On August 12, 2014 I received the official court transcript with the judge’s ruling.

Here is the summary of the ruling:

“Present at the hearing on contempt today’s date were the plaintiff, Lesli Cohen, and her attorney, James Donnelly, and appearing by telephone, the co-plaintiff, William Hue. The defendant, Aaron Brown and Siroque Holdings as well as the Rule 19 party, Paul Kimmage, were not present. This Court finds that actual notice was given to the defendant’s representative in Court, and that notice was sent to the last known address of Aaron Brown and Siroque Holdings.

After hearing the Court finds as follows: Effective January 16, 2014 Justice Robert Gordon of this Court issued an order which basically enjoined the defendants from disbursing any funds from the Paul Kimmage Defense Fund, requiring that they identify the location of banks and account numbers where the funds were currently held, and also providing an accounting of each prior donation to and disbursement from the account.

The latter two parts of the order were to be complied with by February 25, 2014. The Court finds that this order was clear, unequivocal and quite simple in its terms and furthermore, that it was signed by each party or their representative as of January 31, 2014.

The Court credits the representations of counsel and finds that the defendants did not respond in any fashion to the order, that they produce identifying information regarding the accounts, regarding Paul Kimmage Defense Funds at any time subsequent to the order. This is also borne out by the docket of this matter which was admitted as an exhibit.

The Court also credits the testimony of Lesli Cohen who received information from at least two donors that they received a refund of a portion of their donations to the fund during the month of March 2014 in direct disobedience of the Court order.

The Court also finds that the specific notations on Exhibit three to the effect that, “a small group of U.S. donors is trying to block the refunds” indicates that the defendant was aware of the Court order and willfully violated it.

Accordingly, this Court concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant violated a clear and unequivocal order to provide information regarding the whereabouts of the funds and not to make disbursements.

As a result the Court will enter judgment on these consolidated complaints for contempt in favor of the plaintiff, Lesli Cohen and William Hue. Pursuant to this judgment the Court further orders that the defendant, Aaron Brown and Siroque Holdings, comply with the order of January 31, 2014, forthwith in that the defendant Aaron Brown and Siroque Holdings pay Lesli Cohen her costs and attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,169.16 as specified in amended Exhibit six.

The Court will set a thirty day deadline for compliance with this order and will entertain a motion for further sanctions if strict compliance is not had by August 8, 2014.

Is that clear?”

A final Pre-Trial Conference date has been set for October 10, 2014, at which time all parties are required to attend. If Aaron Brown fails to comply and fails to appear, it is highly likely that the court will rule in favor of me, Bill Hue, and Paul Kimmage and assess full damages (the full value of the missing Kimmage Defense Fund, as well as legal costs for a year and a half of litigation) against Brown and Siroque Holding, and enter a final judgment against Aaron Brown that will be entered into United States legal records. This will set a precedent for future litigation in other countries against Aaron Brown, should anyone else wish to pursue him internationally.

We’ll keep you updated as to any further developments.

Alan English interviews Paul Kimmage and David Walsh

Earlier this year I had an online conversation with an editor of a popular cycling news website. The exchange involved the idea that journalist David Walsh should have his integrity questioned for not tackling the doping issue earlier in his career. The editor said the following: “David Walsh has done some fantastic journalism down the years, especially on Lance Armstrong. But [he] started covering cycling in 1979-1980. Why did he not pursue the drugs issue pre-Armstrong?” He continued, “the guy was part of the problem for 20 years. His integrity needs to be questioned. When it suited him to look away, he looked away. I know he has done great work, that’s not in dispute. But he pretty much ignored the drug issue for two decades. That needs to be said. It’s not about heroes and villains, it’s not black and white like that. And massive periods of Walsh’s career don’t stand up to scrutiny on the drugs issue”. And he concluded “we need to examine his full contribution, not just the years when he decided to man-up. Drugs in cycling have been very public since Tom Simpson died after using them in 1967. The Festina affair in 1998 came after years of massive drug taking in the peloton. Your refusal to even let someone else question Walsh is very curious. I think he cosied up to Kelly and Roche for years and squeezed the maximum out of them for his own career and decided not to rock the boat to keep everyone sweet. Then when they were gone and he didn’t really need access to riders any more because he was writing about other sports too, only then did he decide to tackle the story he’s been sitting on for 20 years” As the paragraph above suggests, I was in complete disagreement with him. The editor in question suggested I write an article underlining my argument, which is what follows. Walsh’s admission that he was complicit in his early years does not excuse him for it, but in my opinion, it was his actions in the proceeding years that rendered his prior neglect to be rather insignificant…

Armstrong being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey

There aren’t many people who could have felt as vindicated as David Walsh did when the Reasoned Decision containing details of the doping practices of Lance Armstrong and his US Postal team was released last December. Finally, the truth had caught up with Armstrong and he eventually admitted to Oprah Winfrey in a televised interview that he had cheated to win all seven of his Tours de France and had been lying about it ever since. Having watched an unbelievable performance from Armstrong, climbing to victory in Sestriere on Stage Nine of the 1999 Tour, Walsh had spent many of the proceeding moments of his life pursuing this story when most others were happy to let it lie. He wrote two books, ‘L.A. Confidential’ and ‘From Lance to Landis’, which contained many of the details which have since been confirmed to be true by the Reasoned Decision. He has now written a new book called ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ which recounts his dogged pursuit of cycling’s most prominent cheat. But Walsh has been writing about cycling since the late 1970s. Why did he not pursue the drugs issue in the years between then and the Armstrong era? Did it suit him to ignore the tough questions and to use the success of Stephen Roche and Sean Kelly so that he could further his own career as a journalist? Was he actually part of the problem for 20 years? Of course, Walsh was not always a doping pariah. In a public appearance in February at The Pavilion in Dun Laoghaire at an event called ‘Whistleblowers’ where he sat with Paul Kimmage and was answering questions from Alan English, Walsh discussed his attitudes in his early years writing about cycling in the 1980s.

“I was born in Slieverue in County Kilkenny just 18 miles from Kelly’s home town of Carrick On Suir. I was a huge Sean Kelly fan at that time.”

At The Pavilion, the topic was raised of the 1984 edition of Paris-Brussels where Kelly tested positive for the banned substance Stimul and was handed a one month suspended sentence and a fine of one thousand Swiss Francs. Walsh wrote a book about Sean Kelly in 1986 and English asked Walsh to comment on the accusations that he glazed over the doping issue in that book.

“I didn’t glaze over it” said Walsh with a self-deprecating chuckle, “I completely ignored it. I didn’t want to contribute to the story that Kelly was doping.

“At that time, I still found a way of thinking to myself that if I interview guys and I ask about doping, I will not question their answers. I didn’t want to go there.”

When writing the book, simply titled Kelly, Walsh sought the opinions of Roche and Robert Millar about Kelly’s positive test. Millar suggested that Stimul, as a drug of choice for cyclists, would have been absurd as it was ‘ten years out of date’. Roche said “How can they do this to Sean? He has been easily the best rider in the world this season and they accuse him of taking something in a race like Paris-Brussels. I know Sean well enough to know that it is nonsense”. The Irish Cycling Federation also seemed to think it was nonsense as the secretary at the time Karl McCarthy travelled over to Belgium from Cork to attempt to help in absolving Kelly of any wrong doing. Procedural irregularities were blamed in order to get Kelly off the hook. The UCI bought the excuse but they needed the Belgian cycling federation to agree in order to reverse the punishment. The Belgians refused and the fine and sentence were upheld. Walsh defended Kelly in his book. He suggested that because Stimul is a drug which always shows up in tests, surely Kelly would not have taken this drug for a relatively minor race like Paris-Brussels. At the time the top three finishers in a race were guaranteed to face the drug testers, Kelly finished third in that 1984 edition of Paris-Brussels, so Walsh also suggested that if Kelly had actually taken the drug that he would surely have made certain he did not finish in the top three. This twisted logic came at a naive time in Walsh’s career where he admits now that he was willing to ignore evidence which was right in front of him. He writes in ‘Seven Deadly Sins’:

“I tried to make the case that it was hard to believe Kelly had used a substance so easily detectable. I chose to see the ridiculous leniency of the authorities as proof that, at worst, it was a minor infraction. It wasn’t how a proper journalist would have reacted.”

At this point in the 1980s, Walsh had formed a friendship with Kimmage who was busy attempting to forge a professional career of his own. When Kimmage’s own book, ‘A Rough Ride’ was released in 1990 containing stories of doping in the professional peloton, much of it was not news to Walsh. But still, as Walsh admitted in The Pavilion back in February, he was willing to turn a blind eye.

“In the early 1990s, the allure of cycling was very much alive for me. I didn’t want to let go of the Tour de France as a dream. I still had a dream that I would write a Canterbury Tales type book about the Tour” [which he did – ‘Inside the Tour de France’].

Even though Walsh’s interest in the doping had already been piqued in 1988 when Pedro Delgado tested positive on his way to winning the Tour de France, it wasn’t until an incident in 1996, which took place outside the sport of cycling, which would see Walsh’s journalistic radar fully spin toward the direction of the cheats. Michelle Smith had just won four Olympic medals (three gold) for Ireland, swimming at the Atlanta games and stories began to emerge that she had doped in order to do so. Walsh was pursuing the story for the Sunday Tribune while Kimmage was also on the trail for the Sunday Independent. Walsh is careful to acknowledge the role of the sports editor when pursuing controversial stories. He remains grateful to his editors at the Sunday Tribune and Sunday Times who allowed him to pursue these topics when others may not have had the courage. He provides RTE as an example of a media outlet at the time that was unwilling to pursue the Michelle Smith story. An RTE sports reporter had spoken to Walsh about Smith and had decided that she also wanted to report the doping details. However when she approached her RTE sports editor, she was asked ‘do we really want to interfere with the national mood’?

The Festina affair brought doping into the limelight when the Tour started in Dublin in 1998

It takes a certain kind of editor and a certain kind of journalist to decide ‘yes, let’s do it’. Walsh had, eventually, become that kind of journalist.

Not long afterward, the Festina affair erupted at the Tour de France and what had long been left unspoken in cycling was finally emerging. Instead of being buried in back pages and footnotes, doping was suddenly front page news. This gave even more credence to journalists who were willing to write about the difficult stories. What had previously been a taboo subject was now very much on the agenda. Finally, the 1999 Tour de France arrived and Walsh, hardened by the cynicism which had by now escaped from within and materialised, was ready to disbelieve and question what Armstrong was doing on those Alpine inclines. Walsh said in a recent interview with cyclingnews.com

“Maybe I was lucky that Armstrong came along in the right time in my journalistic life. If Armstrong had been there in 1984 would I have asked questions? Probably not.”

There are countless characters in the Armstrong soap opera that require their integrity be questioned. David Walsh is not one of them. To cast aspersions now on Walsh’s probity for not tackling doping in the 1980s is applying the standards of today to an era when the landscape of sports journalism was completely different. He admits that it took him time to see the light on doping, that he was a fan with a typewriter and that he was young and naive.

None of us are naive now, thanks to David Walsh.

(The interview in its entirety can be read on the free iPad magazine app 2r. To learn more about the project, visit the website: http://2rmag.com/)

A Gitane advertisement featuring the newly-crowned World Champ

 

The first time I ever saw Greg LeMond was on September 4, 1983. I am precise about the date, because he had just won his first World Road Race title championships in Altenrhein, Switzerland, and I was watching from the pit-lane. The day before, I had finished a distant seventy-something in the amateur race – a sobering experience – but the silver lining was a chance to watch the pros. That we (the Ireland amateur team) had spent most of the week in the same hotel as Sean Kelly was another bonus. We all hoped one day to be Kelly, and all hoped one day to be Stephen Roche – they were real, touchable – but we, or at least I, never aspired to be LeMond. His talent was simply off the scales. He was barely one year older than me but had already secured a ‘palmarès’ to dream of: World Junior Road Race Champion 1979, Tour de l’Avenir Winner 1982 (he had beaten Robert Millar by a staggering ten minutes), Critérium du Dauphiné Winner 1983, and now, stupendously, the World Professional Road Race Champion. If someone had told me that afternoon, that three years later we would race the Tour de France together, I’d have been the happiest man in the world. But if I had known about him then, what I know about him now, I might have put away my bike and never raced again…

Paul: There’s a passage in a book (The Incredible Comeback) Sam Abt once wrote about you, where you are railing against the European traditions of diet and training. Sean Kelly was the classic disciple of that tradition and you are quoted as saying that Kelly wouldn’t make love for six weeks before a race. You also say that you had once made love the night before…

Greg: The World Championships.

Kathy: Yeah.

Greg: And the Tour de France

Kathy: Oh, yeah.

Greg: Every time we saw each other we’d have sex.

Kathy: Guimard used to follow us back down to Greg’s room. One time he refused to leave us alone.

Greg: I could never figure that out: ‘How could that be bad? Is there a scientific basis for not having sex?’ And there was nothing. It was a cycling myth.

Kathy: Actually, I think it’s good mentally. The night before you won the Worlds, you got up so early to eat your meal three hours before, and you were so nervous, so of course we had sex that morning actually. Then he goes over there and…

Before Altenrhein?

Kathy: Yes.

You had sex before the World Championships in Altenrhein?

Kathy (laughs): Yes.

Christ! That’s unbelievable!

Greg (erupts): You were the one that reckoned Kelly’s wife was a virgin!

No, that was my brother, actually.

Greg: We always laughed when we invited Sean Kelly to dinner.

Kathy: He never came.

Greg: We’d invite him to dinner at seven-thirty or eight and he’d say okay. He didn’t know how to say no, so his wife would call-up later and say ‘No, we can’t make it. Sean will be in bed by eight.’ But I kind of admired Sean in that…he just did his job. I admired his quiet (demeanour): ‘Don’t talk, just do.’ I would watch Hinault and Fignon shouting about attacking and dropping everybody but that means you don’t really respect your competitors. I mean, how do you know? I would never do that.

Fignon had a lot of respect for Kelly, too.

Yeah, because Kelly was…he was another guy I felt bad about for winning the Worlds. I said ‘I’ll trade you a Paris-Roubaix for that.’

You said that to him?

Yeah.

And he would definitely have traded – Worlds was the race he most wanted to win. The only time I ever saw him crying was after you beat him in Chambery (where the 1989 World Championships were held).

Greg: Ohhhhh

Kathy: We knew it meant a lot to him. We actually did feel bad.

Greg: I’ll tell you one story though…I had Moreno Argentin (ask me) for 10,000 dollars (in 1984 at the World Road Race in Barcelona) and I was like ‘Fuck! I would never, ever pay for a victory, ever. I would not accept money from somebody…I had to learn that there was a culture in cycling where arrangements were made. In ’86, I attacked on the Poggio in Milan-San Remo. (Mario) Beccia is just in front but I attack from the group and Kelly just bridges over the top. I go down the descent (makes a rocket noise) and I’m going good. And I know Kelly had beaten me in the Tour of Lombardy (in ’83) but it was only by a little…

Yeah, I remember, he beat you by a whisker.

We go down and come out and there is 1 k to go and I hear (adopts high pitched squeak) “Fifteen thousand…Eighteen thousand…Twenty thousand.” He’s offering me twenty thousand dollars if I don’t sprint! And I’m like ‘What! Fuck you!’ I think I said ‘Fuck you.’ And I don’t know if I led it (the sprint) out…I think I led it out and he got a jump and I was second. But that was the first time I had ever been offered money except for the kermesses.

It’s probably the only time in his entire career that he ever offered anyone money.

(He laughs)

I’m serious! It’s probably the best compliment you’ve ever been paid.

I never thought of it like that. Do you know what my team-mate said when I got back? He said ‘What the fuck! Are you an idiot? You knew you weren’t going to beat him in the sprint – take the money. And in the next race, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, you have some money to buy somebody else off!’ Isn’t that crazy?

(Note: After the interview with LeMond, I had the following conversation with Kelly about the race.)

“Greg LeMond has said that you tried to buy Milan-San Remo from him in 1986?”

“I tried to buy it from him?”

“Well, you made him an offer?”

“Don’t remember.”

“You don’t remember?”

“No, I don’t remember making him an offer but he said to me ‘I’d like to win,’ or ‘I want to win,’ something like that. And then it went on from there. I think that was getting…I’m not sure if that was before the descent or after the descent.”

“So was he making you an offer?”

“Well, he was the one that said to me ‘I’d like to win’ or ‘I want to win’ something like that.”

“But you definitely didn’t say it to him?”

“Well, I said ‘I also want to win,’ I think was my answer.”

“Did that go on a lot?”

“Did it go on a lot?”

“Yeah, these discussions.”

“On that race?”

“No, generally.”

“Well, yeah.”

“They did?”

“Yeah…in my time, there were discussions and certainly agreements. During my career there were some agreements.”

Read the full article on 2r, download here

If you like this interview by Paul Kimmage, you’re going to love what’s in store for Cyclismas fans in the future.

Kimmage has signed on with us to do The Big Interview with Paul Kimmage, a one hour in-depth video interview show to be broadcast on Cyclismas and on Kimmage’s own website. In addition, a new Cyclismas website with improved functions, ease of use, and other features will be unveiled in March, with the first Kimmage show to be broadcast shortly after the Tour de France, where the Cyclismas crew will be on hand for the historic 100th edition of the storied Grand Boucle.

As Operations Director Aaron Brown told Carlton Reid of BikeBiz, “Paul’s ability to interview one-on-one is unmatched in cycling and he provides an incredible platform for cycling fans to discover more about their favourite stars in the sport. We’ll be creating two hours of high quality content each month.”

Stay tuned…

Follow along with the crew on Twitter: @RippFinklemann, @theJonnyGunn, @CyclismasMercer, @saddleblaze. Follow show updates on Twitter @CCNN_TV.

Or take the show on the road with our iTunes downloads.

Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen have been accused of protecting Lance Armstrong while he doped.
FRANCK FIFE/Getty Images

It would seem so.

Paul Kimmage will go down as the first to stand up against McQuaid and Verbruggen in a court setting, fighting fire with fire. Yes, former WADA president Dick Pound rattled his sabre in retaliation when the duo did the same to him, but he didn’t duke it out within the parameters of the legal system. Neither did Sylvia Schenk during her battle over the alleged “bribery” allegations back in 2005. No, Kimmage was the one who took up the challenge when a legion of supporters started emptying their wallets and effectively indicting the two individuals at the top of the food chain for their behaviour.

What has followed could be cycling’s equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling. Kimmage’s decision to take on the two Mandarins who’ve long presided over the “Cycling Bubble” have emboldened others to take their own legal steps – no matter how ludicrous they are perceived – to send a message to the UCI that their actions will not be forgotten or washed away.

Just as many in government and Wall Street are now being held accountable for their part in the real estate bubbles in various countries around the world, so should Verbruggen and McQuaid be held accountable. Both men artificially propped up cycling by first using Armstrong as the “derivative” for revenue generation, and after Contador’s refusal to play ball with the UCI on their turf, they have used Bradley Wiggins to the same effect.  Many pundits are noting the mass exodus away from the sport after Armstrong’s villification, as they turn their gaze back to more North-American-style sports. If some of the unfortunate press reports of Wiggins and his tax dodging are any indication, the talented cyclist could be another casualty of the British Cycling “derivative” scheme. I digress.

Kimmage has led the way for all in the sport to examine their legal options to be made “whole.” SKINS is the latest to step into the legal queue, announcing their intention to sue the UCI for damages to the tune of two million. The SKINS lawsuit, as @inrng noted Monday, can be construed many ways – from a publicity stunt, to a cash grab for a “failing” brand – as many have argued on Twitter. I disagree. SKINS has stated their love for the sport, their passion for the sport, and they are willing to put themselves on the line for the greater good of the sport, which could have a more damaging impact on their brand than a positive one. After all, the SKINS president sent an impassioned open letter to Pat McQuaid a month ago, which indicates their lawsuit isn’t out of blue or a shift in their overall philosophy.

No, what SKINS and Kimmage have done is trigger a new pattern of thinking, a new manner to respond to the years of repression at the hands of the UCI’s shite-stained shoes.  Why not use the legal system against the duo who have used it themselves to bully, intimidate, and excommunicate anyone who voiced dissension or opposition as to how they’ve lorded over cycling? McQuaid and Verbruggen freely used the UCI coffers for their own financial gain, why not cause them to dip into their pockets for a change to defend their actions in a court of law?

As David Millar stated in his interview via the Guardian Monday,

 “Pat has to show volition to change the UCI. I’ve said to him before that the first step is to show complete recognition of the past and assume responsibility for it. But, with the UCI, there still seems to be a sense of denial and an ‘us and them’ approach. They still claim that they did everything they could to stop doping. Well, they didn’t – that’s obvious to everyone.

Millar and many others recognise the UCI didn’t do what they were supposed to do, and when those in power refuse to do what is right based upon our current circumstances, the only way to force the situation is through civil lawsuits and requests for criminal investigations. So while some deride both SKINS and Kimmage for their actions, what else can we do when faced with a leadership that fails to take responsibility for their actions in the “Great Cycling Derivative Bubble” Scandal?

In fact, I firmly believe the trial trail blazed by both Paul Kimmage and Jaimie Fuller is merely the tip of the iceberg. We can expect national federations looking at civil suits. We can expect more sponsors filing civil suits. And perhaps most importantly of all, can we expect the professional peloton to sue the UCI for creating an unsafe working environment for said peloton by turning a blind eye at best or protecting Armstrong and his ilk at worst? If any group has the best case for a lawsuit against the UCI, it is the professional peloton for what they have endured since the 90s. How many riders died trying to keep pace with the peloton? How many have damaged health because of the UCI’s actions?

The pro peloton is the victim in all of this. The Armstrong evidence shows the gut-wrenching decisions many cyclists faced. Graeme Obree himself recounted an interaction with an Italian professional when he joined Le Groupement, as he recounted to Scotland on Sunday, where the rider he referenced scoffed at Obree’s lack of “professionalism” by not doping. Imagine the pressure during the 90s that new riders faced entering the professional ranks where “99 percent” of the peloton doped. With the evidence compiled against Armstrong (including a dodgy passport in 2009 and 2010), and the amount of high-profile riders tainted with doping even today, we still have a significant problem. There is still substantial risk for riders and their health in 2012.

People can make all sorts of excuses on behalf of the UCI and place the blame back on the riders, or the team owners, or the doctors, or the sponsors. The bottom line? The UCI allowed it all to happen. They took control of professional cycling. They created the WorldTour. They became directly involved with professional cycling in every aspect from anti-doping, to contracts, to team licensing. They are the ones to set the tone and the parameters around the operation of the sport. They are, therefore, ultimately responsible. They did the crimes, now it’s their turn to “do the time.”

It’s high time everyone held them accountable for their past transgressions by taking full advantage the legal system. It’s time to break up the “chum-ocracy.” It’s time for a new pair of shoes.

Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid are attempting to evade questioning in relation to the Paul Kimmage criminal complaint.

Swiss authorities have been temporarily thwarted in their attempts to question former UCI president Verbruggen and current UCI president McQuaid in reference to the criminal complaint filed in Switzerland by Paul Kimmage on behalf of a litany of those who have suffered at the hands of both individuals. The investigators in charge of the case made numerous polite telephone calls to the homes of Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid, all of which went unanswered. According to official reports, investigators in marked police vehicles made their way to both homes to find them empty.

“We made several attempts to contact both men in order for them to come in, have a nice cup of tea, and tell us their side of the story as best they could. Unfortunately, this tactic failed,” recounted Alfredo Verbieesen, inspector with the Canton de Vaud police force.

Acting on an anonymous tip, the investigators made their way to UCI headquarters in Aigle where they were met with a barricade of office furniture blocking the front door. Outside waiting for the authorities was UCI legal counsel Philippe Verbiest, who refused to allow entry to the police without an arrest warrant.

“We were rather shocked to see this sort of activity in Switzerland. We expect this kind of behavior in the United States, but to see a barricade in Aigle was very unnerving to say the least, and not something we usually see. At that point, we felt it was important to call in the Federal Office of Police to help us de-escalate the situation,” continued Verbieesen.

After a three-hour stand-off which lasted until early Friday morning, a vintage white Ford Bronco was seen leaving the parking lot with UCI spokesperson Enrico Carpani in the driver’s seat.  After Carpani’s departure, the federal police stormed the building to find a bonfire of records on the second floor of the building, and empty safes in several offices. Verbiest admitted the Bronco contained Verbruggen and McQuaid.

After several attempts to contact McQuaid and Verbruggen via their mobile phones – which went unanswered in typical fashion for both – authorities were able to establish contact with Carpani, who informed the hostage negotiator that he was, in fact, being held hostage until he drove the pair to a waiting sailboat in Bayonne, located on the French coast.

The Swiss federal police have asked for French help in the current hostage situation. French police are monitoring the progress of the white Ford Bronco both on the ground and via helicopter. The authorities will only state the vehicle has passed through the vicinity of Ussel, but refuse to confirm any other details.

“We will allow the vehicle passage through the French roadway system, and have prepared the citizens of Bayonne for a potentially unsafe situation. We have not, as of the current time, located the sailboat Carpani referred to in his numerous phone conversations with the Swiss police. We will do our best to manage the situation safely for all parties,” stated Jean-Luc Pelletier, representing Police Nationale.

Cycling pundits around the world reacted in shock and horror, while some began speculation on where Verbruggen and McQuaid were heading.

“It’s pretty obvious to me they plan on sailing to the Cayman Islands to escape full scrutiny. I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of Makarov’s super yachts showing up in Bayonne to rescue the pair from their European troubles,” commented someone who resembled Rupert Guinness.

French and Swiss authorities will be updated the situation hourly as the white Ford Bronco makes its way to Bayonne.

Illustration created exclusively for Cyclismas by Anders Bendixen (@andersbendixen on Twitter)

Having Hushovd and Wiggins – two very prominent riders stricken with major sickness – exit races prematurely also draws attention to the amount of illnesses occurring in the peloton. Many pundits have noted these gastro-events seemed to be occurring in mass proportions this year, but upon closer inspection, really aren’t happening with any more frequency than any other year. However, it can be said our sensitivity to these stories is heightened, due to the increase in ulcers and general tummy stress in 2013 brought on by the Armstrong business, the steady stream of confessions reminiscent of a Hague war crimes tribunal investigation and hearing, and the overall reluctance by the UCI to acknowledge just how much shite they are in, metaphorically and literally.

Let’s dive into the morass that is the UCI. Why not? It seems to be my favourite topic, especially in light of what we have accomplished in less than a week with fundraising for Paul Kimmage, and the subsequent media backlash against the UCI. In fact, the gastrointestinal epidemic that was previously sweeping the peloton metaphorically all of these years seems to be shifting upward to the shite flotilla that is the UCI president and former president.

And rightfully so.

The list of those who are downing the Alka-Seltzer and nervously typing away news pieces and opinion pieces against the bloated and cranky governing body has grown to its own epidemic proportions. Richard Moore. Edward Pickering. Daniel Benson. Rupert Guinness. Lionel J. Birnie. Every major English speaking cycling media outlet has covered or commented in support of Paul Kimmage. As I’ve mentioned publicly in my appearances promoting the Kimmage Fund and privately to many in the sport, Paul seems to be the match to light the fire of discontent against the governing body.

In this respect, 2012 has been a significantly different year over 2011. As you may recall, McQuaid attacked Jens Voigt, threatened WorldTour teams if they didn’t attend Beijing, sent nasty notes over the radio ban, and didn’t authorize any blood testing at several races where they were in charge of anti-doping controls. Yet, the press didn’t really seem to latch onto any of these issues with any great fervour. The media wrung their hands, afraid to say anything against McQuaid or Verbruggen, afraid of a potential “black-listing” which could have a negative impact on advertising/marketing campaigns. Many who stuck their toes in the water of “negative” UCI coverage received an email of rebuke from McQuaid or Verbruggen. Some received phone calls from Carpani. Others received earfuls from management committee members. The status quo was maintained.

However, 2012, began with a bang. Chloe Hosking called McQuaid “a bit of a dick.”

This one simple event began a year of PR disaster after PR disaster for the sport governing body. Hosking was reproached by Australian Cycling and many Aussie pros, male and female, bristled at the attempt by the cycling federation to censor one of their riders who chose to exercise her right to “free speech.” With this first incident, the tone was set. What followed was a cascade of events that caused many inside cycling at all levels and areas to really examine the nervous stomach condition caused by the governing body. Many folks began asking the question, “Why should the UCI be allowed to act in this manner? What really do I have to fear?”

A plethora of journalists were granted extensive interviews with the UCI President during the spring, which exposed his complete lack of depth in managing the sport of cycling. CycleSport. Rouleur. Velo. Procycling. The timing, for McQuaid, was most unfortunate as a 2011 of near misses turned into one of hitting bulls-eyes, as the more he spoke, the more it became evident of the selfish nature of his plans and ideas. One just has to recall my favourite line from the Herbie Sykes interview with him in Rouleur where McQuaid says everything is ultimately “his decision.” In an organisation which has a mission of inclusiveness and equal promotion for all, such arrogance shows just how out of step with the times the top levels of cycling’s management have become.

McQuaid was pressed a little harder on his soundbites. His flip flops. Supporting USADA. Not Supporting USADA. Writing nasty letters to USADA. Giving Hanzhou a WorldTour to only rescind said WorldTour race a few months later.  One just has to recall his horrendous press conference hastily called at the London Olympics, where his comments on the aforementioned USADA action against Armstrong where murky and unintelligible at best, self-serving and protectionist at worst. One quote from a video interview with Sporza was used against him by USADA during the “unconstitutional” fiasco, where Armstrong thought a U.S. federal judge could stall or save him from the USADA investigation.

This past weekend left us with the malaise of McQuaid’s “we have no responsibility in the past” statement, including a MOTION from the UCI management committee, brought forward by my favourite committee member, Mike “Head Up Hein’s Arse” Turtur, whose motion stated they were going to effectively ignore the black era that was the Armstrong mess.  David Millar made his feeling quite well-known on the subject, both in private and publicly. It was the final insult to the sport, piggybacked on the Kimmage announcement only days prior.

Speaking of Kimmage, those nasty tummy troubles didn’t really begin to make a shift from the peloton onto the rest of us until the “rough ride” was revealed. Once it was learnt Kimmage received the Swiss subpoena, it seemed we’d all had enough of the debilitating stomach issues and decided to do something about it. What started as support for a journalist who was unfairly targeted by “the elite” of cycling’s “rulers” became, as Carlton Reid said in his piece on bikebiz.com, a referendum on the UCI itself, where to date over 1,165 people have “voted” with their wallets.

It has become apparent that the discontent with how the sport has been managed has transformed from our own gastrointestinal malaise into a focused campaign to create change. It couldn’t come at a better time, with the Armstrong era being exposed as the fraud it was and the revelation of the extent of that governing body’s role in that fraud. With a pivotal election coming in the UCI in 2013, a grassroots movement for change at the federation level, the professional road-cycling level, and the fan level has begun to grow exponentially. We know this is the case when prominent cycling journalists begin to re-examine their public stance towards the sport’s most talked-about star and its international governing body, and make comments as Rupert Guinness did Thursday in his column:

So in many ways it is about Kimmage, because without his voice and those of a brave minority who dared to speak out, the sport may not be on the cusp of the potential change it faces today. Whether that chance is seized, requires all in the sport to recognise the wrongs committed – me included. But it must also come from up top at the UCI. If not, then those up top must go.

So now what happens? Now what takes place? As Sean Connery said in The Untouchables movie scene I tweeted earlier this week, “… and then what are you prepared to do?” What happens after Kimmage fights his battle against the UCI? What about China? What about Global Cycling Promotion’s drain on the ProTour fund? What about all the conflict of interest? What about all the decisions made that are counter to the UCI constitution?

It’s time for a plan to inflict change.

You owe it to your tummy.

You can find more work from illustrator Anders Bendixen on his website.

Here we go!

Kittel received legendary support from his team this week, at his first race for 2012 Etoile De Besseges (photo by Isabelle Duchesne courtesy of CyclingNews)

Best of the Week

Number Five

No Croatian licence for Riccardo Ricco 

This is just plain sad. Look, Ricco, your 15 minutes of cycling fame are up.  If Alessandro Petacchi can’t get an Asian licence, then you’re up shite creek without a paddle, a boat, and a life preserver. I might even suggest some therapy, or an extended holiday on an island without bicycles or any technological connection with humanity. Take a break. Spend time with the family. Learn a skill. Like dishwashing. Or ditch digging.

Number Four

Vanderkitten adds Bridie O’Donnell to the roster

So Bridie writes for us and she’s a panelist on the Hotstove. And she’s sharp, smart, and funny. Are we biased? Hell yes. But beyond that, she is an important voice for women’s cycling, and an advocate for fairness in the sport, not to mention society at large. We’re looking forward to her exploits with the new crew, and making her case for inclusion on the Australian Olympic Cycling Team. Vanderkitten is another shining example in the women’s peloton of providing outstanding support for their riders beyond the paycheque.

Number Three

Remaining Garmin women end up with AA Drink

I would love to hear the real story on this. But I’ll leave it alone this week and say that I’m glad to see Pooley, Armitstead, and the rest of the ladies find a secure home in an Olympic year. We all know there’s a real story behind the public relations fluff, but we’ll just have to wait until 2013 for that to come out.

Number Two

SHIFT Active Media lands RCS 

Now you all may be asking yourself why this is important, but please pay attention. Firstly, SHIFT Active Media has a strong understanding of cycling and the impact of “new media.” They represent some of the key players in the cycling industry and do savvy media buying, communications work, publishing, and creative. Their principals are some of the who’s who in the sport – including the ex-COO of Future Publishing, which owns cyclingnews.com and ProCycling Magazine. The also provide their services to 3T, Colnago, and fi’zi:k to name a few.  They understand the importance of new media and social media, even though Stephen Farrand still has a reluctance to fully embrace Twitter. Sorry, Stephen, I’m still smarting over that unfollow last year. (chuckle) Savvy move by the folks at RCS, as they understand the impact of the changing playing field of brand awareness, as seen in our own @pedalingtheroad interview with Marco Gobbi Pansana. Be thankful, cycling fans – they could have picked a dinosaur agency that would put, say, the Tour Down Under on Channel 9 rather than keep the coverage on the innovative SBS.

Number One

1t4i handles the Marcel Kittel situation in superior fashion

Imagine you are a rising superstar who has come off a record-setting rookie performance. You pride yourself on being clean. You ride for a team that has a stellar reputation when it comes to anti-doping initiatives. Then, you turn on German TV to see that you’re linked to a “doping” scandal.  Kittel was devastated. But you know what? His teammates rallied around him, all of them making phone calls to each other. The team spoke to Daniel Benson from cyclingnews.com right away to get the story out. But that wasn’t enough, they even put a detailed explanation of Kittel’s and teammate Patrick Gretsch’s involvement with the UV treatment on the team’s website. Plus, they even went so far as to note that John Degenkolb visited the doctor but didn’t receive the treatment.  For a team that prides itself on anti-doping initiatives and transparency, it’s outstanding to see that they hold true to those ideals when crisis hits. That’s great leadership by Iwan Spekenbrink. In addition, the cycling twitterati jumped on the bandwagon to call out the ambulance chasers of the news realm and hold them accountable.

Worst of the Week

Numero Cinco

Team Time Trialling  at World Championship Events Part II – The Belgian Sand

Is this a new trend in men’s elite racing? Just TTT to a win? It’s rather coincidental that the same thing happened at the road championships in Copenhagen. No matter. What’s the real story? Is it the Belgians taking full advantage of home sand, where they have expertise like no one else? Was it superior preparation to other nations? One thing is for sure, it certainly was an eyebrow-raising performance the likes of which has never been seen. However, on the plus side they had a phenomenal turnout of 62,000 people, something that the UCI attempted to limit to 42,000. Why? I just don’t know anymore. Nonetheless, if seven U.S. riders dominate next year, we pretty much know the answers to all of our questions – a home side win is good for business. The fix is in.

Numero Cuatro

Wanted: Investors in a private venture set up by non-profit funds borrowed without approval

This would be just sad if it wasn’t so absolutely atrociously funny. As @fmk_RoI noted on Twitter, why would the UCI want to invest in their own Ponzi Scheme? However, “speaking to people of means” could be your local loan shark, or even worse, a Russian gas magnate who runs Russian cycling, is President of the European Cycling Federation, and sits on the UCI Management Committee. He’s a great one with all sorts of connections, including Ukranian mafia, but I won’t go there, no, @inrng has a cracker post coming up on that (keep your eyes peeled starting Thursday at inrng.com). No, you see, the ASO said no to investing in the Ponzi Scheme as they preferred to be paid as the technical service provider for the races that have already been set up – like the Tour of Beijing – rather than risk losing money as an investor. You see, the UCI has a bad habit of misusing, misplacing, or flat out losing money. Of course, conventional wisdom would say that the ASO are positioning themselves to be bought as they continue to divest of a variety of  assets. Anyone remember how the GCP was set up? With funds borrowed from the ProTour fund, of course.

Numero Tres

Kathryne Bertine’s brush with an inept Aigle

The UCI addition of the worst of the week continues with Bertine coming out publicly to voice her frustration in her dealings with the cycling governing body that  resemble an accounting firm from a bad Monty Python sketch. No kidding. Losing points retroactively, and her federation files paperwork a couple of days late means that she may miss the Olympics? Due to a pencil pusher? It’s interesting to note that UCI rules have been bent and out right broken for many, especially if you have a brown envelope. In this case? Letter. Of. The. Law. However, is this more of a statement about federation politics? Bertine is a dual citizen, and she smartly saw an opportunity to go to the Olympics riding for a small nation rather than the United States. Could this be a politically motivated backlash? Heaven forbid a small nation sends one cycling athlete to the Olympics at the expense of another “cycling power.”  Stranger things have happened in Aigle.

Numero Dos

Levi Leipheimer wins Tour De San Luis

You all know why.

Numero Uno

Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen and the UCI sue Paul Kimmage

I have an idea. I’m a public figure, and I’m fair game for criticism. But in my world no one should have an opinion but me. Because apparently I’m all knowing. Now, I run a semi satire via twitter on the fine Irish gentleman, but I’m a fooking parody. He’s not supposed to mirror my attitude in real life. But he is. I mean, could you imagine Guardian commentator Patrick Wintour being sued by former RBS honcho Fred Goodwin for Wintour’s comments about him losing his knighthood? Of course not! However, as reality doesn’t exist for McQuaid, Verbruggen and the UCI, and they insist that the cycling world “Eat Fooking Cake,” they can pretty much do whatever the fook they want. I appreciate the fact that they picked on Kimmage, because the gent will fight back. In fact, this may galvanize the cycling journalists around the world to zero in on the UCI and their pattern of behaviour. You don’t pick on an award winning bloke who has a history of standing up, because then he becomes a M-A-R-T-Y-R for others to gain a backbone. Like Joe Lindsey. Looks like the line for journos’ collective mouths up the UCI’s arse like that centipede horror film has shrunk to almost zero. And it’s only January. Well folks, grab your popcorn, as we’re in for a long year of bullshite politics. It’s an Olympic year after all.

McQuaid responds to the UN Human Rights Council

The McQuaid-led organization was one of two that were named for infringing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, the commission found McQuaid’s most recent transgression to be in violation of Article 19 of the charter. This is in reference to his lawsuit filed against journalist Paul Kimmage; it has been determined that using his position within the UCI to violate the charter was even more reprehensible than the recent actions of the US Department of Homeland Security.

“Mr. Kimmage has the right to state his opinion, and to state the facts he has garned as a citizen of our planet, and especially since he is an accredited journalist who has shown his ability to impartially report on the happenings of the sport. It is deplorable that any organization of influence that is supposed to operate on behalf of a very broad constituency would conduct themselves in this manner,” stated Pillay.

Delegates at the special session were gobsmacked by the violations of the human rights charter that were documented in the press, not to mention the evidence gathered by special investigators commissioned in July of last year after complaints from Alberto Contador, Alexander Kolobnev, Franco Pellizotti, Ezekiel Mosquera, Alejandro Valverde, and Jonathan Vaughters.

McQuaid himself was shocked at the allegations.

“Look, I don’t understand what the issue is. There are those who have power, and then there’s those that are oppressed. Everyone works hard to be powerful and escape the oppression. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, the UN is pure rubbish. They should stick to their meetings and declarations and stay out of my world. Officially, though, I really have no comment on this, as there is no case yet, nor have I received any notification of any kind pertaining to these bullshite allegations,” commented McQuaid.

When reached for comment, Kimmage’s only reply was, “They’re 20 years too late to the party, typical.”

The special session passed a motion to investigate and make recommendations to Swiss parliament on the “dissolution of the UCI and the return of the sport to the grassroots of the federation.”

Expert opinions were mixed on the move by the UN.

“I’m not sure anyone really cares about what McQuaid is doing since he’s been allowed to do it since 2006. I doubt the UN will have any impact other than getting the tongues of the bloggers and the Twitterati wagging,” commented Eurosport commentator David Harmon.

Noted blogger and internet conspiracy theorist @Velocentric was less than complimentary.

“This is a great move by an organization with some weight behind it. Let’s just hope that the Americans don’t scuttle it with a filibuster to protect the corporate interests known to have the ear, the mouth, and the entire body of Pat McQuaid, along with the rest of his crooked cronies,” fumed the tweeter known to be “73% faster than a turtle on sand.”

Pillay’s next step is to forward the UN research, conclusions, and recommendations to the European Court. Cyclismas will be staying abreast of the developments as they occur.