UCI declaration (regarding the Schenk/Singh allegations)

September 16, 2005

For several months the International Cycling Union has been subjected to repeated, and apparently systematically organised, attacks. They come from a small number of ill-intentioned individuals who are conducting a genuine campaign to destabilise the UCI by skillfully exploiting the grandstand willingly offered by certain press organisations, clearly more interested in sensation than the truth.

The accusations being leveled against the UCI, which are completely unfounded if not simply ridiculous, mainly concern Mr Pat McQuaid’s nomination for the presidency. They have been made by Mrs Sylvia Schenk, a dissenting member of the UCI Management Committee, Mr Darshan Singh Gill, a former MC member who failed to secure re-election, and Mr Fulgencio Sanchez Montesinos, President of the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC), who decided to follow Mrs Schenk’s lead, apparently on the basis of the rumours being bandied about in the press.

In addition to the declarations made through the media or in correspondence, several complaints have been lodged in the last few months with the UCI Board of Appeal and the UCI Ethics Commission. Unlike the complainants and several media organisations, the UCI preferred to await the conclusions of the competent bodies that were approached, rather than escalating the use of strident and sensationalist declarations, which are methods it would rather leave to those intent on destabilising it.

Today the conclusions have been announced. It is therefore in the light of the decisions taken by the competent bodies, whose independence is absolute - and not on the basis of statements issued willy-nilly and skewed by vested interests - that the UCI has decided to publish an objective statement on the cases.

Mr Darshan Singh Gill lodged two complaints with the UCI Board of Appeal.

In the first, he attacked the Asian Cycling Confederation (ACC), contesting the legitimacy of the March 2005 elections for the ACC presidency. Let us not forget, the results of the vote had gone against him, and forced him to step down as ACC President to make way for Mr Hee Wook Choo, something that Mr Singh Gill appeared to have great difficulty accepting. The Board of Appeal rejected his complaint.

In the second, he attacked the ACC and the UCI, contesting the results of the procedure to replace three Asian voting delegates (notably himself and his son!) to the UCI Congress in Madrid. For the record, a choice of voting delegates had been proposed by Mr Singh Gill when he was still the head of the ACC, and accepted by the Confederation. The new ACC President who was elected in March, Mr Hee Wook Choo, proposed some modifications to this list of voting delegates. He submitted the modifications to the Asian National Federations and they were accepted. Here again, Mr Singh Gill could not accept the fact that his Confederation had not chosen him. In the end, the Board of Appeal upheld Mr Singh Gill’s complaint. Contrary to what the press chose to infer, the Board of Appeal had only one objection to the position of the ACC and the UCI: the postal vote procedure used was not sanctioned by the ACC statutes. Thus, the Asian members who vote in Madrid will be those chosen when Mr Singh Gill was still President of the ACC. Although the method used may be called into question (i.e. the postal vote), it had no bearing on the result of the vote.

The second part of the complaint concerned the legitimacy of the second Asian candidate for membership of the UCI Management Committee. The Board of Appeal rejected Mr Singh Gill’s complaint. Mr Hee Wook Choo, as President of the ACC, is a statutory candidate for the UCI Management Committee. Mr Singh Gill hoped to be designated as a second candidate. Events transpired differently, which is why here also Mr Singh Gill attacked the postal vote procedure used. The Board of Appeal disagreed with him, considering that the method used was justified in view of the urgent nature of the decision that had to be made.

Mr Darshan Singh Gill’s accusations were therefore unfounded. The only complaint upheld was the second, but only because of the form of the election, not the legitimacy of its result. It is also worth noting that although Mr Singh Gill approached the UCI Board of Appeal, only one of his complaints involved the UCI. Observers are free to draw their own conclusions about the motives of Mr Singh Gill, who repeatedly failed to win re-election.

Mrs Sylvia Schenk lodged three complaints.

The first and second, which were submitted to the UCI Board of Appeal and Ethics Commission, against the UCI and Mr Pat McQuaid, claim that the UCI supported Mr Pat McQuaid in his campaign for the UCI presidency. The UCI Board of Appeal has not published the reasons for its decision. However, it has already rejected the complaint unequivocally.

A further complaint was lodged with the UCI Ethics Commission in 2005 by Mrs Schenk, who seems to want to stop me from defending what I believe to be the overriding interests of cycling.

However, eleven members of the UCI Management Committee submitted a complaint against Mrs Schenk to the UCI Ethics Commission, on the grounds that she had breached the principle of confidentiality. The Commission upheld their complaint.

Given the seriousness of the complaints against Mrs Schenk (making unfounded allegations, manifest intent to harm the reputation of the UCI, its President and Mr Pat McQuaid), the UCI, its President and Mr Pat McQuaid have decided to instigate criminal proceedings against her for defamation.

All of the accusations made against the UCI, in particular those concerning Mr Pat McQuaid’s campaign for the presidency and the nature of his relationship with the UCI, have proved to be unfounded. They have been rejected by both the UCI Board of Appeal and the UCI Ethics Commission.

Not wishing to stop with the UCI Ethics Commission, Mrs Sylvia Schenk also approached the Ethics Commission of the IOC, which decided to wait until the competent bodies (UCI Board of Appeal and Ethics Commission) had published their decisions.

Whatever actions Mrs Schenk chooses to take, and in whatever form she decides to pursue her witch hunt against the UCI, with the collaboration of those individuals who have their own reasons to support her, the International Cycling Union has always acted and will continue to act in complete compliance with its statutes and with the utmost transparency.

I hope I have helped to re-establish the truth amid a welter of allegations and manoeuvres.

Yours sincerely,

UCI Communication Service

See also: Sylvia Schenk's response to the UCI

(All rights reserved/Copyright Knapp Communications Pty Limited 2005)