on in the June 2013 , UCI Management meeting in Bergen . We had ALL seen the rumours in the Media , also confirmed by UCI Management Member , Brian Cookson's Blog , shortly thereafter . Respecting the Confidentiality of the Meeting , Brian only revealed the bare info confirming a disturbing report being made available at that Meeting of the UCI Members .
Today we find the Media full of more revealing detail . Following excerpts will give the reader a better understanding of the situation that exists .
The report tabled was quite extensive but a leak of a 3 page summary is now in the Public Domain :
See below for the content of that report !
Released also today , is Brian Cookson's latest instalment of his Blog , containing confirmation of the accuracy of this report , establishing the similarity to that tabled in June :
His short statement :
" These allegations, which appear to be similar to those made to the UCI Management Committee in June, are clearly very serious. For the good of the UCI and cycling, they should be immediately and thoroughly investigated by the relevant authorities. I hope that this matter can be fully resolved before the UCI congress on 27 September.
Was i the first to liken phat to Mugabe & " the dear leader "?
WADA to Introduce New "Steroid Passport"
Seems thst the CHEATS are about to have their FUTURE curtailled !
SOME DRIVERS THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW !
one is about to find that Social Media can be VERY Effective !
A few of the tweets :
As mentioned above , following is the Bergen Summary .
This summary of "A Report on Corruption in the Leadership of the Union Cycliste
Internationale" (The Report), which has also been referred to in the media as "The Dossier," is
being provided as clarification to some of the misperceptions surrounding The Report. The
individual providing this infonnation has seen the entire Report consisting of 54 pages and 26
document exhibits, and helshe has knowledge of the individuals described in detail in The
Report. The release of this summary was not directed by anyone who commissioned or owns
The Report. The individual providing this information has been told that the reason the entire
Report as not been made publicly available, is because it has been turned over to law
enforcement authorities for follow·up.
The Report was investigated and written by two senior law enforcement and intelligence
officials who claim to have more than 60 years of investigative experience, They claim to have
been assisted by an internationally known private investigative firm with offices across the
globe, The Report claims the following:
1. There is testimonial and documentary evidence that in the late summer of2012, Pat McQuaid
and Hein Verbruggen solicited what amounted to a bribe of 250,000 euros from a named procyling team owner. The monies were allegedly for the UCI to help further promote the named
team, and cycling in general in the country of the team and team owner. The named team owner
declined to pay the requested monies.
2. There is testimonial and documentary evidence that neither UCI nor its private promotional
ann known as Global Cycling Promotion, S.A. was officially involved in the solicitation of the
funds, and that the funds were supposed to be paid to a specifically named front company located
in the UAE, involving a named secret bank account with ties to a named finance company in
3. There is testimonial evidence that when employees of another named professional cycling
team tried to involve UCI in a disagreement with team owners over the failure ofteam owners to
pay employees, UCI instead became involved in a corrupt relationship with the team owners and
allowed the illegal non·payment of salaries to continue, The witness who provided this
testimonial evidence claimed to have documentary evidence of this corrupt relationship
including documents from a named international accounting firm that were altered.
4, There is testimonial evidence that after the rider Alberto Contador failed a doping test in
2010, UCI tried to engage in a cover-up of the failed test in exchange for money, The witness who provided this testimony advised the efforts were not successful because the media became
aware of the story before the cover-up could be completed. The witness claims there are other
witnesses who can provide corroborative testimony.
5. There is testimonial evidence that in 2009 when Lance Armstrong was making a comeback to
cycling, he had not been in the UCI doping testing pool for the previously proscribed period of
time. Mr. McQuaid agreed to a bending of these rules, which allowed Mr. Armstrong to ride in
the Tour Down Under for an appearance fee of $1 million and in exchange, Mr. Armstrong
ab'Teed to ride in the Tour of Ireland for free - a race he otherwise would not have participated in.
Further, that Mr. McQuaid benefited from this agreement because his relatives or friends were
involved in directing the Tour of Ireland. The witness claims a personal, first-hand account of
6. There is testimonial evidence from more than one witness concerning the well-known 1999
Tour de France urine samples that allegedly eventually contained evidence that Mr. Armstrong
failed doping tests, and that Mr. Verbruggen arranged for a friend of his, Emile Vrijman to
conduct the independent review and report about the incident. Further, that Mr. Armstrong's
personal attorneys wrote and edited portions of the report so they were most favorable to Mr.
Armstrong. It is further alleged that Mr. Armstrong helped pay for the report. One witness
stated that there is email evidence between Mr. Armstrong's attorneys and UCI officials, which
prove these facts. There is testimonial and documentary evidence that the night before Mr.
Armstrong appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show, Mr. Verbruggen was very concerned these
events were going to be disclosed during the interview of Mr. Armstrong.
7. On 18 May, 2013 at approximately 1500, Mr. McQuaid was interviewed extensively for
several hours by the two investigators about the allegations in The Report. The Report states he
denied all of the allegations, but the investigators claim there is testimonial and documentary
evidence that he lied about his knowledge and role in the allegations. Me. McQuaid has never
disclosed that he was interviewed during the investigation, and that he knows the nature of the
allegations as contained in The Report.
8. On 8 June, 2013 at the UCI Management Committee meeting in Bergan, Norway some of the
contents of The Report were disclosed to and discussed by Management Committee members.
Mr. McQuaid said he was going to bring the allegations to the UCl's Ethics Commission for
investigation. 9. During the week of 10 June, 2013, there is testimonial and documentary evidence that Mr.
McQuaid communicated with at least one of the members of the UCI Management Committee
and demanded a copy of The Report so he could personally refer the allegations concerning
himself to the UCI Ethics Commission.
10. There is testimonial and documentary evidence that On 29 June, 2013 at approximately 1700in Corsica, France, Mr. McQuaid was given an opportunity to read the entire report and ask
questions or make comments concerning the contents of The Report. The investigators claim
that he spent approximately one hour reading the report, making notes. and that he asked no
questions, and made no comments.
11. There is testimonial evidence from more than one witness that after Mr. McQuaid read The
Report in Corsica, France, he communicated with Mr. Verbruggen about the contents of The
Report. Further, that Mr. Verbruggen then contacted several of the witnesses in The Report in an
apparent effort to distance himselffrom Mr. McQuaid.
12. It thus appears the recent statements in the press last week by Mr. McQuaid that he has
never seen The Report are false. It appears the statements to multiple witnesses by Mr. McQuaid
that he intended to bring the allegations he was aware of in The Report to the UCI Ethics
Commission are false. It appears the statements by both Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen inthe press last week that they have not recently communicated, and that Mr. Verbruggen no
longer has anything to do with Mr. McQuaid or UCI, are also false.