Friday, July 02, 2010

Blood Brothers and CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UCI PROTEAMS

Should be an interesting morning of croissants, coffee and ... the WSJ tomorrow:


UPDATE: Link to the Complete Article here.

EXCERPT: "According to Mr. Landis, a few days later Dr. Ferrari, Mr. Armstrong's training adviser, asked him to lie down on a bed in Mr. Armstrong's St. Moritz apartment. He said Dr. Ferrari stuck a needle into his arm and extracted a half-liter of blood. Mr. Landis said the doctor told him blood would be transfused back into his body at the height of the Tour de France, when his body would be depleted of red blood cells..."

COMMENT: Floyd Landis is totally sane and rational and is not extorting anyone or trying to set-up a book deal. The guy is clearing his conscience and doesn't want to be part of the problem in cycling any longer. And guess what? He's not. Don't be too hard on Lance. He's not Christ - even if he would like to be thought of as a miracle man.

I was chatting with FL a few days ago, and we both wondered what ever happened to the clean-cycling movement that was gathering momentum in 2005 as Lance's retirement loomed. Few of you probably remember, but, on the eve of the 2006 Tour during the worst doping scandal in the history of cycling (until now?), team directors met to decide what to do regarding the riders named in the Operación Puerto dossier (CyclingNews.com's index of Operation Puerto articles). They agreed that no team would allow a rider to compete in that year's Tour while under investigation in any doping affair. Though non-binding, directors decided to follow the Code of Conduct for UCI ProTour teams, which had been signed in December 2004 by teams that had joined the Association of ProTour Teams (ICPT).

That code read as follows:

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UCI PROTEAMS
Preamble:
The UCI ProTeams wish, in drawing up and signing this code of conduct, to indicate clearly their commitment in favour of strict compliance with the rules that keep sport fair. In this respect, the introduction of the UCI ProTour, with its call for excellence, offers a historic opportunity.

The UCI ProTeams underline that the application of the rules of conduct below is in addition to their undertaking of to comply strictly with the rules of the UCI, including in particular the regulations concerning the health of riders (part XIII) and the UCI antidoping regulations (part IV).

The UCI ProTeams undertake to:

I. Put health and sporting ethics at the forefront of their activities.

II. Respect the principle of fair play and behave with respect to the public, riders, organisers, teams and the national and international bodies.

III. Allow riders to do their job in the best possible conditions.

IV. Rule out any form of remuneration to the support team and medical staff based on performance or riders' results.

V. Ask all riders to notify their employer in writing of the contact details for their personal trainer(s), doctor(s) and any other person outside the team involved in their physical, medical or psychological preparation.

VI. Set up an information and prevention system for the riders concerning the dangers involved in doping practices.

VII. Remind riders that they must provide precise information on their whereabouts to any body empowered under the World Antidoping Code that requests it, so that unannounced anti-doping tests can be carried out at any time.

VIII. Without prejudice to the right to terminate the contract for serious misconduct, not to enter any licence-holder for events who is subject to disciplinary proceedings for a breach of the UCI antidoping regulations, by any competent body under the World Antidoping Code.

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.

X. If the facts referred to in article IX are the subject of a disciplinary proceedings covered by article VIII, only article VIII shall apply. However, if following the disciplinary proceedings the party involved is required to appear before the trial judge, he shall not be entered for events from one month before the disciplinary hearing until the date of the judgement.

If under the applicable law the disciplinary proceedings have to be suspended because of judicial proceedings covered by article IX, the accused will not be entered for events from one month before the disciplinary hearing and until the date of the decision.

XI. Dismiss, in compliance with the national law applicable to the contract, any rider or other member of the team found guilty of a breach of the UCI antidoping regulations, by any sporting or judicial body, or found guilty by a judicial body of a deliberate criminal offence in connection with sporting activity. This rule shall not apply to cases covered by the second paragraph of article XII.

The right of dismissal for any valid reason shall remain reserved.

XII. For a period of four years after the judgement, not to contract in the team any person who has been found guilty of a fact constituting an intentional violation of the UCI antidoping regulations.
For the purposes of the present document, the following shall not be considered as intentional violations:

a. offences for which the person is found guilty under article 262 of the UCI antidoping regulations (specific substances);

b. offences for which article 264 or 265 of the UCI antidoping regulations have been applied (absence of fault or negligence or of significant fault or negligence) ;

c. offences for which article 266 of the UCI antidoping regulations has been applied, except where the person is found guilty of an offence relating to article 15.6.2 (possession by supporting staff), 15.7 (trafficking) or 15.8 (administration to a rider). (The references to the numbering of articles of the anti-doping regulations relate to the version in force in 2005);

d. any other offence for which the party involved produces plausible evidence before the president of the Licence Commission that it was unintentional. The present rule shall apply to any disciplinary findings on or after 1 January 2005. The following shall not be taken into account:
· an appeal ruling where an initial ruling was made before 1 January 2005 ;
· a disciplinary ruling where a legal judgement has been made before 1 January 2005 ;
· a legal judgement where there has been a disciplinary ruling before 1 January 2005.

XIII. Any problems with the application of articles VIII to XII shall be submitted to the
president of the Licence Commission or such replacement as he may appoint, whose
decision shall be definitive and enforceable and shall not be subject to any appeal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signed in Aigle, 14 December 2004

2 comments:

  1. Thanks for posting - seems now would be a good time to have a case come across USADA's desk. Wonder if they will be passing on minor stuff in order to conserve resources for their investigation into Lance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The WSJ article was obviously written in collaboration with the person who must have helped Landis with his emails.
    Landis does not try to portray himself as a victim, he was looking for the doping assistence he knew he'd be required to accept for the place in the TdF team, and to be of any use at al, considering his poor climbing compared to Armstrong.

    It's hard to find anything in the article that comes across as a lie. Interesting is the claim that Bruyneel/Armstrong were the ones to facilitate Landis' first-ever doping offence. Perhaps his race results back up at least the timing of his claim. I for one was not aware of Landis until he dragged Lance over the mountains.

    As an athlete, I appreciate that Landis still has a bike, and goes out for a ride, even if he has no race to train for. He appears to just loves to ride, and took his opportunities to make a living doing it.

    Having been part of the cycling business, and an avid bike rider/racer at that, I've come in contact with various bike sales by teams. Usually after a race season, though.
    Some teams, have strict policies though, former team bikes are to never be sold to anyone, for any amount. They are allowed to be ridden by non-team members, but not as their possession. A friend has former protour bike on loan that way.
    When Lotto was selling the Litespeeds, I didn't manage to obtain the bike I wanted (a tall Blade).
    I always thought such sales were to balance a poor income season, or just make the DS richer. Didn't consider doping to be so expensive. Eye-opening how the WSJ article hints to the logisics of it all.

    I cannot imagine any man, after such a dramatic struggle with the truth, to start lying only when going public about it. Did other caught pro's come up with false accusations to shorten their bans? No, they gave up much less than Landis, but stuff that dedicated investicators could do something with.

    Also, Landis not wanting to take away from Armstrong's mental talents on the bike, supports him speaking the truth.
    In (broken) friendships, the truth can't even surprise or hurt someone. The truth is always real, and never obsolete. Especially if the other partly denounces the opposite of this truth on a daily basis, at the cost of millions of devoted fans.

    My roommate is a fan girl. So ****ed at Landis. She knows he can't be lying, but she won't accept any bad word on Armstrong.

    A bit dubious is the emphasis on Armstrong though, a bit too purposely media-hyping. If Leipheimer joined Landis' doping logistics, and Hincapy also took transfusions, they are level with Armstrong.
    In the the truth, race results or fame are irrelevant. Unless you lose to everyone, anyway. But the moment you're not last in a race, doping becomes a crime to me. If Hincapie joined in and choses to deny, that's great for him. I'll suspend my being a Hincapie fan, but expent my being a Landis fan, for newer, better reasons.

    ReplyDelete

Pappillon welcomes your comments and encourages your participation. However, in commenting, you agree that you will not:1) Post material that infringes on the rights of any third party, including intellectual property, privacy or publicity rights. 2) Post material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, slanderous, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person or entity as determined by Pappillon in its sole discretion. 3) Impersonate another person.