Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.jaxgtr
11-01-09, 08:31 AM
Good read.
Full Article (http://www.velonews.com/article/99666)
The UCI"s response to the AFLD report on the 2009 Tour de France
Published: Oct. 30, 2009
Response of the UCI to a report from AFLD relating to anti- doping activities at the 2009 Tour de France
PART 1: GENERAL COMMENTS
The concept of partnership
On 10 June 2009, the UCI President Pat McQuaid signed a partnership agreement with AFLD President Pierre Bordry. The intention of this partnership was to demonstrate to the cycling family and to the public that UCI and AFLD were collaborating closely to protect the integrity of the 2009 Tour de France. The signature of the UCI President was added to the agreement based on the general definition of a partnership as:
A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, for the achievement of a specified goal
The UCI did not actually need the services of AFLD. The UCI has the resources, the expertise and the competence to conduct a large scale testing programme on its own. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI is the recognised sample collection authority and results management authority, with sole jurisdiction to conduct anti- doping tests at international cycling events. However, to demonstrate its willingness to work in a harmonised international anti-doping community on our premier event, the Tour de France, the UCI agreed to share the responsibilities with AFLD.
The role of the AFLD according to the agreement was modest. In short, they provided the doctors to assist our Doping Control Officers. The UCI also agreed to collaborate on targeted testing before and during the event, based on our respective information sources. While the UCI Anti-Doping programme always welcomes independent and professional scrutiny, the AFLD did not seek that role in the agreement with the UCI. The AFLD’s unilateral decision to conduct an informal observer programme, with the unfortunate result of an untimely, incomplete, misinformed and inaccurate report is puzzling and disappointing. It calls into question the motives of AFLD.
Full Article (http://www.velonews.com/article/99666)
The UCI"s response to the AFLD report on the 2009 Tour de France
Published: Oct. 30, 2009
Response of the UCI to a report from AFLD relating to anti- doping activities at the 2009 Tour de France
PART 1: GENERAL COMMENTS
The concept of partnership
On 10 June 2009, the UCI President Pat McQuaid signed a partnership agreement with AFLD President Pierre Bordry. The intention of this partnership was to demonstrate to the cycling family and to the public that UCI and AFLD were collaborating closely to protect the integrity of the 2009 Tour de France. The signature of the UCI President was added to the agreement based on the general definition of a partnership as:
A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, for the achievement of a specified goal
The UCI did not actually need the services of AFLD. The UCI has the resources, the expertise and the competence to conduct a large scale testing programme on its own. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI is the recognised sample collection authority and results management authority, with sole jurisdiction to conduct anti- doping tests at international cycling events. However, to demonstrate its willingness to work in a harmonised international anti-doping community on our premier event, the Tour de France, the UCI agreed to share the responsibilities with AFLD.
The role of the AFLD according to the agreement was modest. In short, they provided the doctors to assist our Doping Control Officers. The UCI also agreed to collaborate on targeted testing before and during the event, based on our respective information sources. While the UCI Anti-Doping programme always welcomes independent and professional scrutiny, the AFLD did not seek that role in the agreement with the UCI. The AFLD’s unilateral decision to conduct an informal observer programme, with the unfortunate result of an untimely, incomplete, misinformed and inaccurate report is puzzling and disappointing. It calls into question the motives of AFLD.