Following public statement made by USADA on the position of the UCI regarding
the disciplinary proceedings it opened against six persons the UCI wants to
clarify.
After the Federal Department of Justice dropped its investigation into
alleged doping fraud within the US Postal Cycling team, USADA continues to
allege that such conspiracy took place indeed with the participants having
committed the most serious doping offences over some fifteen years of time.
When Floyd Landis formulated his accusations in an e-mail sent on 30 April
2010 to USA Cycling, a UCI member federation, the UCI asked several national
federations to conduct investigations. This included USADA that was acting on
behalf of USA Cycling.
The UCI received no other information from USADA than that it opened
disciplinary proceedings against six respondents on 12 June 2012.
Three respondents were banned for life because they didn’t respond or didn’t
respond in time to USADA’s letter of accusation. USADA refused to provide UCI
with evidence that these respondents received the letter of accusation in due
time. In any case it is a matter of fact that these respondents didn’t receive
the case file with the alleged evidence that USADA claims to exist against
them. Nevertheless USADA claims that these respondents have accepted to be
banned for life. Yet it seems that these respondents were banned for life for
not having reacted to a letter of USADA. Furthermore the evidence that USADA
claims to exist against the respondents was not reviewed by a neutral instance.
Likewise none of the other respondents have seen the evidence that USADA
claims to have collected. Two of them are expected to file their defence by
15August 2012, yet still don’t know what is the evidence that USADA alleges to
exist against them. It is amazing to see how USADA accuses the respondents of
cover up whilst USADA refuses to reveal the evidence that it claims to exist.
According to the World Anti-Doping Code and UCI’s Anti-Doping Rules that
USADA claims to apply, the UCI is the authority having results management for
this case. USADA claims that there are elements with vest results management
authority in USADA, yet refuses to show what these elements are.
For the UCI it is clear that USADA claims an authority that it does not have
and uses procedures that violate basic principles of due process.
The absence of any evidence that has been made available to the respondents
and to the UCI, the fact that USADA has no results management jurisdiction in
this case, the fact that USADA refuses to have its file assessed by an
independent results management authority and the fact that USADA continues to
claim in these circumstances publicly that a doping conspiracy has taken place
indeed brings UCI to the conclusion that USADA has no respect for the rules and
for the principles of due process. This raises great concern.
The UCI wants that the case is judged according to the rules, upon facts
established on the basis of sound evidence and by a neutral instance, including
in the stadium of results management. The UCI wants that justice is done.
Justice cannot be done by violating rules on jurisdiction, with files that have
been kept secret so far and results management proceedings that are not fair.
By having condemned the respondents in advance in public USADA has no option
but to use all means to have its case pushed through. By having proclaimed
itself as the representative of the millions who want to have a clean sport,
USADA has made this case the one in which it cannot afford to lose its face or
its very existence.
This is not a sound basis for justice to be done, not to the respondents, not
to the whole of athletes in the world and not to the world of sports as a
whole.
This is the reason why the UCI, although being the competent authority for
this case, wants the case to be given in the hands of a third results management
authority independent both from UCI and USADA.
That authority has to decide whether there is enough evidence for the case to
proceed and for the respondents to have a case to answer, even if ultimately the
merits of any disciplinary proceedings should be judged by an independent body
as well. Indeed due process is required also for results management in order to
protect athletes and other persons from being dragged into disciplinary
proceedings without sufficient basis and without respect for the applicable
rules.
UCI Communications Service